Riots in France

The media have been all over this one, but what is disappointing is the lack of critical thinking on the part of citizens. Note that I did not call this surprising.

A blog I came upon randomly (I would provide a link but do not wish to increase traffic to that tripe) contained a comment on the "Muslim wilding" in France. After a brief email exchange with the blogger, I found myself mentioned in an update that includes the claim that 97% of the rioters are Muslims. Wow! And here I was wondering just what percentage of the rioters were Islamic, when all I needed to do was take a census. Never mind that no one in France has reported any concrete figures; that would be using fact.

Let us continue. The blogger noted that two churches had been burned, which may well be true enough. He went on to claim, however, that no synagogues or mosques had suffered. Oops. It turns out that at least one mosque was fire-bombed on 11 November. Then again, including information such as that would be using fact.

Never mind that the riots began in an area plagued by greater than 30% unemployment and that unemployment, not Muslim population, has proven a better indicator of which areas would get engulfed in the riots. It's much easier to blame it on religion. Might some be out in the streets because of religious fervor? Sure. Does this blogger—does anyone, for that matter—yet have the facts to make that determination? No.

My central problem with the blogger was the presumption of causation. I doubt that someone teaching seventh grade needs, as part of his job description, any skill in avoiding non sequiturs, but I had hoped that perhaps such a person might have learned it along the way.

C'est la vie!

Celebrate!

Eight for eight is not bad, I say. Well-intentioned and ill-conceived too often go hand in hand with statewide propositions, and this season was no exception in California. Let's take a look:

Prop 73: Is there a problem when minor girls are having abortions without notifying parents? Yep. The problem is worst when they don't feel as if they can notify their parents without some real risk (no, being grounded doesn't count). Is a state-mandated notification system (which can be circumvented by the girl if she works with her doctor to fill out paperwork and then sits down with a judge who is willing to grant an exception) the way to solve the problem? Um, no.

Prop 74: Is tenure a bad system, inherently? Nope. Are there problems with how it is abused to protect poor teachers in a relatively small number of cases? Yep. Is making tenure a five-year process instead of a two-year process good? Not really. Supporters are right when they say that tenure is not why people get into teaching. They should also note, however, that pay, which is nothing stellar is also not a great motivator, and that given what educators get paid, stability is often all that remains as a reason to stay in the profession. Add to that the lack of any appeals process for tenured teachers fired for two consecutive bad reviews, and there is a horrible risk that personality conflicts with the boss—something that rarely affects quality of instruction—could lead to the dismissal of even qualified teachers. This one was not designed with reality in mind.

Prop 75: Unions, apparently, have too much political power. Unions that include public employees, however, were the only ones targeted here. This would have made two sets of rules for unions (those with and those without public employees) regarding when unions could use money for political purposes such as lobbying. That's just unfair. A friend suggested that it would have had no chance if it had covered every union, which is probably true; however, that does not begin to excuse the imbalance in its design. Give me a system under which all union members must specify whether or not they wish to have their dues used for union fees (neither the proposed opt-in system nor the existing opt-out system) before the union application will be processed. Further, make that initial position stand until overtly changed (not an annual re-affirmation), and you might have something I could get behind. Everyone would have to decide. Now, that's the way to build participation.

Prop 76: The so-called "Live Within Our Means Act" was really the "Give The Governor Total Budget Discretion Act." While it had a good definition of fiscal emergency, provided a "rainy day fund," and forced the legislature to create a new budget (in any quarter a fiscal emergency was discovered), it also gave the governor complete control of the budget. See, even if the legislature passed a new budget, the governor had the power to veto it and any other until time ran out. Then the governor could make whatever changes he or she desired, with no legislative approval process. No. No, no no. Bad prop! No pass for you.

Prop 77: Redistricting is handled in almost every state by legislatures. This is nothing new, and it was designed to give elected officials who had won popular support the ability to secure future elections. True, gerrymandering has made some obscene districts, and there is a need to enforce more reasonably rules, but handing the process over to three judges picked from a pool of twelve was not the way to do. Sure, voters had to approve the new districts, but how many are going to understand enough to say no? I wouldn't, and I am pretty good about tracking such matters. I would need municipal and population density overlays for a state map just to begin making a decision, and even then I would be woefully underprepared.

Props 78 & 79: Because the Medicare discount drug cards are such a great idea. We had one that was a great way for drug companies to promote certain drugs while getting full price for others. We had another that had no chance of passing unless it could secure two waivers from federal agencies not eager to cede power to states. Both had a great goal. Neither had a decent plan.

Prop 80: Energy re-regulation is something I can get behind. Prop 80 was not. Basically, it was an attempt to put the Public Utility Commission (PUC) back in charge of regulating power rates, but it would have done it badly. The result might have been good, but it had the potential of becoming more costly than the pre-deregulated regulated times in California. Deregulation allowed companies like Enron to hold the state hostage a couple years ago, and we need some methods for preventing that sort of thing in the future. Trusting businesses is not working right now. Sadly, locking consumers into bad deals with utility companies, possibly with the risk of serious service interruptions because of turf wars (too many things were not well explained), is worse. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, they say. Well, it's broke. This was just the wrong way to try fixin' it.

Still, despite the cost of $50M for the statewide election, we seem to have survived unscathed. Let's hear it for the year of (gubernatorial) reform. Maybe the new Arnold will be worth something as a political, possibly (for once since his first year) populist, leader.

Hypocrisy

For a couple years now, business organizations and industry lobbyists have been waging war on Southern California. OK, by itself, that could mean almost anything about any industry, but I am talking about the film industry. Arizona has been billing itself as the solution to the film industry's woes, offering lower production costs and a significant variety of locations. What's been happpening west of the state line? The Governator, among others, has been trying to find methods for keeping the film industry right where it is already.

Enter a 40% approval rating, a slate of unpopular ballot initiative, four of which were put there at the governor's behest and paid for with California taxpayer dollars, and suddenly Arizona's exceedingly popular Sentaor John McCain is riding the bus (literally) with Arnold in a last-ditch effort to get something, anything, passed next Tuesday. As things stand, Proposition 74 looks like the only one with any hope. Mind you, "any hope" here refers to fewer than 50% of voters opposed, though it still lacks 50% support.

Let's now look at this from the outside: An increasingly unpopular governor is failing to defend Southern California's film industry from Arizona's raiders while he faces a humiliating, possibly critically debilitating defeat at the polls in two days. Arizona's senior senator, who has higher approval than disapproval numbers, gets called in to back the man trying to stop his state's efforts to steal the film industry from Hollywood back lots. Maybe it's just Republican comraderie, but I shudder to think of the backroom deals that may have been made in order to secure McCain's cooperation. Then again, I don't really care where films are shot.

If Only Life Imitated Art

In the pilot episode of The West Wing, the fate of White House Deputy Chief of Staff is in question because he called a conservative, religious bigot on the carpet.

In reality today, we have a Deputy White House Chief of Staff at the center of an investigation that inevitably leads to treason and that's. . . okay?

Harry Reid for President!

Much needed backbone and LEADERSHIP displayed by Democratic Senator Harry Reid yesterday on the floor of the Senate. Imagine - putting the citizens and national security AHEAD of politics. Forgot that was possible under the Bush regime, didn't you?