The Right Wing Professor

Time for Franken to give it up.

2008-12-05T21:15:00.003-05:00

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has several thousand of the challenged ballots in the Franken-Coleman recount, and you can go through each of them, see who challenged it and why, and vote on them. I just spent some time looking through them and it is fascinating. First of all the law is clear in Minnesota, if the intent of the voter is clear the vote counts, even if the voter doesn't follow the directions. So if some moron circle's Coleman's name or draws a new bubble next to Franken and fills it in, these votes count. The other rule is if the voter writes his name on the ballot, it is invalid. With these simple rules one quickly realizes at least 95% of the challenges are ridiculous, the ballot is absolutely clear. Although both sides have made some absurd challenges, in the sample I voted on there were more from Franken that I found beyond abusrd. One guy started to fill in Franken than put an X through it, put Coleman in the write in slot and wrote next to it "I really want to vote for Coleman", but Franken challenged it as not clear intent. Many of the challenges have a completely filled in solid circle next to one candidate and a stray scratch somewhere else. The canvassing board should be able to cruise through these ballots.

Meanwhile the hand recount has increased Coleman's lead from 200-300 votes to 687 at its conclusion. There's no way Franken is going to make this up among the challenged ballots, it's time for both sides to withdraw the hundred of frivilous challenges and wrap this up. Al, you lost, time to get over it.

Veteran's Day- Why am I teaching today?

2008-11-11T08:32:00.004-05:00

In the choice of academic holidays, a University inevitably makes selections that reflect its values as an institution and the composition of its student body (for example we get the two major fall Jewish holidays off at my school). Tight academic calendars usually preclude getting all the holidays off, indeed getting all the national holidays off is unheard of. What annoys me year after year is the disrespect shown to Veteran's Day and President's Day, and the elevation of Martin Luther King Jr. Day to sacrosanct status. I did a quick Google search and discovered that Harvard is the only school among the eight Ivy League institutions to cancel classes for Veteran's day. Seven of the eight (not Cornell) have no classes on MLK day. Don't even ask about President's Day.

It does no disrespect to the legacy of King to remark that his importance pales in comparison to that of our presidents, or even to that of Washington or Lincoln, who seem to have been stripped of their individual holidays. It does no disrespect to say the combined sacrifice of millions of veterans is of greater significance that the remarkable sacrifice of one man. It's time classes be cancelled on Veteran's Day and, if necessary, scheduled on MLK Day.

Veteran's Day

2008-11-11T08:30:00.003-05:00

Thank you to all the veterans and current active duty military for the incredible sacrifice you make to defend us and our freedoms every day, both at home and around the world.

NY Times-traitors again, but in an instructive way

2008-11-10T10:33:00.002-05:00

I've lost count of the number of times the NY Times has published classified information that may threaten the safety of our soldiers. Today's story is not as egregious as some in the past, as it in theory only reports on past operations,. The story discusses a 2004 classified executive order, signed by Rumsfeld and authorized by Bush, which allows special forces to conduct military operations in 15 to 20 countries in order to fight Al Qaeda terrorists. Apparently the traitor who leaks this news to the Times has confirmed for them at least a dozen operations which were carried out under this order.

These are just the kind of operations I want my government carrying out. We will never know how many attacks have been thwarted by these operations, and by our more public operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but our safety for the last 7+ years suggests they have been successful. Will President Obama immediately reverse this executive order? I hope and pray not, but I fear the worst. Hopefully a reporter will actually ask him to comment.

And on another matter, these type of leaks are completely unacceptable. I hope the administration in its waning months will use whatever means it has to discover the source and punish the leakers to the full extent possible under the law. Leaking details of top secret military operations during wartime should be considered treason, and punished as such.

Relief over President Obama

2008-11-09T21:42:00.002-05:00

I'm starting to actually feel some relief that the Democrats are completely in charge now. I'm so sick of listening to liberals constantly insult and berate a decent man like President Bush, and blame him for every ill, real or perceived, that they see afflicting our country. A President McCain would let them continue this sniping for four more years. Now they are completely in control, and completely responsible, in a time of great consequence, a situation which has not happened in my lifetime .

It has been 40 years since a Democratic president has had to deal with such a serious time. Ronald Reagan inherited double-digit interest rates and inflation and a military that was dwarfed by the Soviet Union, both in conventional and nuclear weapons. He took the Soviets down, beat down inflation and won the cold war. Bush senior presided over the Iraq war and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Bush junior had to deal with 9/11, make hard choices to launch two wars. Pulled us out of the ABM treaty despite the cries that a new arms race was inevitable. For his leadership during these crises, for 7 years free of attacks he is rewarded with a 20% approval rating.

As for the Democratic presidents, the Carter administration speaks for itself. During the Clinton era looked back on so fondly by the left, Clinton reaped the "peace dividend". He slashed our defense spending from 4.8% of GDP in 1992 to 3.0% in 2000. The size of our navy was cut in half. This, combined with taxes pouring in due to the huge tech bubble, led to a balanced budget without much in the way of financial pain. Sure there were terrorist attacks, the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, our African embassies, etc.. but these were all considered"law enforcement" issues. Sure there was the debacle in Somalia and the intervention in Bosnia, but nothing "major." My point is, Clinton got off easy. In fact, he's been known to complain about this, that events (or lack thereof) ensured he could not end up among our greatest presidents.

Now things are different. Around 200,000 troops defend our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other operations around the world protect us from attacks. Annual budget deficits are approaching $1 trillion and the financial crisis shows no sign of letting up. It is time for the sniping from the sidelines to stop. The "Bush lied-people died" signs can go back in the garage. President Obama has his party in control of both houses of Congress. These problems are his. I don't have to listen to my colleagues whine about President Bush. If Obama orders the NSA to stop eavesdropping and a terrorist attack results, the blame rests with him. If he orders a hasty retreat in Iraq and a civil war results, the blame rests with him. If he borrows another $600 billion for "stimulus packages" and the economy keeps sinking, the blame rests with him.

Please don't misinterpret this post. I don't want these things to happen. And I certainly still wish John McCain had won the election. I'm just saying there is a certain relief that, at least for the next two years, I won't have to listen to my left wing colleagues blame everything on Bush and conservatives.

Thoughts on the morning after

2008-11-05T08:32:00.004-05:00

Well of course the prediction below was wishful thinking, it represents what would have happened had McCain been able to swing this 53-47 defeat into a 51-49 victory. Amid the carnage we still have some good news.

Looks like in Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon and Minnesota we beat back potential senate losses, which is good. I'd much rather Mitch McConnell have 45 Senators to fililbuster with than 41. We should be especially thankful that blowhard Al Franken fell 700 some votes short of being Senator Franken.
Exit polls show 34% of the voters self-identified conservatives versus 22% self-identified liberals. If we can get the right leaders and stop the big-spending and corruption that infiltrated our ranks, 2010 can be a huge comeback year.
Traditional marriage has once again won a clean sweep, with constitutional amendments passing in Florida, Arizona and even California. The anti-affirmative action measure in Colorado is too close to call.

Now to Barack Obama, congratulations! I hope you are ready. The most power you have ever had in your life is over your own campaign and/or office staff. You have always been one vote among many, and have never cast an important tiebreaking vote on anyhing. In other words, your decisions have never carried real consequences for large numbers of people. You have never been a mayor, a military leader, a small-business owner, a governor. In two months you are going to be the most powerful man in the world. Men equally as brilliant as you have flopped upon promotion to department chair!

You are going to inherit a huge array of military and intelligence activities from an administration that have done a truly incredible job of keeping American's safe since 9/11, and that are often secret. You are going to be responsible for a vastly improved situation in Iraq, with American casualties at record lows, in large part due to a surge strategy that you opposed. The decisions you will need to make are going to come fast and furious. Should we maintain this surveillance program? Should we continue this top-secret military operation in country X? What should be due with these terrorists we just caught on the battlefield in Iraq. If you don't have the right answers, our safety will be compromised and you will be responsible. If there is a terrorist attack on American soil, you will be blamed. If the situation in Iraq deteriorates, you will be blamed. Your favorite bogeyman will be clearing brush in Crawford or fishing in Maine.

You will inherit an economy that is in some ways teetering on the brink. When, a few months ago, John McCain said the fundamentals of our economy were strong, he was essentially correct, but may not be for much longer. Unemployment is still low but GDP has officially started shrinking and factory activity has plummeted. It is possible that a year from now the fundamentals will be 9% unemployment, and large contractions in GDP. People who think it is terrible now have never lived through a deep recession. Fairly or not, you and your party will be held responsible. You control the presidency and both houses of Congress.

You come to Washington having made little in the way of campaign promises. For you government is the answer to almost any problem, whether it be providing health care, creating jobs, etc.. However, like Bill Clinton, you have promised tax cuts. Unlike Bill Clinton, you can't arrive in Washington and renege on this promise, claiming surprise at the current situation. You have acknowledged raising taxes is not a good idea in a recession. How are you going to keep your promise on tax cuts? Will you go through with the enormous tax hikes on the wealthy? Remember, any deficit in 2010 is on your watch. You still lead the party of tax and spend. Unfortunately the Republicans became the party of borrow and spend. Still, if you go on a spending binge that leads to triliion-dollar deficits, be ready for backlash in 2010.

Finally, there are many many Americans who consider you the Obamessiah, and you are going to disappoint them, almost by definition. Women like this , who think you will be putting gas in her car and paying her mortgage, are going to be disappointed. Many of your poor supporters are going to be disappointed to see that little has changed in their lives, that a President has little control over their situation. You brought this on yourselves with your lofty claims of stopping the rise of the oceans and "we are the ones we have been waiting for". That balloon will not be easy to deflate.

And what about our new vice president?? I'll save that for another post...

Final Election Prediction: McCain 273 Obama 265

2008-11-03T08:17:00.002-05:00

I just put my final election predictions into the electoral college calculator and came up with the number above. In particular I predict the following in the "swing" states:

Obama wins: Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, Wisconsin

McCain wins: New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida

If McCain were to lose Pennsylvania his other best chance I think is to carry Virginia and Colorado, giving him 274.

In retrospect I have to wonder if Michigan wasn't a lost opportunity. It's not Obama's natural strong state and the state has been run into the ground under complete Democratic control for some time now. Of course if he carries Pennsylvania, the McCain camp will look like geniuses.

Obviously if Florida and Ohio don't come through the race is Obamas.

Down with early voting!

2008-11-01T16:53:00.003-04:00

This early voting is really starting to get annoying. As much as possible election day should be an event where everyone comes out to vote together on a single day. Of course some people are unavoidably out of town and need to vote absentee, or are unable to make it to the polls. But having 20+% of the people casting their votes early, merely for convenience, distorts the election. Heck why not just let people vote anytime between the conventions and the election day. I'd much prefer a single campaign ending on a single date where anyone who is able to votes.

Looking like Obama peaked too soon.

2008-10-31T22:16:00.004-04:00

With 4 days left it is starting to look like Obama peaked 10 days too soon. 10 days ago polls were showing him up 7-9 points, now the major tracking polls (Gallup, IBD, Rasmussen) have shown the race tightening to around 3-4 points and today's one-day Zogby poll shows McCain AHEAD of Obama 48-47. Meanwhile, with Obama in Iowa and McCain/Palin still hitting Pennsylvania hard, I think the McCain camp is starting to see the road to 270 come into focus.

Also, Obama is really starting to make mistakes. Kicking reporters from major media outlets off your plane because their editorial boards endorsed McCain? Openly discussing that you are putting your cabinet together? Blowing off the usual hotel ballroom to have an outdoor spectacle in Chicago for 1 million plus people, which is essentially planning a huge victory bash a week before the election. Charging reporters thousands of dollars for a place to file their stories from the party. I don't think Americans will take kindly to this kind of presumptuous behavior when they have not even voted yet.

Meanwhile he is disrespecting those who donated money to him by blowing through it at a ridiculous rate while continuing to ask for more. $4 million plus to by multiple networks out on Wed night when one would suffice. $700,000+ for lighting/set for his Berlin spectacular, $1million plus for the "victory" party. Obama blew through more than $110 million in two weeks of October, he is showing no respect for those Americans who sacrificed to donate to his campaign.

I find the idea of a McCain electoral college victory and popular vote defeat to be delicious, I can already hear the howls of outrage from the left. As of today I am standing by my prediction of a McCain victory, although I must unfortunately take Michigan out of the McCain column, I see McCain coming in with around 275 electoral votes.

Sickening defense of Bill Ayers

2008-10-29T15:49:00.002-04:00

I just read the petition to support Bill Ayers, which currently has 4090 academic signatories. It is absolutely sickening. The letter never actually address in any way the horrific violence committed by Ayers and his wife and never disavowed. Instead the only mention is the following:

"The current characterizations of Professor Ayers---“unrepentant terrorist,” “lunatic leftist”---are unrecognizable to those who know or work with him. It’s true that Professor Ayers participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans. His participation in political activity 40 years ago is history..."

Participated passionately? As did hundreds of thousands of Americans? Do these people have any academic honesty? Are they really trying to make a moral equivalence between violent terrorists like Ayers and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who managed to respect our laws while taking part in the movements of the 1960's? This is absolutely sickening. If these people were scholars, they would make their defense of Ayers AFTER acknowledging his violent history, rather than ignoring it. This is just a stark illustration that there is no defense of this man, only obfuscation. I will be personally contacting all the signatories at my institution to ask their opinion on the paragraph above.

Congrats to McCain

2008-10-28T20:18:00.002-04:00

For tightening the race back to only 2% lead among Gallup likely voters, despite Obama spending ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS in the first TWO WEEKS of October. This while McCain, who unlike Obama kept his promise to take public financing, is limited to only $84 million for the entire general election period. I'm sure Obama made the right strategic decision to break his unequivocal pledge to remain in the public financing system, but that doesn't make it right, he lied plain and simple.

Skip class to work for the Obamessiah!

2008-10-28T09:52:00.005-04:00

Barack Obama is asking students to skip class (ask your professors first!) in order to volunteer for him on election day. Just yet another example of a man whose ego seems to know no bounds.

Heck why not skip class!? Consider it an investment in your future. Under the Obama-Biden plan anyone can get a fully refundable $4000 tax credit, i.e. the first $4000 of your tuition every year can be wealth confiscated from someone else and handed to you in the form of a check. Can someone please explain to me, if a college education is supposed to be such a wonderful investment, why liberals think it needs to be so heavily subsidized by the government.

At the state colleges in New York, tuition is $4350 a year, with room and board expect $13,000/year. Even if a student borrows every penny of this money he leaves with a debt of $52,000. For a 10-year loan this works out to around $600/month in payments. Annoying, sure? Affordable for someone with a college degree? Absolutely! Even with a starting salary of only $30K this leaves $23K to live on in the first year, way more than our Ph.D. students are living on and way more than I lived on for 5 years of graduate school. And this assumes the student doesn't work during the year or in the summers, which can easily cut that debt figure in half.

The "Tenured Radical" takes her ball and goes home.

2008-10-27T11:30:00.005-04:00

In the spirit of bipartisan discussion I have been posting comments over at the "left-wing professor" blog, otherwise known as the Tenured Radical, Professor Claire B. Potter of the Wesleyan University history department. Today however she announced that she is going to delete all my future comments because they "incite her to argue." That is really too bad, but it is reflective of what goes on in academia all the time. Academics spend their careers surrounded almost entirely by those with left-wing viewpoints, they are not challenged to debate them or explain them. When faced with someone intelligent holding a different worldview, they often buckle under the pressure. I encourage anyone to visit her blog and read some of the discussion in the comments section and decide for yourself if TR was justified in this decision, that is unless she purges all my previous comments from her blog!

I will close with a quote from Professor Potter on her blog, after announcing she will delete my comments:

"I got some scholarship to accomplish." Claire B. Potter, 10/27/2008, 10:24 a.m.

Progressive taxation is not the same as "spread the wealth."

2008-10-26T23:09:00.003-04:00

There seems to be a lot of confusion about Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, with pundits arguing that this means nothing more than reflecting a desire for progressive taxation. For instance, we have this editorial out of Socialist Vermont:

John McCain knows full well that the country has always had a progressive tax code: i.e. spreading the wealth around. (For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” according to the New Testament’s Book of St. Luke.)

Our federal government spends roughly $3 TRILLION a year and the population is roughly 300 million, which works out to $10,000 per person per year. With a median family in the US earning around $50,000/year and having 3 members, it is clear that this family can't afford to pay its "fair share" of $30,000/year in taxes. Without a drastic slashing of the federal budget, we are forced into a progressive tax system, where by progressive I simply mean the wealthy pay more in taxes than the not so wealthy. Noone, including McCain, is seriously arguing that taxes should be assessed on a "per person" basis. But this doesn't mean wealth is being spread around, it just means those less wealthy are not paying their fair share of federal taxes.

What Obama is proposing goes much further. He wants to drastically expand the amount of money that the government takes from the rich and, rather than spend it, just writes checks and sends it to other citizens. We already have a little of this, for example the earned income tax credit. What Obama proposes is an enormous increase in this type of wealth transfer, through mutliple "refundable tax credits."

The quickest way to see this is to ask yourself what taxes Obama is planning to cut. He promises tax cuts for 95% of Americans but, if you look at his plan, there aren't any taxes he actually plans to cut. What tax rates will go down under the Obama plan? NONE! Instead he proposes multiple tax credits, which end up being checks for millions of Americans. He's not proposing to lower any of the income tax rates. He's not planning on lowering taxes on capital gains, dividends or corporate taxes. Instead he proposes multiple changes to the tax system which do nothing but redistribute wealth.

Obama birth certificate issues

2008-10-22T18:40:00.005-04:00

OK I'm going to risk going to the fringe here, but I've been following, for several months, with interest the debate about whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii or, as some suspect, in Kenya. Some time ago Obama released a scanned copy of the front side only of a "Certificate of Live Birth" showing he was born in Hawaii. There is some evidence that the document was forged from the certificate belonging to Obama's sister. Someone has even taken credit for making the forgery. For some reason he has not produced an actual birth certificate, or agreed to let Hawaii release the actual records.

On October 18 a lawsuit was filed in Hawaii seeking a court order to release the actual records. Coincidentally (?) Obama is now racing to Hawaii to visit his sick grandmother (you may recall her as the "typical white person"). The strange thing is she was released from the hospital more than a week ago and the campaign is not saying what is wrong with her now, nor did Obama feel the need to visit her when she was in the hospital. The man who filed the lawsuit claims the grandmother story is a ruse to cover up the real reason for the trip to Hawaii.

Anyhow, there are two facts that are not in dispute:

1. Given his father being from Kenya and all his international travels as a child, living in Indonesia, etc.., it is reasonable to inquire as to whether Obama was born in the United States.

2. Obama has not released his actual birth certificate, nor has he given permission to the proper authorities in Hawaii to release the records.

To me this definitely fails the smell test, something fishy is going on here. It may be something devastating to the Obama campaign, like him not being a US citizen and therefore ineligible to be president. It might be something less devastating like him being listed as Muslim on the birth certificate.

I rate it as a 1 in 5 shot that this will boil over into the mainstream media and end up as Obama's October surprise. If Obama knows he was not born in the US and is covering it up, and ends up being elected, and then it comes out, he should be tried for treason.

McCain campaign stupidity

2008-10-22T11:29:00.004-04:00

Sometimes I just want to throttle whoever his running the ship at the McCain campaign and the RNC. The Drudge report is splashing this story about the RNC purchasing more than $150,000 in clothes for Sarah Palin. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY??? Are they all so braindead they can't figure out how things like this look. If this were tennis, this is what is called an unforced error. Stupid stupid stupid. Why can't they just go to Sears or Macy's and buy 30 outfits for $200 each which would be $6,000, still an obscene amount but not enough to make news. Especially considering Obama and Biden's suits likely run $1,000 or more each. Saks? Neiman Marcus. AAAAHHHHH. Better yet they could just outfit her at LL Bean. Or, God forbid, maybe she could just wear the same clothes she already owned.

I guarantee this story is going to be deemed more "newsworthy" by the mainstream media than Joe Biden's repeated warning that electing Obama is going to result directly in an international crisis within six months.

Powell endorsement: a decidedly not politically correct view.

2008-10-20T11:54:00.005-04:00

I wonder if the Powell endorsement might backfire among some white voters, let me explain why. There is a strong impression that blacks are voting for Obama in large part or even solely due to his race. The evidence for this was overwhelming in the Democratic primary when blacks often gave more than 95% of their vote to Obama in a race contested with two candidates (Clinton and Obama) that were quite similar in policy, i.e. there is no reason other than race to explain this disparity. Meanwhile Obama struggled mightigly in states like West Virginia.

Enter Colin Powell, a proclaimed Republican, member of the Bush administration and one of the leading supporters publicly of going to war with Iraq, most dramatically in his famous presentation before the United Nations. Powell tried to couch his endorsement as being motivated by the choice of Palin, by McCain's negative campaign, and by his not wanting two more Supreme Court nominees appointed by a Republican. However it was reported two months ago (by W. Kristol, who has stood by his reporting and his source) that Powell decided to endorse Obama. This was before Palin and before much of the negative campaigning. Powell has never said a bad word about Justice Alito or Roberts. And, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out, he has never endorsed a single white liberal for any office. Meanwhile he has on multiple occasions expressed thrill over the idea of a black president. Finally he made sure to protest on MTP that this was "not about race." I think the evidence suggests he had already made up his mind, and the endorsement was scheduled for the best impact on the race.

In my mind all this together gives the strong impression that Powell's endorsement is largely about race. Does anyone really think he would have endorsed Hillary Clinton or John Edwards?
Note I am talking about impressions here, not necessarily reality. Since noone can get inside Powell's mind, all that matters is the impression it creates. If it appears like even a well-respected, Republican, general is choosing Obama because he is black, I think this is going to create anger and a backlash among some white voters to make sure they get out and vote for McCain. Only time will tell.

Thoughts on Debate #3

2008-10-16T09:40:00.003-04:00

1. First I think having the last debate 3 weeks before the election is too early, I think there should be a debate in the final week.

2. This was clearly the best debate of the three, the five minute period for discussion with the moderator working only to keep the time fair was a great idea. Much much preferable to the 2 minute followed by 1 minute of the previous debate. At least there were some exchanges that went back and forth more than once.

3. Bob Schiefer did a commendable job, mostly staying out of the way. My only gripe is his choice of questions (together with those of the other debates) was pretty boring. Finally there was an abortion question. Is it actually possible that 4 debates went by with not a single question on illegal immigration and securing the borders? Not a single question about Supreme Court appointments? Not a single question about gun rights and the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning the DC handgun ban. Not a single question about balancing the war on terrorism with civil liberties, for instance wiretapping.

Yet we have to listen to a question every single debate about the "economic crisis" so two men with no financial background can spout out whatever "plan" their advisors put together. We have to listen to Schiefer ask McCain if he regrets having words like "disrespectful" in his campaign ads.

4. McCain had a good night. It would have been a great night if he would just deliver the finishing punch in any of these exchanges, instead he pulls back. Here are some examples:

McCain: and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers' living room.

Obama: That's absolutely not true.

McCain: And the facts are facts and records are records.

Obama: And that's not the facts.

And McCain lets it go. Why not come back with "OK Senator, have you been in Mr. Ayer's living room and what was the occasion." Clearly Obama was trying to run out the clock. Recite his talking points, not get angry, not make mistakes.

Another example, Obama said "The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs." This is just false, the McCain campaign put out a press release during the debate, see it here for example, elaborating numerous other involvement of Obama with Acorn. But McCain wasn't ready, or willing, to call him on it.

Another example, Obama repeated his lie about giving 95% of Americans a "tax cut", which has been debunked here and elsewhere, as almost half these people don't pay any taxes. McCain should have tore into him on this, said "You are proposing taking money from Joe the plumber and handing out checks to people who already pay nothing, etc.. etc.."

This is the first time I've seen McCain at least try to fight, but he doesn't seem to have the temperment for it. I wish I had been up their on that stage with Obama. Heck I wish Ron Paul had been up there on that stage!

5. The line of attack that Obama's answer for everything is more money, more spending, more "investment" as he calls it, this is an effective line of attack. I wish McCain pushed it harder and more clearly with examples. How about mentioning the already explosive growth in federal education spending under Bush rather than meekly agreeing we need more. Again a missed opportunity for a real knockout here.

6. I'm sure his advisors told him to cut it out, so I can only conclude that Obama is incapable of not laughing/smiling/smirking during McCain's answers. He actually thinks he's a better man that McCain, which is embarrassing.

7. McCain really got screwed by Jim Lehrer in the "foreign policy" debate. Lehrer took it upon himself, due to the "economic crisis", to make the first 47 minutes of that 90 minute debate about economic issues. Thus instead of 90 minutes out of 180 on foreign policy (in the two specific debates), McCain only gets 45. Since this is his strong point over Obama, this really sucks. The towhall debate, which was supposed to be about everything, was also dominated by domestic issues. Only the VP debate had some semblance of balance. It was hard for McCain to scream foul at the time, since the "crisis" was supposedly imminent, but it still sucks.

Debate suggestion for McCain

2008-10-14T12:43:00.007-04:00

I have a proposal for McCain for tomorrow night's final debate. If you read Obama's website you see he is an ordinary tax and spend liberal. He has proposed enormous tax increases on the wealthy, including income tax rates, cap gains, dividends, and an enormous increase in the payroll tax. He has also proposed more than $1TRILLION in new spending. Somehow in the first two debates this never came out. However in the last debate Obama made a big mistake, he said:

"...but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."

First McCain should quote this line back to him and ask him if he means it or not, either get him on the record or have him admit he wants to increase spending. Second, McCain should say something like the following:

"My friends, we are in a time of great economic turmoil. Meanwhile President Bush and Congress, while well-intentioned, have presided over eight years of enormous increases in spending, with spending increasing at rates well more than double that of inflation. And not just spending on defense and veterans' affairs but huge increases in education, earmarks, agricultural subsidies, an enormous new prescription drug benefit, etc. etc... This has left us facing the financial crisis and the impending retirement of the baby boomers with a $400+ billion annual deficit, giving us few arrows in our quiver.

Therefore tonight I pledge to you that for the first two (four?) years of my administration, the entire federal budget will be reduced by 5% the first year and an additional 5% the second year. At this time in history we should not be contemplating reducing our defense spending, so some areas of the federal government will be facing cuts of 20% or more. My campaign has distributed tonight a list of agencies that we propose be eliminated as part of this cut.

History shows that raising taxes into the teeth of a recession brings about disastrous consequences. Therefore I further pledge tonight that there will be no tax increases of any sort during this two (four?) year period on any Americans. Americans have tightened their belts, now it is time for government to cut as well. Across America families, businesses, universities and corporations have been forced to make spending cuts, often well more than 5%. Can we not expect the same of our bloated federal government?

I ask Senator Obama to join me in this pledge tonight. Both of us have many ideas we'd like to implement as President, and not a few may be expensive. Congressional Democratic leaders have dozens of spending bills written already, just waiting for what all polls suggest will be increased majorities in both houses of Congress. If Senator Obama is elected, and does not take such a pledge, Americans can expect the explosive growth in spending to only accelerate, and the economy to sink further under the burden of his proposed tax increases. Thank you."

I believe such a pledge would resonate with Americans and turn this race around. Some of McCain's advisers seem to think they do not need to shake things up. Indeed they are down about 2-3% in Ohio, FL, VA, WI, etc.. They only need 2% of so of voters to change their minds to swing these states, and the Electoral College, back to McCain. But I don't see opportunities beyond tomorrow's debate to do this. At this point neither candidate has any signature issue and the debates are thus mundane. It's time to shake things up with some good old fashioned fiscal discipline.

Obama's welfare state

2008-10-13T10:26:00.003-04:00

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent elaboration of the points I made below about Obama's alleged "tax cut" for 95% of Americans, almost a third of whom pay no federal taxes already. Although he likes to call these "tax cuts," they are actually what is called a refundable tax credit. "Refundable" here means you get it even if your tax bill is lower than the credit. Put in laymen's terms, it means you get a check from Uncle Sam. We used to call this welfare.

I was actually unaware of some of the details of Obama's plan and they are astounding. The WSJ reports that they include:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

I estimate that under the Obama plan my family's entire federal income tax bill would be eliminated, and I would join some 40-45% of my fellow American's who contribute nothing whatsoever to pay for the federal government. According to the pundits then, I will be "voting against my economic self-interest" and therefore, presumably, an idiot.

I wonder if most American's know that Obama is proposing an enormous expansion of the welfare state, with tens of millions of citizens receiving a check every year with money confiscated from the wealthy. And do they care? Are people even embarrassed to live on the dole anymore?

Cancer vaccine- not so fast!

2008-10-10T13:10:00.002-04:00

This N.Y. Times headline reads: "Cancer vaccine used by 25% of girls aged 13-17". For those of you who don't know, Gardasil is NOT a vaccine against cancer. Gardasil is a vaccine against SOME strains of the human papillomavirus, HPV. Having this virus is known to increase one's chance of getting cervical cancer. So of course Merck would love if everyone refers to it as a "cancer vaccine" or "cervical cancer vaccine" when it is nothing of the sort. Type "cervical cancer vaccine" into Google news and you will see Merck has been very successful in this propaganda campaign.

Gardasil is a vaccine, of still unknown effectiveness, against a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED disease. I know at least one highly educated mother who had her daughter vaccinated because she truly thought this was a vaccine against cervical cancer, which ran in their family.

Fortunately the huge push by Merck to make this vaccine required for school attendance seems to have sputtered, at least for now.

Academic job market perfect storm?

2008-10-10T10:22:00.002-04:00

I'm relatively insulated from this recent stock market plunge. Yes it is painful watching my retirement accounts take a dive, but I know I am 30+ years from retirement so I can look at it is an opportunity to get some bargains with my retirement dollars. Meanwhile I can enjoy the plunging oil, gasoline and natural gas prices.

I fear however that the situation is a "perfect storm" for the academic job market. Our budget is being cut and a hiring freeze is underway. This is the case at many schools. Even a fairly quick economic recovery is going to have a 1-2 year lag time until state revenues pick up. And public colleges (especially "lesser ones") represent a huge part of the academic job market. For every Swarthmore or Keuka college there are 10 University of South Alabamas or SUNY New Paltzes. For every Ohio State there is an Akron, Toledo, Kent State, etc.. Of course state revenues always fluctuate with the economy but here we have a concurrent plunge in the equity markets, which has left some of my colleagues and I'm sure some of yours talking about delaying retirement.

As one of my colleagues said, in academia you can "retire without retiring." I.e. if you're a full professor teaching a 2 course load and under no pressure to produce research or earn good teaching evaluations, you can end up working a 15 hour week (or less) and pulling in your entire (large!) salary, the incentive to retire is less than in more, shall we say, backbreaking professions. Combine this with shrinking retirement accounts and I think we will see a lot of faculty plugging on to age 70 or more.

What does this suggest for those entering the job market? If you are on the market, take any tenure-track job you can get. If your research is successful over the next few years, you can always trade up later (easier before tenure). Consider staying in grad school an extra year or two, especially if you are in a field where you are getting a decent stipend. Often your productivity will be measured by how much you have produced in the years since your Ph.D, noone is going to go back and say "this guy was in grad school for 7 years, he should have more work out than this guy who graduated in 5". And try to do anything you can to get some skills that translate into jobs outside academia. Because no amount of advice can plug too many applicants into too few jobs without leaving some out in the cold.

Thoughts on Debate #2

2008-10-08T08:46:00.003-04:00

A few thoughts on last night's debate before reading everyone else's thoughts at realclearpolitics.com:

1. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

2. Tom Brokaw was atrocious as the moderator. First his choice of questions was terrible, they were all versions of typical questions, badly read by nervous people in the audience or read off the Internet via Brokaw's teleprompter. Nothing remotely original until the last question "What don't you know and how you are going to learn it" which, to me, is just groan-inducing. Further, Brokaw continually inserted himself into the debate despite agreeing not to. He made up many of his own questions. He seemed to invent a rule that the 1 minute followup time was for his question. Rather than actually enforcing the time limits he just whined about them. When the light turned red, he should politely cut the candidate off. Once or twice for each candidate would be all it would take, neither would want to be seen continually droning on over the moderator. Americans generally don't look kindly at candidates who break the rules, which brings me to:

2. Multiple times Obama wanted to break the rules, "Can I just have a followup there Tom?" At first Brokaw held firm, then when he started to waffle McCain rightly pointed out that he too would want a followup then, so Brokaw caved. Doesn't it just seem like Barack Obama is one of those people who think the rules don't apply to him?

3. I really really wish that McCain had opposed the final bailout bill and had come out swinging against it in this debate. That would have been much better I think for his victory chances and, IMHO, a reasonable position to take. Instead he doubles down with another $300 billion mortgage bailout plan? Combine this with Palin's "we were victimzed by the evil lenders" and I am starting to get fed up with McCain-Palin. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why is Saturday Night Live articulating the conservative position better than the Republican ticket? The government renegotiating mortgages, proposed by a Republican, am I in bizarro world?

4. Did Obama promise to invade Pakistan if he thinks OBL is there? Let's review the transcript:

Q: "Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?"

Obama: ... And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda.

Seems to me like he did. Despite being (rightly) chastisted by McCain for doing this before, he went ahead and did it again. Even if that is going to be his policy, (and it should be) he should not be announcing it in public and embarassing the Pakistanis.

5. Certainly last night's tedium is not going to change the momentum of the race. I sure hope McCain has an October surprise up his sleeve, maybe a video of Obama listening to his pastor bash America or of him palling around with Ayers. McCain is just a terrible terrible debater. He stubbornly refuses to engage and I am getting really sick of it. Why can't he look at Obama and say, as just one example:

"The stock market is off 30%, unemployment is climbing and we may be headed into a recession. Are you still going to go through with raising marginal tax rates and raising capital gains tax at this point?"

6. Obama actually said

"And what I've proposed, you'll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."

Why didn't McCain POUNCE on this. If for no other reason than to get Obama to repeat it so we can hold him to it if he is elected. He has proposed $1 TRILLION in new spending, but last night he promised a net spending cut and it went totally unremarked on by McCain. Is McCain even listening to Obama's responses?

7. I think Palin should publicly challenge Biden to a rematch.

What do you get if you cut taxes for someone who pays none? Welfare!

2008-10-07T21:53:00.002-04:00

I am getting so sick and tired of listening to Barack Obama promise that his tax cuts will deliver a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Let's ignore payroll taxes for the momemt, since Obama is not promising to cut those. FORTY ONE PERCENT of Americans pay ZERO federal income tax. Under the Obama plan these people would receive a CHECK in the mail from the federal government. They can't get a tax cut, they already pay zero taxes, and many of them already get the earned income tax credit. Obama's proposal is to raise taxes on the wealthy and mail checks to those who already pay nothing. Honesty requires this be called what it is, a welfare program not a tax cut.

Further, Obama is proposing raising social secuirty taxes on the wealthy, without increasing their benefits. This sounds nice but it is just a step toward turning social security into another welfare program, one can argue it already is. At least now everyone who earns more than 100,000 or so pays the same social security tax and gets the same benefits. Under the Obama plan the really wealthy pay much more, for no benefits. Again, welfare in disguise. If I were president I would immediately begin phasing out social security entirely, Obama's plan might actually speed this along since turning it into a welfare program will surely hurt its popularity.

Let's hope OJ goes away for a long time...

2008-10-05T16:08:00.002-04:00

I still remember 13 years ago gathering around the television in my dormitory lounge to watch the announcement of the OJ verdict. The few black students in the room where whooping and hollering and cheering like they had just won the lottery, while the rest of us looked on stunned. I was absolutely shocked and mortified at the reaction of my classmates, cheering that two murders would go unavenged. Stick it to the man I guess.

It was obvious at the time that he was guilty, it was obvious when he lost his civil trial. It was really obvious when he tried to confess in his book in exchange for some cash, money he never got thankfully.

The judge has discretion to put OJ away for life and I hope he uses it. He got away with murder already, there is no reason for any mercy in this case.

Why does the media always assume liberals are geniuses?

2008-10-04T10:01:00.003-04:00

This is a pet peeve of mine, I am so tired of this media narrative that liberals are somehow intellectual giants compared to the Neanderthal conservatives. In Ellen Goodman's most recent column she writes

On the other hand, Joe Biden had been given some advice that sounded like an inversion of the 1950s. Back then it was the smart woman who was told to play dumb. Now it was the smart man who was warned to keep his IQ under control. And to avoid being patronizing like the plague.

I'm sorry what evidence do we have that Joe Biden is smart? He is known as one of the worst gaffe machines in politics. He received C's at the University of Delaware, not exactly the Harvard of the mid-atlantic. Then he managed to graduate 76th out of 85 at Syracuse Law School, not exactly the Harvard of central New York, after flunking at least one class for plagiarism. He famously continued his plagiarism career in public life, costing him his first presidential campaign. He knows candidates have their tax returns scrutinzied, yet he donates only a couple hundred bucks a year to charity while earning upwards of a quarter million dollars. He spun a ridiculous fantasy in the debate about how we (with the French?!) kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, which I'm sure is news to the Lebanese. It seems the evidence suggests Biden is a mediocre intellect, yet Ms. Goodman feels confident to refer to him as a "smart man". Why?

We saw this theme in the last two presidential elections, where both Gore and Kerry were portrayed (and assumed) to be Bush's intellectual superior, when the evidence suggested otherwise. Recall how fervently Kerry worked to keep his transcipts secret, as he was eventually revealed to be a marginally worse student at Yale than Bush. Do you recall reading about how Gore flunked out of divinity school? I thought not.

Conservatives need to fight this narrative whenever we can. I am not arguing that 160IQ's are a requirement for the presidency, or even desirable for the presidency. But lets stop with the automatic assumption that libs are geniuses.

And please don't comment that McCain finished very low at the Naval Academy. We know this. We also know his IQ was tested at 133 by the same Navy, so we know he is a bright guy. Obama graduated with honors from Harvard Law, he is clearly a bright guy as well, although his Columbia transcripts are also mysteriously under wraps.

Debate thoughts

2008-10-03T08:51:00.006-04:00

1. I thought Sarah Palin definitely "won" the debate, for what it is worth. I was worried after seeing some clips of her Couric interview. Just by appearing confident, knowledgeable and not making any blunders, she wins by default. She really appeared to be enjoying herself, she was engaging, easy to relate to, and a good defender of McCain.

Everyone knew what we were getting out of Joe Biden, and that's what we got. The audience will probably be upwards of 70 million, and most were tuning in to see Sarah. Still there were no memorable lines or huge momentum changers. I think this debate stops some of the bleeding of the last 10 days for McCain and expect this race to be back to a 1-2 point margin next week.

2. I was really surprised to see Biden double down on his coal gaffe from last week. Here's what he said:

"China is burning three hundred years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up. Because it’s going to ruin your lungs and there’s nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them over there."

This couldn't be more clear, "no coal plants here in America. Build them....[in China]."

Do I really think Joe Biden meant this? Probably not, hopefully he just misspoke. So why, when asked about it during the debate, didn't he just say "I misspoke." Instead he doubles down, claiming he didn't actually say that, that he said something about transfer of technology to China. Say what? Since Biden won't admit he misspoke, let the McCain camp continue running its devastating radio ads with this quote in them.

Biden also kept trying to trick the American people on the meeting "without preconditions" comments Obama made several times, including most famously in a primary debate. Let's review the transcript from July 23, 2007.

Q: … Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration -- in Washington or anywhere else -- with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama: I would. And the reason is this...

Yet listening to Biden you would think the issue was having diplomatic relations, or having high level meetings, etc.. etc.. Obama was asked directly if he would sit down directly with the leaders with no preconditions and he said yes. And then he defended it. He wasn't asked if we should have backdoor contacts, or low level meetings, or high level meetings. He was asked if he, personally, would meet with these dictators.

3. It's hard for Biden to respond when Palin uses his own words against him. When Obama voted against the funding bill that Biden supported, Biden really did call it dangerous and naive. Biden really did say that Obama was not ready to be president. It's pretty hard to paper over these things just because Biden is offerred the #2 slot, he can't really have changed his mind.

4. Seriously bad Botox job on Biden. I've read numerous plastic surgeons weighing in on various blogs and they agree unanimously that he had the Botox and it was botched. Some think he had some extra work, maybe an eyebrow lift. Paging Dr. 90210! He really looked creepy with that huge smile and frozen face. I wonder if he had some tooth whitening as well. Any male politician who gets Botox and donates only a couple hundred bucks a year to charity is not such a smart politician.

UPDATE: The NY Post is reporting the story, find a top plastic surgeon willing to "bet his next paycheck" that Biden had Botox and an eyebrow lift.

Cheaters and high stakes poker.

2008-10-02T16:19:00.004-04:00

Generally when I grade exams I put a red X through any large blank space left on the paper. If an entire page is blank I put a single red slash from the lower left to the upper right of the page.

Today one of my students brought me his graded exam. On one problem there was such a slash and 0/10 score. Off to the side of the slash was some work. He said he had gone over the exam with a tutor who thought he deserved some credit for what he had written. First he said all of it had been written during the exam, but he quickly changed and said some of it the tutor had written as they were going over it. I asked him to circle the work that was actually on the exam, the work I had supposedly missed, and that I would reconsider the grade.

Well he stammered a little then pointed out some of the work. I said "OK I will regrade this, but remember the syllabus states that I may Xerox some or all of the exams before passing them back. I would not put this huge red slash in if the page wasn't entirely blank. If I get back to my office and find a Xerox of this exam with this page blank, you will not only fail the exam but fail the entire course. (I have no tolerance whatsoever for cheaters. Any cheating results in an "F" for the course and a mark on the transcript that the "F" was due to academic dishonesty. This is the severest punishment at the discretion of faculty here.)

Well he starts stammering some more, says maybe he isn't sure, could I just "check" for him. When I say no, he decides maybe he doesn't want me to regrade the problem after all!

Here's the thing. If I had actually Xeroxed his exam I would not have saved him from himself. I would have had him submit his regrade request in writing, busted him, and booted him from the class. But as it turns out I never got around to Xeroxing any of the exams this time!! A high stakes game of poker won with a bluff by the RWP.

Teacher's unions and academia

2008-10-02T08:49:00.003-04:00

When I was hired we were encouraged to join the faculty union, indeed they had the membership cards in our orientation packets right next to the form for signing up for health insurance. They told us we would have to pay the same dues, whether we joined or not, so we may as well join. Being the suspicious sort I kept my powder dry and I did not sign up at the time.

I later found out that, by not joining the union, I could get part of my dues back. I still must pay some, called an "agency fee," for the cost of collective bargaining. However a certain percentage, determined by auditors, of the union expenditure are on things like politics and political lobbying (including a certain percentage cost of the union newspaper to reflect the articles that are blatantly partisan) One day a thick envelope in the mail arrived full of financial reports, and including some very confusing instructions on how to "object" in a letter to the union president, if you wanted part of your dues refunded. Well I waded through the instructions and a couple weeks ago a check came for $126, an advance refund on part of my dues for the year.

The New York Post reports today that the United Federation of Teachers in NY is passing out thousands of Obama buttons to its members. Our union is associated financially with this union, and today I am fortunate that the $126 is in my pocket and not being spent on Obama-Biden buttons. I encourage all of you in "right to work" states to investigate whether you are inadvertently costing yourself money and financially supporting left-wing political causes by unnecessarily joining your faculty union. In Seidemann v. Bowen the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the union cannot require I renew this objection on an annual basis, although the letter made no mention of this. I will have to remain vigilant to get my money back each year, after all I don't want to pay for Hillary '12 buttons! Now if I could just get them to stop sending me all these left-wing newspapers aimed at high school teachers!

UPDATE: The Virginia Education Association actually wants its members to openly advocate for Obama in the high school classroom.

Mental health parity to bailout Wall Street!??!

2008-10-01T19:57:00.002-04:00

The bailout bill has officially become just another "bipartisan" bill, codename for bloated, full of wasteful spending and ridiculous new requirements. I'll just focus on one here.

Imagine my surprise to learn that the fiscal "crisis" apparently cannot be solved without including a law forcing "mental health parity." This requirement, recently added to the senate version of the bill, demands that insurance companies pay for coverage of mental health issues at the same level as "physical" issues. This is just another way to restrict individual choice and, by definition, can do nothing but raise the cost of health insurance.

Suppose I want to buy a health insurance policy that covers me for catastrophic health problems but I don't want to buy mental health insurance. I'm willing to assume the risk for mental health treatment myself. "No sorry" says Uncle Sam, you MUST buy the mental health coverage also, even if you can't afford it, even though you don't want it. This is absolutely ridiculous. It's no different than requiring someone purchase a life insurance policy with every automobile insurance policy. Why should I be forced to buy insurance that I don't want? Now everyone with health insurance not offering "parity" will see their rates go up. This makes me so angry I could scream.

The original bill failed in the House. There were good arguments for and against it, and large numbers of Republicans and Democrats voted both for an against. What an insult that the Senate, rather than take up the substantive issues, is repackaging essentially the same bill but loaded on with $100 billion in extra "goodies" hoping to buy a dozen votes or so to get the bill through. How can these people ever be restrained?

Thoughts on Debate #1

2008-09-27T22:30:00.003-04:00

A few thoughts...

1. Lehrer was out of line letting so much of the debate be a discussion of the economic "crisis." This debate was agreed on as a foreign policy debate. Yes this "crisis" does cross international lines, but it certainly does not belong in a foreign policy debate. One question was ok to start the debate, but it was quickly apparent that neither candidate wanted to say anything of substance about the situation or commit either way on the bailout package. By my clock it was 42 minutes into the 90 minute debate before the first real foreign policy question. The "domestic policy" debate should be altered so about half is on foreign policy, this is only fair.

2. The first 42 minutes Obama looked a little better than McCain but both candidates were weak. We get it that Obama took lots of earmarks and we all know McCain doesn't. I'm tired of hearing Obama promise a "tax cut" to "95 percent" of Americans. Only 60% of Americans even pay federal income tax, and Obama has not talked about cutting the payroll tax. Thus, for 40% of Americans, their "tax cut" is going to be a welfare check from the government, not a tax cut.

3. In the foreign policy section it was a man against a boy. McCain comes off as someone who has lived these issues and truly understands them. Obama comes of as someone who has been frantically studying a briefing book. The highlight for me was when McCain criticized Obama for threatening attacks on Pakistan. McCain said something like "you just can't say that." Obama didn't get it, he tried to defend why we should take such action. He completely missed the point, the issue is not whether our troops should cross into Pakistan, the issue is that Obama is so naive he doesn't understand why the President can't publicly acknowledge what is going on. It was pretty funny when Obama did his "I have a bracelet too" routine but he didn't know who it was from so he had to squint to actually read the name on the bracelet.

4. Obama is totally backtracking and trying to cover up his remarks from the Dem debate about meeting with foreign despots. He was specifically asked if HE would meet without preconditions with Castro, Ahmadinejad etc.. and he said yes. End of story.

5. Why was Obama smirking and looking off to his left so much during the debate? Who was he looking at?

6. My wife thought it was really inappropriate that Obama kept calling McCain John. It didn't bother me but in retrospect maybe it is a little odd. If they truly were friends it would be ok, but McCain despises Obama so the false friendliness is odd.

7. Another good point, but it wasn't really made well, was when McCain compared Obama's stubborness in refusing to acknowledge he was mistaken about the surge to Bush's stubborness. I think this is a fruitful comparison. Obama really looks ridiculous, he is unable to say "I was wrong, the surge was a spectacular success." Instead he keeps to his "It succeeded beyond my wildest dreams but I still would not have supported it in retrospect." Say what!?

8. I like the format, although it was hysterical at the beginning watching Lehrer beg them to mix it up. Noone knew how much interrupting, if any, would be appropriate. I think it was Obama who interrupted first, and after that there were sparse interruptions. Better than straight question and answer. Next time don't have the rigid 5 minutes of free for all, instead let the moderator use his judgement.

Hard working students...

2008-09-26T09:53:00.003-04:00

The RWP overheard a young lady talking very loudly in the student union this morning. She said "I'm a little worried about my sociology exam because, you know, I can't really study, I haven't studied a day in my life."

I was so tempted to say something to her but, frankly, I didn't even know where to begin!

President Right Wing Professor?

2008-09-25T09:21:00.003-04:00

A new report from the American Council on Education suggests:

An aging professoriate, a growing reliance on part-time and non-tenured faculty, and students who complete their PhDs and become faculty later in life are all factors that contribute to a scarcity of young permanent faculty who will have the time and opportunity to advance up the traditional career ladder to a college presidency,,,

One of the key findings is

Only 3 percent of all faculty are aged 34 or younger and hold the types of permanent positions that typically lead to advancement (tenured or tenure-line positions at four-year institutions and full-time positions at community colleges).

The RWP is not yet 34 years old and already tenured. I guess my 30-year rise up the traditional career ladder is ready to begin. Any thoughts on what my first step should be? Does anyone know any major universities with a right wing president?

Electoral college tie.

2008-09-23T15:31:00.004-04:00

I actually teach an honors seminar about mathematics as it relates to voting, elections, etc... One of the topics is how the seats in the electoral college are allocated among the various states. The Washington Times has a great story about the increasingly likely scenario of a 269-269 tie in the electoral college. There are several plausible combinations of states that would give such a result. This is fascinating for several reasons:

1. The computer simulations over at fivethirtyeight.com suggest that a tie result is most likely to happen with a McCain popular vote victory. Imagine the scenario where McCain wins the popular vote, the electoral college is tied, yet Obama takes the presidency via the House of Representatives. I imagine many would scream "stolen election". (Not yours truly though, that is the system and I think it is a fair and reasonable one).

2. Many people know the House of Representatives picks the president if the EC does not give a majority, but I don't think many people realize it picks it with a "one vote per state" rule.

3. Few people know that the winner of the election may depend on the size of the House of Representatives. In 2000 Bush won with a House size of 435 reps. Had there been 543 reps (and hence 646 in the EC) then Gore would win. But with 557 reps Bush would win, this switching goes on for some time. More more than 655 reps, Gore wins (basically because he won the popular vote.) These fascinating results are described in the College Mathematics Journal article "Apportionment and the 2000 Election" By Neubauer and Zeiltlin.

4. I love the possibility mentioned by the Times, that a 269-269 tie results in Obama chosen by the House as president but Palin chosen by the Senate as VP. (Lieberman voting for Palin plus Cheny breaks the tie.) Obama/Palin 08!! Commenters suggest that Hagel would vote for Biden, so imagine Hillary making the swing vote by voting Palin instead of Obama. That would be delicious!

5. Apparently it is not clear whether the Constitution requires the old congress or the new congress to decide the election. My reading suggests it is the old congress, but some US laws passed since suggest the new congress.

Moral: If there is a 269-269 tie then may God help us!

Can students memorize anything anymore?

2008-09-23T13:00:00.002-04:00

My calculus students are once again begging me to be allowed to bring notes into their midterm exams. In other classes (high school and college level) these can take the form of sheets of paper, 3x5 cards crammed with microscopic writing, etc... I don't want them to think of math as purely memorization, but most of these "formulas" are totally straightforward if one actually understands the material, i.e. they aren't memorizing things for memorization sake.

I think today's students rarely have to actually memorize anything anymore, and they have lost the skills to do it. Are there any history or organic chemistry professors out there that want to comment? I remember memorizing hundreds of reactions in OChem, of course an understanding of the mechanism of these reactions made it a lot easier to organize and learn them.

Maybe the best compromise is to just give them an open book exam with the problems adjusted in difficulty accordingly, really test their understanding of the material.

Obama rebukes Biden, and again, and again

2008-09-23T10:29:00.002-04:00

These two need to get their act straight. Obama is ripping McCain for "flip-flopping" by opposing the AIG bailout then supporting it the next day. However it turns out Biden also made the same flip-flop after being rebuked by Obama. These aren't 't really "flip-flops" so much as adjusting one's position after receiving lots more information in a very fluid environment.

Meanwhile Drudge is splashing the news that Biden agree that the horrible ad accusing McCain of not knowing how to send an email was unacceptable. It later came out the McCain is uable to type due to his war injuries, but he certainly knows how to use a computer. Biden said:

Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.
"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.
Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."
Late Monday, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton issued a statement from Biden. In it, Biden said he "was asked about an ad I'd never seen" and was "reacting merely to press reports."

Sorry Joe, it's obvious from watching the clips that he knew exactly which ad he was referring to and that he had seen it. Now Biden is forced by the Obama campaign to lie about his original remarks. The ad was reprehensible, Biden should have stuck by his guns.

Meanwhile the odds at Biden's being dumped are stubbornly staying around 6-7% at Intrade.

Government Bailout Madness?

2008-09-22T13:27:00.005-04:00

I haven't posted anything yet about the proposed government bailout because I've been confused, and perhaps still am. My gut instinct for small government was being tested by the screams of impending calamity from Paulson/Bernanke/Bush. I was a little surprised to see how some, like Michelle Malkin, immediately and vociferously opposed the bailout. I at least know what I don't know, that I don't fully understand how these various companies and markets are intertwined, and what really might happen were, say, AIG to fail. Here are a few thoughts.

1. I think Paulson/Bernanke need to immediately publish a position paper explaining why this bailout is necessary and what the consequences will be if it doesn't happen. It should be understandable to a financially literate reader. Perhaps something like the secret briefing they gave last weekend to Congressional leaders. Part of the reason for this meltdown is a complete lack of transparency/disclosure in the books of, for instance, Lehman Brothers. Jim Cramer said he couldn't even understand Lehman's books, that it was all a black box. Our government can do better in the transparency department.

If you are going to ask the taxpayers for $700 billion, you have an obligation to make your case publicly. "Trust me if you don't pay up it will be a catastrophe" is not enough, especially when Paulson has repeatedly over the last two years said the crisis was contained. Why does he have credibility to make such demands? This position paper should include some projections for what the actual cost will be. Are the "loans" expected to be repaid. Are the "assets" the government will buy expected to be sold? Is it possible the taxpayers might profit when all is said and done? Closed door briefing to congressional leaders is not remotely transparent.

Also there should be an explanation of why foreign governments aren't contributing and/or doing the same thing. European markets soared last Thur/Friday even more than our own did, clearly they consider this bailout to be a good thing for their companies, why aren't they contributing? I'd also like to see some explanation of who is to blame for this situation and an explanation of how it will be prevented in the future. Kevin Hasset at Bloomberg.com makes a persuasive case that all of this arose because of Fannie/Freddie and the consequences of declinging house values. He suggests this would not have happened had a regulatory bill in 2005, sponsored by McCain among others, not been shot down in committee by a party line vote of Democrats. Does Paulson agree? If not, what is going to change so this cycle doesn't repeat itself.

2. Assuming this will cost the taxpayers money, I am extremely angry. We rented for 7 years before my wife and I bought a house. We put 20% down and bought a house considerably less expensive than the bank had approved us for. That house has lost considerable value (despite not being in an inflated neighborhood) and most of our 20% equity is probably gone. I am not expecting the taxpayers to make me whole. For those who bought more house than they could afford, I don't need to hear Nancy Pelosi lecture me that my tax dollars should subsidize them so they can "stay in their house." Responsible citizens shouldn't be bailing out those less responsible who are paying for their recklessness. It is bad enough that their foreclosed houses are driving down the property values in my neighborhood.

3. Why are money market accounts being bailed out and backstopped in the Paulson proposal? I can always keep money insured in my checking account and earn 1% interest with my principal protected by the FDIC. If I prefer (and I do) I can move some of it to a money market account and (today anyhow) earn 2.7% interest. In doing this I know that I have taken on a slight amount of risk in exchange for the higher return. Or I can put it in a short-term bond fund and take on even more risk (though still not so bad) for even more return. So now, one time a money market fund "breaks the buck" and its investors only get 97 cents on the dollar, and we are supposed to bail them out too? I think not.

4. To what extent was this whole crisis caused by the Feds pushing homeownership as the utopia to which all Americans must aspire? In a relentless pursuit to drive up this number, and also to stop alleged discriminatory practices by lenders, the standards for mortgages were lowered to the point of absurdity. Can we all acknowledge that for many families, renting is the responsible choice? At one point during the madness, I was actually approved to buy a second house (without selling my first one) for total mortgage payments of more than half my income!

Teleprompter Madness

2008-09-19T08:58:00.003-04:00

First Obama with a teleprompter at a rodeo and now Joe Biden in this photo:

Are these guys unable to deliver a stump speech without a teleprompter? A major convention address or state of the union I can understand, but a stump speech in an informal setting? Maybe the teleprompter is part of the "Joe Biden gaffe-prevention" program.

Freedom of Speech and Office Doors

2008-09-18T15:57:00.003-04:00

Lots of people are confused about the right to free speech. Your right to free speech does not impose an obligation on me to listen to you. You have a right to speak but not to be heard. You can write a letter to the editor but your rights are not infringed when it is not printed.

It seems many many people have a difficult time understanding this. Several times at my previous institution there were antiwar "rallies" in the main quad, and the speakers were allowed to use megaphones so loud that I could easily hear through the thick concrete walls of my building. This was despite the fact that there were only 15 people in attendance and the speakers could easily be heard at a much lower volume. Forcing a captive audience to listen to you is not acceptable.

An example common on campus is protesters disrupting conservative speakers. This is not free speech, it is thuggery.

Protesters complained when they were sequestered across the street from the Democratic convention. This is a private organization holding a meeting, they are not under any obligation to listen to your protests and you have no right to enter the building to be heard. Code Pink protesters who disrupted McCain's speech at the convention should be jailed for trespass, not hailed as exercising their rights.

Certainly this applies to the classroom. Your students are a captive audience. It is not acceptable to force them to listen while you opine about things irrelevant to the course material. I think most agree with this. But in my opinion this includes the office door, so popular among academics as a billboard for their opinions. I consider my office an extension of my classroom. My students often must come here to meet with me. Anything on my door is in their face as they enter, or wait outside for me. I don't think it is acceptable to use the door as a place to express one's opinions, political views, etc...

Others clearly disagree. This post was inspired by a discussion on the blog of my left wing counterpart Tenured Radical,

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=36212542&postID=1969512740778409425

who apparently has a "GLBT for Obama" bumper sticker on her office door.

Race baiting excuses already underway

2008-09-17T13:02:00.007-04:00

With Obama's defeat looking more likely by the day, the media crescendo is building to blame it all on racist whites who refuse to vote for a (half) black man. Jack Cafferty at CNN writes:

Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race.

What arrogance. There can't be any possible legitimate reason to prefer McCain over Obama in Cafferty's world, thus it must be race. Americans can't possibly want a long-serving senator with a distinguished military career, including command experience, and numerous major legislative accomplishments (several of which I disagree with!) over a rookie senator with two memoirs and no legislative accomplishments. Of course not! It must be that Obama is black.

Jacob Weisberg writes in Newsweek that if Obama loses:

In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Of course Weisberg is the ultimate authority on the self-interest of the United States. My own governor has made the ridiculous assertion that mentioning Obama's being a former communty organizer is basically saying the "N-word," encoded in the secret Republican language, wink wink, nod nod:

"I think where there are overtones is when there are uses of language that are designed to inhibit other people's progress with a subtle reference to their race," Patterson said.

Why is it so hard for the left to admit that Obama is just a weak candidate, like Kerry before him but for different reasons. Ultimately this is the reason he will lose, this was the Dems election to win but they nominated a terrible candidate. Most Americans' will always vote for the party that best represents their beliefs. But for the sizeable minority that are willing to consider either party, who care as much about the candidate as the platform, there is little to like about Obama.

What Republican strategist would dare to dream that the Dems would nominate a freshman senator with the most liberal voting record in the Senate, no substantive legislative accomplishments and an opinion of himself so high that he already has written two memoirs. A man who got caught openly disparaging working class midwestern voters. A man who, on clinching the nomination, actually said (and obviously believes):

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

As a general election candidate Obama is weaker than several of those who ran in the primary, certainly including Hillary but also, I believe, Richardson, Biden and Chris Dodd. Geraldine Ferraro was correct that, if he were a white man, Obama would not be the nominee.

For those who still doubt, the debates will expose once and for all what a weak candidate he really is. Hopefully after Obama is embarrased in the debates we won't have to listen to left wing pundits lecture us on how racist we are.

I find it interesting that the Dems nominate a candidate in large part due to his race, then intend to blame his defeat on racism.

UPDATE: Looks like the editorial writers over at Investor's Business Daily are reading RWP

nAsto slTd our planet began to he

Campaign puts a leash on Obama?

2008-09-16T08:29:00.002-04:00

Looks like the Obama campaign doesn't want any more "lipstick on a pig" kerfuffles. It is well known that Obama is terrible without his teleprompter, he is full of ums and uhs and stutters. He makes off-the-cuff remarks like the lipstick on a pig comment or telling Hillary "you're likeable enough." He makes gaffe after gaffe saying things like the great state of "New Pennsylvania" or that he has visited "all 57 states." Now CNN is reporting that Obama is using his teleprompter even at "informal" campaign events, including one in a rodea ring yesterday. Yup he's definitely just connecting with the ordinary American now. I wonder about a president who can't even give a stump speech after two years practice without a teleprompter.

I'm wait eagerly to see the MSM ridiculing him on this, if they can peel away any of their reporters from pouring through Sarah Palin's receipts to try to determine how she spent so much less of the taxpayers' money than her predescessor.

New York in Play?

2008-09-15T13:28:00.002-04:00

The latest poll numbers from Siena college show Obama's lead in New York is only 5 points, down from 18 in June. This makes me wonder if perhaps my presidential vote will actually matter this year, is it possible that New York is in play? Another poll over the weekend showed Obama only up 3 in New Jersey.

Realistically of course the answer to my question is no. f New York ends up in play this means Obama has lost the election in a landslide, so my vote will still not matter. I see no scenario where the voters of New York will have any say in who the next president is.

Biden the tightwad?

2008-09-12T20:33:00.002-04:00

The release of Joe Biden's tax returns show he gives an average of $369/year to charity over the last decade. This speaks poorly of him in two respects:

It shows he is a total miser. The Bidens makes well over $150,000/year on average during this time, and more than $350,000 last year, and all he can manage is $1/day. Shocking.
It shows atrocious judgment. Ever since it was revealed that Al Gore's charitable giving was super low and Bill Clinton was embarrassed by deducting donations of used underwear, candidates know their tax returns, including charitable donations, will be scrutinized. Even a stingy miser like Biden should have made large donations out of self-interest. This is, after all, a man who sees a president every day when he looks in the mirror. How could he be so foolish and shortsighted.

Is there hope for Republicans in Congress?

2008-09-12T09:06:00.003-04:00

It is starting to look like McCain might have some coattails. The latest Gallup tracking poll shows Republicans trailing only 48-45% in the generic congressional poll, a sizeable surge since the conventions and even more since they trailed 55-40 earlier this year. Over at Intrade, Republican control of the house is still trading around 7-10%. Those are pretty nice odds, $0.07 bet will win you $1.00 in November if we take back the house. Even a continued Republican surge might push that contract up around $0.30 or so when the unbelievers can cash out. At this point though I am standing by my prediction below of continued losses in the House and carnage in the Senate, to go along with an easy McCain victory.

Lipstick on a pig

2008-09-11T15:40:00.003-04:00

I probably should not even post on this but since it has occupied the news for 24 hours+, just a few thoughts.

1. I don't believe for a second that McCain or Palin are actually offended, Obama is right about this. You'd have to be pretty thin skinned. Much more offensive is the SC Dem party chairman saying Palin only got the nomination because she didn't abort Trig.

2. I think it is clear Obama was referring to Palin, you have to listen to what he says AFTER the lipstick comment to see why this is. He says the lipstick on a pig stuff then his next line is "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."
It's pretty clear to me the pig is Palin, the old fish is McCain.

3. It isn't relevant the McCain used the same expression to describe Hillary's health care plan. Palin's most memorable line in her acceptance speech was the one about lipstick on a pit bull. Like it or not, that makes Obama's line a direct hit on Palin.

4. Obama was reallys stupid to use that line, his off-the-cuff remarks keep getting him into trouble.

9/11 seven years later

2008-09-11T15:24:00.002-04:00

On 9/11/2008 I think we should not only remember those who lost their lives on 9/11/2001, but also give well-deserved credit to the Bush administration together with our military and intelligence services for 7 years without another attack.

At a time when concern over terrorist attacks is at its lowest level since 9/11, it is useful to think back to the times immediately after the attack. First recall that Al Qaeda and other terrorists carried off major attacks against American interests regularly throughout the 90s, around every two years. There was Khobar towers, the first WTC attack, the African embassies, the USS Cole, etc.... After 9/11 Americans overwhelmingly feared another, even more horrible, attack was coming.

Whatever your gripes with the President on the war, wiretapping, interrogation, etc.., honesty requires acknowledging that his leadership and decisiveness, together with the heroics of our servicemen and intelligence workers, has kept us safe for 7 years now, longer than anyone even dreamed back in September 2001. It was Bush who decided that treating terror as a law-enforcement matter, hunting down and trying the killers after the fact, was no longer acceptable.

Had the terror attacks continued every year or two I suspect Americans would be a lot more interested in how Obama and McCain continue to fight the war on terror.

McCain the new favorite!

2008-09-11T10:45:00.003-04:00

Over at Intrade futures prediction market, McCain is now ahead of Obama, with the implied probability of his victory at 51%. Obviously this can change, but this certainly bodes well. Less than two months ago he was trading at 30%. Interestingly, Joe Biden is trading at 7% to be withdrawn as the VP nominee! Could his remark yesterday that Hillary would have been a better choice be a prelude to him withdrawing and being replaced by Hillary? Stay tuned...

Palin and earmarks

2008-09-10T16:31:00.002-04:00

I am getting really tired of hearing the argument that Sarah Palin is somehow a hypocrite for actively seeking federal government earmarks for her town and state as mayor and governor respectively. Indeed a Google search for "Palin, earmark, hypocrite" turns up 136,000 matches (soon to be 136,001!). Obama himself said on Sunday:

"When you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change,"

There's a real lack of understanding of responsibility here. It is the job of Congress and the President to control the federal purse strings and to reign in earmarks.

It is the job of a mayor or governor to run a lean, efficient government, and to protect the interests of her constituents. Palin would be derelict in her duty to her constituents if she didn't seek out the earmarks that a financially reckless Congress was making available.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose Congress passes $50 billion to distribute to cities and/or states to help plow their streets. Suppose Governor Palin thinks this is ridiculous, that the federal government should have no role to play in plowing streets. But she knows they have a lot of plowing to do in Alaska. Should she take a principled stand and not apply for the money, forcing her constituents to pay to plow their own streets AND to subsidize other states' plowing with their federal tax dollars? I say no way! The ridiculous $50 billion tab is the fault of Congress entirely. Since it is, however, available, she has an obligation to represent her constituents and try for some of this money.

However her senator is part of the federal government, and has a responsibility to represent all Americans, not just grad as much as he can for his state. This is why I respect Senator McCain's decision not to accept earmarks for Arizona. This is a subtle distinction but I think it's a valid one.

I face a similar dilemma myself. My mathematics research has been funded for some time by federal research grants. It is such pure mathematics that I find it between highly unlikely and impossible that it will ever have any practical use for anyone. I would have to go to great contortions make a case that my fellow taxpayers should be subsidizing my research.

Yet there is a mathematics budget for the National Science Foundation and my grant is expiring. Am I supposed to take a stand and not apply for another one, hurting my career and ending my summer salary, out of principle? Someone is going to get that money, it's already allocated. I'm not in charge of how much the NSF gets from Congress, and how much it chooses to allocate to pure mathematics research. I'm a small government conservative, but I feel no shame in applying for these grants.

Arrogance and condescension of Michelle Obama

2008-09-09T09:58:00.003-04:00

Newsbuster's is reporting that Michelle Obama, while speaking at a private home in a ritzy LA neighborhood, said the following:

Obama continued with talk about Biden when she said, “What you learn about Barack from his choice is that he’s not afraid of smart people.” The crowd softly chuckled.

This is so arrogant, clearly suggesting Biden is somehow Palin's intellectual superior, did I miss something or did the University of Delaware suddenly become prestigious compared to University of Idaho. Let's review the bidding here:

Biden got his undergrad degree at University of Delaware, where his grades are well known to have been mediocre, including and F in an ROTC course, required for college men in those days.

Biden admitted to plagiarising at Syracuse Law School, where he cut and pasted 5 entire pages from someone else's Law Review article and passed it in as his own. For this he flunked the class but somehow evaded expulsion. All of this was reported by the NY Times 20+ years. ago.

Clearly Obama excelled at Harvard, graduating with honors and as editor of the Law Review. One wonders what secrets lie in his Columbia transcript, which the campaign refuses to release.

Meanwhile Michelle admits she got into Princeton due to her race, indeed she was angry at guidance counselors who told her she didn't have the scores to get into top schools and calls herself a proud beneficiary of affirmative action. I'm sure she is a very intelligent woman, but if you read her senior thesis at Princeton, the writing is just atrocious, and it's written largely in the first person.

Someone needs to tell both Obama's to bite their tongues when speaking to wealthy California elites. Remember the goal for the Obama campaign is for average American's NOT to find out what the Obamas really think of them until after the election.

Biden's lazy abortion reasoning

2008-09-08T16:28:00.003-04:00

The associated press reports that Joe Biden thinks abortion is murder, but isn't willing to "impose" his view on others:

A Roman Catholic, Biden said he accepts his church's teachings that life begins at conception, but that the issue is personal for him. He said it wouldn't be right to impose his views on others who are just as religious as he is.
"I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press.""For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

Sorry Joe but this kind of reasoning would earn you an "F" in any freshman philosophy or medical ethics class, the same grade you earned in ROTC at the University of Delaware, but I digress. There are those who make well-argued cases that infanticide is ok, that the actual birth of the baby is not a morally relevant event. Why do you insist on imposing your judgment on these people, forbidding them to kill newborns, but you won't impose your judgment on those who want to kill viable 6 month old fetuses?

Abortion is a very complicated issue as a matter of ethics and of public policy, I expect more from a vice-presidential candidate then "I believe it is wrong but I don't feel I should act on that belief."

If Joe Biden truly believes that a newly conceived embryo is a human life of equal worth to and due the same protection as a newborn or as an adult, he has an obligation to try to impose this viewpoint on others by banning abortion. His position is the equivalent of "I think you're a murderer but since you disagree I must let you get away with it."

Obama endorses supply side economics?

2008-09-08T14:17:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama has acknowledged to ABC that raising taxes on the wealthy make hurt the economy, and he maybe have to delay some of his proposed huge tax increases if the economy is weak when he takes over. Welcome to the supply side!

Beginning of the end for Obama

2008-09-07T23:20:00.003-04:00

The pick of Sarah Palin could not have gone better. I was not surprised to see Palin draw the same 38 million for her speech that Obama did, especially after the media attacked her all week. I was completely shocked that McCain actually beat Obama's ratings with his routine speech the next day. McCain will never master the teleprompter address. Still the Palin pick has energized conservatives, this blogger included. And now McCain/Palin has jumped out to a TEN point lead among likely voters in the latest Gallup poll.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

After a few debates, when Obama looks like a neophyte next to McCain, and then Biden looks like a dirty old man next to Palin, the electoral college landslide I predicted below is going to start looking more and more likely. I can't imagine what Obama can do to turn around the momentum now.

Faculty echo chamber part II!

2008-09-05T13:07:00.002-04:00

Just talking with a colleague (not one of the three mentioned below) about kids and how my elder child sometimes threatens violence against the new baby. Then he says "yeah we have to socialize them, otherwise we'll have lots of little George Bushes running around." I just gave a groan and he left, I guess he didn't notice the Reagan Ranch calendar hanging on my wall.

I notice this kind of gratuitous Bush-bashing among my colleagues a lot, almost any conversation can be taken as an opportunity to make some snide remark, followed by lots of mutual backpatting. More of what Malkin calls "Bush Derangement Syndrome". I find it hard to understand, I never feel any urge to make snide Obama or Bill Clinton comments during unrelated conversations.

McCain VP prediction

2008-08-28T08:59:00.003-04:00

After successfully predicting Biden below, albeit only a day in advance, I'll take a go at putting myself into the mind of McCain (of whom by the way I am not the biggest fan!). Obama made an entirely "boring" pick, If McCain thinks this election is his to lose, he will go with Pawlenty, try to run the ball up the middle of the field and run out the clock. If he believes he is going to clean Obama's clock in the debates, this would be wise.

I think the surest way to guarantee victory is to pick a woman. Fortunately it does not an unqualified, out of the blue choice like Geraldine Ferraro 24 years ago. I predict he will pick Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Also notice the difference in the VP announcements of McCain and Obama. McCain came out and said "I've made my choice, I will announce it at 11 a.m. Friday. Totally reasonable and normal. Obama makes these almost narcissistic "You'd like to know wouldn't you?" comments. He leaves open a 3-day window when the announcement could come anytime. His text-message ploy implicitly suggests he expects everyone will be hovering over their cellphones waiting for the all-important text. Obama really enjoys being the center of attention.

faculty echo chamber!

2008-08-27T14:37:00.002-04:00

I'm sitting here trying to ignore my three colleagues loudly bloviating next door about how wonderful Obama is and how evil Republicans are. "Choosing Obama over McCain is a real no-brainer" is just one of the many lines they loudly agree to. They also recently agreed that at least one million Iraqis were killed by the US and bemoaned "oh what horrors have been perpetrated in our name." Two of the three have not published in years, so they apparently have lots of time on their hands for these self-congratulatory discussions. At least one student was hovering outside the door, listened for a couple minutes and left without drawing attention to himself.

Thank you to the rich!

2008-08-26T21:33:00.002-04:00

As I await Hillary's speech I wonder if I will hear about "tax cuts for the rich". Two points I'd like to make.:

1. The tax cuts for the rich cut my tax bill almost in half. I am a math prof, my wife is a stay at home mom. The Bush "tax cuts for the rich" save my family:

* $800 (child tax credit raised from $600-$1000)

* $600 (new 10% tax bracket)

* ~$600 (dividend and capital gains tax estimated based on about $3000/year div+cap gains)

My federal tax bill next year will be around $2400, it would be $4400 without the Bush tax cuts. Thus the tax cuts cut my taxes by almost half! I guess I must be rich...

2. Second I would like to thank the wealthy for subsidizing my family. For 2006 the federal budget was about $2.6 trillion, this is around $8700 per person in the US. Thus my family's share of the federal budget is around $34800. My family isn't even paying 7% of our due, we are being subsidized to the tune of $32,400 by the wealthy. So here I am saying "thank you!"

Obama's daughter- prompted?

2008-08-26T10:07:00.003-04:00

When Obama appeared at the end of Michelle's speech, he announced that he was in St. Louis when in fact he was in a home in Kansas City. A minute later his daughter conveniently asked "What city are you in, Daddy?" The second time he got it correct. Really cute if this is how it happened. I wonder if anyone has reviewed the tape to see if Michelle prompted the girl to ask her daddy that question. Now that would be seriously manipulative!

Health Care is not a right!

2008-08-25T21:39:00.002-04:00

I just watched Ted Kennedy's emotional return to the Dems convention and he brought up one of my pet peeves. Let me say it clearly:

Health care is NOT A RIGHT.

You do NOT have a right to health care. You don't even have a right to an aspirin.

For you to receive health care one or more of your fellow citizens has to study for years, then spend his time an energy providing you that health care. Your right cannot impose a positive obligation on your fellow citizens.

What Dems mean, and what I wish they would say, is "We believe the government should forcibly, via taxes, confiscate resources from the most productive members of society and use them to provide health care for those who do not produce enough value to compensate physicians for their time and expertise."

There are some good arguments for this, and it is probably a better use of resources than a lot of other things the government confiscates our money for. But to just repeat the idiotic mantra "we have a right to health care" shirks the debate.

So once more:

NOONE HAS A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE!!!

Obama VP announcement

2008-08-22T13:17:00.001-04:00

Obama is going to make his announcement on a Friday afternoon during the Olympics via text message? Does anyone get the feeling he isn't too excited about the choice. To me this suggests Biden Biden Biden!

Fall election prediction

2008-08-20T09:20:00.002-04:00

Back from a short hiatus for the birth of his son, the right wing professor is going to make his preseason election predictions.

*Carnage in the Senate for Republicans. Mary Landrieu loses but that is the end of teh good news, 59-41 Dems.

*More carnage in the House but not quite as bad, say another 12 seats to the Dems.

*A comfortable electoral college victory for McCain, winning Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. More on my reasons for these predictions later!

Does Hillary have a trick up her sleeve?

2008-08-14T13:21:00.003-04:00

An agreement has been reached for Hillary Clinton's name to be placed in nomination at the Democratic convention next week. Obama recently asked the credentials committee to restore full voting rights for the Florida and Michigan delegates. This means he is only 60 or so delegates ahead among "pledged delegates" and is depending on superdelegates to put him over the top. Let's suppose for a minute that the Clintons have some bombshell revelation up their sleeve which comes out before the convention. Nothing stops the superdelegates from changing their minds and nominating Hillary.

Yes this is somewhat outlandish, but over at futures market Intrade, as of this writing, Hillary is trading at an implied probability of 5.0% to win the nomination, (up 1.8% today alone) and Obama is trading at 94%. That means those putting their real money on the line make Hillary about 1 in 20 to get the nomination.

More creepy Chinese cheating

2008-08-13T10:02:00.002-04:00

The Chinese team beat the US team in the women's gymnastics all around last night, but apparently they are cheaters. There seems to be overwhelming evidence that three of their six gymnasts are too young to compete (one must at least turn 16 during 2008). This isn't idle speculation, all three of the gymnasts had their real ages published multiple times by the Chinese in previous years, but *poof*, the Chinese government issued them new passports and put them through the still unpublicized Chinese time machine and they were ready to compete. Read about it here. Unconfirmed reports are that one of the Chinese had just lost a baby tooth!

Further Bob Costas reported last night, completely without judgment, that the Chinese girls are taken from their families at age THREE, if they show talent for gymnastics, and sent to a full-time training camp. They can only see their families once per year. I wonder what becomes of the hundreds or thousands of girls who don't live up to their three-year old potential. I'd rather watch Shawn Johnson, who still attends her hometown high school.

Flawless Chinese image?

2008-08-12T09:24:00.004-04:00

This is just creepy. A member of the Chinese politburo attended a rehearsal for the opening ceremony and decided to kick out the girl who won a nationwide audition to sing the national anthem because she had buck teeth. Instead her beautiful voice was piped in while a suitable cute (and likely in the dark) girl lip synchs then goes on a nationwide publicity tour!

"The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feelings, and expression," the music director said.

Really just creepy.

John Edwards is still lying.

2008-08-11T08:40:00.001-04:00

I couldn't resist taping the Edwards Dateline interview, and after watching it is obvious guy is still lying. The love child is his, there is no other explanation. I imagine he is lying to his wife about the child and about when the affair ended. How do I know this:

1. When asked about the picture which clearly shows him holding Rielle's baby he says "What baby, I hold a lot of babies, I don't even know who the baby in the picture is."

2. Then when asked about a paternity test he is all gushing, of course I'll take one, I look forward to taking one. But he warns, it is a two way street. What do you know the next day the mother nixes the paternity test idea, talk about a setup.

This guy is a complete sleaze. I only wish he had won the nomination so the dems would be scrambling right now.

Kudos to George McGovern

2008-08-08T09:38:00.004-04:00

Yikes did I just write that? It's nice to see McGovern avoid the usual kneejerk Democrat support of unions and come out in the Wall Street Journal in opposition to the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," which would change the way unions are formed and recognized.

Currently there is a secret ballot of the workers which is overseen by the federal government. This ensures that workers are not unionized unless, at a single instance in time, a majority of them truly want to be.

This law would allow the "card-check" system where organizers just need half the workforce to sign up. Imagine the immense pressure, or worse, that could be put on workers who don't want to unionize when the organizers need only a few more cards checked.

FYI Obama was a sponsor of the bill and pledged to sign it into law. However it is polling so terribly that, not surprisingly, his senior advisors are laying the groundwork for another flip-flop. As of this writing though his website still lists Obama as supporting the bill.

McCain opposes the bill.

Tom Friedman's "contribution" to global warming debate.

2008-08-06T15:58:00.004-04:00

Can someone please explain the point of this Tom Friedman column in the N.Y. Times.

Mr. Friedman apparently traveled to Greenland to watch some pretty scenery of icebergs being formed and listen to some locals tell him that the weather is strange, and this is supposed to be a serious contribution to the global warming discussion?

He talks about how the ice is melting faster and faster, which may be so but how does this jive with the fact that global temperatures have not increased in the last 10 years?

He tells us that we will feel global warming in our pocketbooks in the "form of higher water bills... higher energy bills..and higher insurance and mortgage rates..." but doesn't mention the incredible costs associated with Kyoto style protocols or carbon cap and trade regulations.

Finally he pulls the old chestnut "Remember: climate change means “global weirding,” not just global warming." The all-flexible "climate change" is impossible to refute, climate change is always occurring, and any weather extreme can be blamed on it.

Any discussion of "global warming" should consider the following issues.

1. Is the global temperature really increasing?

2. If so, is human activity an important or even primary cause?

3. If the planet is warming, what are the plusses (Yes there are many!) and minuses. Is there something special about the temperature in 1990 that is ideal for mankind?

4. To what extent can reducing emissions effect this climate change, and at what costs?

5. A cost/benefit analysis of stopping/slowing global warming versus adapting to it.

Each of these questions is a subject of legitimate debate. In order for the global warming alarmists, who demand enormous reductions in emissions, to prevail they need to complete a parlay. They need to show that the planet is indeed warming, that we are causing it, and that we can stop it, and if we don't the consequences are so catastrophic as to make the costs worthwhile. This is quite a parlay.

Unfortunately, Friedman's column contributes nothing to this debate

An amnesty generation gap.

2008-08-05T08:48:00.003-04:00

I am currently reading, and thoroughly enjoying, Bob Novak's book The Prince of Darkness
and my thoughts are with him and his family.

He reports how Senator Thomas Eagleton, in 1972, remarked (off the record until his death 25 years later) about Democratic nominee George McGovern "The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot," later shortened to AAA: Amnesty, abortion and acid. Ironically Eagleton became McGovern's running mate for a short time until he was asked to leave the ticket when controversy erupted over his receiving shock therapy in the past.

I was a little puzzled since I didn't know amnesty for illegal aliens was a big issue in 1972 (before I was born). I was a little embarrassed to turn the page and find out "amnesty" referred to amnesty for draft dodgers!

Girls =boys at math?

2008-08-04T09:13:00.002-04:00

A new study in the Journal Science suggest boys and girls score at the same average in mathematics. Unfortunately many journalists seem to only read the first two paragraphs. Once they get to

"gender differences in math performance in the general population were trivial,"

they write breathless headlines like "Study: girls equal to boys in math skills."

Others take the opportunity to bash Larry Summers, who famously lost his job as president of Harvard after suggesting innate ability might have something to do the lack of women among faculty in mathematics and physical sciences.

Fortunately some in the media have superior mathematics skills to go with reading comprehension, and have noticed the "fine print", which actually supports Summers.

First the study finds "measurable differences existed for complex problem-solving beginning in the high school years (d = +0.29 favoring males)". More importantly, I believe, is that the study also found what has been seen many times before, namely that males have more variance in their abilities. The study found:

"The variance ratio (VR), the ratio of the male variance to the female variance, assesses these differences. Greater male variance is indicated by VR > 1.0. All VRs, by state and grade,
are >1.0."

This would suggest many more men at both the extremes of brilliance and the depths of idiocy. Apparently the tests the study used were so easy as to be worthless for testing this hypothesis.

The actual mathematical point here is that two populations with the same mean and different variances can lead to enormous differences in ratios at the extremes, several standard deviations away from the mean. There are many interesting properties of a set of data, the "mean" or average, is just one of them.

I could put up some pretty graphs to explain this, but for now just consider the following example scores, on a 0-100 range.

Women: 42,42,51,51,51,51,51,51,60,60

Men: 0,0,0,50,50,50,50,100,100,100

The 10 women have an average of 51%, the ten men average only 50%. One could write "Headline: Women score higher at math." However if there is a job that requires a 95% score, there are no women qualified. Obviously the average of a population doest not capture all the information.

Now a final anecdote. This discussion mostly applies to the very extremes, not the top 10% of a distribution, more like the top 0.01% where the gender differences would be expected to be enormous.

In my experience, in large calculus classes, the women obliterate the men every semester. I'll leave that for someone to explain elsewhere.

Time for offshore drilling?

2008-08-03T20:35:00.002-04:00

I'm getting a little tired of this debate over whether US offshore oil drilling will reduce gas prices. Common sense tells me it will, and also tells me it is impossible to predict how much because too many factors go into the price of gas.

Here's another argument for offshore drilling that not enough people are making. There is an estimated 85 billion barrels of oil off our coast. At $120/barrel, this is over $10 TRILLION dollars of wealth. I'd rather see that wealth stay here than sit underground while we send hundreds of billions in cash overseas every year. This is a transfer of wealth the likes of which the world has never seen.

If someone wants to make the argument that we should wait another 40 years and maybe oil will be $300/barrel and we could sell it then, I'd like to hear it. Let the Saudis sell there oil now "on the cheap" while we wait? But what if in 40 years are world economy is moving away from oil and we never harvest all that wealth?
I'd suggest, while we put American ingenuity into moving beyond oil, we also cash in on the liquid goldmine off our coast.

Obama talks tough, Chickens out

2008-08-02T21:46:00.004-04:00

I was glad to hear McCain suggest a series of joint Townhall appearances on different topics, since the usual Fall debates are often extremely frustrating to watch with all their structure and rigid rules and short soundbite replies.

At the time of the challenge, the tough guy Obama literally said "anywhere, anytime."

Today his campaign announced he has chickened out completely, and will do only the standard 3 debates.

The reason for this is pretty clear, Obama is terrible without his teleprompter. Gaffe after gaffe with his campaign running to "clarify" in the aftermath. They are afraid of him unstructured on the same stage as McCain.

Real change I can believe in!

Salaries: Public vs. Private

2008-08-01T09:18:00.003-04:00

The Empire Center, a NY think tank, has posted the salaries of all 260,000+ state employees on a website. While this was previously "public" information, in reality one had to go through some pretty annoying hoops to see the salary data.

At the K-12 level teachers salaries are determined completely by years on the job and terminal degree, so this will be no major news.

However at the public universities this should much be more interesting, I expect faculty productivity to take a serious decline in the next couple weeks as salary voyeurs check in on what all their colleagues are making.

Many factors conspire to make salaries often poorly correlate with productivity. When "future associate professor emeritus" with 30 years on the job finds out he's making less than ""new assistant professor hire" or conversely if "research superstar" finds out he's making a lot less than the guy next door who hasn't done any research in 20 years, things may get tense in faculty lounges around the state.

Remedial Education

2008-07-31T16:25:00.002-04:00

Inside Higher Education covers a new study on the costs of providing remedial education. The study suggest remedial classes make it more likely the student will return for a second year of college but "finds no evidence that remedial education increases the completion of college-level credits or of degree completion."

This certainly jives with my experience regarding remedial math classes, although I am surprised to see the "cost" as being so high to the state.

At one institution I taught at we would have 100+ students in a remedial course. The instructor would be part-time, paid less than $4000 for the entire course. Meanwhile the students paid regular tuition (around $900 each) and did not even get college credit toward graduation. This was a serious cash cow for the university ($90,000 in tuition and less than $4000 to the instructor). Meanwhile our own internal data found these students with less than a 1/10 chance of ever actually earning a degree.

We are definitely doing these students a disservice charging them tuition to teach material they should have learned for free in high school, knowing full well their chances of earning a degree are slim at best.

Tenure for Professor Obama?

2008-07-31T10:40:00.005-04:00

During his years teaching at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School, as a lecturer and senior lecturer, Barack Obama's job description would not have included producing any scholarship. Not surprisingly he produced none. The New York Times reports that:

"Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any. He was too busy, but also, Mr. Epstein believes, he was unwilling to put his name to anything that could haunt him politically..."

Imagine my surprise to read on and find that Obama was offered a TENURED position at the Law School! Surely this could not be correct! The reporter must be confusing tenure and tenure-track. Even a tenure-track hire would be shocking for someone with no scholarship.

Followup discussion at the Times' political blog confirms the offer did include tenure. The Times reports that U.C. Law was embarrassed at the time by its dearth of black faculty, but to tenure someone with no scholarly record must be a record for affirmative action!

Most hysterical are the comments from Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar, who exults in Obama's brilliance at.... composing final exams! The Times posts final examinations from Obama's Constitutional Law Class. Amar compares them to a sonnet, says they "dazzled" him, and then proclaims "When I read Jodi Kantor’s piece, I was very interested to hear that the University of Chicago Law School was willing to offer Obama tenure. In these materials I see why." Amar goes on to compare Obama favorably to Jefferson and Lincoln! Clearly he is in love.

Pamela Karlan, law professor at Stanford, finds the exams "conventional" and says they would be indistinguishable from those written by most constitutional law professors.
The poor students who took the exam can only earn course credit on their transcript. But Obama, a.k.a. "The One," can earn tenure just for coming up with the questions!

My tenure review would have been a lot easier if it was based solely on my final examinations. Silly me thinking that I actually needed to publish original scholarship!

New York Tax and Spend

2008-07-31T09:03:00.003-04:00

Once again New York is facing a budget "crisis" and the N.Y. Times is leading the charge for a tax hike on the rich while warning against any cuts to education or health care. Can it be long before our recently promoted governor discovers some "fees" that need raising?

One wonders what the state's budget situation would be if spending had not increased at an annual rate of 5.8% a year for the last ten years. During the same time population has barely increased. And the state's own budget documents trumpet this 5.8% increase as being frugal!

It's time for lawmakers to realize that declining revenues and little to no population growth calls for budgets that are actually smaller than the year before. New York's per capita state spending
remains near the top of all states. High taxes and exploding spending are suffocating the state.

Welcome

2008-07-30T12:48:00.004-04:00

Welcome blog readers!

I am a conservative mathematics professor in the sea of liberalism that is academia today! I believe in very small government, individual liberty and personal responsibility.

For now I will remain nameless. I hope you enjoy this blog.