BlackFive

Graphic chart of (44% of) US tax spending

Boing Boing has a post linking to a pretty graphic of federal spending on discretionary programs in 2004. Pretty, but incredibly misleading. The image exists first and foremost to make a political point:

Most people are unaware of how much of their taxes fund our military, and those aware are often misinformed. Well here it is. Laid out, easy to read and compare. With data straight from the White House. I hope this makes people think and ask questions. Why do we spend more on jets than we do on public housing? Why is the Endowment for the Arts so small? Whats with all this foreign military financing?

To make this political point, the artist conveniently ignores entitlement spending to argue that half of federal spending is devoted to the military. But ignoring entitlement spending makes no sense, given the significant portion of the total budget made up by such spending.

According to the spreadsheets available at the Office of Management and Budget site, total spending in the President’s FY2007 budget is about $2.7 trillion. The Department of Defense accounts for $504 billion of the total. The Department of Health and Human Services gets $699.5 billion. The Social Security Administration is allocated $623 billion. The Department of Education gets $64.4 billion. HUD gets $44.6 billion. Include mandatory spending, which accounts for $1.5 trillion of the budget (56%) and the analysis is much different.

Why do we spend more on jets than on public housing? Because jets are expensive. Any budget that spent more on public housing than jets would be (rightly) laughed out of Congress. Why is the Endowment for the Arts so small? Because the arts should support themselves - why isn’t the allocation zero? How about this question - why have we spent so much on social programs and received so little benefit in return?

 

O’Fallon won’t release records without $34,000 deposit

Here’s a novel approach to open government - require any critics seeking records to post exorbitant deposits before records are released

    A special city attorney and the wife of a former alderman have been asked to pay more than $34,000 if they want to see what the mayor, city staff and elected officials have been talking about over e-mail and cell phones during the past year.O’Fallon special attorney Richard Fischer said the city will not comply with five public record requests he made last month unless he first pays a $17,250 deposit to cover anticipated attorney fees to determine what can be released.

This all relates to a series of messy disputes in O’Fallon, which is now stuck with paying outside counsel $225 per hour for legal support because it doesn’t want to have special counsel who question the powers that be. So much for transparency in government.

RCGA to unveil new ad campaign, logo

    The St. Louis ads will begin running in mid-April, marking the first time the slogan and logo will appear before a large national audience. The local marketing campaign is part of a larger, $20 million economic development program that’s being led by the St. Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association.The five-year program was crafted amid concerns that St. Louis has trailed the nation in job growth over the last 30 years. The plan is being funded with public and private dollars…

    The agency also hopes to persuade national reporters to write stories about St. Louis topics such as the efforts to build a biotech hub and revive downtown. In addition, plans call for more face-to-face meetings with consultants who advise companies on where to locate and for promotions at events such as an upcoming biotech conference in Chicago. A redesigned Web site is supporting the effort, too.

Advertising
Washington DC Excel Training Classes
At your office, home, conference room… you name it. Excel training at your location, at your convenience.
https://www.washingtondcexcelclasses.com/

Excel Classes in Houston, TX
Regularly scheduled & on-site Excel classes in Houston, TX.
https://www.houstonexcelclasses.com/

Putting aside the aesthetic merits of the logo (which aren’t many - what’s up with that upside-down exclamation point), the endeavor is not likely to have significant effect on job growth in St. Louis. If the region wants to attract business and create jobs, it should start with tax policy by repealing the St. Louis wage tax that drives existing business out of the city. A government that welcomes business and that doesn’t drive it out of town through high taxes would do a lot more good than a fancy new logo and ad campaign.

Missouri Democrats pushing for unconstitutional video game bill

Undeterred by the numerous court cases finding such bans unconstitutional, Missouri Democrats are pressing forward with a bill making it illegal to sell certain video games to minors

  The gory excerpts, taken from the most violent of video games [Postal II], were offered as Exhibit A this week in favor of a bill banning the sale of such content to minors. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to sell games rated M for “mature,” or AO for “adults only” to anyone under age 17. It also would impose fines as high as $5,000 to retailers who fail to post information about game ratings.While shocked members of the committee echoed the need to protect children, critics warned of certain legal assault against such efforts. And they needed only to point to St. Louis County and Illinois, where similar bans have been toppled in court.

The last refuge of the censor is always “protect the children.” Parents, however, already have all the tools they need to protect their children. All video games are rated, indicating the appropriate ages for such games. Here are the ratings in question in Missouri:

Mature 17+

Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.

Adults Only

Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

If you are a parent and don’t want your kids exposed to these games, don’t let them play games rated M or AO. Don’t know the rating of a game? Use the ESRB’s handy search feature, which will tell you that Postal 2 is rated M for “Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Mature Sexual Themes, Strong Language and Use of Drugs”. Or search by rating - there are nearly three times more games rated Teen (13+) than rated M or AO.

It’s just more Sesame Street Nation - lazy parents and the easily offended would rather have a society where nothing is inappropriate for a child than put the responsibility of raising children where it belongs, on the parents.

Post-Dispatch says CAFE standards too low

The Post-Dispatch, which never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved with more government, takes on the President for not raising light truck CAFE standards enough

Not only are the mileage standards not as high as they could be, but they also exclude popular styles such as pickup trucks. Worse, the new standards exempt light trucks from the so-called gas-guzzler tax, which is imposed on vehicles that fail to meet mileage standards. Buyers of some models of cars have to pay the tax even though their cars get better mileage than the light trucks that were exempted. That could encourage truck sales at the expense of more fuel-efficient cars.

The President’s plan raises the standards from 22.2 mpg to 24 mpg over four years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, an increase in CAFE standards of 3.8 mpg would cost the US economy $3.6 billion per year.  You won’t, however, see any discussion of cost in the Post’s editorial. Apparently, we just pick the money from the money tree.

The market is already able to deal with fuel economy, if dealing with fuel economy is necessary. Rising gas prices are likely to reduce demand for gas guzzlers. If consumers demand more economical choices, manufacturers will provide them. Government mandates and new taxes are not the answer.

 

Eliot Spitzer takes on spyware again

Eliot Spitzer is an ass, a scourge on capitalism who doesn’t mind littering his path to Albany with the hollow, zombie-eaten corpses of employers providing good jobs to Americans. But even a clock smashed with a hammer is right twice a day.

New York’s attorney general, Eliot L. Spitzer, sued another Internet pop-up advertising company, accusing it of secretly installing malicious programs on personal computers and sending ads through “spyware” that is already installed.Spitzer said Direct Revenue has installed millions of pop-up programs that also monitor the Internet activity of users. He asked a state court to stop the practice.

Prosecuting fraud is a legitimate use of the power of the AG. Spyware relies on secrecy, subterfuge and fraud to exist and spread. Lawsuits are unlikely to stop spyware, but every little bit helps.

 

Life, liberty, and cheap parking

Mayor Thomas “Mumbles” Menino issued a statement saying he’s going to seek a city ordinance capping how much private lots can charge for parking. One of those city councilors called the rates “criminal,” and city officials are looking at ways to punish the lot owners — such as rigorous inspections, citations, and even pulling their parking licenses.Pardon me, but when the hell did “cheap parking” become a Constitutional right? Especially “cheap parking to go see a baseball game?”

Here’s a simple test for the parking socialists: check out the lots that charge the most on game day. If they’re full, then they’re not charging too much. People who can not or will not pay that much will say “screw it” and find another way to deal with it. The lot owners are not sending armed attendants out into the street to force people to park there.

The real issue here is not that the prices are too high, but that the city isn’t getting their piece of the pie. They see some people making really good money, and are infuriated that they can’t get their hands on it. To be financially successful is a bad thing, and must be punished.

Jay Tea’s absolutely right. This is free enterprise at work. If the prices are too high, the lots will be empty. Don’t want to pay $90? Drive a little further and walk. Or find alternative transportation. It’s none of the government’s business what these private landowners charge for parking. Or what private businesses charge for anything, for that matter, absent abuse of monopoly power or price fixing. But you never go wrong in Massachusetts defending the wallets of Red Sox Nation.

 

Your Snickers are safe (for now)

An Illinois legislative committee voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to block the State Board of Education’s plan to bar junk food from elementary schools.The ban championed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich would prohibit the sale of soda, chips and candy in vending machines.

The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules blocked it 10-1.

Good. Hopefully the ban will be killed entirely, and not just re-worked. Clearly, a diet composed entirely of candy bars and grape soda is unhealthy, but even sugary snacks are acceptable in moderation. Illinois is just caving to the food fascists at the CSPI and their kin.

 

Missouri bill aims to restrict teaching of evolution

First it was making Christian proselytizing in public schools OK by non-binding resolution. Now the Missouri legislature is considering a bill that would restrict teaching of evolution.

Dubbed the “Missouri Science Education Act,” the bill would require teachers to distinguish between “verified empirical data” and theories. The bill further calls on teachers to “minimize dogmatism while promoting student inquiry, healthy skepticism and understanding.”

The Post-Dispatch notes that “evolution” is mentioned nowhere in the bill (bill status, bill text). This is true, but it is clear evolution is the target. The bill attempts to distringuish between “verified empirical data” and everything else.

When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, extrapolation, estimation, unverified data, consensus of scientific opinion, and philosophical belief, such information shall be within the purview of critical analysis and may be critically analyzed. Critical analysis includes the teaching of anomalous verified empirical data, contrary verified empirical data, missing supporting data, inadequate mechanisms, insufficient resources, faulty logic, crucial assumptions, alternate logical explanations, lack of experimental results, conflicting experiments, or predictive failures where applicable;

It’s not clear when science moves from the realm of theory to “verified empirical data.” The bill defines verified empirical data as

information representing physical reality based on repeated independent human observation, measurement, and experimentation with consistent results. Verified empirical data is without significant inference and is not theory, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, estimated data, extrapolated data, or consensus of scientific opinion.

Does the legislature think that quantum mechanics is verified empirically? What about string theory? Parallel universes? What kind of science comes without inference or extrapolation?

It’s clear, however, that this bill is all about evolution. Under the bill, information that is not verified empirical data must be identified as such, and may be “critically analyzed.” Critical analysis means

the teaching of anomalous verified empirical data, contrary verified empirical data, missing supporting data, inadequate mechanisms, insufficient resources, faulty logic, crucial assumptions, alternate logical explanations, lack of experimental results, conflicting experiments, or predictive failures where applicable;

So most of the time, teachers and administrators have freedom to choose whether to “critically analyze” scientific theory that is not verified empirical data. But the bill’s sponsors don’t trust biology teachers, who have been teaching evolution without governmental interference. So the bill has special language for biology:

When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory or hypothesis regarding phenomena that occur in the future or that occurred previous to written history, a critical analysis of such information shall be taught in a substantive amount. If a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount.

Not only do teachers have to identify scientific thought on biological origins as special, they have to teach it in a special way so as to minimize its import. And what else do they have to teach? “Alternate logical explanations”. Not alternate scientific theory, but alternate “logical” explanations. What is the best known “logical” explanation of biological origins? Our good friend intelligent design.

The creationists have been trying to shoehorn ID into the Missouri curriculum for years, but have failed to get their bills out of committee. So this time, they say “theory or hypothesis of bilogical origins” instead of evolution, and “alternate logical explanations” instead of intelligent design (which itself is used instead of what they really mean, biblical creationism). And to make sure they could get the bill out of committee, they resorted to subterfuge, putting the bill on the agenda at the last minute and without notice, ensuring that the scientific community wasn’t represented:

Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said few testified against the bill earlier this week after it was placed on the agenda with little notice. He said officials representing science teachers were not present at the hearing, but would be eager to weigh in.

Ideological tyranny or idiocy?

This past February the Ohio State Board of Education voted 11-4 to remove all language that was critical of evolution from its state’s science curriculum. Previously, Ohio’s public school science guidelines said that students should be free to “describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” The decision by the State Board of Education effectively eliminates that freedom. This means that science teachers and students are no longer authorized to discuss scientific evidence that questions the claims of Darwin’s theory.

No, no, no. The Ohio State School Board’s decision did not “eliminate freedom.” The previous policy is what eliminated freedom, by eliminating the freedom of local schools and science teachers to determine what should and should not be taught in their classrooms. It eliminated freedom by attempting to mandate that schools introduce creationism intelligent design critical analysis into the curriculum. It eliminated freedom through ham-handed attempts to get discredited religiosity into science classrooms.

Yes, discredited. It is simply not true, as Mr. Craven claims, that “Darwinism remains as much if not more of a philosophical idea as does Intelligent Design in terms of being testable scientific fact.” The intelligent design curriculum used in Ohio drew most heavily from creationist tracts, which have absolutely no basis in scientific analysis. Unlike Intelligent Design, macroevolution and the theory of common origins are both testable and falsifiable.

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

Further, although Craven clearly views the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision as the product of an ACLU/AU cabal, Judge Jones came to the same conclusion after considering the state of scientific evidence for macroevolution and intelligent design:

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

Craven’s attack on the Ohio decision to eliminate ID’s back-door entry into the curriculum starts with a false premise (Ohio has eliminated freedom), mischaracterizes the scientific evidence for macroevolution, and proceeds to blatantly incorrect conclusions (that teachers are forbidden from teaching anything not specifically mentioned in the core curriculum). Weaknesses in the scientific support for macroevolution and non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms have long been part of the scientific curriculum. The now-rejected Ohio policy was never about a critical analysis of the scientific evidence for natural selection, common origins and macroevolution. It was about introducing unsupported falsehoods based on religion into science classes.