David Brooks asserts:
We're so full of it. We pretend to be a middle-class, democratic nation, but in reality we love our blue bloods. We love our Roosevelts, Rockefellers, Kennedys, Bushes, Deans and Gores. We love the prep school manners, the aristocratic calm, the Skull and Bones mystery, the dappled lawns stretching before the New England summer homes. How else can you explain the Bush vs. Kerry matchup that confronts us this year?
I know this is an op-ed, but who is this loving 'we' of whom Brooks speaks, and does their love survive the descriptions of Kerry's wealth that follows? How else to explain? I was shocked in 1999/2000 when Bush emerged as the Republican forerunner; I think of him as more capable now than I did then, but I really don't remember seeing him revealing much that would qualify him when he was on the campaign trail. So that's one person explained as somewhat inexplicable. As for the other half, Kerry might well have benefited from an odd and much discussed asumption that people voted for him because they thought he was electable. Why did the voters think that Bush and Kerry were electable? Maybe it goes to the blue blood, but I'm not yet willing to concede that.
There aren't too many normal people waking up in normal suburban split-levels assuming they should rule the world. But God bless the upper class. They've lost their legitimacy, but they haven't lost their self-confidence.
I had thought that affording "suburban split-levels" implied you were a member of the upper class, albeit not the Heinz/Kerry/Bush class. But anyway... wasn't part of Clinton's charm his utter belief "oh, just trust me, I can take care of it" attitude? I see him as someone who would have thought to himself, "Bosnia, Middle East negotiations, of course people will listen to me, I'm much more legitimate than all of your Bubba-mocking op-eds make me out to me." If you see world politics as a debate match between countries' leaders, with the match win going to the leader with the largest and loudest cheering section,* then Clinton, Mr. Man-of-the-People, is the one you want representing you, not Kerry or Bush, the Messrs. Silver-Spoon.** If two people have the same feeling of entitlement to power to which Brooks refers, then isn't Clinton's "my childhood wasn't great but I created this for myself" for impressive and empowering than Bush's "I have the same first and last name as the former president"?
* "If you see world politics as a debate match between countries' leaders, with the match win going to the leader with the largest and loudest cheering section": Perhaps you, the reader, finds this premise false. In that case, the entire statement is technically true by some fun bit of formal logic. "If my mother is purple, she is my aunt" is a true statement so long as my mother is, in fact, not purple. If this is all getting too bizarre, though, the validity of what I'm saying may come down to "you" equaling "me." I don't, however, feel like switching my words into the first person.
** Is that the proper plural? I remember a William Safire "On Language" column in which he explains that Burger King officially forms the plural of "Whopper Junior" incorrectly, but I can't remember Burger King's usage, or even the last time I ordered a Whopper Junior in the singular, much less the plural.
Two men read a NAMBLA publication and abducted a ten-year old boy. They murdered him, molested his corpse, and hid his body. They were caught and sent to prison for life. The parents are suing NAMBLA for $200 million in a civil case, arguing that NAMBLA has aided and abetted felonious conduct. The Massachussets ACLU is defending NAMBLA. . . . NAMBLA’s decision to publish this document is pretty much indefensible. But, I asked the group, could they still support the decision of the ACLU to defend NAMBLA?
Apparently even Radley Balko thinks not. I don't think I can mount a terribly persuasive argument here, but I still disagree. I'm surprised by the number of people who get so worked up over mere words, and I'm surprised by the number of people who are happy to accord full free speech to Nazis, white-supremacists who advocate genocide, etc., but blanch when it gets to really really evil, like NAMBLA.
To be clear-- murder, rape, are terrible terrible crimes, and people who commit them should be terribly, terribly punished. But I think there are a lot of reasons we should be more cautious about restricting the flow of true information, even when it's harmful, even when it's illegal, even when we disagree with it to the cores of our beings.
There's of course the old slippery slope argument, which I don't really think does much work here. But there are also other reasons to think that the NAMBLA manual isn't such a terrible crime against society that even the ACLU should shrink from it.
There are plenty of non-criminal uses for even the most terrible how-to guides. The most obvious is self-defense. If I were interested in guarding my child from the predations of evil people, what I would most want was a description of the best tactic for kidnapping children, so I would know what to contend against. There's also the less righteous but equally important value of entertainment. Reading, theorizing, debating how to commit heinous crimes is fun (witness crime novels), and if we're banning this stuff on purely utilitarian grounds, then that fun deserves a place in the calculus.
Finally, I'll admit that my own belief that such crime-facilitating speech simply shouldn't be criminalized is based on some fundamental values. I simply don't think that communicating true words to willing speakers about information which one has not promised to keep secret should be a crime. Ever. Call it arrogance, but I think our society is sufficiently advanced that we can manage without doing so. That we can thrive without doing so.
Oh, and I've gotten off track. Barlow's original complaint wasn't even about the NAMBLA pamphlet, but about the ACLU's decision to defend NAMBLA in court. I think the limited resources question complicates things dramatically, so I'll take on Mr. Balko's claim that even in a world of unlimited resources, the ACLU shouldn't take the case. I beg to differ.
I think the ACLU is more political than it should be these days. Still, it has a history of pushing the envelope, and of being non-judgmental about the folks that it defends. That history is important (and the ACLU should work harder on that) because we don't always know whether today's moral judgments will stand the test of time. Harris Mirkin famously wrote an article suggesting that pedophilia is to today what homosexuality was to several centuries ago. I disagree, but I don't think it's the ACLU's job to take a stand on that. The ACLU (if it had unlimited funds) can say, we're going to take free speech cases, no matter what you say and if it can, it should. There are brilliant law professors who can busy themselves with trying to dry intelligible lines, but there's nothing wrong with having some absolutists in the fight as well.
Now, I don't generally engage in as much Lithwick-bashing as certain folks around here, but sometimes I wonder:
In the four-minute round of student applause he was given for such candor, each of the law students present could have read and outlined one case in preparation for finals. That means several hundred innocent outlines died last Saturday, so that Breyer could be acknowledged as a candid, personable, breathing human being.
Professor Solum has just posted The Aretaic Turn in Constitutional Theory. Here's a bit from the opening:
I begin with a speculative hypothesis: the institution of judicial review has incrementally but inexorably led to the politicization of the Supreme Court, and this politicization has led the political branches to exclude consideration of virtue from the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. Instead, political actors tend to select Justices on the basis of the strength of their commitment to particular positions on particular issues and the fervor of their ideological passions. This has produced a court most notable for its vices. Indeed, I shall make the provocative claim that with few exceptions, vice and not virtue has prevailed on the Court since the New Deal. The Justices, of the right and of the left, are most notable for what they lack, the virtue of justice.This is a tragedy, and it has implications far beyond the cases the court decides. The Supreme Court’s elevation of results over reasoning and politics over principle has inevitably infected practical jurisprudence in courts high and low, state and federal, liberal and conservative. As a working empirical hypothesis, I suggest that the result poses a significant threat to the rule of law. Because of the Supreme Court’s prominent role in our public political culture, its vices shape popular understanding of the role of law. Judges can make law indeterminate,4 and when they do, the ability of the law to do its jobs—to create ex ante predictability, to establish stable expectations, and to provide neutral dispute resolution—is undermined. If the Justices lack the virtue of justice, then we should not be surprised if it is little valued by other courts, the
political branches, and the culture at large.
[A rare relatively personal post:] Admitted/prospective students are wandering campus today, looking confused and overwhelmed and so young. And to think, almost exactly four years ago (the last weekend of February 2000), I was one of them.
Anyway, for history's sake, here are the first reflections I emailed home from the Reg (spelling and capitalization have been corrected and overhauled):
I attended an Introduction to Criticism this morning. . . the professor was fun, but talked like he had marbles in his mouth, which made following him a little confusing, especially when he started discussing books I hadn't read using words I don't understand(what is ontology, anyway?). But that was neat.
Now I'm in the Joseph Regenstein Library, calmly typing away on one of the computer terminals . . .
Things I picked up killing time in the Harper Memorial Library this morning--
A quote from Eugene Debs during his trial for violating the espionage act: "While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
By the way: did you know that Eugene Debs was the leader of the American Railway Union when they performed one of the first effective multi-industry strikes?-- the Pullman ar manufacturers had gone on strike, so Debs had his union refuse to work any trains which had Pullman cars on them . . . until Grover Cleveland moblized the army and jailed him for six months . . .
A quote from The HarperCollins Dictionary of American Government by Jay Shafritz:
"In 1980, a Libertarian party presidential candidate was on the ballot in all 50 states, and in 1984, in 38 states. Thus far, the Libertarian party had had little impact on American Politics."
-- Humph! I say, humph! and bah humbug too.
Questions and quotes from the crit professor:
"If you expect something positive and exhibit no joy whatsoever are you truly expecting it? If you expect something negative and exhibit no apprehension whatsoever, once more i ask, are you truly expecting it?"
"The privilege of the first person does not confer sole authority on the absolute truth of all matters interior."
And the professor loves Shakespeare-- he gave us illustrations using both Lear and Othello today . . . The Lear one was fun, about Lear and his daughters--
essentially, he argues, the reason Cordelia is in trouble is she doesn't agree to play by the rules.
Everybody else wants to lie-- to others and to themselves to be happier, and her refusal to play along results in her getting, as my professor said, "in deep shit."
He also said, "the true question of philosophy is this: What makes my feelings for him, feelings for HIM?. . . what makes it stick? I feel for him, but do i feel for him well? How do I fire it out of my head and across the space-- where thoughts and emotions exist-- and attach it to his heart?"
That was the first half-- then the second . . .
The question at hand is this-- is it possible that there are 2 languages completely untranslatable?
He rephrased this as this question:
"If a lion could speak, could we understand him? . . . heck, make that lion a one-eyed fish . . ."
I like this place . . . although the dining hall is absolutely awful.
Jacob Levy (famed Volokh Conspirator) will be speaking on Language Rights, Literacy, and the Modern State (pdf) and the discussant will be Michael Green (another Chicago Blogger). He will be speaking on Tuesday March 9:00 at 4:00 P.M., in Pick 105.
Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times has an article today on the friendship between Blackmun and Warren Burger that dissolved while both were on the court. Interesting from the article:
In one landmark case [I.N.S. v. Chadha], Justice Blackmun's files disclose, the chief justice [Burger] had an extraordinary lapse: he not only did not vote, but failed to assign an opinion at all, necessitating a previously unexplained reargument the next term.
Also, SCOTUSblog has the full text of the Nina Totenberg scripts for the reports she will file on NPR about the Blackmun papers.
Excerpts I found most compelling:
On vote flipping:
...Justices often change their minds. Even as they are writing an opinion one way, they are sometimes persuaded they are wrong. The most important vote flip, revealed for the first time in the Blackmun papers, occurred in 1992 when Blackmun's notes record that Justice Anthony Kennedy was a fifth vote to all but overrule the High Court's Roe versus Wade abortion decision. The Blackmun files show that Chief Justice William Rehnquist circulated a draft majority opinion that would have left Roe a meaningless shell. But by then Justice Kennedy had changed his mind...The Blackmun files indicate that every year there are vote flips like this [11 in the last 3 years of Blackmun's tenure]... Former Blackmun clerk Bill McDaniel:
Bill McDaniel: These are not nine all wise people who retire to a secret room with the answer that no one else can figure out. They are nine human beings who are trying to wrestle with the problem the way the rest of us do.
On the justices being real people:
[Blackmun was] worried about justice William Brennan, whose wife was ill, and writes a note: You have been very quiet today. Is everything alright? Brennan replies: "I'm just bored. The previous argument was atrocious." Then there is this note from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "Harry, I think your hearing aid is emitting a high pitched noise. Can it be adjusted?" ...On October 10th, 1973, at the height of the pennant race and with Vice President Spiro Agnew in legal trouble, this note came in from the clerks and was passed among the justices: "Vice President Agnew just resigned. Mets 2, Reds nothing."...Some of the bench notes are hilarious. One, in Blackmun's first year on the Court, from Chief Justice Burger observes: "note blond in second row center. She is here almost daily, at least since you came!"
On pornography:
In the Oral History, Blackmun also described how, in the 1970s, when pornography was a big issue, the justices watched dirty movies...Blackmun: I remember one time Justice Harlan was there, sitting with his law clerk up font. Of course, his eyesight was almost totally gone, and it was hard for him to see. I sat right behind him, and as the film moved on--and they were all alike // he'd lean over and say to his law clerk, "and what are they doing now?" and the law clerk would describe it and justice Harlan would say, "You don't say, you don't say."
On Rehnquist:
Perhaps puckishly, Blackmun kept in his files a letter Rehnquist wrote to the Court Clerk suggesting that lawyers be clearly instructed to call him CHIEF Justice.
On Justice Douglas:
Justice William O. Douglas was so smart, said Blackmun, that he would sometimes do other Court work while listening to a new case being argued. One day, Blackmun said, there were so many books piled up around Douglas, you could hardly see him.Blackmun: It was a pretty boring argument. I sent him a note just to keep myself awake, and I said, what are you doing, writing another opinion. And he sent a note back "yes, this lawyer was through twenty minutes ago, but he didn't know it."
May as well beat Amy to the punch and note this Slate Explainer piece on how we record the dances of Balanchine.
Barack Obama's official theme song for his Senate campaign is a considerably better piece of listening than Ashcroft's that I linked to below. (thanks to R.F. for the link)
Begging to Differ has a few more thoughts about the anti-Iranian-editing-regulations. I just thought I would repeat (yet again!) that behavior like this is one example why hamhanded embargo measures are just plain silly. Another example is found in this Atlantic Monthly article about Bobby Fischer. Maybe it's just my Libertarian streak, but isn't there something extremely wrong with a world where playing a game of Chess can be a Federal offense?
As Amanda says, UChicago e-mail is down at the moment (email me at wbaude@crescatsententia.org until I start responding from my other address again), so I've told myself that the time I would have spent procrastinating writing my paper by checking my email can instead be spent procrastinating writing my paper by blogging. You've got to love marginal rates of substition.
Which brings us to the basketball exam that David Bernstein links to (also handed out to us in class today as our "practice final"). One of the questions on the exam is about how many goals are on a basketball court, but this has gotten me wondering-- wouldn't it be cool if there were a third goal, through which either team could score, say, one point? (You'd have to create a rule for deflected shots and possession-changes, of course . . .)
The NSIT mail server is currently down. You will not be able to check your mail through any method (Eudora, Webmail, etc.).Technicians are aware of the situation and are seeking a solution.
For updates as they become available, see the uchi.comp.cluster newsgroup, or http://hp-announce.uchicago.edu
I guess I'll be using the @Crescat address. Maybe my sample size is too small, but I've never heard my friends at other universities complaining of this problem. It happened fall quarter a year ago around finals time, too.
(see update below)
just think... religious pressure on the US's Agency for International Development brought increased research and teaching of natural family planning and even, in 1985, the right of religous organizations on the USAID funds to not talk about artificial contraceptive alternatives.
Teenage brides in some African countries are becoming infected with the AIDS virus at higher rates than sexually active unmarried girls of similar ages in the same areas, the director of Unicef and other United Nations officials said here on Saturday.The studies are the first to show such differences among married and unmarried young women, the officials said at the closing of a two-day international meeting on women and infectious diseases. The officials said the findings pointed to an inadequacy in programs that focus on abstinence among teenagers as a main means of preventing H.I.V. infection because they failed to take into account fully the risk of transmission in marriage.
The young brides are apparently acquiring H.I.V., the AIDS virus, from their husbands, who tend to be many years older and were infected before marriage, the officials said.
And this.
A study in Zambia found that only 11% of women interviewed believed that a woman had the right to ask her husband to use a condom - even if he had proven himself to be unfaithful and was HIV-positive.
UPDATE: Thanks to a reader who notes that the above research on AIDS transmission rates among married girls was actually done by Chicago's own Prof. Shelley Clark. There's a bit more detail at the Chicago Chronicle (Oct. '02) and Chicago Magazine (Feb.'03). I'm not sure why Unicef just now announced the results of the study, though -- is peer review that slow?
One of the bloggers over at Jurist e-mailed me a while back, trying to put together a fantasy baseball league for bloggers (and those who read them?). We have 4 or 5 people now, but anyone else who's interested, blogger or not, feel free to sign up on Yahoo, league ID # is 13568, password is frisbee. Not an earth-shattering post, I know. But whatever, it's 5 lines of blog-space.
Having read too many blog posts in the past 24 hours on Leon Kass and the bioethics council, I've decided that I don't care very much at all. The truth is that I don't really think that bioethics is a separate discipline from ethics, apart from the degree of technical biological knowledge that might be required to accurately characterize certain choices.
So, technical analysis aside (which this bioethics council can't really provide), I just don't think a bioethics council has much to offer-- I've never been one to take my morality from government comissions. Surely nobody would take a government-sponsored "ethics commission" very seriously when it came out informing us about the ethicalness of important political choices. "Homosexuality is unethical" or "pre-emptive war is ethical," etc. There's no reason we should take a bioethics commission any more seriously.
And I realized that I don't really intend to. If Kass makes good ethical arguments about why a particularly process is unwise, then that's something that should be listened to, and if he doesn't, that's something that should be ignored. The only reason to care about the "stacking" of the bioethics commission is the risk that other people might give the commission credence-- a fight I don't have the energy for, and will leave to the august folks at Volokh and Reason.
But the right way to attack the bioethics commission is not to argue that this particular bioethics commission is somehow illegitimate; it's to argue that ethics is not the sort of thing that should be decided by elite government committees.
In fact, I find the idea of a government ethics committee pretty . . . frightening, and I'm surprised more people haven't complained about it. Morality ought to be decided by persuasive argument, not government dictate. I mean, is there any legitimate reason to cloak Leon Kass in the mantle of authority rather than to let him opine on matters ethical from an academic home like the University of Chicago? Surely the government backing doesn't make his arguments any better, so it shouldn't make them any more persuasive.
Anyway, I'll leave the bioethics kvetching to the other libertarians of the blogosphere. I don't take the president seriously when he tells me what is morally required and what is morally verboten, and I won't take Kass any more seriously when he does the same. If his arguments are persuasive, great. If not, they're wrong.
Steve Dillard may be frighteningly conservative, but at least he's a frighteningly conservative gentleman:
Regardless of how one feels about gay unions, it is exceedingly tacky, indeed reprehensible, to jeer or mock people who just engaged in a ceremony that they deem to be meaningful. We must always keep in mind, myself included, that our fight is not with those who seek gay marriage but with those lawmakers who would provide it (especially those who do so in an utterly lawless manner).
The Smoking Gun's latest: Lionel Richie's wife declaration for support payments in their pending divorce, describing her absurdly lavish lifestyle, and making a good argument for her (and her husband) to be eliminated from the Earth on utilitarian grounds; clearly there is a better use of $300,000 than on her massage and dermatology appointments. Among the most egregious wastes of her husband's fame and success: 20,000 annually for plastic surgery and her nine-year-old son's $125,000 boarding school tuition. Also notable is the success she describes that is sure to come from Lionel Richie's upcoming new album. I'm as big a Lionel Richie fan as anyone, I suppose, but I don't think his last 3 or 4 albums have sold quite well enough for anyone to be predicting great things about the next one. There are two Americas, John Edwards might say after he reads this. One America for people who live normal lifestyles, and one America for people too rich for their own good who can throw hundreds of thousands of dollars down the toilet every month, accomplishing nothing. This is a really, really, really good argument for high marginal tax rates.
UPDATE: Matt over at Ichiblog comments that it's not like giving the money to the government is any better than the Richies putting it back into the economy. And he's right. I suppose I didn't really mean I want the government to have his money. I just meant I think there would be better places for it than in Lionel Richie's hands (or in his wife's plastic face, as the case may be). I don't begrudge him the right to have earned it, but I wish there was some way to better incent people rich beyond necessity to do better things with their money than waste it. That's all. I wasn't trying to support higher taxes, bigger government, and a move to a socialist state. Just that I wish Lionel Richie could do better with the wealth he's earned.
The New York Times's Linda Greenhouse has an article about former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun's personal papers, sealed for five years since his death and just opened for review. Before law school, he was one of my favorite Supreme Court justices, since our last names are homonyms. But since coming to law school, he's become one of my least favorite, since every time his name is mentioned, I worry I've just been called on. The Times article, while interesting, promises more than it delivers. Near the top:
In ways he could not have predicted, the experience of writing and then defending Roe v. Wade had changed him, launching the middle-aged Nixon appointee on a journey that now found him, at 83 and nearing retirement, the most liberal member of the Supreme Court.He had been a central figure at a time of transition, someone who first curbed the liberalism lingering from the Warren court, then acted as a brake on the rising conservative forces of the Burger and Rehnquist courts.
... [The papers] help explain one man's journey. Justice Blackmun did not simply stand still while the court around him became more conservative. His movement across the court's spectrum was not just relative, but absolute; while the court went in one direction, he went in another.
But then the rest of the article is not that exciting. Nevertheless, very cool that he left behind so many papers and that there's stuff for journalists and researchers to comb through to learn more about the 24 years or so that Justice Blackmun was on the court.
Thus Blogged Anderson complains about Chicago Clerk David Orr's decision not to go the way of Mayor Newsom:
I don't see how the clerk can say (1) this law is illegal, but (2) we're going to adhere to it anyway. I mean, how would the courts ever overturn any unconstitutional laws if no one ever brought a case?
The likely source of this logical error? "Orr noted that under Illinois law anyone attempting to perform a marriage ceremony without valid licenses could face felony charges." Understandable, but not exactly praiseworthy.
Vice Squad's Jim Leitzel has an absolutely brilliant post up on why cost-benefit analysis cannot be a sufficient justification for our drug laws, even though our drug laws clearly fail cost-benefit analysis.
Among more, he writes:
Prohibition (as practiced in the US) involves locking people in cages because they are walking around with some illicit drug on them. But locking people in cages cannot be done just because it has "net benefits" . . . Notice that for real crimes, crimes that have victims, no one turns to cost-benefit analysis to determine whether we should punish perpetrators.
I don't care if they're non-violent; if they're habitual criminals, they belong in a cage.
Can I only be against government speech when it's cheesy?
from a Taiwanese population control pamphlet entitled "Paste Your Umbrella Before the Rain":
Family Planning has a theme
Two children as each couples dream;
Three years after marriage, one -
Before 33 childbearing's done.
Let a small family be your goal
Just choose a method of birth control
Methods are safe and simple too
A happy future waits for you."
(Finals, yeah, I am working, it's just that I'm researching a paper on the Mexico City Policy).
Does anyone know the updated status on whether it's true that Ashcroft thinks that calico cats are the devil incarnate? The kind of rumors that float around reasonably high placed government officials in DC says Ashcroft orders the Dept. of Justice building swept, every so often, in a search for them.
The Guardian reports the calico fear as hearsay. Snopes lists it as an unverified urban legend. UPDATE: Balasubramani notes that Vanity Fair reported this in its most recent issue, and Mike's Link Blog violates copyright to kindly provide the story.
I'd forgotten that he had Justice Thomas annoint him with cooking oil in the manner of King David when he was sworn into office. Don't miss the link, either, to CNN's recording of Ashcroft performing "Let the Eagle Soar," a song that channels Sousa marches and Broadway show tunes.
And yes, I do feel like I've just asked if someone's quit beating his wife yet.
Compare and contrast:
Dan Moore's post (3/3/04):
No, Google, I rank the importance of your page to be 5/10!
No, Google, I rate the importance of YOUR page at 2/10!
It's interesting, isn't it, that Google's PageRank system puts the Google homepage at 10/10?
Brian at That's News to Me says it well:
It's not that we can't make time for posts. It's just that we feel guilty when we do.
It's probably a sign that I've been writing too many papers this week, but I find myself incredibly amused by the fact that The Constitution of Liberty is catalogued online between The Constitution of Lesotho and The Constitution of Malaysia.
Earlier, I asked: Is Chicago the new San Francisco?
Answer: No.
I think the measure of equal funding shouldn't be by strict division of the amount of budget to the number of students, but by the value of the services and equipment the students receive.
Fine, let's look at that same site Will points out:
(1) DC schools need more money per student than Fairfax Country because educating those students is simply more expensive:
Recognized student needs, notably special education, non-English proficient and low-income pupils, are much higher in the District than in the suburbs. Special education services on the average across the nation double per pupil costs for the students served. Low-income pupils are long recognized as needing more adult attention – smaller classes and support services, for example, and subsidized or free goods, such as supplies and meals. Federal grants for these students increase DCPS revenues but not by as much as the services cost.
(2) DC has higher expenses in necessary, non-educating parts of its budget:
Where DCPS Spends Less Per Pupil:Improving the quality of teaching. DCPS spends relatively little per pupil on teacher and other employee training, curriculum, instructional supervision and related areas.
The general instructional program per student delivered in schools.
Special education services for students enrolled within the system (in contrast to tuition payments, which are enormously higher than in the suburbs). When central and school special education costs are combined, DCPS spends about $8,850 on special education services per special education student within the system, compared with about $10,000 in Montgomery, $10,250 in Arlington and $11,650 in Fairfax.Technology, both instructional and management, as compared with Arlington and Fairfax. Spending is comparable (this year at least) with Montgomery County.
Student services and athletics.Where DCPS per pupil spending is comparable:
Central offices and services generally
English as a Second Language and other language minority services are funded at about suburban levels per ESL pupil.
Facilities maintenance and custodians. However, suburban schools are often crowded and buildings are newer, while students in DCPS have more square feet per student and older, poorly maintained buildings. Spreading these services much thinner in older buildings means they are inadequate.Where DCPS per pupil spending is higher:
Security. DCPS spends $243 per pupil compared to $33 in Arlington, $63 in Montgomery, and $18 in Fairfax.
Utilities. DCPS spends $443 per pupil compared to $177 in Montgomery and $233 in Fairfax. Higher costs result from old, poorly maintained, energy-inefficient buildings and having more square footage per student. These costs are offset by low spending per square foot on maintenance and custodians.
(3) Could you show me where in the budget the non-monetary contributions that suburban schools receive are included and are compared to DCPS contributions? I'd like to know which receives higher values. I'm thinking of the gifts and services active PTAs or well-connected parents can provide. In high school, when my bio teacher wanted to do the fly lab (was Mendel right? let's let these things mate and figure out whether white or red eyes are recessive and dominant), she didn't have funding to buy the equipment. Not a problem. Someone's parent who worked at the local university just sent some of hers over. My little sister's middle school had funding for the hardware of internet connections to the classroom; the parents with computer know-how went to a school on a Saturday afternoon to provide the labor of the wiring.
Incidentally it's a little odd that Amanda picks on Fairfax VA and Washington DC public schools to imply that their funding should be equalize via her share-the-wealth-share-the-poverty plan. To be fair, she doesn't actually write that Fairfax receives more per-pupil funding than DC, but she does imply it:
New Trier, IL's school district is overflowing with funds, one of the richest per kid in the nation. Chicago Public Schools? Not so fortunate. Fairfax Country, VA and Washington, DC? Lord, don't get me started.
The New York Times has an interesting article about chicory, endive, radicchio, and the rest of the bitter salad green family. I think food writing is pretty cool when it can take something that, if you saw it on a plate, you would just pass by without noticing, and turn it into something you start to crave after reading about it. Pretty impressive that this article can make me wonder where I can find some escarole at 10:30 in the morning. :)
The problem shared by the most Catholic priests, argues Andrew Greeley, isn't sexual abuse (96% aren't guilty of that) or even denial of the scandal; instead, the common problem is that most priests aren't very good at what they do: counseling those in need, leading their congregations, and, especially, preaching sermons.
It sounds like the first line of this billboard the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago put up a few years ago isn't being fulfilled [the billboard had a solid black background all over save a little square of white centered on the top edge]:
Maximize your potential.
Minimize your wardrobe.
Consider the priesthood.
And if you'd like to join a discussion of worldwide interdependence and humanitarian assistance through looking at the Millenium Challenge Account, the Chicago chapter of the Nathan Hale Society will be meeting this Sunday, March 7th at 7pm. Once again, it's at the Cosi on 116 S. Michigan Ave., just across the street from the Art Institute. A list of suggested readings on those topics (mostly, the MCA) is avaliable here.
Will asks what kind of world I want.
Who knows?-- maybe Amanda supports this sort of we're-all-in-this-together worldwide human interdependence. I don't.
1) Will, you know as well as I do, the US spends a biddling amount on foreign aid: less than 0.5% of our GNP. I think beneficiaries worldwide would be better off if this were increased, in some wise fashion. I would support increased programming abroad.
But how far should the programming go -- tithe 10% of the GNP to international purposes? I don't know a number or percentage; I know very few other numbers in the GNP against which to make any comparisions. There is some amount we can healthily give without hurting ourselves (hurting and belt-tightening aren't the same), and I think we should give that amont.
2) The inhabitants of Killington are citizens of Vermont, are citizens of the United States. Some rhetoric says they are also citizens of the world. I'm not sure what that means because it does not fit in the general system of requirements with which I associate citizenship. You are born into citizenship of a country, and your status is fairly clear: certain legal obligations, certain legal rights. Citizens of states is a shiftier concept. The question, of what state are you a citizen can end up answered with a bit of educated guessing and finally a hope at what you'd prefer the answer to be; it's not always an open-and-shut question. Citizenship of a school district? That doesn't exist.
While the initial citizenship you receive is a crapshoot, it is a category that can be changed (although some people might call it next to impossible for their own particular situations). Within America, that's particularly true. You don't like Vermont, you go move to New Hampshire & enjoy your federal system. But if you've chosen to become a citizen of a state, then you've got to accept your responsibity to the community you chose. I don't really think you can say that your responsibilities are circumscribed by one city, or a subset of a county, or even an entire county. At a minimum, it's bounded by the first unit to which you have a some sort of contractual or covenental relationship. It would be convenient for about half the population if each person could determine his own limits, but responsibilities aren't about convenience, they're about taking on what you owe to the community.
Below, Amanda suggests that the well-to-do across America have some sort of obligation to pay for the badly-to-do elsewhere across America to go to school. My first thought is, why stop there? If local communities shouldn't be allowed to pool their own resources for their own collective benefits, and if (as Amanda seems to imply) State communities shouldn't be allowed to either, then why should national communities? Sub-saharan Africa's schools make the Missippi Mississippi Delta look like Glencoe. Why should American kids be allowed to "scre(w) over children of the poor fate not to be born in (America)"?
Who knows?-- maybe Amanda supports this sort of we're-all-in-this-together worldwide human interdependence. I don't.
There's something to be said for a small amount of resource-pooling in education. If education is going to be government-subsidized, then perhaps some amount of government subsidy should be paid out to every student across the board, and therefore financed with some sort of across-the-board tax. (Vouchers alert! --ed.). But to a large extent the benefits of school go to the students who attend it (dare to dream), and the communities that house those students. I think it's perfectly fair, therefore, to ask communities that wish to benefit from expensive schools to shoulder some of the payment for them, and to let communities that want to cut corners, save money.
In other words, pay for what you get. (Of course, some benefits of schooling are nationwide, which is why some quantity of per-person federal subsidy might be sensible, and I wouldn't particularly mind if the government subsidized capital markets here to make sure the poor could have all of the education of any level they wanted, if they were willing to pay for some of it later. And of course, it would be even better if we could find a way to let students make these choices about their own lives.)
On to larger issues. I think it's particularly interesting that it's New Hampshire that Killington hopes to join. Now that NH is the target for the Free State Project, if the town can just hold on long enough for hell to freeze over, there may be 20,000 free-wheeling Libertarians to help them cross borders. [It looks like the FSP folks have figured this out.]
Anyway, I don't think Killington's going anywhere (and as a legal matter, that's probably a good thing). While there's a limit to how much people are willing to let the government take their money away and give it to other people, and while there is of course a history of northeastern rebellion against perceivedly uncompensated taxes, that limit is pretty high.
August 27, 2002, the New York Times ran this story about a push to secede in Patagonia.
An independent Patagonia would be a sparsely populated but prosperous nation. Though fewer than 5 percent of Argentina's 37 million people live in Patagonia, the region accounts for nearly half of the country's territory, much of its fresh water supply and hydroelectric power and 80 percent of its oil and gas.
Killington, Vermont wants to secede from the state of which it is geographically a part and join New Hampshire, 35 miles over to the east.
The town is wealthy from its natural resources, namely, a mountain that's made it into a ski resort place.
Killington now sends $20 million a year to the state in tax revenue — property, sales, room, meal and alcohol — and receives back only about $2 million in education and other aid. The analysis showed that by moving to New Hampshire, it would halve its state payments and would get a little more back.The mountain itself at Killington Ski Resort is owned by the State of Vermont [what would that ownership mean to Vermont, post-secession?], so it of course would not become part of the secession. But the taxes saved by the restaurants, inns and other businesses that serve as the town's economic engine would be well worth the move, Killington officials say.
Why the sudden tax complaints? In 1997, Act 60 was passed, which
transformed the state's school financing system from one administered through local collection of property taxes to one based on a state tax pool. As a result, the residents of property-rich towns like Killington began paying significantly higher taxes, in effect subsidizing less-affluent towns.
Oh, boo, hoo, hoo. The rich don't get to establish an Edwardian 'Two Americas' school system that screws over children of the poor fate not to be born in wealthy school districts. I'm mad about this sentiment here, and I'm even madder when suburban school money effectively screws over the cities with which they are affiliated and without which they'd be nothing. New Trier, IL's school district is overflowing with funds, one of the richest per kid in the nation. Chicago Public Schools? Not so fortunate. Fairfax Country, VA and Washington, DC? Lord, don't get me started.
Next I'll suppose you'll say that we have no moral or ethical responsibility to the rest of the people in our community, our state, is that right?
I support an Act 60 for the nation as a way to do something towards equalizing the educations possible in the Mississippi Delta or the Rio Grande Valley with those available in more fortunate places.
PS: Liberal enough a rant for you, Will?
PPS: The Vermont Manifesto sounds like an interesting read.
Fuddy-duddy Matthew Yglesias chimes into the Butler-Troester-Butler-Lamboley debate to say:
I really don't think "slut" is a word people should use. It's an odd "thick moral concept" that really only makes sense in the context of a set of deeply misogynistic background contexts.
Leaving aside the question of how the case law may say this case should turn out[1], how should it come out?
Short facts:
Jack and Casey He, temporarily of Memphis, TN, were facing deportation hearings back to China and had no health insurance. Jack He lost his position at Univ. Memphis in a controversy over whether or not he assaulted another student, but he was aquitted of the charge. At the time of all this, Casey was pregnant with Ann Mae He. An adoption agency suggested they place the infant with a foster family. The legal documents called the arrangement "temporary" which left Ann Mae with Jerry and Louise Baker. "Temporary" meant that the Hes could regain custody with the consent of the Bakers and a judge. The agency admits that no one ever really explained "temporary" to the Hes, and the Hes did not have a lawyer present. For the first two years, the Hes visited regularly, until a time the Bakers told them to stay away or face arrest. Afraid of the law, they stayed away; not visiting for four months is abandonment in TN.
Disputed:
The Bakers claim the Hes verbally agreed that the custody was permanent, not temporary.The Hes claim they did not know that they needed the Bakers' and a judge's permission to get their daughter back.
And now part of the court debates have turned into who is a better parent.
The Hes claim the Bakers wanted to adopt and convert their daughter (to Christianity) all along. The Bakers claim the Hes are unstable parents who wil take the girl to lower standards of living in China, with people she hasn't seen (court order) in three years. The Hes say family love trumps American materialism. The Bakers say Ann Mae will be treated as inferior in China because of her gender... yeah, you want to sort through the relative merits and degrees of fact within all of those claims?
My sympathies are with the parents, if they truly did not know what the intricacies of the temporary agreement were. This girl is their daughter. Surely the agency knew that the adoption agreement was complicated and should have expected that the Hes might have some trouble understanding it (they were working through a Chinese-language interpreter). All that standing in the way, and it's still reasonable to expect that the parents had informed consent to something that said 'temporary'? I don't think so. It sounds like the Hes were seeking something temporary, asked the adoption agency for something that would be just for while they took care of their troubles, and thought the contract that said it wasn't permanent was, indeed, not permanent (although, the Bakers' lawyer contended Jack wanted to get rid of his daughter until his wife pressured him to fight for her back. . . just what the case needs, more disputable 'facts').
For a link to a lot of newspaper articles on this, see here.
[1]: I have absolutely no idea what the case law on this says and while I'd be interested to know, the final papers that some profs have assigned suggest that finding out now is really not what I should do.
Unsurprisingly, Jacob Levy speaks the truth. Leon Kass's decision to put Peter A. Lawler on the bioethics council is not . . . the sort of thing that inspires one with faith in the independence and diversity of the group.
Of course, putting conservative political theorists on a bioethics commission probably isn't a case so much of picking people who are manifestly unqualified, but rather of Kass's peculiar views of bioethics. The view that scientists and biologists are the ones qualified to figure out when biology and medicine are ethical is a contested one, even if it's one I sometimes agree with.
In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong with putting political theorists in charge of "highly complex and technical issues in both ethics and biomedical technology," but it is pretty good evidence that Kass's view of what bioethicism consists of is quite different from my own-- just as making a logical positivist the Archbishop of Canterbury would be a sign of serious disagreement about what religion should consist of.
Hat tips to Sara Butler (Chicago) and John Coleman (Berry College), two friends of mine that may someday use the Chicago-Berry connection to work similar havoc.
The Curmudgeonly Clerk comments on this New York Times story, about treasury regulations that outlaw the editing of transcripts from Iran and the like. I'm generally not a fan of trade embargoes for precisely this reason-- they generally simultaneously punish Americans and also citizens of the unjust regimes.
Incidentally, the blogosphere has of course responded with a protest site-- RebelEdit.
Theodore Geisel would have turned 100 today (he died in 1991). The New York Times calls it his "Seussentennial" in an article today, although I think they're just borrowing that term from his website. Some quick browsing led me to this wonderful site, which has pictures of the advertising artwork Geisel drew before he started writing children's books -- including delightful ads for skin care products and tractors (plus many more).
It got me thinking... what if Dr. Seuss was writing ads today? With no disrespect meant toward his great legacy (I'm just trying to have some fun here):
Hop on Pop (sponsored by the Association of Plastic Surgeons)
You used to always Hop on Pop
Afraid, dismayed, that he may drop
His arms would shake, his belly flop
You bounced when you would hop on pop
But now there is a surgery
That lets pop's belly fin'lly be
As small as that of you or me
But this procedure is not free
But you will think it heaven-sent
When pop can touch his toes when bent
He'll fit inside a camping tent
The death rate's only five percent
Other titles in the series:
One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish (sponsored by Red Lobster)
How The Grinch Stole Hyundais (sponsored by The Club)
The "Cat" In The "Hat" (sponsored by Viagra)
There's a Wocket in my Pocket (come and touch it) (sponsored by Michael Jackson)
[Editor's Note: a particularly obscure digression into blogging etiqutte.] Sara Butler asks when it's proper to ping a post with a "trackback". If this is Greek to you, don't bother reading on . . .
I think a link is a link is a link. So long as you aren't just random linking to posts in order to draw attention to an irrelevent post, ping away. Most posts aren't so beseiged with Trackbacks that there's any serious risk of trackback glut.
Movable Type, for example, is set to automatically ping posts I link to itself. Surely it isn't the case that Movable Type users are rude by pinging posts unnecessarily. (Blogging etiquette, after all, has to reasonably track blogging reality). Just as Technorati and Sitemeter don't divide links into classes, neither need trackbacks.
If Sara's question is whether she has to ping a post just because she's linked to it, I think not. I would, both as a courtesy and out of self-interest, but it's not strictly rude, I should think, to fail to draw attention to yourself. In other words, blogging etiquette puts no demands on her here. She can ping if she wishes, or not as she'd rather.
U of C Physics Professor Sean Carroll now has a blog. Looks to be interesting.
I'm a bit wary of jumping into the discussion that's been going on over at Diotima since it was inspired by Sex and the City, a show I've never seen, but nevertheless I think the larger point is worth critiquing, even if I'm not familiar with the specific examples.
Sara started out by saying:
A lot of your average women who would consider themselves feminists (and there's a dwindling number of them), or, if they don't use that labeled, "empowered" or whatever, see feminism as having choices, particularly the choice to be equal but hot. Think "Girl Power." Call it Cyndi Lauper feminism or Carrie Bradshaw feminism. Obviously, it's this last kind of feminism that has the greatest sway in our culture these days. So, I don't know if it's entirely fair to say, as Mr. Goldberg does, that feminism, as a whole, is still in a "it's liberating to be a slut" phase, but I think he's right that this is a dominant cultural idea at the moment.
To which Nick Troester responded:
I always took the message of the show not to be "it's liberating to be a slut," but rather, "what your sex life is like has nothing to do with what you're like." Obviously, the second one is far too facile to be useful--whether or not you're promiscuous is going to have a lot to do with what sort of person you are. But, then again, if you look at the four main characters, the amount of sex they have isn't really an integral part of who they were conceived to be (with the exception of Samantha); e.g., my informal survey over winter break of the dvds I owned confirmed my theory that Charlotte (the "nice" one) was second only to Samantha in number of men, ahem, involved with. But you tend not to think of that when you think of Charlotte--or you don't think of it first, which is sort of the point.
And Sara replied:
Briefly, I don't know if "it's liberating to be a slut" and "what your sex life is like has nothing to do with what you're like" are really all that different, because the assumption of the latter is that you have a sex life, right? I mean, wouldn't Carrie and co. think that someone who was waiting to have sex until she got married or someone who'd never had a one night stand is awfully weird and repressed? The fact that, in the Sex and the City universe, your sex life has nothing to do with what you're like liberates you to be a slut, and if you can, wouldn't you?
I would go further than Nick Troester and say that the message at issue is not "what your sex life is like has nothing to do with what you're like," but rather that a woman's value as a person does not depend upon her sexual purity. For much of our history, women, like used cars, declined in value with each new owner, and in a lot of ways this is a stereotype that still lingers in our culture. For instance, in romance novels (which account for a disturbingly large percentage of all books sold) most heroines are in their mid to late twenties, and with very few exceptions, have had either one or no previous sexual partners. In contrast, the hero is usually in his mid to late thirties, and has usually had a multitude of sexual partners. The lesson here? A promiscuous man's past will not prevent him from being a good husband in the future, but a promiscuous woman will never again be desirable.
Yes, I suppose attacking this horridly misogynistic attitude (as does Sex in the City) does in some sense liberate women to be sluts, in that it removes a demeaning and reactionary social barrier to women behaving as they wish to do. But why, why do conservatives so often insist upon erasing the distinction between failing to sanction an action, and encouraging that action, as Sara does in her response to Nick's argument? "We won't punish you if you sleep around" and "Sleeping around is good!" are not the same message. Licit is not equal to desirable. Licit. Desirable. Not the same. Got that?
Furthermore, I have to say that I find Sara's attitude towards sexual restraint frankly depressing. She says, "The fact that, in the Sex and the City universe, your sex life has nothing to do with what you're like liberates you to be a slut, and if you can, wouldn't you?" If Sara really thinks that the only benefit of sexual virtue is that it prevents people from thinking worse of you, why indeed shouldn't we all be happy, shameless sluts? Or does she really think that the only way people will discover the benefits of fidelity, intimacy, and commitment is if women are coerced by society into demanding these from their partners? My little sexually libertarian corner of the social universe is not populated by libertines chasing emotionless sex--male or female--but by people looking to love and be loved in return. Not all the time, perhaps, and not always getting it right, but recognizing that ideal sex is not simply securing the use of the right set of parts for the night. I never thought this was exceptional. I sincerely hope it's not exceptional.
Sex is powerful stuff, and that power can of course lead to wonderful rewards, or terrible pain. But is the right way to respond to that really to say--and say to women alone--get this wrong, even only once, and we will forever look upon you as a lesser person?
(I considered editing this to be a bit less polemical, but decided to leave it as is. Nevertheless, I do want to clarify that my ire is directed at the extent to which society still insists upon seeing women through the prism of the virgin/whore dichotomy, and that I did not intend to equate Sara's argument with this error.)
Slate calls flag football America's dirtiest college sport. I disagree with the 'dirtiest' -- what, just because some guy plays lose with his eligibility requirements, it becomes the dirtiest -- but he's right, it's a fun game.
I went down to UNO for the 2000 championship with a friend from Rice. She had been on the team that won the right to represent her college, complaining bitterly that her tennis coach had forbidden her to play (get injured, lose the NCAA scholarship). It's a wonderfully disorganized event. There's just a large expanse of vaguely marked fields with a couple of cars parked on the edge, some sets of Xeroxed schedules explaining how the brackets run, and teams of not especially large college students running around in t-shirts and shorts (perhaps the ability to practice year round is also why SE Louisiana teams dominate). Plus, there's New Orleans for when it gets too dark to play another game that day.
- signed, the coach, captain, and center of the Third String Assistant Waterboys flag football team in my high school days... when I started that team junior year, I never figured it would be so hard to explain to some of the players what a wide receiver does (receives the ball... catches the thing being thrown at you that you have to move around for points)... oh jeez... but we made the playoffs the second year, to great shock and glee. ok, reminiscing over...
Sara Butler has up a 3/4-hearted defense of her previous post on abstinence education. My original objection to her post was the same as Matthew Yglesias's-- sex is not bad per se, so education programs should focus on removing the harmful consequences of sex (like pregnancy and disease) and not on trying to stop sex itself.
As Sara notes, there's also an empirical dimension to this-- abstinence education among U.S. teenagers has not met with overwhelming success. I don't like to make too much of this, because I think abstinence education would be wrong even if it worked. But I'm writing this to take issue with Sara's characterization of my views on sex. Sara writes:
[Will] believes that as long as something is consenual, it's good . . . Will do(es)n't think that your sex life has anything to do with the kind of person you are, teenagers should be given the opportunity to make up their minds for themselves.
Alas, even Sara Butler has relented. Diotima now has comments.
As a co-blogger points out, it would have been nice if Johnny Depp had gotten an Oscar. I really thought that his performance in Pirates of the Carribean was phenomenal (not that I'd seen any of the other movies, but hey). In fact, despite my rabid blithering about Return of the King, I would have even understood if they had decided to award the special effects Oscar to Pirates instead of the Return of the King.
This is sheer heresy, I know. I'll try to be good.
Last Night's Oscars were about as predictable as they could get. I suppose it's nice that The Return of the King can now go down in history with Titanic and Ben Hur as tying the victory record (Couldn't they have given it just one more award?), but it would have been nice to see somebody-- whether Bill Murray or Johnny Depp-- steal Sean Penn's Oscar from him. Alas.
For the record, looks like my co-blogger's predictions were about 60% correct. Which isn't bad, I suppose, and is mostly explained by failing to recognize that The Lord of the Rings juggernaut was primed to win everything.
Blogging in some ways reminds me of what I imagine a gambling addiction to be. You start out very small, playing with just a few friends and family. You notice that it becomes a little more fun as the stakes get higher, and you tell yourself that if you just invest a little bit more in it it's not going to get out of hand.
Then things start to snowball, and more time and money flow into it. Your friends either begin to think of you as that guy with the blog, or join you in it. Soon pretty much all of your friends blog, and you don't have much to talk about to the ones who don't. Then there's a crisis and you have to get out your credit card and beg the powers that be to give you another chance, still more bandwidth, and you tell yourself you won't be that careless again.
But you are.
Anyway, as you can see, Crescat was down, now we've got still more bandwidth and we're back.
There is no shortage of reviews floating around the blogosphere and the various media outlets. Here's another one: Cross of Celluloid, from Reason's Jesse Walker. A taste:
And the film's purported power to spread the Good News? Well, it didn't make me reconsider my faith in anything, save perhaps the acuity of certain critics. If you're already a believing Christian, The Passion might deepen your devotion. If you've got doubts, I can't see how this, or any mere movie, could dismiss them.Not without help, anyway. I rather hoped the Holy Ghost might manifest Himself in the theater while I was there, but the closest He came to showing up was near the beginning, when Jesus, taunted by Satan, stomps on a snake.
Two rows behind me, a guy shouted, "A-men!" Alas, he did not repeat the sentiment at the end of the picture.
Looks like this site got so popular the Internet couldn't handle the traffic. Or however that all works. Anyway, I would have probably posted yesterday a running live commentary on the Democratic Debate (which you can find here instead if you're so inclined), but that's not so cutting-edge topical 24 hours later, so instead, I wrote a parody of the debate. Which is hopefully more entertaining anyway.
A Democratic Debate Parody
DAN RATHER: Welcome to the 27th Democratic Debate of the 2004 primary season. With us this morning are Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards -- and two other people we're just going to ignore. Senator Kerry, let me start with you. The National Journal just released a report calling you the most liberal Senator in the Senate. Senator Kerry, would you call yourself a Senator?
SEN. KERRY: I don't think the American people want this campaign to be about labels, Dan.
DAN RATHER: So you would not call yourself a Senator?
SEN. KERRY: I would call myself a fighter for the American people, but, no, I'm not going to make this campaign about political labels.
DAN RATHER: Senator Edwards, is Senator Kerry a Senator?
SEN. EDWARDS: I believe he is, Dan. And I believe he's been one for a long time, in Washington. Washington is an evil place, Dan. And Senator Kerry has been a Senator there for a long time. In Washington. Ooooh.
DAN RATHER: Now, Senator Edwards---
SEN. KERRY: Excuse me. Let me step in and defend myself here, Dan. I've just been attacked. Senator Edwards has pulled out a baseball bat and is currently attacking me. I need to defend myself. I may be from Washington, and I may have $400 million in the bank, but I refuse to be called a Senator. That's not the kind of name-calling the American people want.
REP. KUCINICH: I'd like to get a few words in here, if I may.
DAN RATHER: No, you may not.
REP. KUCINICH: Okay, then.
DAN RATHER: Senator Edwards, Senator Kerry has now won 18 of 20 primaries, and you've won one. Some people say you're just angling for the Vice Presidential nomination. If you lose all of the primaries up to the convention, do not receive the nomination, and watch President Bush win re-election over Senator Kerry, will you drop out of the race?
SEN. EDWARDS: I don't believe ---
DAN RATHER: You don't believe? A follow-up on that if I can. Do you mean you don't believe in---
SEN. EDWARDS: I'd like the opportunity to finish.
DAN RATHER: I'd like the opportunity to interrupt you.
SEN. EDWARDS: I just need thirty seconds. I don't believe the voters have finish speaking in this election. There are two Americas, Dan. There's the America where John Kerry has won 18 of 20 primaries, and there's the America where I still have a chance at the nomination. Some may say that second America just lives in my head, but I believe it is real and it is strong and I will fight for that America to become the one America.
REV. SHARPTON: I believe there's more than two Americas, Senator Edwards. I believe there's a third America, where I'm actually a legitimate candidate for this nomination---
DAN RATHER: I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you off, Reverend Sharpton.
REV. SHARPTON: You will NOT cut me off, Dan. I've been sitting here patiently while you've been going back and forth between Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards, ignoring the fact that I am here --
REP. KUCINICH: Me too!
REV. SHARPTON: Shut up, Dennis. Dan, you've been ignoring the fact that I am here. The voters have a right to choose. The media, by ignoring my candidacy, is telling the voters that I am not a legitimate candidate. And that, my friends, is illegitimate!
DAN RATHER: Very well. The next question is to you, Senator Kerry. It's about a woman's right to vote. Do you believe women should be able to be voters?
SEN. KERRY: It's about rights, Dan, not terminology. I believe women should have the right to cast a ballot in the Presidential election just like a man can. I believe they should be able to choose their preferred candidate, and have that selection counted toward the determination of who wins the election. But if you're asking me if we should call them voters, well, on that point I have to disagree. It's about rights, not terminology.
DAN RATHER: Senator Edwards?
SEN. EDWARDS: I believe I'm in full agreement with Senator Kerry on this one, but let me just add that I think it's a state issue. If a state wants to call its women who cast ballots "voters," then that's great; if they want to call them "eggplant," that's fine too.
DAN RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, you get the last word on this.
REV. SHARPTON: Thank---
DAN RATHER: Excellent. Moving on. Senator Kerry, pundits have been saying that you are not as lickable as Senator Edwards.
SEN. KERRY: I'm sorry. Lickable?
DAN RATHER: Excuse me. I mean likable. People have said Senator Edwards is more likable than you. That you don't have the charisma, the personality, the charm to be an effective leader. What do you say to those critics, and what have you learned from Senator Edwards on the campaign trail?
SEN. KERRY: I don't believe I have a likability problem at all, and I think anyone who accuses me of that is just too poor to identify with me. I think people at cocktail parties and state dinners like me very much, and any of them will tell you so just as soon as I pay them to. I don't think I've learned anything from Senator Edwards except that maybe I should dye my hair brown, because his hair does look pretty good for a man his age, I have to admit.
DAN RATHER: Similarly, Senator Edwards, people have said you lack the experience to be President, especially foreign policy experience, given that you've only been in the Senate for one term. What do you say to those people?
SEN. EDWARDS: I say there are two Americas, Dan. There's an America where we need leaders who have experience, and there's an America where a man like me, an honest man, a good man, a man whose father was a millworker and whose mother was a windmill, who can rise up and make a difference. I say there's an America where the guy with $400 million wins the nomination, and there's an America where the guy with just $36 million wins the nomination. These are my two Americas, Dan.
REP. KUCINICH: Don't forget about the America where a guy with $1.85 and a stale donut in his jacket pocket can win the nomination. Because when I am the nominee---
REV. SHARPTON: Pigs will fly when you are the nominee, Dennis.
REP. KUCINICH: Yes they will, Al. Because I am a vegan, and so I will give pigs the freedom to fly. Pigs will also get universal health care and the right to a free college education. And I will not send any pigs to Iraq, and Canadian pigs will not steal our jobs because I will recall NAFTA, burn it, and eat it. As long as it is not made of meat.
DAN RATHER: Senator Edwards, you've gotten rich off of being a trial lawyer. Do you think the people of America realize that there's a whole set of lawyers in this country who make a lot of money?
SEN. EDWARDS: I think they do, Dan. I think they do in one America. But in the other America, people don't have a chance to become lawyers, because the other America doesn't have any vowels, and so there are no lawyers, doctors, or teachers. Just a lot of rhythm. Sometimes. When "Y" isn't a vowel.
DAN RATHER: Finally, a question for all of you. Is Michael Jackson a pedophile?
SEN. KERRY: I don't believe in labels. But, yes, I believe he is.
SEN. EDWARDS: I'm in full agreement with Senator Kerry on this one.
REV. SHARPTON: Sure, absolutely.
REP. KUCINICH: I think---
DAN RATHER: We're out of time. Thanks so much to the candidates for joining us this morning. Godspeed.