Debating Myself

In his book The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America, Richard J. Ellis writes:

“…no political position is strengthened by suppressing or slighting inconvenient facts or covering up weakness. Protected from criticism, any argument becomes lazy and prone to excess.”

Aside from being a fascinating look at how liberal, or egalitarian, movements are prone to descending into egalitarianism in regards to their own structure, Ellis’ words are important to keep in mind when thinking about the 2008 Democratic Primary.

While a slew of voices on the left are crying out for Hillary to concede to Obama so that the party can unite and to protect Obama’s ‘good name’, these voices are missing the point: after the Democrats pick a nominee the Republican attack machine will go into full swing.

The only way either of the Democratic candidates is going to be able to take on the Republican nominee in the general election is if they both push themselves to be better, refine their message, and “battle-test “themselves.

It is the same reason I am much more critical of political stances, policies, and politicians that I am sympathetic of–just because I support something doesn’t mean I don’t want to challenge its assumptions and facts to make sure they are sound and stable. The only way I will support something is if it stands up to my own challenges.

It doesn’t make you a traitor to your ideology to be critical, it makes you a positive force for improvement.

Here is a great video about how much our lives would be different if real life mirrored Facebook/MySpace. It is also a good crash course for anyone wondering what the dangers of such sites could possibly be.

In 1.5 hours Grand Theft Auto IV will be officially on sale in the United States. Grand Theft Auto IV, in case you have not heard any buzz about it, is an adult-themed video game being realized on the next generation consoles (Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3) in which players play a gangster and commit increasingly violent and illegal acts in order to progress through the game.

The game, like its predecessors, has sparked much controversy. Many are calling for an outright ban, saying that the game is too damaging to children if it gets into their hands, and that it may promote violence and illegal behavior among them.

GTA IV is rated M for Mature, which means children under the age of 17 cannot buy the game without the presence of an adult–a rating standard that has been much more strongly enforced over the past few years. Essentially it is the video game “R” rating.

With that perspective, let’s point out that GTA IV is estimated to bring in between 200 and 400 million dollars in sales on its opening weekend alone.

If the game breaks $337 million in its opening weekend it will outsell any Hollywood film opening gross in history–despite having a much smaller target audience (essentially those aged 17 and older).

It goes without saying that GTA IV has become a showdown in the battle over video game regulation.

But should there even be a showdown? Parents and those opposed to violent video games need to learn to handle video games exactly the same way they handle violent movies (in fact the debate around video games mirrors much of the debate around violent films in the 70s and 80s)…

Parent your children. Talk to your children. Stop asking the government to be your child. The regulations are in place to prevent children from purchasing the game without parental consent, now it is up to parents to take that further step and ensure that their children don’t play the game without their consent, and if they do play it the parents engage their children in a healthy dialog about the game and its content.

Parents should use the game as an opportunity to talk about sex, violence and drugs with their kids. It could be a huge positive if parents use it as way to relate to their children and use the game to demonstrate to their children the differences between the virtual and the real world (as the proverbial doll parents used to use to talk to their children about anatomy, puberty and sex).

Historically, government regulation has been a lousy substitute for parental involvement. Those worried about their kids getting their hands on these games need to stop expending energy pushing their beliefs on the rest of the country (in an ultimately fruitless effort because it will always be unconstitutional to regulate such media based on its content–hopefully) and they need to focus their efforts on one of the most difficult tasks any of us could ever undertake–being a parent.

Be a parent, not an activist. Your kids will appreciate it and society will be better off if we are honest and direct with our children instead of relying on the government to dictate what they can and cannot do.

Vindication through coursework is a rare part of the college experience, but this past week has really been a rewarding one for me. Having recently completed my senior thesis in political science–a study of the effects of No Child Left Behind on school governance and rural schools–I was more than pleasantly surprised to see that the Reading First Initiative, the focus of the case studies in my research, was in the news. Both the Washington Post and the Economist carried stories on the program that can be found here and here respectively.

My thesis is largely critical of the way in which the Reading First program is administrated. Federal grant money is distributed to states, who then subgrant the money out to local school districts. For rural school districts the grant process by itself proves problematic enough, but further complicating matters are the stipulations that the aid comes with, often conditioning the types of reading instruction to occur in the classroom. Decentralization and localization have long been hallmarks of the American education system, and No Child Left Behind purported to continue those traditions, but clearly the Reading First program is an exception–the Washington Post gets it right:

A 2006 report from the Education Department’s inspector general, John P. Higgins Jr., said some program officials steered states to certain tests and textbooks.

Mix in a little classic Bush cronyism just for good measure:

Congressional testimony last year also revealed that some of those people benefited financially…

This was bad enough, but the pattern of unfair benefits was distributed unequally along ideological lines as well–essentially deciding a long standing debate about how reading should be taught:

Critics say that Reading First officials have promoted intensive phonics instruction, in which children focus on learning to sound out words, and that schools have been discouraged from using the whole language approach, which emphasizes teaching reading through literature.

In the case study I used for my thesis, a rural Pennsylvania school district was forced to abandon a highly successful whole language approach due to lack of funding, apply several times for a Reading First grant, and only after a change in party (from elephant to donkey) was a grant for a new type of reading program approved. Rural schools thrive on the whole language model and can be highly successful, because, by their very nature, these schools afford their students considerable individual attention from teachers. Under the Reading First program whole language instruction funding is now highly inconsistent and politicized. The Reading First program unfairly squashes this and tramples on the ability of local school districts to resist federal and state mandates about instructional programs and be classroom innovators.

That said, Reading First has for the most part been a success for non-rural schools, and the phonics method of reading instruction is an acceptable and worthwhile practice. Unlike many aspects of NCLB, Reading First seems to be getting results (again WP):

The Center on Education Policy, based in the District, reported in October that officials in 37 states said the curriculum and assessments helped boost achievement.

So I guess it doesn’t make sense to me why Democrats would cut the funding of this program by more than 60 percent. But that is just what it did. The Washington Post searched for the best answer they could:

“We all agree that the goal of the Reading First program — to help all children learn to read — is incredibly important,” said Rachel Racusen, a spokeswoman for Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)… “We must have every assurance that Reading First funding is being used as intended — to benefit our nation’s schoolchildren, not to line the pockets of Bush’s cronies.”

Wait what? It is benefiting our nation’s schoolchildren as is–even if it was conceived in an improper way. Children are learning to read from this program. It doesn’t get any clearer! (I’m a critic, and even I can’t disagree that it works.) File this under further evidence that representatives from really big states are generally up to no good and/or certifiably crazy. But, more importantly, Mr. Miller has completely missed the point.

1. The program is currently under administrative review for the transgressions involving yet another case of Bush cronyism. Those involved will be punished, reports will be issued, etc.
2. In the meantime, the program borne out of cronyism appears to be one of the few bright spots in this administration–it is actually helping impoverished American children learn to read.
3. Cutting funding to the program will not kill the benefit to textbook manufacturers or those who sell reading curricula–schools know these programs work and will now secure outside funds to continue these government programs. Unfortunately, it is only better off schools who have the resources to do this, while poor, rural or underfunded schools who need these programs most will actually just cut back reading instruction.
4. The Democrats have proposed no alternative or amendments to the Reading First program to allow reading instruction to continue, while rolling back Bush cronyism.

So instead of taking a stand against President Bush in the Iraq War, around which a public consensus now exists, Democrats have opted to take a much bolder position… punishing children for alleged Bush cronyism. Those Democratic Senators and Representatives are much braver than me; I would have meekly pushed an alternative policy through fixing the improprieties of the program and making it more flexible, while the program continued to quietly improve reading scores across America . Instead the Democrats hope to convince American children learning to read that they need to sacrifice their extra reading education in the name of slapping a few textbook manufacturers on the wrist for allegedly earning an extra 5% in profits. Oh, and the opportunity to stick a finger in President Bush’s eye.

This is just a sickening example of partisan politics at its absolute worst; in this case on the part of a Democratic Congress seeking to exact retribution from a Republican executive at any price. Is a policy that has widely benefited millions of poor and disadvantaged American children really the policy the Democrats want to choose to punish President Bush on? Shouldn’t they take their rage out on him in a more benign and sensible policy area–choosing randomly of course–like the Iraq War, the nuclear deal with India, etc ad infininum?

The Washington Post piece ends on a sober note that readers should be left with:

“Reading First has made so much of a difference in the lives of so many people,” said James Herman, the program’s director in Tennessee. “We’re going to punish the children. I don’t understand that at all.”

I don’t either Mr. Herman.

Clinton, campaigning hard for Pennsylvania, visited Scranton, PA today. Apparently her father was raised there and she is quite familiar with the city that fans of NBC’s hit comedy The Office know as home to their favorite branch of the Dunder-Mifflin paper company.

The question is–who would Michael vote for?

Microsoft was recently slapped with a record fine for failing to comply with a 2004 ruling in an anti-trust case. PaidContent.org has a good summary of the European Commission’s decision, which found that Microsoft still was charging too much for licensing of its server data to enable competitors’ products to be compatible. (Another sticking point was the bundling of the IE with the Windows OS.)

The Economist’s Free Exchange blog gives a good description of the rocky history between Microsoft and the EU:

In 2004, the European Commission used its awesome trade regulation powers to fine the software firm €497m, followed by a further €280m in 2006. Now, the commission has fined Microsoft €899m ($1.4b, £681m) for failure to comply with an earlier 2004 ruling, centred on its bundling of Explorer internet software with its Windows operating system.

Clearly Microsoft is a successful and financially stable company (stable enough to attempt to acquire Yahoo for $44.6 billion) but as the Economist points out, this fine is larger than Sweden’s net contribution to the EU budget in 2006. Microsoft has continually faced much stiffer resistance to its business practices in Europe than in the United States—and certainly this latest setback does not bode well for Microsoft’s acquisition of Yahoo! either.

Certainly bloggers over at the Guardian feel that Microsoft got what was coming to it—there is a great discussion in the comments section of this blog debating the evils of Microsoft. I’m not sure I agree. Microsoft’s market dominance perhaps stifles the development of operating systems, but no one seems to complain that if I were to purchase a MacBook (until recently) I only had one choice of operating system on that platform as well. Microsoft has, in fact, been facing stiff competition from cost-free open-source competitors in the form of various incarnations of Linux. It seems to me that the punishment does not fit the crime—and certainly bundling XP with IE seems a rather minor affair in an era when browsers are obtainable in a matter of seconds.

After puzzling this for some time, I began to think, what if Microsoft struck back at the EU? A blogger at 22Hundred.net had this to say:

To Microsoft I say this…..pull out of Europe! Not completely obviously but give the EU exactly what they want. Remove IE, Windows Media and all other additional software from XP now, after all it’s only going to be supported for a few more months anyway. Then let the people who have just bought their shiny new OS try to use the damn thing without the bundled applications and ensure that the OEM’s do not bundle software to make up for it. It’s time to make the EU suffer.

My girlfriend and I were having a similar discussion, but she wasn’t as concessionary. Imagine if Microsoft pulled out completely. European consumers would be furious at the European Commission, because love it or hate it the Microsoft monopoly means that all of their computers can talk to each other. Most consumers are familiar with Windows and switching to Linux or Mac would be difficult, costly, and inefficient. Server farms running on Windows Exchange and other software would not be able to upgrade to Vista. Even the lack of Office support and service alone could bring the massive bureaucracies of the EU and its member-states to a halt.

Of course public opinion would prevent Microsoft from doing anything like that. But, if any corporation is tough enough to take on an overzealous regulatory regime like that of the EU, Microsoft is. I’m not saying it would (or should)… but it is an interesting thought experiment.

Perhaps a safer solution comes from the Economist:

Perhaps Bill Gates should cut his losses and buy a small EU nation state (Malta is nice at this time of year), keep paying the same money, but this time ask for voting rights at EU summits.

He could rename it something catchy too—like Zune Island.

One of the most disappointing parts of college for me has been the lack of an intelligent, diverse, and spirited political discourse. I used to think this was a symptom of undergraduates in general, or American political apathy, but I think the problem runs much deeper. Diana C. Mutz, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, recently published a book, titled Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative v. Participatory Democracy, on the habits of Americans in discussing politics. I have not yet read this book, only an excellent review by Benjamin Page in Political Science Quarterly (Fall 2007 issue). Page lists some of the key findings:

Given an opportunity to name up to four political discussion partners, only about one-quarter of Americans come up with even a single person who disagrees with them about presidential candidates (p. 40).

Neighborhoods and voluntary associations, favored foci of some deliberation theorists, actually engender few political discussions of any sort and are particularly barren of disagreements; workplaces produce more (p. 28).

Individuals with high levels of income, education, and knowledge, the big participators in American politics, rarely talk with opponents; low-income people and minorities do so more often (pp. 30, 31)

In a way this lack of a political discourse is what this blog is all about. This blog is a way for me to seek out and present opposing viewpoints in a way that is less personal and gives people less cause to be defensive. I am constantly seeking out new political viewpoints and ideas, and the internet is a great way to put these viewpoints together and discuss them. I am a firm believer in the marketplace of ideas and the only way that marketplace can function is if information flows freely and undistorted among people—something I have not found. The internet is the only forum that comes close—particularly the blogosphere. (more…)

Just as I was thinking about expanding this blog to cover international political news…

According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it “not at all important” to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it “very important.”

This from a very telling Washington Post Op-Ed written by Susan Jacoby, who has just come out with a new book titled “The Age of American Unreason”. Now Jacoby gets a little anti-technology for me, and I haven’t read the book so I can’t speak to the validity of her study (for example, I wonder if there are other surveys carried out on older, supposedly wiser Americans that have different results), but the statistic above still surprised me. It isn’t that Americans don’t know these things—that is old news to me—but that nearly a majority of young Americans express a belief that they don’t have to know that shocks me.

I ‘m a big fan of the power of information on the internet, and remain skeptical about Jacoby’s damnation of new digital media. I think the internet has revolutionized the ability for citizens to be more informed than ever. But, it seems, a significant proportion of those citizens don’t believe that is necessary.

Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. This blog will be expanding its coverage to international politics as well. Get your maps (Google Maps that is) ready.