What’s a common complaint that I’ve heard for all my adult life? That teachers aren’t paid enough. Why is that?

You can break down the issue as a simple case of supply and demand. There are a limited amount of positions and a large supply or labor, both at the K-12 and college level.

Or you can approach the issue of performance. How do you judge whether a teacher is successful or not? Invariably the response is that children’s behavior comes from many factors in society, including parents, friends, mass media, and the like. So limited accountability is built into the system.

Besides, if children can’t read or measure up to standardized tests, are teachers fined? Do they lose the money they’ve already been paid? No. So there’s no penalty for failure. Under those conditions, there’s little or no risk in being a teacher. That’s why they supply of available teachers is always high. When you get to the college level, where tenure makes it almost impossible to fire a professor, the supply is even higher and the competition is fierce. And why not? Once you get tenure you’re all set. Who can say that in the business world?

But those who complain about teacher’s pay do not consider job security, low risk, and benefit packages as factors in the equation. All they care about is the base salary. And the fact that “our children” are at stake.

Which brings up another issue. Whenever people without children bring up issues with the educational system, people with children sniff that “you don’t have children, so you don’t know anything”. Well, one thing I do know is that my taxes are paying for your children. As long as I’m taxed without consent, I’ll have my say about how my tax money is spent. If you don’t want my input, pay for your own children.

 

Last night I watched reruns of the game show “family feud”. 2 of them were recent shows from 2008, and 1 was an old Richard Dawson hosted show from the 1980s. I was struck by the cultural differences between the shows.

For one thing, there was a technological difference. The 1980’s set had huge, table mounted microphones for the contestants, a clumsy rotating game board, and primitive looking graphics. By comparison, the new show set was flashy and modern.

There was also a time difference. Richard Dawson took a lot of time to talk to each family, asking them their profession, where they lived, etc. By contrast, the new host, John O’Hurley, asked only a couple of questions and jumped immediately into the game. Don’t get me wrong – O’Hurley is very suave and debonair and makes jokes with the people. But the pace seemed slower under Dawson, and he seemed genuinely interested in the people. The new show is more pro forma and by the numbers.

Another time difference is in the fast money game at the end of the show. 2 people are drawn from the winning family and asked the same set of survey questions. In the old show, the first person got 15 seconds to answer the questions while the second person got 20 seconds. In the new show, the answer times have been lengthened to 20 seconds and 25 seconds. I wonder why? Are the questions tougher? Or are people not as smart nowadays?

The biggest difference was in the contestants themselves. Sure, the clothes fashions and hairstyles are different, that’s to be expected. But in the old show, most contestants were middle aged. In the new show, you see most families with only 1 or 2 middle aged people, with everyone else in their 20s. And I can’t help but think that this mirrors Hollywood’s obsession with youth. Movie stars now seem teenaged and rail thin in comparison to the stars of movies 30-40 years ago. And those middle aged people that appear on television now are much more suave and gentrified than their counterparts from decades ago. Everything seems more upscale.

Maybe that’s a sign of progress. And it’s not necessarily a bad thing. However, it seems clear to me that the contestants of 20 years ago would never make it to television today. They’re too old and not good looking enough. And that raises an issue. Are only the beautiful people allowed on TV or in the movies? Deal or no deal is a good example of that trend.

Reality shows seem to present the anti-Hollywood extreme – weird behavior, staged screaming matches and power struggles, people voted off the island, etc. Which leaves games shows as the last television refuge of the normal people. But only if you’re in your 20s and nicely cleaned up.

 

By Andrew Vander Dussen

Progressives are those who wish to advance society. Who think they are better than the rest of us. In fact, we’re in their way. If we’d only go along with their latest great idea (global warming, the green revolution, gay marriage, etc) the world would be a better place. But occasionally, progressives get bitten by their own words. I wrote an earlier column about Charlton Heston, his fight against the censors, and his subsequent fight against offensive music lyrics almost 30 years later. And that got me thinking, are there other examples in history of people who wished for “progress” and got more than they wanted?

I came across an unlikely example today. President Herbert Hoover. As we all know, Hoover is seen as one of the worst Presidents in US history, with the Great Depression hung around his neck like a big millstone. What you don’t know is the back story of who Hoover really was.

Hoover started out as a mining engineer, quickly developing a reputation as a “can do” person who overcame obstacles to get the job done. This led him to participate in food relief efforts, first for Belgium in 1914, then for other countries. His work got him noticed by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who appointed him to lead the American Food Administration in 1917. His successful work in government led prominent Democrats to talk about Hoover as a Democratic candidate for President in 1920.

Did any of you know that? Did you know that Woodrow Wilson valued Hoover highly and was one of the Democrats pushing Hoover’s name forward? That his progressive attitude and behavior made him an attractive figure to the party that would drag his name through the mud over a decade later?

Of course not. Because Hoover was politically astute enough to realize the nation was tired of the Democrats after 8 years of Woodrow Wilson, he rebuffed the Democrats queries and supported Republicans instead. His support gained him a position as Secretary of Commerce in the Harding and Coolidge administrations. Was this the real source of Franklin Roosevelt’s hatred of Hoover, because Hoover betrayed the other Woodrow Wilson progressives and went Republican?

Serving under Republican presidents did not change Hoover’s views, however. He was still a progressive, and used his position to coordinate the economic affairs of the government. While Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon was cutting taxes, Commerce Secretary Hoover was expanding the role of government. He continued pushing his progressive views as President, tinkering with the role of government until the Great Depression overtook him.

No matter what Hoover tried, he could not address the stock market crash, the banking crisis, the worldwide tariff wars, or crushing unemployment of the Great Depression. Forced out of office, Hoover complained that many of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies were extensions of his own. Remembering Hoover’s betrayal of the Wilsonian progressives, Roosevelt piled on the attacks, blaming Hoover every chance he got, no doubt with a great deal of personal satisfaction along the way.

Notice that even after a crushing defeat, Hoover was still a progressive believer in big government programs. Since his “me too” arguments failed, his only way to rebuild his reputation to either Republicans or Conservatives was to become a staunch anti-communist, which he did later in life. No matter what he did, Hoover lived to regret his progressivism, which was used by an even bigger progressive (Roosevelt) to demonize him for decades.

Hoover was a regular figure at Republican conventions until 1964, when ill health prevented him from attending. No doubt many Republicans felt sympathetic to him. I don’t. He lived by the progressive sword and died (politically) by the same sword.

 

Tiger Woods is adding another chapter to his sterling career. And he’s doing it on one leg. He hasn’t won the US open yet, but he’s showing unbelievable grit. The closest historical comparison is Ben Hogan, who came back from a life threatening car wreck to play stellar golf, but only by soaking his battered legs every night after playing and squinting at putts through one good eye.

It’s becoming clear that Woods is better than Nicklaus. No, he hasn’t passed Jack’s majors record yet, but Tiger’s will to compete and win is unmatched. If he can win hobbling around at the US open, mark him up for 10 more majors, evenly dispersed among the Masters, British Open, and PGA tournaments, with one or two more US opens thrown in for good measure.

Having said that, you need to understand that just because Tiger is better than Jack, Tiger’s competitors are not automatically better than Jack’s. In fact, after watching the current group of scrubs wander aimlessly around the course, this bunch pales in comparison to the Palmers/Watsons/Trevinos/Players that challenged Nicklaus.

Witness Adam Scott, the number three player in the world, with a TPC under his belt, paired up with Woods and Mickelson the first couple of days. Scott clearly wilted under the pressure, missing easy putts, and nervously trying to ignore the huge galleries following Tiger and Phil.

Or take Mickelson, endlessly fiddling with his game, changing putters and borrowing Tiger’s old swing coach in futile efforts to close the gap with Woods. This week’s brilliant idea was to leave his driver home. By day three, even the blockhead had to realize that giving up 50 yards a hole to Woods was not a great idea. After finally breaking out the driver, Mickelson remained in contention until a disastrous “tin cup” episode on the thirteenth hole. Phil kept aggressively going for the pin when everyone in the gallery knew it was time to fly the ball past the hole, get it on the green safely, and take his medicine. But no, Mickelson kept watching the ball roll back to his feet an astonishing 4 times until he gave up and threw in the towel, not only on this tournament, but on any hope of winning another major.

The whole driver episode showed that the only reason Phil competes with Woods at all is the edge in technology. Sure, every player can match Tiger’s driving distance by using the advanced technology that wasn’t available to Jack’s challengers. As Phil showed, once stripped of their technological edge, Tiger’s opponents are helpless. Even when the field doesn’t sabotage itself like Phil did, Tiger’s driving accuracy lands him in the fairway while his competitors usually end up in the rough. And even when Tiger joins them, his recovery shots are better. When they finally get to the green, Tiger’s putting is unmatched. Ever wonder why Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, and Phil keep changing putters while Tiger leaves his rock solid putting game alone? Because all Tiger’s competitors need the technological edge to stay close.

Start comparing challengers to yesterday. Is Mickelson close to Palmer? Is Singh close to Gary Player? Is Adam Scott close to Tom Watson? Is Geoff Oglivy close to Lee Trevino? Is Ernie Els close to any of them? No. Yes, they have technology. Yes, they have copied Tiger’s workout and fitness regimen. But they’d do better to copy Palmer’s shot making.  Or Watson’s competitive drive. Or Ben Hogan’s course management.

 It turns out another party has taken credit for the advent of gay marriage in California. Tila Tequila, the MTV show host who pretends to be bisexual, stated that she felt her show made a difference in changing people’s attitudes towards gay marriage by showing that everybody is “into it” and that it’s “cool”. Whether her claim of credit is true or not, her example is the lib strategy in a nutshell. Push your alternative lifestyle of choice into every media venue you can, and present a vision to the public of “normality”. And it’s not just a lib strategy. Advertisers use it to sell products. After all, you don’t want to be the only one without a trendy new Iphone, do you? Or the clumsy person using cash to slow everyone in line down instead of using the obviously more efficient debit/check card?

Another example is the old tv show “Dallas”. Audiences in Eastern Europe lapped up the show because they fell in love with the lifestyle of the rich and famous that was displayed to them. It didn’t matter to them that the show was fake, the vision that JR and Pam and all the others put in their mind, the fancy cars and cocktail parties, did more to push capitalism into the ex communist block than any of Reagan’s speeches.

 

Disappointment in Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan’s new book is out, and this time his variation on the “death of the west” theme is Winston Churchill and WWII. Supposedly Churchill was a war loving cowboy who forced the issue with Hitler and sparked an unnecessary and needless war.

I have a few questions for Mr. Buchanan.

1)      Did Churchill force Poland and Hungary to demand territory from Czechoslovakia and assist Hitler in its dismemberment?

a.       No. Despite the romanticized history of Poland, the interwar Polish government fought a war with the Soviets, demanded territory from the Czechs, and played off the French, Soviets, and Germans against each other in a venal game of manipulation. That Poland ultimately lost that game does not absolve them of their territorial greed or their refusal to cooperate in international agreements to reign in the Germans. If you want to pass around blame for WWII, include the Poles too.

2)      Did Churchill prompt the Soviets to provide food, raw materials, and weapons testing to the Germans throughout the 1920s?

a.       No. The Soviets did that all by themselves. During the 1920s, Germany was isolated and Soviet assistance was invaluable to their efforts to rebuild their military. The Soviets tried to portray themselves as an ally with the West against the Germans in 1936, but a decade of assistance to the Germans totally undermines that campaign. The Soviets deserve their fair share of blame for WWII.

3)      Did Churchill propose a British alliance with Japan in the 1930’s which would isolate the United States?

a.       No. Neville Chamberlain did. Chamberlain was so anti-US that he proposed an alliance with the Japanese to counter the United States. Does Buchanan think the war with Japan was unnecessary as well?

I could go on, but I think the point is made that it is totally unrealistic to blame one man for the outbreak of WWII, or to pretend that the entire war was unnecessary. But I don’t think that is Buchanan’s purpose. To me, his book is an attempt to link Churchill to George W. Bush. 2 war hungry cowboys who sparked unnecessary wars. Since the outbreak of WWII and the Iraq war are totally different, with a completely different cast of characters, this is nothing more than shameless demagoguery. Buchanan knows that popular opinion is against the Iraq war and wants to gravy train on that sentiment with false historical analysis, making a few quick bucks along the way.

But it’s even worse. Linking Bush and Churchill plays into the liberal hatred of white males, who supposedly sparked the American Revolution for their own interests, and whose contributions to the world are routinely broken down and disparaged in today’s universities. Notice that we no longer have Lincoln’s birthday or Washington’s Birthday as holidays, but we do have a Martin Luther King holiday? So Buchanan pretends to stop the death of the west, and then climbs on the bandwagon to help the libs bash historical white male figures when it is convenient for his own purposes. Unbelievable.

 Coincidence or cause and effect? The day Hillary Clinton concedes the Democratic nomination, the Dow drops almost 400 points. Do the market gurus know something we don’t?

Historically, there’s not a big difference in market performance between Republican and Democratic Presidencies. You have examples of good performance with both parties(Reagan, Clinton, Bush) and bad performance with both parties(FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter).

Then again, Obama has not been shy about his plans to raise taxes and increase spending. That’s never been good for the market, regardless of who is president. Then there’s the uncertainty factor. With Obama all over the map on foreign policy(ready to withdraw troops one moment, then pandering to the Jewish vote the next) the market makers don’t know what to expect. That spells trouble for investors seeking stability. Love them or hate them, both Clinton and Bush let everyone know where they were coming from, (peace dividend, tax cuts, etc). No one really knows what Obama will do, or for that matter, what McCain will do, now that McCain is on the global warming bandwagon too. Will McCain extend the Bush tax cuts? More than enough reason to A) pull your money out and put it into cash or B) play the market down instead of up.

 

The people in New York, San Francisco, and Seattle, by their own admission, are not US citizens. They are citizens of the world, purveyors of a wider vision than the primitive United States. Let the world protect them, then. When the Islamofascists come, we'll just defend the red states - blue states can fend for themselves.

 

So Obama is the winner. Count me among those who are surprised. Why? Recall that Hillary, from the moment John Kerry lost in 2004, seemed to be the presumptive Democratic nominee. She had the money, the party connections, the U.S. Senate seat to give her credibility – and she still lost.

Which makes you think. Maybe the 1990’s wasn’t the paradise that liberals would have you believe. Wasn’t it the time of balanced budgets and no evil wars and rising stock markets where everyone was getting rich? That’s what they would have you believe. And if that’s the case, shouldn’t Hillary be the automatic Democratic nominee?

The thing is, Hillary didn’t lose the general election. Republicans, despite the chicanery of Rush Limbaugh, had no effect on the Democratic primaries. And even if they did, Rush’s supposed strategy was to have Republicans vote for Hillary in stealth mode. So Clintonites have to face the fact that Hillary was rejected by her own party, even with Republican aid on her side.

Guess Republicans and conservatives aren’t the only ones who had problems with the 1990’s era glory days of the Democratic party.