Nobrainer’s Think Tank

The quote, from a candidate who I will let remain nameless:

TAPPER: But…proponents of school choice say that the best way to change the status quo is to give parents, inner-city parents a choice. Why not?

[Candidate]: Well, the problem is, is that, you know, although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you’re going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom. We don’t have enough slots for every child to go into a parochial school or a private school. And what you would see is a huge drain of resources out of the public schools.

So what I’ve said is let’s foster competition within the public school system. Let’s make sure that charter schools are up and running. Let’s make sure that kids who are in failing schools, in local school districts, have an option to go to schools that are doing well.

But what I don’t want to do is to see a diminished commitment to the public schools to the point where all we have are the hardest-to-teach kids with the least involved parents with the most disabilities in the public schools. That’s going to make things worse, and we’re going to lose the commitment to public schools that I think have been so important to building this country.

The analysis:

Finally, note the political mastery here. Take the question of how many kids would leave government schools for private schools under a full school competition system. [He] wants to be on both sides of this assumption, sometimes assuming the number is small (when discussing benefits) and then assuming the number is large (when discussing costs). [He] is a master because he makes this switch back and forth from sentence to sentence. First, the number leaving public schools is low, since choice would just benefit “some kids” (Bad old rich ones at that) and leave our [sic] “a lot of kids.” He again in the next sentence implies the number switching must be low, because there are not many private school spots. One sentence later, though, the number switching is high, since it would be a “huge drain of resources.” And then, in the third paragraph, the number switching is very high, since all that are left in public schools are a small core of the “hardest-to-teach kids.”

I recently ran across another instance of having it both ways, not related to politics, but to the topic of peak oil. (more…)

I figured I needed to post something that was more funny and less serious. So here it is.

On news that Americans drove 1.4 Billion fewer highway miles than at the same time last year,

[Transportation Secretary Mary] Peters expressed concern that the cutbacks have resulted in the collection of fewer taxes on gasoline. Such taxes are funneled to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which gets 18.4 cents per gallon from gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon from diesel fuel.

“History shows that we’re going to continue to see congested roads while gas tax revenues decline even further,” she said.

So people are going to drive less, but congestion isn’t going to improve? That seems odd. I’m certain there is wiggle room. For example, perhaps the miles being cut are vacation miles, or something, and not commuter miles. Or not [emphasis mine].

Commuter rail ridership broke an all-time record this week, and Caltrans reported a dip in freeway traffic as commuters across California struggled with record gasoline prices.

I will go back and somewhat agree with Mary Peters. If fleet fuel efficiency improves, and all other things remain equal, then higher gas taxes are necessary.

I’ve never met Larry Abernathy. I’ve never heard him speak. But every time I read things attributed to him I want to kick him in the gonads. Mayor Abernathy has been crusading to making all businesses in Clemson non-smoking. In the process, his words and actions piss me off.

He says the measure is all about improving the community.

“In the long haul, it save [sic] lives, and the bottom line (that’s) what it’s about. We know passive smoke is equally as dangerous as direct smoke,” Abernathy said.

Isn’t that nice. The small town mayor is trying to save ourselves from ourselves. How quaint. It’s all about saving lives, he says. Well does he really believe that? Doubtful, and that’s why he’s a douchebag in my book.

The smoking ban goes into effect July 1. The ordinance also prohibits the use of chewing tobacco, snuff or dip inside any public building or business in the city limits.

Because we all know that passive chewing tobacco, snuff, and dip are so dangerous.

Compared to Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama seems like a breath of fresh air. Recently it came up in conversation that I really want to like Barrack Obama. However, I do not. And today’s front page WSJ article demonstrated why.

“Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers,” he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

Ok, some/many people are irrational globalization-phobes. Let’s ignore and pare-down the comment a bit; “technology and automation all weaken the position of workers.” Maybe my first interpretation is wrong (as my teachers always said, default to your first reaction if you are in doubt). But it sounds a whole lot like Obama is now on record as being anti-technology and anti-automation.

Although, he might not be too bad a president; it’s always possible that he is lying through his teeth.

The overall Obama economic approach echoes the 1992 presidential platform of Bill Clinton, who also launched his bid for the White House seeking a big expansion in infrastructure spending. But those plans were quickly shelved once he reached the White House. Congress rejected a proposal to steeply increase energy taxes, which could have been used to pay for the spending.

Obama seems to suffer from the make-work bias. Sufferers of such a bias believe more in creating jobs than increasing productivity or using human capital efficiently (not matter how much they swear up and down that energy-efficiency is next to godliness). Perhaps soon he’ll present his major “spoon” proposal.

The make-work bias is best illustrated by a story, perhaps apocryphal, of an economist who visits China under Mao Zedong. He sees hundreds of workers building a dam with shovels. He asks: “Why don’t they use a mechanical digger?” “That would put people out of work,” replies the foreman. “Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam. If it’s jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them spoons.”

So I can not, I will not vote for Obama; of this I’m certain. He’s John Edwards with less hairspray.

Obama, change you can believe in. HA!

MSN has posted 9 big credit card myths. I figured I’d write a post about it because I’ve heard many of these rumors before and thought they were wrong.

1: Your credit card account isn’t opened until you activate it using the issuer’s toll-free number.…

Sorry, but the ding to your credit scores — typically 5 points or less — happens as soon as the issuer pulls your credit reports, which is usually within seconds of receiving your application. The account shows up as active on your credit reports shortly after the card is approved.

Myth No. 2: You can stop unsolicited credit card offers by sending them back in the postage-paid envelopes.

Myth No. 7: High credit card limits are bad for your credit scores.

I guess I should add that I did try to send back the offers in the pre-paid envelopes. Although, I read later, and perhaps it is another myth, that some credit card offerers measure their hit rate by how many replies of any kind they receive.