The Value of Higher Education

I started to do some research for an effort about the cost of higher education this week; concerned about the $1 trillion dollars in student loan debt, yet another politically motivated debate on a program that is little more than federally funded 'price fixing' where interest rates on college loans are concerned, and disquiet that the price of a college education might be rising far faster than the national rate of inflation would predict.  College tuition seems to be the issue de jour in politics these days, as the campaigns vie for student votes in an election year; and as a consequence, the obligatory pandering to their suffering is currently going on.

In fact, according to this ABC piece, tuition costs rose in last year at a level of 8.3% (for at least one type of college), while the inflation rate was only 3.6%.  ABC was even kind enough to break the numbers down for all of us, so I highlighted them for you here below:

1.  Published in-state tuition and fees at public four-year institutions average $8,244 in 2011-12, $631 (8.3 percent) higher than in 2010-11.

2.  Published tuition and fees at for-profit institutions average an estimated $14,487 in 2011-12, 3.2 percent higher than in 2010-11.

3.  Published out-of-state tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities average $20,770, $1,122 (5.7 percent) higher than in 2010-11. 

4.  Published tuition and fees at private nonprofit four-year colleges and universities average $28,500 in 2011-12, $1,235 (4.5 percent) higher than in 2010-11.

(These numbers reflect costs per semester, and therefore double as an annual tuition cost.  Note that I did not include costs associated with living on campus that were available in this piece, as they are not 'tuition' costs, and for reasons which will quickly become apparent.) 

When I looked at these numbers, a couple of things struck me however.  First, that the greatest increase in percentage was in in-state tuition a public universities, though the dollar amount itself didn't seem life threatening.  Second, that most of the other increases were pretty much in keeping with the inflation rate, give or take a point or two.  Third, that the 'choice' of a for-profit university can get pricey in a hurry; and that looking at out-of-state tuition or that of a private non-profit school could get downright expensive.

There was something about that first number that kept nagging at me however, and I was forced to continue digging through old notes and efforts until I discovered why this was.  What I discovered not only took me aback, but changed the direction of this piece entirely. 

What I rediscovered was a paper on policy analysis done by Adam B Schaeffer of the CATO Institute entitled, "They Spend WHAT?  The Real Cost of Public Schools" on March 10 of 2010.  This CATO Policy Analysis, #662, remains spot on though now two years old.  I highly recommend that you take the time go over the material contained in this 32 page effort on the state of public education in this country.  

Having grown up and attended schools in both the suburbs and city of Chicago, it was rediscovering the numbers that I had once read about the place of my birth that now began to haunt me.  Rather than bore you with trying to explain them, I have cut and pasted the requisite graph and chart below in order to simplify. 

2010 money spent on K-12 education in three areas of Chicago as provided by the district and as actually spent.

Now for those of you who weren't paying attention in math class, what these numbers appear to indicate are a couple of things that we've long known, that the amount of taxpayer money reportedly spent is not always that actually spent, and that private schools provide an education for less than their public school counterparts (and in some cases, far less).  It also seems to glaringly indicate that two years ago in Chicago at least, taxpayers were paying about the same per student for K-12 education that the average college student pays in 2012 in the way tuition at an in-state institution of higher learning (if we adjust for two years of inflation, that seems almost certain).

So which is it?  Is $16,000 per year too much to spend on higher education, or is it an amount that needs to be increased in order to properly educate our K-12 children?

It seems apparent that it's in fact not the cost of higher education that's too high, unless those demanding more funding for K-12 education are likewise willing to concede that the mostly failed effort of a government-controlled education system is in fact also too high (something that I would gladly do).  It also seems that such a sum should be more than enough to cover communicating basic learning skills to 5 thru 17 year-olds if it's enough to educate a college student.  One might even go further, and say it's logical to conclude that many more might be able to afford to pay the higher education bill for their children (as they have a K-12 education), if they weren't already paying taxes for someone else's child's education at the same time (you know much as parents whose children attend private schools do for others every day).  

Yet another lesson exists for those who view such numbers as these and still choose expensive for profit universities, out-of-state, or private schools.  The vastly greater funds you will spend on tuition can teach you a different and valuable lesson that most of us learned outside of the classroom and far more cheaply; that while either will get you where you're going, a Cadillac costs more than a Chevy (unless of course, it's a 'Volt').  

As for those whose four year education has earned them little more than a place in the unemployment line, perhaps it was not the cost of their education that was the problem, but the value of what they 'chose' to learn while obtaining it.

TFP Column: Defining Collateral Damage

While listening to stories about the use of armed drones to attack alleged terrorists (thing time in Yemen), I was struck again by how much of war has become a strategy of 'push button' tactics.  In WWII it was people miles in the sky in airplanes doing the pushing, now it people often hundreds or thousands of miles away pushing the buttons on the airplanes.

While all of this button pushing is going on and targets are being taken out, there are regrettably those that are killed with the target simply as collateral damage.  But they're not the only incidnental results of such strategy.

It's this that I attempt to look at in this week's TFP effort "Defining Collateral Damage", which looks not only at what occurs in foreign lands, but that which occurs in this country as the result of such strategies.

While we're at it you might want to make sure to do a little collateral damage yourself by catching up with everything going on in Toledo and NW Ohio (it is Mother's Day weekend, after all) by reading Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's best weekly newspaper for the third year in a row, the Toledo Free Press.

Half or Twice As Much?

While I'm working on something of a more serious nature, I wanted to share a brief thought with you that struck me as I watched the President kick off his official 2012 campaign at the Schottenstein Center on the Ohio State University campus.  Since Columbus, OH is one of my former hometowns (and the one where I lived the longest ... and the most number of times). 

There has been a great deal of discussion over the venue of kickoff of the campaign, in spite of the fact that it's only four days ago.  Now politics is as much about perception as it is about reality (and some would say far more), so the picture that many saw of the president speaking before the OSU banner carries a message, both up front and subliminal.  We see smiling faces and people applauding (as such events are want to bring out).     

The banner in the background likewise lends an air of almost endorsement, though I'm sure that somewhere on the last page of a press release in typeface normally reserved for the last 5 seconds of a car commercial, it states that the University is not endorsing, nor can it endorse, the candidacy of any elected official.   

The second picture has been much ballyhooed by those of the Republican persuasion, showing that the packed houses that once likened the President to a Rock Star, have dwindled.  Not only are the upper decks largely empty, but unless the the Secret Service or OSU officials prevented it, the arena floor is likewise mostly empty.  The question Republican pundits posed was that of whether the venue was "half-full or half-empty".   

These pictures reminded me of this clever phrase as well, but with a different interpretation; one explained to me many years ago:

The Optimist looks and says that the glass is half-full.

The Pessimist looks and says that the glass is half-empty.

The Realist looks as says that we have twice as much glass as we need.

So while these pictures remain in the public eye late me state that:

The Cynic looks and says Mr. President, that we're trying to tell you that we have twice as much (and more) government than we need.  Are you getting the message?

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #32

I know that it has been far too long since proper additions to this reference tome have been made, but it appears that the lexicographers in charge of such work managed to conceal the only complete copy of this work in a misguided attempt to get away with what amounts to little more than a case of criminal laziness. While the staff disciplinarian here at Just Blowing Smoke continues to occasionally beat the wretches until morale improves, these 'enthusiasm enhancing episodes' appear to do have little impact on either the quantity or the quality of their efforts.  (Personally, I just think they're jealous of the Cheetos that we supply to the DJBSS in their attic Command Center.)  Senior staff will continue to search for new ways to 'inspire' greater output.

Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the label of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different to those us who have come to understand the often peculiar vernacular of politics in Toledo, Northwest Ohio, and sometimes the nation as a whole.

... gate:

1.  A movable barrier, sometimes on hinges, used to provide access to an area protected by a fence or wall.

2.  A combining form which, when attached to the end of another word, depicts a scandal having to do with that original word; normally used by the mainstream media for no better reason than their own laziness and lack of creativity.

(Few if any remember that the original use of such intellectual shortcuts came from the Watergate scandal in 1972, which was not in fact a scandal about 'Water', but was the name of the Washington DC office complex in which a politically motivated break-in was committed by members of the Nixon re-election campaign team at the Democratic National Headquarters.)


... ocracy:

1.  From the Greek 'kratia' - meaning strength or to rule (govern)

2.  A combining form used to designate the group of people given the power to govern.  Examples of such types of rule are:  Aristocracy (an elite group), Meritocracy (a group of those with special or superior ability), Mediocracy (a group with no special ability), Bureaucracy (a group with the ability to find non-elected government jobs - see Mediocracy) Democracy - (a group which has the ability to vote ... in this country, normally a very small group).

3. A sub-category of the combining form where terms are created to be used as an effective insult to define those currently attempting (and usually failing miserably) to govern.  Examples of such types of rule are:  Ineptocracy (a group of people with no special ability except that to fail), Idiocracy (a group of those considered Idiots, but not Village Idiots ), Kakocracy (a group of people considered 'natural fertilizer'), Congress (while not ostensibly ending in 'ocracy', a nevertheless effective comparison when using the standard set out in #3)

May Terror Alert: MOTHERS

May is hard upon us, and while many look forward to the relaxation of these warmer months, the Department of Just Blowing Smoke Security (DJBSS) continues in its tireless efforts to root out potential terrorists threats in this nation. (Though it appears that they are currently only tireless because they ran out of decaf and had to use the real stuff while making the copious quantities of Irish coffee they continuously consume.)   And while they have been given little in the way of credit for what some consider to be their nonsensical labors (and even less in terms of financial remuneration), it must at least be conceded that their efforts have thus far proven more effective as threat protection for this nation than their TSA 'mall cop' counterparts at airports around the country.

The threat assessment slipped out from under the locked door of their Command Center today (an attic room that we keep them locked in for their own protection, as well as ours) is indeed a serious one, in spite of the fact that it appears to be covered in Cheetos crumbs (they have recently insisted on the 'Flamin' Hot' ones). In fact they are warning us just in time of the impending once a year appearance of a particularly insidious group of miscreants ... MOTHERS. 

Do not be deceived into believing that they are for one moment talking about those wonderful female progenitors who served tirelessly, wiping our butts as babies, our noses and foreheads as children each and every time that illness beset us, and our tears to this very day as life's trials and tribulations attempt to overcome us.  This group is in fact the antithesis of their venerable namesake: Malicious and Obnoxious Troublemakers who Hate Everything Regarding maternal Sentiment.  

Rumor has it that many of the members of this particularly evil little bunch ne'er-do-wells in fact never had mothers of their own and that they were in fact created in a under-funded government research project, performed at a long since de-certified junior college.  (Some hint that it wasn't a junior college at all, but in fact 'The Wanda Trossler School of Beauty'.)  If the bulk of these rumors are in fact correct, their mothers were apparently little more than dirty test tubes manufactured in a factory built on a toxic waste site in China (allegedly right next to where the current I Pad factory is today).  The government of course vehemently denies these claims, stating firmly and for the record that: "There has never been any such thing as a under-funded government research project."

Showing the twisted Jealousy one might expect for those around them not produced as part of yet another of these failed experiments (a project allegedly called 'It Takes A Village'), and provided with years of the kind of efficient mothering that only 24 hour per day government assistance could provide, they have now dedicated their very existence to a program designed to denigrate that which they will never know in methods so twisted that even Stephen King hasn't thought of them (yet).

Of course you've all seen them out there over the years.  They're the ones who always insisted on jumping off the bridge, just because everyone else did.  They're the ones who always put their elbows on the table, stubbornly refused to drink their milk (or Ovaltine or Tang for that matter) and who scoffed at claims that starving children around the world would gladly eat the vegetables that they had turned their noses up at.

They're also the ones, by the way, who spend far too much time these days on the late afternoon talk shows, decrying the role of motherhood as something only fit for women unable or unwilling to pursue a more satisfying professional career (mostly because, male or female, they are those least likely to find someone willing to participate in reproductive behavior with).  They are also those whose career in fact seems to involve writing scripts for what are considered 'hip' sitcoms about women who look down their noses at those they consider 'chained by the bonds of parenthood'.

May is normally the peak period of their perfidious activity, being the month in which a holiday exists in celebration of that which they fear and detest most.  Castigating the day of reverence for this most challenging of responsibilities as nothing more than a 'Hallmark Holiday', they can sometimes be found performing curiously contradictory observances.  While acknowledging the existence of the festival, they will undoubtedly seek to glorify the capitalistic perversions of it; attempting to demean its festivities as simply a day to get a great price on a mattress or a set of tires.    

MOTHERS can be recognized fairly easily in public.  Depending on their apparel, they can clearly picked out by scars on elbows and knees that were neither correctly bandaged, nor properly disinfected by a kiss.  If their limbs are covered, they'll be the ones who haven't washed behind their ears.  Unfortunately for those keeping their company, they're also the ones who don't wash their hands before dinner or after they've gone to the bathroom (which paints a particularly disgusting picture if they've done the latter just prior to the former).  Their hair is usually uncombed, their teeth unbrushed, and their faces are unscrubbed.  

Owing to the sheer volume of their nefarious activities over the next week, the DJBSS hotline will be open 24 hours a day until after Mother's Day.  While the call volume at 1-800-RAT-BUTT can likewise expected to be high and some delays are inevitable, please remain on the line and all relevant information regarding their evil enterprises will be taken down for future reprisal.

Because of the particularly disgusting nature of their transgressions (and personal habits) the Terror Threat is being raised to a particularly dirty shade of Gray.

The Cost of Victory

On the first anniversary of the day that Usama bin Laden was killed, the President made a surprise trip to Afghanistan where he signed a historic treaty with that nation. Please note that this was an agreement and not a 'treaty', in spite of the fact that as that "defines a new kind of relationship between our nations" (according to the Fox News transcript).  Now normally such an Agreement between nations would have required Senate approval before having any legal meaning, but let's set that aside to consider the subject at hand.  

From Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, the President spoke both to the troops assembled, to the world at large, and just as prime in the US began; saying that, "The goal that I set – to defeat Al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach." 

He went on to say, "In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with Al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them."  

And continued later with, "The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to Al Qaeda."

If in fact all of this is an honest assessment of the world situation in the fight against Terrorism (and I am willing to concede, at least for the sake of argument, that the President is better informed on such things than I am), then this means that for all intents and purposes, the War on Terror is all but over.  

While I have been thus far willing to concede points, my concession speech is now over, and I must say that all of this one gives me pause for doubts.  Nevertheless, if we are to believe that this is true and not just a political stunt pulled in an election year to win votes (a practice which all first term Presidents are certainly capable of), I for one have a few questions for this Administration:

• Why are we still permitting the draconian (and mostly failed) procedures and methods of the TSA to provide what passes for Airport Security in this nation?  If tensions are in fact easing, why are we still doing pat downs on 80 year-old women in wheel chairs, aggressive pat downs of seven year-old girls with cerebral palsy, and four year-old girls who run to their grandmothers?  Don't these practices contradict the statements being made on the international stage?
• Why do we need the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which suspends the right of habeus corpus (something of questionable Constitutional authority which has only been done previously during periods of war), and permits the government to indefinitely detain suspects without charges or trial, even if they are American citizens?  The president himself stated that he was reluctant to sign the bill in the first place.  Why then can't we see one of those famous 'executive orders' rescinding the Constitutionally questionable portions of legislation which shouldn't have been passed in the first place?
• Why must we continue to cede to the government the use of National Security Letters, which permit the FBI to do wire taps, searches of telephone and financial records, and email history without a court order, through the renewed provisions of The Patriot Act passed just under a year ago?  If this battle is winding down, surely this nation no longer requires the extreme and again Constitutionally questionable practices ceding the basic rights of its citizens guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to the government
• Why are we still discussing the deployment of unmanned (and at least according to the government unarmed) drones to perform what must in light of these changing circumstances, be considered little more than an unnecessary bit of 'routine surveillance' of the civilian population in this country?  If tensions are in fact easing, surely we don't need Big Brother watching over us quite so closely (and probably illegally) any longer?

The cynic in me cries out at the curious coincidence of timing in such an announcement so close to the November elections (like Leroy Jethro Gibbs, I don't believe in coincidence).  Certainly we expect there to be the usual amount of grandstanding, selective fact recognition, and creative story telling this time of year. The safety of this nation is not a game to be played or something to be trifled with for the sake of two, four, or six more years (depending on which office you're running for); and woe betide the politicians who attempt to play fast and loose in doing so. 

The political pundit in me is likewise suspicious of events which turn the public's attention away from critical domestic issues and towards the nonsense of a non-treaty treaty; one which in turn will be followed by another non-treaty treaty that will come later in Chicago. Such events often prove to be media events staged more for political ends than real agreements of regional peace; especially in an area that has not seen such a thing for thousands of years.

We knew going into the War on Terror that the price of failure would be a heavy one indeed, both in terms of the potential loss of life and that of damage to this nation.  The lesson of 9/11 taught both of those lessons to us the hard way. We knew going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan would likewise take their toll on this nation in lives and treasure, and we were not wrong.  We may have some idea of the financial burden we incurred, but it will be many decades before we learn what the real human cost of these conflicts are in the shattered lives and shattered families that we are only now beginning to count.

What none of us forecast over ten years ago however, is what the 'Cost of Victory' would be.  Oh sure, we recognized that putting this country on a domestic war footing with an enemy that was more than willing to bring the battle to our soil was going to have a financial cost; most of it in terms of bureaucracy created to deal with this new world we were confronted with.  Few if any however, recognized the price that we would be paying in personal freedom; or in the aggressive power-seeking mentality that we were creating in government.  Few indeed foresaw the runaway train of government growth, fed by a mind-set that was apparently perfectly willing to sacrifice the liberty that's at the foundation of this country for a illusory security that never existed before and never will.

I sometimes fear that the cost of this victory has already been a far greater one than we ever realized, and one that we may not be prepared to bear in the years ahead.

 

Indecent Exposure

It's a rare occasion when I feel the need to admit that I'm wrong.  (Most who truly know me would say that it's an even more rare {rarer?} occasion when I actually do so, and especially in any kind of public forum.)  It's not that I don't find myself being wrong or being in the wrong on a regular enough basis in my life; but since my last marriage ended, the requirement (and perhaps the ability) of admitting to mistaken notions or even more misguided behavior has somewhat withered through a lack of use. Having such survival skills atrophy during a marriage can be fatal, and even now might prove to be dangerous, a fact I'm afraid I may yet come to discover.

I'm sure that many are beginning to wonder what could possibly be the heinous nature of my sin, and why I should feel this apparently overwhelming need for confession.  Have no fear that I will make you wait any longer however, for the moment of truth is in fact upon me.  Here it is:  I admitted both to the writing of this blog and likewise to my efforts for the Toledo Free Press to some of my co-workers.

"What, that's it?" some of you may now be saying. "Jeez, what a let down.  What's the big deal about that anyway?"  Others however, perhaps writers themselves; or at least older and wiser in nature of things must now instead be saying, "Oh my God what's wrong with you? Have you no sense at all, let alone a decent sense of shame?" The former question is one to which many learned doctors have lent their talents, in a long and largely unsuccessfully quest for an answer, so don't expect to get any insight here from me.  The answer to the latter is proving equally problematic however, in spite of the fact that I am more than familiar with the concept.  (Those of the Jewish faith may have cornered much of the market on guilt, but for shame one really needs to turn to those of us raised Catholic.)  For while I always thought I met reasonable requirements in this area, recent actions must call that assumption into serious question.

Now one of my literary heroes Robert Heinlein, was quoted as saying:  “Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards.” But that's easier for Mr. Heinlein than some of the rest of us.  Not only were his talents and writing abilities far beyond those of most of us mere mortals, but he has the additional advantage of having achieved room temperature back in the late 80's.  Because of his talent and the fame (along with what I would assume would have been a healthy amount of money), I'm sure that he was far less likely to succumb to embarrassment over his own dirty little habit, even while carrying it out. Being now in the position of taking a permanent 'dirt nap', he is I'm sure less concerned with the vagaries of celebrity, chagrin over the way he earned his money, and the problems involved with ignoring those pesky autograph seekers.

Also of course, he doesn't have to go back into the office next week and face people who by then may well have made the fatal mistake of reading some of his literary version of natural fertilizer.  He will never have to survive the guilt of having wasted some part of their finite time on this Earth (time they'll never get back) in joining even temporarily, with the rather twisted following that he might have gathered over the years.  Worse still, he will not be worrying that in doing so, they may perhaps have gained a greater insight into the shallow nature of the intellect and trivial nature of the soul that produces this malodorous tripe.  He will not have to face up to the fact that having thus plumbed the depths of a personality that's usually found wanting in fathomage by comparison to the local kiddy pool, they must now attempt to cover (at least as best they can) the obvious disdain in which they must now hold this mostly disreputable scribbler in an attempt to maintain some semblance of good order and discipline in the office. 

Having now exposed a soul best left to hide in the shadows however, there will inevitably be changes ahead.  You know what I'm talking about.  Sidelong looks filled with equal parts of pity and disgust, reluctant handshakes with oft-averted eyes, and of course the whispered conversations just out of earshot (accompanied by the sadly shaking heads) that must inevitably follow.  No blame of course can be attached to such behavior on their parts, since what these co-workers have been presented with is little more than a form of Indecent Exposure.  They didn't necessarily ask for the experience they were subjected to.  They were innocently minding their own business when confronted by something that no reasonable person can hope to be prepared for.

You know, come to think of it, perhaps I should be accepting responsibility for what I've put all of the rest of you who have been following "Just Blowing Smoke" for some time now (and apparently in ever-increasing numbers).  The fifth anniversary of the creation of this blog on this venue is fast approaching, and there are times when feelings of guilt for the damage that I might have caused to a faceless and mostly blameless audience over that period is all but overwhelming.  To be honest with you, I have from time to time seriously considered giving up this horribly perverted exhibitionist behavior in the name of common decency.  Having done it for as long as I have often makes it difficult to face myself in the mirror in the morning (which may in some way account for the beard).

Please note that I do not in this self-flagellation, count the efforts that I pen for the Toledo Free Press.  Nor is the inestimable Editor-in-Chief of that esteemed publication in any way responsible for the often stinking offal that makes its way onto these pages.  Not only have I desperately attempted to write to a higher standard in gratitude for his confidence (at least as much as I can), but his guiding influence and strict ethical code would no doubt prevent much of what passes for composition on these pages from ever seeing the light of day.

While I am more than willing to tender my most sincere apologies for all that I have put you through, I unfortunately find that I have neither the strength of character, nor of will, to abandon these disgusting practices that have become so much a part of my life.  Overwhelmed by my own twisted desires and the demented sense of satisfaction that I gain from continuing this personal perversion, I suspect myself likely to continue for some time.  (Besides, I don't want to add to the national unemployment figures by throwing the JBS staff  out into the street.)

I fear however that in spite of the increasing temperatures here in Kansas City, this most recent breech of office etiquette (and perhaps even 'below the line behavior') may force me to don the trench floppy hat that have long served as a uniform for those committing similarly depraved acts.  If after all, I'm going to reveal my disgusting nature through this form of Intellectual Indecent Exposure, I might as well look the part.     

Hey, I wonder if I've still got that old Army helmet liner around somewhere.  There might at least be something kind of retro-cool to looking like the title character from the 1971 Jethro Tull classic that I used to perform in my youth ... 

 Aqualung

TFP Column: Selling Stupid

When you've been around sales as long as I have, you begin to recognize who's got a good pitch and who's got a lousy one.  You also wonder how some can manage to make a great pitch with a lousy product and some make an embarrassingly horrible one with a good, or even a great product.

So it was this week, that I began to look at the upcoming November election in terms of both the product that each of the two major parties were pitching, and at the way that they had prepared and packaged their ideas for the voters that they were trying to sell. The result is this week's effort in the TFP, "Selling Stupid", a title which you will understand soon after you begin reading.

Since this effort looks to go up on the website pretty early this week, you'll understand that you have a lot to look forward to.  Not only is the mid-wee 'Star' edition covering the incredible line up of super hero movies coming out this summer, but there's little doubt that this weekend's TFP will, as always, have a few super pieces of its own.

But what else could you expect from Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's best weekly newspaper for the third straight year, the Toledo Free Press.  

Primary Education

In spite of the fact that the primary process is not over, it appears that it is.  President Obama after all, was running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, proving once again what George Ade said long ago that, "Anybody can win unless there happens to be a second entry".  In spite of a marginal approval rating and less than marginal economy, President Obama will easily receive his party's nomination to run for a second term.

After the initial assumption by Republicans that no one could beat Mitt Romney for his party's nomination, one that was proved false on more than one occasion, he now appears to be the last man standing in process that proved only slightly more entertaining than the Rosie O'Donnell Show (which the Oprah Network recently cancelled). While Romney hasn't got the delegate count required to officially end the process, even his most ardent detractors are all but conceding his victory, and beginning to fall in line in order to present a united front in time for the convention. 

Looking back at what's gone on so far however, the glaring questions in my mind aren't about the candidates (whose real test is yet before them), but about the primary process itself.  

We might start for example with the insistence on the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire to kick off the process individually, in spite of a complete lack of credible reasoning to continue this archaic process. Other than drawing attention to states which nothing else normally does, there's no logical reason to allow it to go on.  

Immediately following, we can add in the constant shuffling of primary dates by states across the rest of the country hoping to make their own relevant.  In spite of constant threats by national parties of sanctions for doing so, this never-ending 'me first' attitude has done nothing but drag the process out.  (Isn't it amazing that this infighting doesn't make us question whether political parties who cannot seem to control their memberships are capable of accepting the leadership of a nation?)

Isn't it in fact curious that at a time when so many claim that the big problem with politics today is the money involved, they insist on a long primary process that's as much proof of a candidates ability to raise money as it is to raise the enthusiasm of his own parties political base?  Of course, we're told that as the process continues, we learn more about each candidate.  Bullshit!  All that happens over time is the candidates manage to smooth the rough edges off of stump speeches they'll eventually need in the actual election, while likewise learning to tailor them to individual audiences across the country.

Why must this process (like every other in politics) favor incumbent candidates, who either don't have to compete or spend from their war chests or have money left over from previous efforts?  Why can't this process be about the best people expressing the brightest ideas, regardless of when they hit the national stage?  Why can't those ideas be ones that they've long held and which persuaded them to run for office in the first place, instead of ones that they're only now recognizing as they "travel all across this great land of ours, talking to hard-working American people"? 

Why can't we learn from past mistakes and successes in this process?  So let's take this as an educational example of potential improvement.

Why can't we start the process on April 16, the day after the American voter truly learns what the price of democracy is (more on that later)?  It certainly seems a fitting date.  We can begin with three or four debates to give an understanding of each candidate's principles, and start the actual voting process in the middle of May.

We could then run five "Super Tuesdays" of ten states each; two weeks apart (and if Iowa and New Hampshire insist on being in the first group, that's  OK with me).  Interspersed with these primary groupings, four additional debates could be held if requested or required by circumstances.  The entire process would be over in ten weeks, and still allow Parties to hold nominating conventions in plenty of time for the election. 

Such a concentrated process would make many more of these primaries meaningful, coming as close together as they would.  They would also have the intended consequence that the process would no longer be one of who could raise enough money to last out an admittedly overlong process, but whose core principles would stand up best in this concentrated marketplace of ideas.

While were at it, why not eliminate the ones like Missouri's; which while it allows a popular vote, only allows one that has nothing to do with picking delegates or nominating a candidate.  If these states wish to hold primaries, the least that they can do for voters is to keep them from being a meaningless sham.  

Perhaps most importantly, by changing and concentrating the process, we can make the political parties themselves pay for some portion (if not all) of these private beauty contests.  I can find nothing in the Constitution which mandates the need for political parties, and nothing that therefore requires that the taxpayers of the states holding them foot the bill.  

One could (and perhaps even should) therefore demand that if taxpayers must in fact pay for any part of this party process, that all primaries be open ones in which voters are allowed a ballot regardless of prior party affiliation (or lack thereof).  It seems a violation of voting rights and a particularly egregious offense that Republicans and Democrats are capable of billing the American people for their private processes, and then refusing them the right to participate in them.

Listen, Democracy is never perfect; and even the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of the representative republic they were creating.  Forming political parties in fact, was something that they did reluctantly.  None of what has become the primary process however, is defined or mandated in the language of the document that created this government.  

It's up to us to do what we can therefore, to see that we get the best possible candidates that we can to hand over the limited reins and responsibilities for the highest office in the land (and those of the legislature).  There's a lot about the twisted path that we find ourselves on that will be difficult to straighten out, perhaps cleaning up the primary process however could be seen as a truly 'shovel ready project'.  

Population Density

(For those of you unfamiliar with "Just Blowing Smoke", let me state for the record that while I attempt to cover serious issues during the week; the weekend is normally reserved for complete nonsense.  While even I concede that the difference is all but indistinguishable; you can still expect that sarcasm lock key has firmly been pressed today.)

The City of Los Angeles is making a renewed and conscious push to increase population density around the major arteries of its mass transit system by enforcing special new zoning laws. Since LA is the model of urban sprawl and the home to a particular breed of silly people; the more I considered this, the more it confused me.

Oh sure, with the cost of housing in southern California (or anywhere else in the state for that matter), you'd have to be pretty dense in the first place to want to sign on to a new mortgage in these troubled times.  (Come to think of it, wasn't it stupid people buying houses that created a good chunk of the problem in the first place?)  What I couldn't understand however, was what advantage to the city there was to having so many dense people living in such close proximity to each other.  While a concerted push to gather all those considered 'slow on the uptake' together in certain areas might be beneficial to law enforcement (criminals have long shown themselves to be amongst the densest of the species and would therefore be easier to keep an eye on); the attempt to gather the weak-minded together through zoning laws might be considered a form of profiling that should be considered illegal and concentrating patrols in such an area might therefore cause more problems for law enforcement than it would solve?

I also couldn't help but wonder whether having so many dim-witted people living together might create additional burdens on other city services.  Were accidental fires more likely to occur in an area filled with obtuse individuals?  Were toilets more likely to clog after inappropriate things had been flushed down them by people who were simply too dim to know better, causing sewer line issues?  Would special traffic signals have to be installed in such areas to prevent oafish citizens from hurting themselves or each other in crossing streets?  And what did any of this have to do with putting these simple folks around the transit system?

Then it hit me!  

Having driven far too many miles, far too slowly on LA freeways over the years, I realized that perhaps the city had finally figured out a way to make a serious attempt to get some of the worst idiots off their highways and onto buses and trains.  This was brilliant!  Not only would this allow more intelligent commuters to travel on these multi-lane masterpieces of modern transportation more quickly, but it would also likely help those using public conveyances to commute to and from work.  Saving them the cost of automobiles, insurance, and $5 plus per gallon gas would allow them to divert this new found wealth into paying for homes that they probably still couldn't afford.  Of course you'd still have to figure out a way to make these dummies want to move there in the first place, and to walk past their cars and on to the transit stations, but it might be a start. (Maybe they could come up with a program of IQ-based property tax incentives.)

Eventually however, I began to wonder if such a grand scheme, no matter how masterfully conceived and executed, could actually succeed.  After all weren't Washington DC and its surrounding suburbs packed with some of the densest people in the nation, with no pervasive benefit coming from collecting those whose elevator doesn't go to the top couple of floors into one area.  One might even be able to successfully make the case that concentrating these dense people, as we have, into areas where the primary sources of employment are federal agencies and the national legislature might actually have had a deleterious long term effect on the nation.  (Many have made the case that it already has.)

Of course I've never heard anyone discuss that there had ever been an actual plan to increase the number of numskulls in Washington, though perhaps the prospect of a safe and well-paying and simple minded government job is in and of itself enough to attract those who will never be considered the 'brightest bulbs on the tree' (and a fair number of those who might glow a bit brighter).  Maybe there's just something about not being 'the shiniest coin in the purse' that lends itself to the talents required for government service and attracts them, like moths to the flame.  Maybe the single minded pursuit of incredibly tedious, mostly useless paperwork; all wrapped in pretty red tape and filed in triplicate is something that appeals to those who could be considered a bit slow on the uptake.  

Perhaps this even goes a long way to explain Charles L'Enfant's design of Washington itself, where the east-west streets are all named with letters and the north-south streets with numbers ... a recognition that a subtle aid for mostly senseless residents to make their way around the seat of the national government more easily was a necessity.  Perhaps this is even why the Capitol City was built on mostly mosquito-infested swamp land that would have been otherwise found unsuitable and uncomfortable for use to those considered far more sensible.

With such an obvious example of failure before it, the LA experiment with population density is likely to be proved an idea as dumb as those it expects to influence.

Update:

More recently released statements in the news find that LA is now trying to cover their tracks (pun intended) with this whole effort up by saying that all of this is actually an environmental issue.  (Perhaps they had gotten wind of this post coming out and decided to do a little proactive damage control.)  In a marvelous bit of political spin, they have apparently come forward to claim that the goal that they were in fact attempting to achieve was not that of getting stupid people sequestered into specific selected areas of the city, as was apparent from the wording of their original announcement; but instead that of getting 'a lot of people' concentrated in multi-family dwellings around their mass transit system. (Nicely played LA, nicely played indeed ...)

None of the more recently released statement speaks to how they expect to crowd people into town homes and apartment buildings in the capital of urban sprawl when they could instead be living in single family homes, unless of course they're stupid.  But that's OK, if history has taught us anything, it's that everyone will blindly accept the statements of government officials without question when what they're trying to tell is they are smarter than contractors in knowing what they can do with the property that they own and likewise smarter than people in knowing where they can and should live.

Come on now, how stupid do they think we are anyway?  (Don't answer that.)