Friday, November 14, 2003
Child Protective Services
Those of you in Arizona may want to view this presentation, and forward it to your email lists as well. I've heard that the previous version got about a quarter-million downloads in less than a week, and if it generated a fraction of that many emails to legislators, maybe we'd get the Arizona Legislature to treat child welfare with the same alacrity that they showed in funding lawyers to defend the incumbents' legislative districts. Just a thought.
Those of you in Arizona may want to view this presentation, and forward it to your email lists as well. I've heard that the previous version got about a quarter-million downloads in less than a week, and if it generated a fraction of that many emails to legislators, maybe we'd get the Arizona Legislature to treat child welfare with the same alacrity that they showed in funding lawyers to defend the incumbents' legislative districts. Just a thought.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Statistics and Sex (Now Do I Have Your Attention?)
My battle with Carol Nichols Turoff will resume next week, but this week it's abstinence-only sex education. Shorter version for the statistically-impaired: If Mongo like result, Mongo claim to like "junk science." But Mongo don't know sex. As one of my law partners pointed out, if parents can't teach abstinence-only to their kids at home, how on earth are teachers supposed to do it at school?
For those of you following the special session on Child Protective Services--or especially, for those of you not following it--you should go to the following link and then contact your legislators using the links at the end.
TO ABSTINENCE-ONLY LEAGUE, IGNORANCE IS BLISS
East Valley Tribune, Nov. 9, 2003
What supporters of so-called “abstinence-only” sex education programs really want -- apart from the traditional adult pleasure of telling kids “No!” -- is for legislators to abstain from any knowledge of statistics.
The 2003 study of the Arizona Abstinence Only Education uses faulty data, invalid experimental design, a continually-changing program, and the absence of any test or “control” group to justify the program. You’d never know the limited, vague, and tentative nature of the study, because proponents’ press releases don’t have to be statistically valid -- and aren’t.
But before considering the wide gulf between what the 2003 study actually said and what abstinence-only supporters claim it said, it’s worth noting that every major sex education program (including comprehensive programs with statistically valid positive results) promotes abstinence as the most reliable method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
In other words, abstinence isn’t only for abstinence-only. The real question is whether abstinence-only is effective, making sex the only school subject where less knowledge is somehow better.
The 2003 study has more limitations than my limited space allows, so let’s hit only the high points. First, the program kept changing through its five-year run, so study results may come from program aspects now revised, or jettisoned entirely.
Second, an accurate study would look for fairly long-term effects. The 2003 study surveyed program participants as little as three months later, which simply isn’t enough time to evaluate birth rates accurately.
Third, the study defines “success” as telling a pollster you have a “positive attitude” toward abstinence -- not that you intend to (or actually do) abstain.
Fourth, 45 percent of those surveyed participated in programs sponsored by Catholic Social Services (disclosure: I’m a CSS contributor), so positive results may come from participants’ religious inclinations instead.
Fifth, significant data in the 2003 report comes from prior years, and reports at the time explained that such data may have problems. Seemingly positive news came from "year 2" data, which appears to have overstated the number of program participants and understated birth rates. Years with better data collection methods showed birth rates among program participants basically matching state rates, and little evidence of positive change from the program.
Sixth, the most fascinating recommendation in the 2003 report comes from its observation that participants overwhelmingly thought that the program “talked too much about what was right and wrong.” The report authors assert that “nonjudgmental” abstinence-only programs, which cultivate interpersonal skills “are more likely to be effective than programs that are perceived as saying, ‘Do this because it is right.’” Somehow I doubt that “nonjudgmental abstinence-only” is what program boosters have in mind.
But the most serious flaw in the 2003 report -- the 500-pound gorilla, actually acknowledged in the report -- is the complete absence of any control group against which to measure the program’s results. As the study notes, “[i]n the absence of a comparison sample, or published findings from similar programs serving similar groups of teens, it is difficult to judge the merit of these successes.” Without a control group, it’s impossible to tell if abstinence-only is more or less effective than classes where similar students got lectures about the virtues of Vitamin C, or learned to play the trombone.
Maybe abstinence-only programs can have positive effects, but it definitely hasn’t been proven yet. And it’s odd that people who usually claim that government can’t do anything right, and needs to do and spend less, are suddenly enamored of devoting millions of your tax dollars on their unproven experiment.
If you actually read the studies, you’ll realize that when it comes to abstinence-only, the only statistically-valid thing to say is “Just say ‘we don’t know’.”
My battle with Carol Nichols Turoff will resume next week, but this week it's abstinence-only sex education. Shorter version for the statistically-impaired: If Mongo like result, Mongo claim to like "junk science." But Mongo don't know sex. As one of my law partners pointed out, if parents can't teach abstinence-only to their kids at home, how on earth are teachers supposed to do it at school?
For those of you following the special session on Child Protective Services--or especially, for those of you not following it--you should go to the following link and then contact your legislators using the links at the end.
TO ABSTINENCE-ONLY LEAGUE, IGNORANCE IS BLISS
East Valley Tribune, Nov. 9, 2003
What supporters of so-called “abstinence-only” sex education programs really want -- apart from the traditional adult pleasure of telling kids “No!” -- is for legislators to abstain from any knowledge of statistics.
The 2003 study of the Arizona Abstinence Only Education uses faulty data, invalid experimental design, a continually-changing program, and the absence of any test or “control” group to justify the program. You’d never know the limited, vague, and tentative nature of the study, because proponents’ press releases don’t have to be statistically valid -- and aren’t.
But before considering the wide gulf between what the 2003 study actually said and what abstinence-only supporters claim it said, it’s worth noting that every major sex education program (including comprehensive programs with statistically valid positive results) promotes abstinence as the most reliable method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
In other words, abstinence isn’t only for abstinence-only. The real question is whether abstinence-only is effective, making sex the only school subject where less knowledge is somehow better.
The 2003 study has more limitations than my limited space allows, so let’s hit only the high points. First, the program kept changing through its five-year run, so study results may come from program aspects now revised, or jettisoned entirely.
Second, an accurate study would look for fairly long-term effects. The 2003 study surveyed program participants as little as three months later, which simply isn’t enough time to evaluate birth rates accurately.
Third, the study defines “success” as telling a pollster you have a “positive attitude” toward abstinence -- not that you intend to (or actually do) abstain.
Fourth, 45 percent of those surveyed participated in programs sponsored by Catholic Social Services (disclosure: I’m a CSS contributor), so positive results may come from participants’ religious inclinations instead.
Fifth, significant data in the 2003 report comes from prior years, and reports at the time explained that such data may have problems. Seemingly positive news came from "year 2" data, which appears to have overstated the number of program participants and understated birth rates. Years with better data collection methods showed birth rates among program participants basically matching state rates, and little evidence of positive change from the program.
Sixth, the most fascinating recommendation in the 2003 report comes from its observation that participants overwhelmingly thought that the program “talked too much about what was right and wrong.” The report authors assert that “nonjudgmental” abstinence-only programs, which cultivate interpersonal skills “are more likely to be effective than programs that are perceived as saying, ‘Do this because it is right.’” Somehow I doubt that “nonjudgmental abstinence-only” is what program boosters have in mind.
But the most serious flaw in the 2003 report -- the 500-pound gorilla, actually acknowledged in the report -- is the complete absence of any control group against which to measure the program’s results. As the study notes, “[i]n the absence of a comparison sample, or published findings from similar programs serving similar groups of teens, it is difficult to judge the merit of these successes.” Without a control group, it’s impossible to tell if abstinence-only is more or less effective than classes where similar students got lectures about the virtues of Vitamin C, or learned to play the trombone.
Maybe abstinence-only programs can have positive effects, but it definitely hasn’t been proven yet. And it’s odd that people who usually claim that government can’t do anything right, and needs to do and spend less, are suddenly enamored of devoting millions of your tax dollars on their unproven experiment.
If you actually read the studies, you’ll realize that when it comes to abstinence-only, the only statistically-valid thing to say is “Just say ‘we don’t know’.”
Monday, November 03, 2003
Ignorant of the Law
Ms. Turoff treats many people who appear before the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments with much less kindness and courtesy than I allow in the following column. The editor chose the headline; I wouldn't have called her a zealot but rather would have used the more technically-correct term, Wacko. As-appeared-in-newspaper version here.
Church and State
RELIGIOUS ZEALOT HAS NO PLACE ON COURT PANEL
East Valley Tribune, Nov. 2, 2003
You’ve heard how “ignorance of the law is no excuse?” It means people can’t avoid the consequences of their actions by claiming that they didn’t understand the law.
You probably think legal ignorance might disqualify somebody from sitting on the state commission that nominates potential judges. But this being Arizona, you’d be wrong.
In her letter last month to the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, Carol Nichols Turoff, a member of the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, displayed her inexcusable legal ignorance. Turoff joined the debate over the Alabama judge who installed a large Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme Court building:
“The so-called separation of church and state does not exist in our Constitution. However, it is alive and well within the ACLU and among tolerance advocates. Today, we tolerate everything. Everything that is, except Bible-based religion, which Judaism certainly is, and upon which this country was founded.
The prohibition in the establishment clause of the First Amendment is against a state-endorsed religion, not religion itself. Hence, presidents take their oaths of office with a hand upon the Bible, and Congress opens daily sessions with a prayer.”
There’s so much wrong in those two paragraphs that it’s hard to figure where to start. First, while the words “separation of church and state” aren’t found in the Constitution, neither (as I’ve noted before) is the phrase “presumption of innocence.” Nonetheless, Congress or a state legislature couldn’t constitutionally decide to fight more efficiently by making defendants have to establish innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove guilt.
The concept of judicial review isn’t in the Constitution, either. This mindlessly literal reading of the document went out of style with Marbury v. Madison, and since 1803 has been used only by charlatans preying on the ignorant.
Second, the legality of the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama is settled, over, and final. Federal District Judge Myron Thompson found this taxpayer-funded religious display illegal, which decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which decision the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review. It’s a final judgment of a competent court (and, as Rick and Sharon Cohen noted, not of the ACLU or “tolerance advocates”).
Turoff may think that decision was wrong, but it’s the law, and she needs to accept it. But if she gets to pick which judicial decisions she can decide to reject, then I have a teensy problem with Bush v. Gore. Tell me when it’s my turn.
Third, the oath of office and congressional prayer examples aren’t particularly good for Turoff’s argument. Courts have upheld such customs because they are secular in practice, as essentially social or historical artifacts. In other words, those ceremonies are acceptable because nobody treats them seriously as prayer. But Turoff wants the Ten Commandments monument as a religious symbol. By using these historical customs to justify religious ceremonies, Turoff’s given the game away.
Finally, what does “Bible-based religion” really mean? I guess Hindus, Buddhists, and Moslems don’t count now. How long until Jews aren’t useful to these zealots, too?
If Turoff wants to run for elective office, or propose Constitutional amendments to authorize taxpayer-subsidized religious displays that suit her taste, she’s free to do so. But her opinions about the law aren’t merely vigorous, they’re flat-out wrong. Somebody that determinedly mistaken in her views shouldn’t be deciding who gets to be a judge.
When Turoff became a member of the commission, she took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution -- which contains an even broader establishment clause. She’s violating that oath, and has no business on the commission. If she doesn’t resign, she should be impeached.
Ms. Turoff treats many people who appear before the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments with much less kindness and courtesy than I allow in the following column. The editor chose the headline; I wouldn't have called her a zealot but rather would have used the more technically-correct term, Wacko. As-appeared-in-newspaper version here.
Church and State
RELIGIOUS ZEALOT HAS NO PLACE ON COURT PANEL
East Valley Tribune, Nov. 2, 2003
You’ve heard how “ignorance of the law is no excuse?” It means people can’t avoid the consequences of their actions by claiming that they didn’t understand the law.
You probably think legal ignorance might disqualify somebody from sitting on the state commission that nominates potential judges. But this being Arizona, you’d be wrong.
In her letter last month to the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, Carol Nichols Turoff, a member of the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, displayed her inexcusable legal ignorance. Turoff joined the debate over the Alabama judge who installed a large Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme Court building:
“The so-called separation of church and state does not exist in our Constitution. However, it is alive and well within the ACLU and among tolerance advocates. Today, we tolerate everything. Everything that is, except Bible-based religion, which Judaism certainly is, and upon which this country was founded.
The prohibition in the establishment clause of the First Amendment is against a state-endorsed religion, not religion itself. Hence, presidents take their oaths of office with a hand upon the Bible, and Congress opens daily sessions with a prayer.”
There’s so much wrong in those two paragraphs that it’s hard to figure where to start. First, while the words “separation of church and state” aren’t found in the Constitution, neither (as I’ve noted before) is the phrase “presumption of innocence.” Nonetheless, Congress or a state legislature couldn’t constitutionally decide to fight more efficiently by making defendants have to establish innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove guilt.
The concept of judicial review isn’t in the Constitution, either. This mindlessly literal reading of the document went out of style with Marbury v. Madison, and since 1803 has been used only by charlatans preying on the ignorant.
Second, the legality of the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama is settled, over, and final. Federal District Judge Myron Thompson found this taxpayer-funded religious display illegal, which decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which decision the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review. It’s a final judgment of a competent court (and, as Rick and Sharon Cohen noted, not of the ACLU or “tolerance advocates”).
Turoff may think that decision was wrong, but it’s the law, and she needs to accept it. But if she gets to pick which judicial decisions she can decide to reject, then I have a teensy problem with Bush v. Gore. Tell me when it’s my turn.
Third, the oath of office and congressional prayer examples aren’t particularly good for Turoff’s argument. Courts have upheld such customs because they are secular in practice, as essentially social or historical artifacts. In other words, those ceremonies are acceptable because nobody treats them seriously as prayer. But Turoff wants the Ten Commandments monument as a religious symbol. By using these historical customs to justify religious ceremonies, Turoff’s given the game away.
Finally, what does “Bible-based religion” really mean? I guess Hindus, Buddhists, and Moslems don’t count now. How long until Jews aren’t useful to these zealots, too?
If Turoff wants to run for elective office, or propose Constitutional amendments to authorize taxpayer-subsidized religious displays that suit her taste, she’s free to do so. But her opinions about the law aren’t merely vigorous, they’re flat-out wrong. Somebody that determinedly mistaken in her views shouldn’t be deciding who gets to be a judge.
When Turoff became a member of the commission, she took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution -- which contains an even broader establishment clause. She’s violating that oath, and has no business on the commission. If she doesn’t resign, she should be impeached.
Monday, October 27, 2003
A Fairy Tale for Our Times
The "Emperor's New Suit" column ran in the Sunday (October 26, 2003) East Valley Tribune here. Due to my editor's unwillingness to use bold and italics, it actually reads better on the website here. I got the headline "Pro-war spin doctors come up with a fractured fairy tale."
The "Emperor's New Suit" column ran in the Sunday (October 26, 2003) East Valley Tribune here. Due to my editor's unwillingness to use bold and italics, it actually reads better on the website here. I got the headline "Pro-war spin doctors come up with a fractured fairy tale."
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Supply-Side Genesis
This column originally ran in the East Valley Tribune on Jan. 13, 2002, and isn't available online, but I want to refer to it in a comment to a post on Brad DeLong's website.
PROVIDE FOR FUTURE? IN YOUR DREAMS
East Valley Tribune, Jan. 13, 2002
Genesis, Chapter 41 (Goldwater Institute Version):
And it came to pass one night that Pharaoh dreamed, and when he awoke, he called all his magicians and wise men, but none could interpret his dreams.
His chief butler then spoke, saying: I recall the time that Pharaoh, upset with his servants, put both the chief baker and me in the dungeon. Each of us dreamed a dream one night, but neither could interpret his dream.
In that dungeon was a young man, Joseph, a Hebrew and a liberal -- but I repeat myself. He interpreted our dreams, and as he interpreted, so it came to pass.
Then Pharaoh sent for Joseph, who was brought out of the dungeon, shaved and dressed, and taken before Pharaoh.
And Pharaoh said to Joseph: I have dreamed dreams, and none can interpret them. I have heard that you can understand and interpret dreams. Joseph answered Pharaoh: It is not me, but if the Almighty desires, He shall give Pharaoh an answer.
Pharaoh then said to Joseph: In my first dream, I stood upon the bank of the river, and out of the river came seven fat and handsome cattle, which grazed in a meadow. Then seven other cattle came up after them, ill, scrawny, and ugly, and the seven lean cattle devoured the seven fat cattle. Then I awoke.
Then I had a second dream, where seven full, good ears of corn grew on a stalk. Seven withered and thin ears then sprang up, and swallowed the seven good ears. I recounted these dreams to my magicians, but none could interpret them.
And Joseph said: The dream of Pharaoh is the same dream, and the Eternal is showing Pharaoh what He shall do. The seven good cattle and the seven good ears are seven years of plenty. The seven thin and ugly cattle and the seven empty ears shall be seven years of famine.
Behold, there shall come seven years of great plenty throughout the land. Then shall come seven years of famine, and all the plenty shall be forgotten, and grievous famine shall consume the land.
Let Pharaoh plan for the future of his country, by decreeing the setting aside of reserves during the seven years of plenty, gathering food and corn in the cities and granaries against the seven years of famine. And those stores shall protect the land during the famine, and the people shall not perish.
And Pharaoh said to Joseph: You may be wise in interpreting dreams, but you know nothing of politics.
You must not know, having been locked in a dungeon these past two years, that I am a supply-side Pharaoh.
During years of plenty, we do not gather reserves nor do we plan for the future. The grain that will grow in abundance is not the government’s grain, and such abundance instead demands that the government set aside less grain, not more.
Right-wing Pharaohs, during years of plenty, want to cut taxes. The surplus generated by years of plenty may pay for an occasional new program. But conservative Pharaohs have no desire to prepare for the future—except by repealing the estate tax.
When the lean years come, famine may consume the land and afflict the people, but that hardship becomes yet another reason to cut taxes and to continue ignoring the future.
This philosophy may strike you, Joseph, as shortsighted and foolish. Years of famine always may come, and a wise ruler should prepare during the years of plenty.
But Pharaoh’s family and friends will have enough money to buy grain, no matter how severe the famine.
Pharaohs need not worry about famine. That is the beauty of being rich—and of term limits. I will rule over plenty; the next Pharaoh can deal with the famine.
And Pharaoh thanked Joseph for his time, gave him a snappy nickname, and ordered him returned to the dungeon.
This column originally ran in the East Valley Tribune on Jan. 13, 2002, and isn't available online, but I want to refer to it in a comment to a post on Brad DeLong's website.
PROVIDE FOR FUTURE? IN YOUR DREAMS
East Valley Tribune, Jan. 13, 2002
Genesis, Chapter 41 (Goldwater Institute Version):
And it came to pass one night that Pharaoh dreamed, and when he awoke, he called all his magicians and wise men, but none could interpret his dreams.
His chief butler then spoke, saying: I recall the time that Pharaoh, upset with his servants, put both the chief baker and me in the dungeon. Each of us dreamed a dream one night, but neither could interpret his dream.
In that dungeon was a young man, Joseph, a Hebrew and a liberal -- but I repeat myself. He interpreted our dreams, and as he interpreted, so it came to pass.
Then Pharaoh sent for Joseph, who was brought out of the dungeon, shaved and dressed, and taken before Pharaoh.
And Pharaoh said to Joseph: I have dreamed dreams, and none can interpret them. I have heard that you can understand and interpret dreams. Joseph answered Pharaoh: It is not me, but if the Almighty desires, He shall give Pharaoh an answer.
Pharaoh then said to Joseph: In my first dream, I stood upon the bank of the river, and out of the river came seven fat and handsome cattle, which grazed in a meadow. Then seven other cattle came up after them, ill, scrawny, and ugly, and the seven lean cattle devoured the seven fat cattle. Then I awoke.
Then I had a second dream, where seven full, good ears of corn grew on a stalk. Seven withered and thin ears then sprang up, and swallowed the seven good ears. I recounted these dreams to my magicians, but none could interpret them.
And Joseph said: The dream of Pharaoh is the same dream, and the Eternal is showing Pharaoh what He shall do. The seven good cattle and the seven good ears are seven years of plenty. The seven thin and ugly cattle and the seven empty ears shall be seven years of famine.
Behold, there shall come seven years of great plenty throughout the land. Then shall come seven years of famine, and all the plenty shall be forgotten, and grievous famine shall consume the land.
Let Pharaoh plan for the future of his country, by decreeing the setting aside of reserves during the seven years of plenty, gathering food and corn in the cities and granaries against the seven years of famine. And those stores shall protect the land during the famine, and the people shall not perish.
And Pharaoh said to Joseph: You may be wise in interpreting dreams, but you know nothing of politics.
You must not know, having been locked in a dungeon these past two years, that I am a supply-side Pharaoh.
During years of plenty, we do not gather reserves nor do we plan for the future. The grain that will grow in abundance is not the government’s grain, and such abundance instead demands that the government set aside less grain, not more.
Right-wing Pharaohs, during years of plenty, want to cut taxes. The surplus generated by years of plenty may pay for an occasional new program. But conservative Pharaohs have no desire to prepare for the future—except by repealing the estate tax.
When the lean years come, famine may consume the land and afflict the people, but that hardship becomes yet another reason to cut taxes and to continue ignoring the future.
This philosophy may strike you, Joseph, as shortsighted and foolish. Years of famine always may come, and a wise ruler should prepare during the years of plenty.
But Pharaoh’s family and friends will have enough money to buy grain, no matter how severe the famine.
Pharaohs need not worry about famine. That is the beauty of being rich—and of term limits. I will rule over plenty; the next Pharaoh can deal with the famine.
And Pharaoh thanked Joseph for his time, gave him a snappy nickname, and ordered him returned to the dungeon.
The Emperor's New Suit, Modern Version
I wanted to get this week's column up in advance. I'll post how it turns out in the paper at the usual time.
A FAIRY TALE FOR OUR TIMES
Why did our emperor take us to war in Iraq -- based on a fairy tale, perhaps?
The emperor marched in the procession under the beautiful canopy, and all who saw him in the street and out of the windows exclaimed: “Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid. Never emperor’s clothes were more admired.
“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! Listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist.
Hans Christian Anderson, “The Emperor’s New Suit” (1837)
It was a simpler time then, when the whole people were willing to recognize the truth once the little child spoke. Today, however, there’s an entire army of chamberlains desperately trying to spin each other, and everyone else, otherwise:
Rep. J.D. Hayworth: By questioning our emperor’s choice of clothing, unpatriotic opponents like this little child, whether wittingly or unwittingly, provide aid and comfort to our enemies. Terrorists want to destroy both our way of life -- and our pants. If our emperor says his new clothes were magnificent, anyone who says otherwise is a traitor.
Thomas Friedman, The New York Times: Debate over the emperor’s attire misses my latest version of the real reason the emperor purchased his fabulously expensive new suit. He bought the magic cloth from the two swindlers to bring human rights and democracy to the region -- because once people have seen this emperor in his underwear, it’s only a matter of days before market economies and free elections arrive.
Jonah Goldberg, National Review: Critics of the current imperial administration are peddling a blatant lie. The emperor never used the phrase “new clothes.” In his State of the Empire speech, he said only that he would wear a new suit. And in any case, he wasn’t wearing nothing; he wore his imperial underwear, so the little child was wrong.
Bill O’Reilly, Fox News: My guest tonight is the ungrateful little child who unbelievably and unpatriotically said that our emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes. Shut up! I’ll give you 15 seconds to respond once I’m finished with my 10-minute harangue.
Judy Woodruff, CNN: It’s not enough to criticize the emperor for making a mistake. Instead, his opponents must explain, in detail, how they would fix the problem the emperor created. We must spend another $87 billion trying to make the invisible “cloth” visible.
David Ignatius, The Washington Post: The emperor has access to better intelligence than you or I do. If he said he was wearing a new suit, then the burden falls upon his opponents to prove that he wasn’t.
Vice President Dick Cheney: By saying “9/11” and “new clothes” together frequently, perhaps our subjects will conclude -- without me actually saying it -- that the emperor wore no clothes because of 9/11. It’s an open question whether there’s any connection between his lack of clothes and 9/11. Did I mention 9/11?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: It’s all Colin Powell’s fault. What part of “all” don’t you understand?
Rich Lowry, National Review: It’s all Bill Clinton’s fault.
I wanted to get this week's column up in advance. I'll post how it turns out in the paper at the usual time.
A FAIRY TALE FOR OUR TIMES
Why did our emperor take us to war in Iraq -- based on a fairy tale, perhaps?
The emperor marched in the procession under the beautiful canopy, and all who saw him in the street and out of the windows exclaimed: “Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid. Never emperor’s clothes were more admired.
“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! Listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist.
Hans Christian Anderson, “The Emperor’s New Suit” (1837)
It was a simpler time then, when the whole people were willing to recognize the truth once the little child spoke. Today, however, there’s an entire army of chamberlains desperately trying to spin each other, and everyone else, otherwise:
Rep. J.D. Hayworth: By questioning our emperor’s choice of clothing, unpatriotic opponents like this little child, whether wittingly or unwittingly, provide aid and comfort to our enemies. Terrorists want to destroy both our way of life -- and our pants. If our emperor says his new clothes were magnificent, anyone who says otherwise is a traitor.
Thomas Friedman, The New York Times: Debate over the emperor’s attire misses my latest version of the real reason the emperor purchased his fabulously expensive new suit. He bought the magic cloth from the two swindlers to bring human rights and democracy to the region -- because once people have seen this emperor in his underwear, it’s only a matter of days before market economies and free elections arrive.
Jonah Goldberg, National Review: Critics of the current imperial administration are peddling a blatant lie. The emperor never used the phrase “new clothes.” In his State of the Empire speech, he said only that he would wear a new suit. And in any case, he wasn’t wearing nothing; he wore his imperial underwear, so the little child was wrong.
Bill O’Reilly, Fox News: My guest tonight is the ungrateful little child who unbelievably and unpatriotically said that our emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes. Shut up! I’ll give you 15 seconds to respond once I’m finished with my 10-minute harangue.
Judy Woodruff, CNN: It’s not enough to criticize the emperor for making a mistake. Instead, his opponents must explain, in detail, how they would fix the problem the emperor created. We must spend another $87 billion trying to make the invisible “cloth” visible.
David Ignatius, The Washington Post: The emperor has access to better intelligence than you or I do. If he said he was wearing a new suit, then the burden falls upon his opponents to prove that he wasn’t.
Vice President Dick Cheney: By saying “9/11” and “new clothes” together frequently, perhaps our subjects will conclude -- without me actually saying it -- that the emperor wore no clothes because of 9/11. It’s an open question whether there’s any connection between his lack of clothes and 9/11. Did I mention 9/11?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: It’s all Colin Powell’s fault. What part of “all” don’t you understand?
Rich Lowry, National Review: It’s all Bill Clinton’s fault.
Monday, October 20, 2003
I Will Gladly Take Responsibility Tuesday
It's a special session lid-lifter (table-setter? plumber's helper?) this week. The governor has called the legislature into a special session to consider Child Protective Services and Corrections, two areas where the loony right believes we shouldn't have to pay for our policies, and maybe there's some ideology we can deploy instead of money? Well, there isn't.
I got a block quote from the editor, in bold in the newspaper version, which you can view here.
Should the line have been, "I will gladly take responsibility Tuesday, for avoiding it today"? We retort, you decide.
IT'S TIME FOR LEGISLATURE TO QUIT DAWDLING AND FIX CPS
East Valley Tribune, Oct. 19, 2003
Some legislators claim they need more time to “study” Child Protective Services during their regular session. Yeah, right. With all of the other issues competing for attention starting in January, ranging from the budget and economic development to homeowner associations -- and did I mention it’s an election year? -- how much time do you think they’ll devote to an in-depth, scholarly examination of CPS?
Tomorrow’s special session is the time to act. Reasonable people (and, this being the Arizona Legislature, unreasonable people as well) may differ over details, but anybody paying attention knows the general outline. We must improve coordination among agencies in providing services to kids and parents, and between CPS and law enforcement.
We need to increase permanent placements, including both permanent guardianship and adoption. We also need to reduce turnover and hire additional caseworkers and support staff to deal fully and faster with the rapidly-increasing numbers of complaints and children in the system, to provide better investigations, follow-up, and support.
No statute is ever perfect, as legislation is a human approximation. I’ve got no problem with passing stuff now and revising it in the regular session. But there should be no argument that CPS is overwhelmed and underfunded, and the Legislature needs to start fixing those problems right now.
Some financial problems the Legislature has caused CPS would be funny if the results weren’t so tragic. The Legislature made a big deal of funding 104 new CPS positions during the 2002 fiscal year, but didn’t make those new slots part of the ongoing budget in the following years. CPS could hire new caseworkers and support staff for a few months, but afterwards these people were supposed to work for free.
The Legislature also considers funding for new equipment a one-time expenditure, so when setting the following year’s budget, deducts that money from the base -- except they backed out some CPS purchases twice.
The Legislature shouldn’t wait until January to fix its own mistakes.
Many financial problems facing CPS aren’t mistakes, but due to the Legislature’s unwillingness to acknowledge reality. Foster parents’ expenses keep rising, but reimbursement rates were last increased in 1996.
Caseloads are increasing rapidly (investigations increased 11.4 percent in 2002 and then another 6.7 percent in both 2003 and 2004, while the number of children in foster care has shot up 17.6 percent), but funding for caseworker positions hasn’t come close to keeping up.
Right now CPS investigates 86 percent of abuse and neglect reports, referring the remainder to Family Builders social workers (who cannot require cooperation). If the Legislature refuses to act this week, the percentage of reports CPS can investigate will drop to 74 percent.
Some 1,000 children need permanent guardianship, which is more cost-effective than temporary placements, but the Legislature only funded 300 slots -- leaving over 700 kids in the lurch. Help for parents wanting to adopt kids out of the CPS system hasn’t been funded fully, and the Legislature has consistently overestimated federal funds available, so some 600 kids stuck in foster care won’t get adopted and over 1,100 children in adoptive families will lose their services.
The Legislature shouldn’t wait until January to close the gap between their rhetoric and reality.
But the most compelling reason for the Legislature to act now is that their legislative leaders have had years to fix these problems, but they haven’t acted. Further delay only lets them continue to avoid their responsibility. Some so-called leaders remind me of Wimpy from Popeye: “I will gladly take responsibility Tuesday, for a hamburger of avoiding it today.”
Don’t let ‘em wait until Tuesday, or until January, which they hope means "never." The Legislature can act this week, and it must.
It's a special session lid-lifter (table-setter? plumber's helper?) this week. The governor has called the legislature into a special session to consider Child Protective Services and Corrections, two areas where the loony right believes we shouldn't have to pay for our policies, and maybe there's some ideology we can deploy instead of money? Well, there isn't.
I got a block quote from the editor, in bold in the newspaper version, which you can view here.
Should the line have been, "I will gladly take responsibility Tuesday, for avoiding it today"? We retort, you decide.
IT'S TIME FOR LEGISLATURE TO QUIT DAWDLING AND FIX CPS
East Valley Tribune, Oct. 19, 2003
Some legislators claim they need more time to “study” Child Protective Services during their regular session. Yeah, right. With all of the other issues competing for attention starting in January, ranging from the budget and economic development to homeowner associations -- and did I mention it’s an election year? -- how much time do you think they’ll devote to an in-depth, scholarly examination of CPS?
Tomorrow’s special session is the time to act. Reasonable people (and, this being the Arizona Legislature, unreasonable people as well) may differ over details, but anybody paying attention knows the general outline. We must improve coordination among agencies in providing services to kids and parents, and between CPS and law enforcement.
We need to increase permanent placements, including both permanent guardianship and adoption. We also need to reduce turnover and hire additional caseworkers and support staff to deal fully and faster with the rapidly-increasing numbers of complaints and children in the system, to provide better investigations, follow-up, and support.
No statute is ever perfect, as legislation is a human approximation. I’ve got no problem with passing stuff now and revising it in the regular session. But there should be no argument that CPS is overwhelmed and underfunded, and the Legislature needs to start fixing those problems right now.
Some financial problems the Legislature has caused CPS would be funny if the results weren’t so tragic. The Legislature made a big deal of funding 104 new CPS positions during the 2002 fiscal year, but didn’t make those new slots part of the ongoing budget in the following years. CPS could hire new caseworkers and support staff for a few months, but afterwards these people were supposed to work for free.
The Legislature also considers funding for new equipment a one-time expenditure, so when setting the following year’s budget, deducts that money from the base -- except they backed out some CPS purchases twice.
The Legislature shouldn’t wait until January to fix its own mistakes.
Many financial problems facing CPS aren’t mistakes, but due to the Legislature’s unwillingness to acknowledge reality. Foster parents’ expenses keep rising, but reimbursement rates were last increased in 1996.
Caseloads are increasing rapidly (investigations increased 11.4 percent in 2002 and then another 6.7 percent in both 2003 and 2004, while the number of children in foster care has shot up 17.6 percent), but funding for caseworker positions hasn’t come close to keeping up.
Right now CPS investigates 86 percent of abuse and neglect reports, referring the remainder to Family Builders social workers (who cannot require cooperation). If the Legislature refuses to act this week, the percentage of reports CPS can investigate will drop to 74 percent.
Some 1,000 children need permanent guardianship, which is more cost-effective than temporary placements, but the Legislature only funded 300 slots -- leaving over 700 kids in the lurch. Help for parents wanting to adopt kids out of the CPS system hasn’t been funded fully, and the Legislature has consistently overestimated federal funds available, so some 600 kids stuck in foster care won’t get adopted and over 1,100 children in adoptive families will lose their services.
The Legislature shouldn’t wait until January to close the gap between their rhetoric and reality.
But the most compelling reason for the Legislature to act now is that their legislative leaders have had years to fix these problems, but they haven’t acted. Further delay only lets them continue to avoid their responsibility. Some so-called leaders remind me of Wimpy from Popeye: “I will gladly take responsibility Tuesday, for a hamburger of avoiding it today.”
Don’t let ‘em wait until Tuesday, or until January, which they hope means "never." The Legislature can act this week, and it must.
