EFFin’ Unsound

– posted by thehim

Shorter Jim Miller:

Barack Obama is a liar because he refuses to talk about how his mother was turned into a radical leftist when a teacher from Mercer Island made her read Ayn Rand.

I’m off to Slog’s Happy Hour…

Sonya Jones over at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation is upset that the Economic Policy Institute thinks that paying teachers more will attract better teachers.

Today, the Economic Policy Institute (labor-backed, liberal think tank) heralded the release of a new book entitled The Teaching Penalty: Teacher Pay Losing Ground. The final paragraph of the press release is more than a bit telling:

Highlights are EFF’s but why bother to mention that?

There is room for debate about how to create the economic incentives to recruit and retain a new generation of capable, qualified, and committed teachers for every school. There’s much discussion of premium pay for working in disadvantaged schools, higher pay in certain specialties, and bonuses for performance. The elephant in the room remains the ever-increasing pay penalty. We need to raise teacher pay across the board, and we need to do it now. In the world’s leading market economy, we cannot continue to pretend that the law of supply and demand stops at the schoolhouse door.

(1) Raising teacher pay “across the board” does not enhance the educational opportunities provided to students. De facto pay increases serve to motivate nobody to do a better job. After all, if you were going to get the same raise, no matter your performance, would you bust it in order to outperform someone else in your same position? No incentive.

Did you even bother to read the non-highlighted part? They are saying that as a base level teacher pay is too low. However, according to the press release you’re quoting, they also think that you can do other things like pay a, “premium pay for working in disadvantaged schools, higher pay in certain specialties, and bonuses for performance” In fact, is this just a reading comprehension problem at the EFF? Do they not understand that these are things that can be done, but since we’re having trouble attracting enough good teachers to our public schools that we ought to raise everyone’s pay on top of that? To you know, attract the best people?

(2) Laws of supply and demand ONLY apply in a free market, NOT in the government-controlled public sector. The only demand is for warm-bodied teachers – bad ones are treated NO differently from good ones, thanks to union-negotiated employment contracts. As for supply, I imagine it’s a bit difficult to encourage someone to enter a profession where performance is rarely rewarded reciprocally. No incentive.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure she just doesn’t know what words mean.

Apparently, the studies conducted compared salaries between teachers and “other professions” in which the similarly educated participate. There is no distinction being made between public and private sector professions. There is no comparison between different professions requiring similar education within the public sector. There is no consideration of compensation packages in public-sector jobs, which are almost always better than those in the private sector.

Most people aren’t forced to work in the public sector their whole lives, and in fact teachers can chose to leave teaching if they have private sector options.

That’s flawed research bordering on academic dishonesty.

They didn’t even call anybody a Nazi! That’s not the kind of research the EFF can get behind.

– posted by thehim

Lou Guzzo gets trapped in some circular logic here:

In several commentaries in recent years, I have pondered the strong possibility that a nuclear war could very well start in the Middle East and that it could be touched off by the Israelis hurling one of its atomic bombs — or maybe more than one — at nuclear installations in Iran.

I have said so because I believe the nation most at risk as the result of a foolish attack is Israel, mainly because the current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared on more than one occasion that the Jewish nation must be wiped off the face of the earth.

Um, Lou, if you think that there’s a strong possibility for Israel to attack Iran, then the nation most at risk of a foolish attack is Iran, not Israel.

Pastor Hutch emails me the strangest things:

At Sunday services for the next two weeks, I will be preaching from Romans 1:18-32 on
whether homosexuality is still a sin.

I wonder how he’ll go. Er, so to speak.

I have to say though, 26 a little hot: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” Also, toward the end there’s a whole list of things that God says you ought to be put to death for, “29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” I think unless Hutch says we should kill gossips, he’s just kinda bullshitting us.

Please pray that many who are struggling with this issue will come and that lives will be changed!

Dear God, I know you’re kind of busy right now with the whole Burma cyclone thing, but maybe you could see to packing Pastor Ken’s pews.

Pastor Hutch

Eric Earling on the Governor’s race:

Governor’s Race Roundup

Get along little Rossi.

Recent items of interest:

1) Fundraising

Brisk money intake on both sides continues. Christine Gregoire raked in about a $1 million in April, fresh off her Legislative session freeze. Rossi pulled in another $625,000, in-line with the $636,000 average of his previous five full months of fundraising.

And Forward Washington keeps sending stuff to my inbox (of course I asked for it in much the same way I’m a prayer warrior). So that’s even more good news for the Rossi campaign.

Some liberals are very excited about these April results. To which the proper response, quoting the Bud Light commercial, is: “Dude…”

And what does Spuds McKenzie think of the state of the race?

She’s an incumbent governor in a blue state, with a proven record of raising money in her last election, coming off an extended legal fundraising freeze, armed with the ammunition of a well-funded opponent to motivate her donors. What did you think was going to happen?

Yes, and other than the end of the fundraising freeze, the positives there are going to keep helping her.

2) Polls keep showing a tight race

The latest Elway poll is making the rounds, capturing some national attention. Others can discuss Elway’s high margin of error offerings, including his volatile crosstabs. The bigger question is whether it’s Elway, Rasmussen, or SurveyUSA, why does independent polling show such a consistently competitive race in a firmly Democratic state?

Thankfully Rossi isn’t closing the gap. While there will be a lot of campaign between then and now, and God knows, her approval rating could be higher (and her policies could have been better), right now she’s winning. And yes, polling companies do a lot of polling. But nobody is thinking that this is going to be an easy race, hopefully. Hell, maybe we can convince thehim to vote for her this time.

For that matter, why is Rossi likewise competitive with Gregoire in fundraising, even with her incumbent advantage? The left-of-center might want to honestly consider why those two questions can even be asked at this juncture.

I don’t know, maybe because the election was super close last time, and he’s got a chance this time. Maybe because we haven’t spent much time focusing on Rossi’s positions yet.

3) When do the ads start?

It’s still May. There’s time enough.

With both candidates having north of $3 million on hand, when do the airwave wars begin, be that on radio or TV? Moreover, given the media environment of this election cycle that seems to favor effective 24/7 messaging (Clinton, McCain) over ad saturation (Obama, Romney) in competitive races, which campaign team is able to come up with the most creative means by which to influence the election’s narrative?

Um, what’s the difference between 24/7 messaging and ad saturation? And what does it tell us about ads that haven’t even started running yet in a state race?

– posted by thehim

It must be weird to be Bruce Chapman right now. This is a man who worked within the Reagan Administration, discovered that you can have amazing electoral success in much of the country by underestimating the intelligence of the American public and scapegoating the educated, then devoted the rest of his life to trying to figure out ways to make that strategy work forever. But today, as the counter-revolution against willful ignorance is boiling over and young people are soundly rejecting Republican politics, Chapman is still insulting our intelligence (along with his buddy Ben Stein, a former Nixon Administration official who figured out the same phenomenon) as if nothing has changed. Here he is talking about Iraq:

When Sen. McCain was last in Iraq he seemed to slip up when he mentioned that al Qaeda was getting help from Iran. Surely he meant al Sadr?

I have no idea what the hell McCain meant, but even if he said al Sadr, that would still be wrong. In Iraq right now, the government of al-Maliki is backed by both Iran and the United States, but opposed by al Sadr, the Iraqi nationalist. Iranian interests in Iraq are primarily aligned with us, not against us in the battle against al Sadr.

After all, didn’t he know that Iran was Shiite and al Qaeda Sunni?

He’s still in the learning process apparently.

The trouble was (and is), Iran helps almost anyone who is an enemy of the United States or Israel, witness Lebanon.

Oversimplify much, Bruce? Iraq also used to be an enemy of Iran. Now, the old regime has been removed and a Shiite-dominated government that’s friendly to them has taken its place. Al Sadr wants that government removed.

Now, my favorite Iraq blog, Iraq the Model, poses the very real possibility of a tactical alliance between al Sadr and al Qaeda, brokered by….yes….Iran.

Let’s pretend for a second that what the Pentagon’s Iraqi propaganda bureau is reporting is true. That would mean that three separate groups, each of whom are natural enemies with the other two, are now working together to fight us in Iraq. How would that be seen as anything other than complete disaster?

Of course, I don’t buy it. Al Sadr does have some ties to Iran, but it was the Iranians who brokered the recent cease fire. They’re doing what they can to stop al Sadr from killing more Iraqi police and American troops. And if al Sadr ever does take over the Iraqi government one day, he certainly would not be interested in having members of al Qaeda running around in the Sunni areas. But Bruce Chapman doesn’t care about those details because he knows that most of the country will never follow what’s happening in Iraq closely enough to know the difference.

There are people in this country who have allegiance to this nation and its ideals, and there are other people in this country who have allegiance to a political party and the electoral power of willful ignorance.

– posted by thehim

Sorry to post something that’s kind of depressing on a Friday afternoon, but I think I have to do this. Seattle Drinking Liberally regulars are likely to know the man behind the tag of RonK, Seattle. I’ve had some disagreements with Ron before, but generally he’s dealt with facts and been able to reason. Unfortunately, those days appear to be over. The battle between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic nomination has completely scrambled his brain to an extent that actually terrifies me. Carl, I hope you don’t see this as an attack on all Clinton supporters because it’s most certainly not. This dude has just lost his mind in a scary way. Here’s the latest in the ugliness:

Erica Barnett posted a silly video purportedly showing Barack Obama raising his middle finger as he mentioned Clinton in a speech recently while scratching his face. Erica didn’t comment on the video, but the mere fact that she posted it to Slog drew a whole bunch of mockery in the comments. Not only is the insinuation in the video completely retarded, but it happened like 2 weeks ago (and it was skewered brilliantly by Larry Wilmore and Jon Stewart here). But apparently, RonK still isn’t buying the skepticism:

ABSOLUTELY see the alternate angle linked @ 9 above, and observe the index finger’s shadow on Obama’s cheek — demonstrating unequivocally that the index finger does not contact Obama’s cheek. (In fact, it’s awkwardly retracted.) Can you even admit this obvious but not necessarily dispository fact?

Can you find a similar (supposedly unconscious) mannerism in umpteen hours of pre-existing Obama tape?

Can you find a similar instance of a dramatic pause around a scratch or other unconscious gesture?

Oh my. I responded with my typical sarcasm, telling Ron that I was enjoying his descent into madness, hoping that something resembling sense would be returned. Didn’t happen:

Lee @ 47 — Is it then your opinion that Obama’s index finger in the frame linked @ 9 is in contact with his cheek?

If so, how do you explain the shadow of his index finger tip projected on the same cheek, distant from the finger tip itself?

Which one of us is descending into madness here?

At this point, I was knocked for a loop. I know this person. I’ve sat and had a beer with him. And he has completely and totally lost his fucking mind. I know this is kind of a peril about doing this site. I know that some of the right-wing buffoons we mess with clearly have mental health problems. But I don’t know any of them personally. At this point, another commenter “tsm” pleaded with Ron to step away from the keyboard, and I left a more serious message for him to get some help.

He responded again:

I’m simply pointing out a physical impossibility in the Obamanaist interpretation of a photo someone else introduced a conclusive evidence of a two-fingered scratch.

Do you have an explanation? Or do you not?

Is it significant that Obamanaists can almost universally convince themselves of this physically impossible interpretation? Might it cast doubt on their collective interpretation of other information?

I’ll leave out what he said about me directly right after that. I have no idea what’s going on in his head right now to make this happen, but holy shit is it worrisome.

– posted by thehim

There is no funnier URL on the planet than the WhackyNation page with all the posts tagged as ‘Musings’. It’s Lou Guzzo at his very best:

Ever ponder the special abilities of birds, animals, insects?

Maybe you will think I have lost all my marbles when I write this, but I’m going to try it out on you anyway, with the hope that you won’t think I’m daft and ready for the booby hatch.

Don’t worry about it Lou, I came to that conclusion about 500 posts ago.

Read the rest of this entry »

Do you remember just a while ago when AndrewsDad was saying that New Hampshire Democrats who votes for any candidate other than Obama were racist? How about when he said Oprah was racist for supporting Obama? Well I’m not sure who is racist now, but AndrewsDad has some thoughts.

Here was my first reaction when I heard Obama say “that is not the man I met 20 years ago”. Oh really, how about the man who married you the the Mrs.? How about the man who baptised your children? How about the man that inspired your book? Is that the same man?

No, I imagine that he was reading something Jesus said about marriage when he married the Obamas. I don’t know anybody who has been baptised. Most importantly nobody owns their preacher’s opinions. Does AndrewsDad disagree with his preacher on anything? Anyway, then 4 minutes later, A’sD writes this:

Interesting theory about why the rift between Obama and Wright. Could it be that if Obama wins, then everything Wright needs to continue to do what he does, make a really good living complaining about “whitey”, goes away?

I’m sure even with an Obama presidency, he may still think that the government spread AIDS in the 1980’s, or think other extreme things. Also, he’s retired, so I’m not sure what kind of a living he’d make. And, of course electing Obama won’t end racism (and electing Hillary won’t end sexim, and electing McCain won’t end the tough state for rich white guys in this country).

– posted by thehim

Jim Miller is back on the crack rock:

In February, I noted with some amusement that unnamed economists were saying that we were already in a recession. To say that in February, the economists had to be prescient, had to able to see the future, because we had slow growth in the fourth quarter of last year, and the first quarter of this year was not over. Today, the preliminary growth figures came out for the first quarter, showing slow growth, .6 percent, but no recession. The numbers might be revised downward later, but for now we can not say that the economy is in a recession. Unless, of course, we are prescient.

This news makes me a little more optimistic about the economy, a little more inclined to think that we may avoid a recession entirely this year. And that would be quite an achievement, considering how long this expansion has lasted already.

Expansion? Does anyone have any idea what he’s talking about? Here’s the Chicago Tribune:

Read the rest of this entry »