Today's Double-Speak

As part of efforts to rein in government spending, the Obama administration has declared its intention to cut the military budget.  Considering the fact that the US spends more on the military than practically all other nations combined, this makes sense.  Nevertheless, a debate has begun over the potential effects of military cutbacks.  National security is an obvious concern, but economists, politicians, and others worry that military spending cuts will increase unemployment and lead to a decrease in technological innovation, the military being a chief driver and consumer of research and development ("A Shrinking Military Budget May Take Neighbors with It").

Many economists point out, however, that military spending actually provides less "bang for the buck" than other forms of government investment:

"Military spending does not compare well economically with many other forms of government spending, some experts say. Professor [Robert]Pollin calculated in a recent analysis that $1 billion in spending on health care produced an economic benefit about 14 percent larger than spending on defense. The impact of spending on transportation, education and energy were even larger."

Case closed? Well, not exactly:

"Some economists, however, argue that such studies fail to account for the economic value of security and stability. The crucial benefit is not what defense spending provides but what it prevents, Joshua Aizenman, a professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Reuven Glick, a researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, wrote in a 2006 paper."

So, if I understand that last point correctly, the economic benefits of military spending arise not from any increases in productivity generated by the spending, but by "savings" generated by not having to spend money on other things. But, what would these "other things" be? Presumably, the things that military spending prevents are threats to national security--which would necessitate military spending. In other words, spending money on the military reduces the necessity to spend money on the military. Makes perfect sense!

Enjoy that "peace dividend," everybody.

And in Other News, Bacon Is Tasty

I always get a kick out of seeing headlines like "Big Study Links Good Teachers to Lasting Gain."  Maybe I should feel sad: Do people truly find this newsworthy?  According to the study, elementary- and middle-school students who have exposure to "good" teachers not only earn more money over the course of their working lives, they are also more likely to enroll in college, less likely to become teenage parents, and grow an average of 3.6 inches taller.

OK, I made that last one up, but, still, the results are impressive.

The controversy arises over what exactly makes a teacher "good."  This study looks at "value-added."  To put it probably too simplistically, this measures the impact a teacher has on students by looking at student improvement.  Thus, if a student scores, say, 60% on a test at the beginning of a semester, and 70% at the end, then the teacher could be said to have "added" ten points to that student's score.  Of course, individual student results can vary widely, and there are numerous independent variables other than the teacher that can have an impact on student performance, but if researchers assess an entire class and find an average 10-point increase in student performance on standardized tests, one can make a reasonable argument that the teacher played some part in the students' achievement.  The argument becomes stronger if this same teacher consistently achieves this kind of result.

As a teacher, I like the value-added assessment because of its focus on improvement.  In a way, it penalizes teachers less for the "quality" of their students than other measurements.  If one teacher has a class that scores, on average, 95% on a test, and another has a class that scores 65%, you might conclude that the first teacher is better.  On the other hand, if that first teacher's class scored, on average, 94% at the beginning of the semester, while the second teacher's class scored 55%, which teacher did a better job?  Of course, the teacher with the "A" students would complain that a value-added system unfairly penalizes her for teaching good students, which shows the importance of multiple-measurements of teacher quality.

At any rate, with the constant attacks on teachers and their unions, it's nice to see some scientific validation of what should be obvious.  Good teachers make a difference.

Thursday Trendwatch

The Trendwatch begins on a somber note this week, with NAVY PILOT KILLING (10) starting us off.  On New Year's Eve, John Robert Reeves, a pilot in training killed three people and himself at a party in southern California.  Police are unsure what motivated the killing.

On a lighter note, we have the story of EFFIE GRAY (9), a 19th-century Englishwoman who endured a an oppressive marriage to the noted art critic John Ruskin.  The story goes that, on their wedding night,

something about his bride — historians still debate exactly what — so horrified Ruskin that the union was not consummated. Ruskin maintained it was her personality that had put him off, but Gray later wrote that her husband "had imagined women were quite different to what he saw I was."

One would have thought that a noted art critic would have, at some point in his life, studied art and, by extension, have some knowledge of basic human anatomy.  Of course, maybe that was the problem: We all laugh at Ruskin, but maybe, under all the hoop skirts and corsets, Effie Gray was something other than human!  Now THAT would make a good movie.  I suspect, however, that is not the approach taken in the upcoming film "Effie," starring Dakota Fanning.  Too bad, really.

For those of you non-creative types, resolving to lose weight in this new year, DIET PLANS (8) remain trendy.  For those of you more creative types, resolving to avoid costume dramas, see above.  And for those of you resolving to avoid all things Kardashian, good luck!  You won't even make it all the way through today's Trendwatch, where we find model AMBER ROSE (7) blaming Kim Kardashian for Rose's break-up with musician Kanye West.

Not for nothing, Amber, but have you considered it has less to do with Kim Kardashian than with the Kim Jong-il sunglasses?

VICTORIA GOTTI (6) will compete in the next season of "Celebrity Apprentice," along with "Real" "Housewife" and fellow Trendwatch participant TERESA GUIDICE (4) (thereby laying to rest the rumor that they were the same person). 

Other contestants will include two other members of today's Trendwatch, former "Hulk" LOU FERRIGNO (2) and the still hot CHERYL TIEGS (1); Clay Aiken ("American Idol"), Paul Teutul, Sr. ("American Chopper"), and Adam Carrolla (American idiot); comedian Lisa Lampaneli, rocker Dee Snider, former Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza, singer Debbie Gibson, actress-model Patricia Velasquez, actress Tia Carrere, and. . . .  Oh, no. . . . Oh, say it ain't so!  Sigh. . . George Takei.

I used to think you were cool, Man!

Rounding out the non-Trump-related Trendwatch are BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION (5) and MUIR WOODS (3).  The Muir Woods story is interesting because. . .

Oh, screw it!  George!  What are you thinking?  You had totally reinvented yourself as a witty, engaging spokesman for gay rights and a poster of amusing videos on Facebook, and now. . .THIS?  Yeah, I know, it's not like Shatner or Nimoy debasing themselves in front of the Donald, but this puts you in the same category as, like, Gary Busey!  GARY BUSEY!!!  You've written an opera, Man!  Have some dignity!  Get out while you still can!

Monday Miscellany on Wednesday

The Iowa caucuses have come and gone, and Rep. Michele Bachmann has suspended her presidential campaign after finishing eighth among the field of six candidates.  Her concession speech featured her trademark eloquence:

“The people of Iowa have spoken, and they have written the very first chapter in this long campaign,” she said, not elaborating on her plans. “There are many more paths to be written on the path to the nomination.”

You write those paths, Michele!

Not that the Iowa winner, Mitt Romney, has much to celebrate.  He prevailed by eight votes--EIGHT!--over a candidate whose name is literally synonymous with anal froth.  If things continue in this manner, Romney could end up winning the presidency by the slimmest  margin since George W. Bush won the 2000 election by five votes over Al Gore.  (OK, those 5 votes happened to belong to Supreme Court justices, but still . . . .)

******************************************
At any rate, even Michele Bachmann had a better new year than this guy:

Click here for video.

So, for all you ladies out there lamenting the fact that "He" just won't pop the question?  THAT'S WHY!

******************************************

Finally, the governor of Idaho is named C. L. Otter.  He prefers, however, to be called "Butch." Because "Butch Otter" sounds SO much better.

I Got Nothin'

Bloggers' block has struck. I sit here, a citizen of the richest, most powerful nation in the history of civilization, surrounded by the accoutrements of modern technology--the compiled knowledge of every great thinker who has ever lived literally at my fingertips, and I can think of nothing more salient or provocative to say than that I really, really like bacon. I disgust myself sometimes.

Monday Miscellany

On this second day of election year, I must take a moment to express my joy at the fact that I do not live in Iowa.  Not just for the obvious reason--corn--but because I cannot imagine what it must be like to have to deal constantly with the phone calls, mailings, door-to-door canvassing, and for all I know smoke signals of the various candidates vying to make a good showing in tomorrow's caucuses.

Mind you, this is not a partisan commentary.  While I'm sure it is easier being a registered Democrat in Iowa this year, when there is no contested primary, I would have found it just as unbearable being beseeched by supporters of Hilary or Barack (or John or whoever else was hanging around) in 2008 as I imagine it is for the folks now being bombarded by representatives of Mitt or Newt or Ron (well, OK, it might be amusing to try keeping a straight face while talking to volunteers of EITHER of the Ricks).

Be strong, Iowans!  This will all be over after tomorrow, and you can go back to your accustomed irrelevance.

Your Attention Please

"Medicines to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are in such short supply that hundreds of patients complain daily to the Food and Drug Administration that they are unable to find a pharmacy with enough pills to fill their prescriptions."
                             "F.D.A. Finds Short Supply of Attention Deficit Drugs"

Ladies and. . .uh, what? Oh! Sorry.  Where was I?

OK.  Ladies and gentlemen of the Attention Deficit Disorder Sufferers of. . .what IS that smudge on my note card?  It's funny.  It looks kind of like one of those clouds?  You know, one of those clouds that looks like something?  It looks like a cloud that looks like a banana. . . .So, I guess what I'm saying is it looks like a banana.  Yeah.

OK, sorry, here we go:

Ladies and gentlemen of the Attention Deficit Disorder Sufferers of America, thank you for. . . .  Uh. . . .Hel-LO?  Could I have your attention, please?

[LOUD LAUGHTER]

OK, yeah, that IS kind of funny, but, seriously!  Could you all just kind of, you know, look this way. . . yes, at me. . . great. . . .

OK.  Now, you all know why we're here today.  Drug Enforcement Administration policies and corporate greed have created a wholly unnecessary shortage of the ADHD medications that are needed by people like you and me. . . .Should that be 'you and I'?  That doesn't sound right.  But neither does 'you and me'. . . .I should just say 'us,' shouldn't I?  Or shouldn't me?  Ha!

Right.

OK, yes, so the DEA wants to make sure that people don't abuse ADHD drugs, so they restrict the amount of drugs that a company can produce.  And now a lot of those companies, since they can only produce a certain number of drugs, are producing MORE of their brand name drugs, and LESS of their generics, so even when we CAN get drugs, we sometimes have to pay ten times as much as we would normally pay because we have to buy the brand name instead of the generics and that humming is driving me crazy what the hell IS that?  The air conditioning?  Can we turn it off?  We can't turn it off?  Fine. . . . Uh. . . .

OK, so. . ..Hey, where's everybody going? . . . .No, I wasn't finished!  We haven't decided what we're going to DO yet, have we?  Exactly!  If we want to effect change, we have to organize!  Just like those Occupy people.  We need to occupy something.  I suggest the DEA.  It's one building, so there's less of a chance for us to get lost.  All in favor?. . . All in favor?. . . .I'M CALLING FOR A VOTE HERE, PEOPLE, COULD YOU ALL JUST LISTEN FOR A MOMENT?

Thank you!  Now, all in favor? . . . Oh, for God's sake!  Of occupying the DEA!  Yes, that's what we're voting on!  TO GET THEM TO LOOSEN UP THEIR POLICIES, THAT'S WHY!

OK.  So we'll meet at the DEA offices tomorrow at 9:00 AM.  I want to thank all the people that have stayed for this entire meeting.  Thanks, Larry.