This is me attempting to catch up on blog posts, but also I want to talk about this topic because I think it is a general misconception that is rather predominant in our society. Many people purport the value of small classes, which is something I agree with. Smaller classes are less intimidating and provide for more individual attention. One could easily make the case that large class sizes are not inherently evil and could in fact be better if it meant better teachers, but that’s not what I want to go off on today. The issue I have a problem with is that lately it seems people have translated the demand for small class size into a demand for small schools. For example, in New York City, Bill Gates is bankrolling the creation of a number of new charter schools which will be very small and provide more individual attention.

Now this is just ridiculous. Imagine if you went to a high school that only had 100 or 150 kids in it. You may get fabulous amounts of attention from your guidance counselor, who is useless anyways, but you would not have any of the opportunities that one is exposed to in a large school. I was lucky to find a dozen other kids in a high school of 1,200 who were interested in the extracurricular activities and field of study that I was. Furthermore, out of an enormous staff of teachers, only 2 or 3 were ones that I really looked up to and sought advice from. All the others, I am sure, were very intelligent and helpful people, but they did not have the area of interests that I had. Now if I am in a school as tiny as 100 kids then I will have none of the opportunities that I am so grateful for being exposed to. This is bad. Lets stop thinking smaller=better, because it doesn't.

-Mr. Alec

Alright, so I have a couple of things to say about the Terri Shiavo situation and then hopefully I will tie that in with a sweeping observation about the present state of politics.

First the miscellaneous complaints: One thing that I find ridiculous is how a number of people have been caught sneaking into the hospice holding Shiavo. First of all, this has to upset everyone else in the hospice and those wishing the visit the hospice. Even though Terri's parents are doing all this for a cause they obviously believe in, you have to wonder whether they may feel a tad bit guilty about how out of control it has become. But second of all, the people that have been caught sneaking in are attempting to give her water and food, which is ridiculous. If they actually put the food or water into her mouth it would kill her. It would just sit in her mouth until she breathed it into her lungs. So obviously they are doing it just for the effect, to garner more and more media attention to a worthless topic.

But I think a second issue is important. I have found that Democratic response has been one of two courses of action. Either they have half-heartedly jumped on the bandwagon or they have decided we ought to kill her, especially because Tom DeLay pulled the plug on his dad. Of course the DeLay situation is very different, medically and familally, but this is just a classic example of the new emerging Democratic strategy. Which is to either pretend to be Republican or be Republican-lite or to just be purely reactionary, decide that, well Tom DeLay feels this way, and is being slightly hypocritical, so lets lynch him and the girl.

The Democrats seem to be testing the effectiveness in both simultaneously which is doing wonders for the coherency of their message. They will appoint Howard Dean as the DNC chief and then appoint pro-life Harry Reid to Senate Minority Leader. John Kerry was great because he attempted to combine both of these ideas into his "persona." He was a tough war hero who would be even tougher on terror and in fighting the war in Iraq, while simultaneously he would launch into reactionary assaults against Bush and his foreign policy (this was the contradiction that was so obvious in his foreign policy stance throughout the debate, there was a way to link them into a coherent strategy but he never did).

Last, I think the Democrats should just lay low on this as some are. It is a worthless story, especially with other, much more important things going on (anyone notice during all this noise, Wolfowitz was appointed head of the World Bank). Tom DeLay is going to get what is coming to him, regardless of how long he can distract people. The Democrats are not culpable for any of what has happened, the court rulings have been uniform and no claims of activist rulings have occurred (though I am sure a lot of Republicans would love some activist judges right now). Letting the hype die down is the best course of action, that or maybe encouraging everybody to make a living will.

I am probably going to do another post of judges soon and economics is coming, soon.

-Mr. Alec

PS Yes I am aware familially is not a word, but live with it.

So turns out spring break does not equal me wanting to write entries for this blog, but quite the opposite. However, I feel the need to discuss this Terri Shiavo situation, which has become absolutely ridiculous. Last night I was flipping through the channels and Hannity and Colmes are reporting live from her hospice. This is truly an example of an insignificant situation growing out of control for purely political reasons. Tom DeLay is having serious problems with the Ethics Committee and jumping behind a moral crusade to save Terri for his socially conservative constituents will distract the growing problems he is having. Second is Dr. Bill Frist, who Karl Rove threw his weight behind for Senate Majority Leader, but to many Republicans, he has thus far floundered (can't even get Judges confirmed). This is a perfect opportunity for Frist who can play up his credentials as a Doctor and get much needed press for a possible Presidential run. Last, this is a perfect chance for the Democrats to play up their credentials as news found, compassionate liberals. Capable of taking back the moral high ground that the Republicans are so good at always gaining.

So where does that leave us, well I have very little knowledge of the specifics of the case, just as I doubt many politicians do. But first, its clear that we should all have Living Wills to avoid crap like this, because I buy the Husbands claim that she never would have wanted to be in a vegetative state for so long. Second, ignore this, its pointless political dribble. The very fact that Hannity and Colmes would report live from the hospice is a sign that this is so ridiculous. Important things are happening in the world; Terri Shiavo is not one of them.

-Mr. Alec

Everyone should read David Brooks' column in the New York Times today because it effectively sums up my columns on Democrats strategy and the issue with Social Security in a more eloquent and constructive manner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/opinion/15brooks.html?hp

-Mr. Alec

So I have finals to study for now, but next week you can except, finally, my series of half-done posts on economics.

-Mr. Alec

So I am very happy to see Bush tanking on the Social Security bit. Not because I want Social Security saved for any particular reason, obviously some reform has to be done. But I am pleased because it finally seems Bush is realizing his limitations. This is a president who has broken all the rules (and sometimes for good, sometimes for bad) and been able to get away with a lot. Finally it seems like Bush has reached a public opinion he can not get to work into his advantage (though we should still give him sometime, I am sure Rove is working around the clock on it). But Bush is probably very afraid of looking like Clinton did with HillaryCare and rightfully so. Especially because he has firm control of Congress (he has never vetoed a bill, ever) and if Social Security failed, the blame and embarrassment would fall flatly on him. But Republican Congressmen have to be pleading Bush not to keep forcing the issue, considering how unpopular it is proving to be. This is all why we will probably see Social Security stall for awhile, become an issue again in midterm elections, and then disappear, only to be resurrected around election time.

But now that I have poked fun at the Republicans for thinking they are powerful enough to mess with Social Security (it should also be noted they are more tactful then Democrats who like a dumb dog continually embarrass themselves on issues like health care where are Republicans see a storm before it hits) something has to be done about Social Security. My feeling is that if anyone is going to have the political ability to make changes, it is going to have to be a Democrat, Clinton would have been a good type to do it (he did do some very unpopular and undemocratic economics things like NAFTA and WTO and China and Welfare Reform and Lewinsky). We'll see what ends up happening, hopefully what will end up happening is Bush will compromise with Democrats in the Congress and a bipartisan solution will occur on the level of Welfare Reform, but that is extremely unlikely.

This ended up being a very unconstructive entry. I should write an entry that gives Bush some credit soon though, because he is not all bad. I am just glad he has reached his ceiling; at least he is not immune to the third-rail.

-Mr. Alec

This is going to be a short post because I just want to say a quick thing about the Iraqi elections and all the recent repercussions. Now the funny thing is that when the elections were about to go down, everyone in the press and on the left was saying, "Postpone the elections, it will not be safe enough," while the administration for the most part stayed quiet. They stayed quiet because they agreed, originally they had intended on waiting years for a complicated caucus system (one Iowa wouldn't even understand) to appoint people to have some semblance of power. In fact the man in control of the Iraqi elections, the reason they occurred so quickly, and were not postponed is of course Ayatollah Sistani, who I am a big fan of. Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Condi, and without a doubt Bremer were secretly agreeing with the Democrats before the elections occured, but that didn't stop them from taking it to the political bank (not that Democrats would not do the same, because they would).

But now so much is changing in the middle east, Palestine had kind of free elections (the most popular candidate pulled out of the running to allow for Abbas to win, the most popular candidate was in jail in Israel for terrorism), Mubarak announced he will placate the US, Lebanon is having limited demonstrations (even though the demonstrators claim to be more inspired by Ukraine’s revolution then anything in Iraq, furthermore Lebanon was a very successful democracy before its civil war), and Iraq seems to be slightly better then a couple of months ago. But regardless of the caveats to all of these stories, the media is giving Bush and his administration all the credit for the successful Iraqi elections and its subsequent domino effect. But shouldn't an Iraqi Ayatollah, whose one paragraph fatwa debilitated the US atrocious excuse for an occupation, until the US accepted elections, get some credit. Certainly he is not looking for cover stories like the Bush administration is (just as Clinton would in the same position), but still.

So although it seems the Bush Domino theory seems to be working, and no one can say that is a bad thing, let’s not limit the credit to just Bush and his boys. Oh and lets not forget about Tony Blair, who risked far more then Bush did to go to war in Iraq. But with that said, despite all the horrible blunders, if things continue as they are, Bush may go down as successful Woodrow Wilson. But there is still plenty of time for scandals (I can't wait for the Karl Rove gay sex scandal).

-Mr. Alec

So Stanford was amazing, great rounds, great cases, great out rounds, and great weather. My partner and I went 3-2, broke into novice out rounds (on a tab error, we should have been 5th place team, not 4th, but who cares). We ended up losing our outbound to a great Fordham team, but it was so much fun. Mike and I got 5th place novice, such an improvement from the BU showing of 1-4.

The out rounds were fabulous. Oxford sent one of their teams that had made it to the finals of Worlds (which for you non-debaters is exactly what it's named after) and they were very impressive. In the semi-finals they beat (unfairly) the Chicago President and his partner, who is amazing and so good at mocking opponents, on a really interesting case, "The UN should employ mercenaries as peacekeepers." Throughout the round both teams used Jamba Juice as their analogy of choice to prove or disprove the loyalty of mercenaries. It was very amusing and spectacular to watch such high level debate. The Oxford team was very witty, succinct, and excellent at giving macro observations (which is really what separates the average from the best). It was a pleasure to watch. Great debating is so much fun to watch, even better when you can do it I imagine, I'll just need another year or two.

-Mr. Alec

Alright so the beast that is economics is going to have to wait, because it’s a beast. But I am going to tackle Democratic strategy. Mostly because I hear these pissy Democrats (myself included) lamenting, "But, how is this possible, I feel such hatred, why do we continue losing elections, what’s going on, it must be the Christians, or the...uh..., damnit I should have voted for Dean."

Ok, this is the wrong mentality. What the Democrats need is intelligence. The reason the Republicans have been so successful is that the Democrats were in power from 1932 to 2000, with only brief interludes. Over that time Democrats became the establishment, for example: Social Security, welfare, taxes (mostly progressive), liberal Supreme Court Justices, large central government, etc. Just about every aspect of the federal government (other than the military) reflects the Democrats seven decade reign.

So the Republicans realized, "Wow, there are a lot of people who don't like what the Democrats have set up, but there are also some who like some of what the Democrats setup, but not all, lets exploit this." Of course every election cycle the Republicans give their usual shtick, lower taxes, smaller federal government, no abortions, no gays, religion and government intertwined, strict-constructionist supreme court justices, etc. But the beauty is that they can mobilize an energetic core with just that rhetoric, they can be the opposition party. Say we are against all these things that are the establishment, but what would actually happen (and will happen) when Bush has the chance to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices. If Roe gets overturned it will not end up being popular in any stretch of the imagination, because people take Roe for granted, an overwhelming percentage support abortions rights (even if Republicans would like to pretend otherwise). People take Social Security for granted, there is the conception that those will be there regardless of Republican action. Bush can campaign to ban abortions and cut the size of government, but he says this because he has never had to do either.

Let’s see if I have actually made my point, because it is late and I just condemned Socrates to his death. Many people lament that Democrats don't have any ideas these days. That is because, right now is the Democratic. The Republicans can just stigmatize right now, even though they are the majority party, and say a vote for Democrats is a vote against tomorrow (whatever that means) and they win. Will they change tomorrow? I do not know, but it would be ridiculously risky. Social Security is already getting pulled under their feet, mostly because people like their benefits, poor Bush thinking he could handle the third-rail. Put shortly, if the Republicans actually had their proposals go through they would lose their popularity, very few support getting rid of Miranda rights, the loss of Abortion rights, the loss of Social Security benefits (no matter how much its required) etc.

Now what are the Democrats to do? Well for one, disavow yourselves from the establishment. Stop defending everything tooth and nail and start proposing things. If you lose on some things it will only encourage your popularity and standing for things instead of against things tends to play well with...humans. Howard Dean is not the answer, Kerry was more of an attempt at an answer, but the reason people are falling head over heals in love with Barak Obama is because he represents some type of future of the Democratic Party. He represents a party with ideas and not an establishment that is far too easy to stigmatize.

-Mr. Alec

PS I will be in California all weekend for debate and I will be preparing tommrow. But Sunday I will discuss the cases I ran and hit. Should be a good time.