Re the seizure of the British sailors and Royal Marines by the Iranians, Lord Nelson must be spinning in his grave. It is Nelson, after all who said, among other things, “Our country will, I believe, sooner forgive an officer for attacking an enemy, than for letting it alone” and “No Captain could do wrong by laying his ship along side the enemy.” The behavior of our ally in permitting the capture of 15 sailors and Royal Marines signifies that the Royal Navy no longer subscribes to Nelson’s signal at Trafalgar: “England expects that every man will do his duty.”
In 1757, the Admiralty court-martialed and executed Adm. John Byng for failing to “do his utmost” at the battle of Minorca. Perhaps the Royal Navy might want to re-visit this policy. Voltaire understood the point even as he satirized the Byng affair. In his novel, Candide, the hero observes the execution of an officer in Portsmouth and is told “Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres” (“in this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others”).
One expects more from a country that gave us such great naval victories as The Nile, Copenhagen, and Taranto. These victories represented the indomitable spirit of the British people. It was this spirit that permitted a small island to become mistress of the world. How the mighty have fallen.
Great Britain has been an invaluable ally in Iraq and elswhere, but we see here the wages of weakness. This should be a cautionary note for us. It is the sort of thing that happens to second rate powers.
Not too long ago, public figures — beleaguered school superintendents, for example — could leverage print media and law enforcement procedures in order to manipulate public understanding of confrontations, much as North Kingstown Superintendent James M. Halley is doing in this Projo report:
Halley filed a complaint with the police Thursday alleging that Hummel, a senior reporter with ABC’s local affiliate, WLNE, struck him in the chest and tried to block him from entering the high school auditorium. The report was forwarded to Town Solicitor Terrence Simpson, who is expected to decide early next week what criminal charges, if any, grew out of the confrontation, Capt. Charles Brennan said. …
In the complaint, Halley claims Hummel “jumped in front of him, bumping him and blocking his access to the door.” He says the newsman “put up his left forearm and pushed against him, striking his chest and arm area” while holding his foot to the bottom of the door to block his entrance.
In the report, Halley also tells the police that he “advised [Hummel] that he was not authorized to be on stage.” He said he wished to press charges, though he was not injured.
In the world of new media, also provided by the Projo, Internet-connected citizens can observe for themselves why it is an injustice even to deem it necessary to note that Superintendent Halley “was not injured.” At most, Hummel’s pinky lightly brushed Halley’s jacket, a moment after Halley had attempted to push past the reporter, who asked, “you gonna knock me over?”
In the not too distant future, it won’t only be reporters who wield the power of the archive, but any citizen with a video-capturing cell phone.
Justin jumped in ahead of me on this one (hey, it happens with us non-coordinating bloggers). Here’s a little more background. NY Times columnist David Brooks ($ required) started it off, and Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douthat and Jonah Goldberg have all weighed in thus far. The acute argument being had is between Sullivan and Douthat/Brooks. Brooks (and Douthat through his defense of the former) is advocating for a more populist/conservative Republicanism while Sullivan–who believes Brooks has sold-out to the Bush “christianist” neo-whatever–is arguing for smaller government and “liberty vs. power” / “security before liberty” conservatism. It’s higher-level, political theory stuff and a good read (if you can get over Sullivan’s Bush-paranoia hyperbole).
As Justin points out, it’s Goldberg’s observation that is probably most interesting and important, especially for Anchor Rising readers. It helps to explain why we Anchor Rising contributors–to differing degrees–identify ourselves more as conservatives than Republicans (if I may presume to speak for the others). It also explains why I suspect some RI Republicans may get frustrated with us from time to time. We genuinely believe that conservative ideas and solutions are better and are less inclined to forsake our ideals for short-term solutions. That isn’t to say that we don’t compromise, just that we are predisposed not to.
Brooks has apparently taken his cue from libertarian Tyler Cowen. Cowen believes that, while libertarian economic theory has largely triumphed–inflation and taxes are down since the 70s and economic freedom has been spreading worldwide–libertarians have to acknowledge that they have an epistemological problem:
Libertarian ideas…have…brought much bigger government. The more wealth we have, the more government we can afford. Furthermore, the better government operates, the more government people will demand. That is the fundamental paradox of libertarianism.
If less government is better and more efficient, if it does the job better, then it becomes more attractive to the average citizen. Cowen thinks libertarianism needs to become more “pragmatic” to deal with this problem by not rejecting big-government out of hand–it’s what the consumers want!–and this is essentially what Brooks is saying, too.
Both Cowen and Brooks believe that the old “liberty vs. power” paradigm–in which power is equated to large, intrusive government–is outdated. From this, you can see them working toward a new justification for embracing old-fashioned, big government populism–though with conservative trappings. Brooks says as much:
Normal, nonideological people are less concerned about the threat to their freedom from an overweening state than from the threats posed by these amorphous yet pervasive phenomena [Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation]. The ‘liberty vs. power’ paradigm is less germane. It’s been replaced in the public consciousness with a ‘security leads to freedom’ paradigm. People with a secure base are more free to take risks and explore the possibilities of their world.
Thus, according to this line of thinking, this new “security leads to freedom” paradigm makes a benevolent and big state necessary. As Sullivan points out, conservatism has always been concerned with the “security leads to freedom” paradigm, too. That’s why conservatives generally support law and order and military spending. But that’s not the type of security Brooks is referring to. No, he’s talking more societal safety net stuff. Translation: so-called big government conservatism.
Which leads to a question. Where will we be as a nation if both conservatives and libertarian’s join liberals and progressives in espousing their own bigger-is-better-and-we-know-best big-government programs? There really isn’t any sort of conservative or libertarian tradition in that approach. But Brooks and Cowen seem to be sublimating their political principles for the sake of being politically attractive to the masses, so they’re trying to redefine “conservatism” and “libertarianism” to appeal to more people. It’s sort of ideology-by-poll. That’s not to say that Republicans shouldn’t go ahead an try to re-define themselves. I say, “have at it.” But don’t call it “conservative” (nor, I suspect, libertarian).
As Goldberg points out:
Where is it written that conservatives have to have new popular ideas? If we can’t make our existing ideas popular, is it really so terrible that conservatism become unpopular? Or does conservatism have to become a de facto political party of its own, constantly churning out new ideas that will get swing voters to call themselves “conservatives” not by converting them to conservatism, but by converting conservatism into some rightwing progressive agenda?
…By all means conservatism needs to change because reality changes. But conservatives are the last people in the world who should be terrified at the idea that our ideas are momentarily unpopular…
Finally, its my contention that, despite what Brooks and Cowen believe, the “liberty vs. power” formulation is still appropriate and instructive. It has helped to describe events in the 1770s, 1830s, the 1930s/40s and the 1960s/70s. If there is one constant, it’s that it’s easier to grow government than to shrink it (and we know this all too well, don’t we fellow Rhode Islanders?). With that growth, the government–often imperceptibly–grabs more power over the lives of everyday people. At the time, it may seem benign, even noble, but eventually it transforms into something more arbitrary and, yes, even heartless. Bigger isn’t better and it’s frighteningly impersonal. It’s an old but apt joke: do you want all of the compassion found in the DMV making decisions about your Healthcare?
In other words, just because government may be more efficient now (debatable), doesn’t mean it will always be so (hardly). If we are faced with the paradox that shrinking government has ultimately led to growing government again and that this is all very “pragmatic”, then we will find ourselves–eventually–back where we were in the 1970s. In fact, as we Rhode Islanders know, some of us have never left. It may take longer, it may take shorter, but we’ll get there.
It is up to conservatives (and libertarians) to remember their history and stand athwart it and yell “Stop!” Lean and efficient government can provide for the security of US citizens without having to penetrate so thoroughly into their daily lives. Large government is an abstraction that should be feared and watched. That is one of the missions with which conservatives and libertarians should concern themselves, regardless of which political party may oppose them.
I’m with Jonah Goldberg on this one:
Ross writes that both Sullivan and Brooks “are aware that conservatism needs to be for something more than just supply-side economics.” (Let’s leave aside that “supply-side economics” is a term that should be laid to rest, having done its job over a quarter of a century ago). Sitting still, just beneath the surface, in this thought is the idea that conservatives need to have popular ideas, winning ideas, clever ideas in order to win the battle of ideas. …
The conservative movement is not primarily nor even really secondarily about winning elections. Conservatives are about winning arguments or, if you prefer, winning hearts and minds. The Republican Party can be a useful tool in this regard, but it’s an unwieldy and ultimately unreliable one. Personally, I think the GOP and conservatism have become too intertwined. This is good when it makes the GOP more conservative, but it’s bad when it makes conservatism more like a political party.
Conservatives’ political activism ought to entail finding truth and persuading others that they are correct. Yes, the politics of politics must be considered, but being right is the necessary foundation and overriding consideration.
[Open full post]With the exception of DuPont agreeing to roughly double its contribution to the Children’s Health Forum as part of its let’s-not-call-it-a-settlement out of the case, the Rhode Island lead paint trial hasn’t been much in the local news lately. However, the national business and legal communities are still keenly watching to see what happens next.
NL Industries, Millennium Holdings, and Sherwin-Williams were found guilty last year of creating a “public nuisance” because they sold lead paint. They will likely appeal the verdict to Rhode Island’s Supreme Court. Grounds for appeal haven’t yet been specified, but past statements by the defendants’ lawyers and some recent legal analysis of the verdict suggest that an appeal will likely be based, at least in part, on the fact that the state never proved that the defendants sold more or less lead paint in Rhode Island than did any other manufacturer. The trial court, in fact, did not require the state to show that products sold by the defendants were the major source of the problem.
Jane Genova of the Law and More blog offers commentary from an unnamed “legal expert” on the likely outcome of an appeal. You might ask how an expert can analyze an appeal without knowing the grounds. The answer would be by knowing how Rhode Island works, regardless of the case…
It seems to them and to me that the RI Supreme Court likes to see gradual changes in the law and not those which could be interpreted as drastic. In general, this Court tends to offer narrow opinions in which it only decides the matters immediately in front of it. That’s to say: This Court hasn’t in the past used opinions to make broad social commentary.Another grounds for appeal, one that might be more difficult for the old boy network to ignore, may be based on the state’s argument during the trial that the number of new lead-poisoning cases per year in Rhode Island had become constant. The state argued this was evidence that the situation could not improve unless more active clean-up measures were undertaken. However, according to an extensive report on the history of lead paint related issues authored by Richard O. Faulk and John S. Gray and published by the Bureau of National Affairs (a privately-owned, legally-oriented publishing company), the state obtained updated evidence during the trial showing the number of new lead poisoning cases to be declining under existing remediation laws and regulations, but did not share this information with the court…
However, the Court is likely to give deference to the RI legal community at large and considers standing and respect within that community to be very important. Sources say that the conundrum is this: The RI Supreme Court, according to past rulings and other statements, is not likely to be comfortable with Superior Court Justice Michael Silverstein’s decision in this case. That’s primarily because it is a broad expansion of the public nuisance legal concept. But, would the RI Supreme Court reverse this decision and risk contempt of the RI legal community? That’s hard to say.
Also, as most of us lead paint watchers know, RI is an old boys network in many ways. If the state Attorney General and or Judge Silverstein has strong enough pull with the legal community at least it could mean that the RI Supreme Court justices bite their tongues.
During the trial, the State and its experts relied on 2004 data to argue that Rhode Island’s lead-poisoning prevention programs had reached the limits of their effectiveness, that too many children still had elevated blood lead levels, and that elevated blood lead levels had ‘‘plateaued.’’And in a possible wild-card development, based on the many irregularities associated with this case (most notably, possible special treatment given to DuPont and the use of contingency-fee lawyers who are motivated to seek the most expensive remedy, not necessarily the most effective one) there is some loose talk beginning about the possibility of a Sherwin-Williams shareholder lawsuit against the state of Rhode Island and/or the Attorney General of Rhode Island and/or the contingency fee lawyers hired by the Attorney General…
After the verdict was returned, the defendants complained about this argument for a fundamental reason – it was simply untrue. The truth is that there were 621 elevated blood lead levels in Rhode Island for all of 2005 (compared to 1,167 elevated blood lead levels in 2004), a drop of 47% from the previous year. The State knew these facts by not later than January 31, 2006 (during the trial) when Rhode Island’s Department of Health prepared a draft report documenting the 2005 numbers. Yet, after learning that the new 2005 data directly contradicted its theme of the ‘‘plateauing’’ of declining lead levels, the State still allowed its ‘‘special assistants’’ to continue claiming that a plateau existed. According to the defendants, this misrepresentation of facts is sufficient grounds for granting a new trial.
To compound the problem, neither the State nor its ‘‘special assistants’’ disclosed this relevant and critical information regarding the effectiveness of Rhode Island’s existing lead poisoning prevention program to the defendants after it became aware of the new data. The choice was made even though there was a discovery request seeking that very information. Defendants argue that the state breached its duty of candor to the Court and its Rule 26(e) duty to supplement its discovery responses. They claim that this undisclosed information was relevant to the heart of the issue in this trial — whether a public nuisance exists in Rhode Island — and was crucial to Defendants’ case.
To rebut this claim, the State and its special assistants claim that they were not obligated to supplement discovery because the Court ended discovery on May 30, 2005. Therefore, the State argues that the defendants were obligated to go to the judge to seek an order requiring the State to supplement its discovery.
What I would like to see for a change is a shareholder lawsuit against the State of Rhode Island for the financial harm we have suffered as owners. Our loss would be both the artificial stagnation of the stock price, the money spent on this litigation that cannot be used for corporate purposes or returned to us owners as a dividends or share repurchases and the time executives have spent on the litigation, not the selling of paint and coatings.Jane Genova, again, quotes a “Wall Street expert” on whether a shareholder lawsuit could succeed…
I don’t see a shareholder suit against the state of Rhode Island as likely. However, damages from an unconstitutional act such as a contingency-based-lawsuit can be addressed to the plaintiff firm of Motley Rice and to possible Rhode Island parties who deemed to benefit. This could be highly likely given the possible missteps of Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch in what I perceive as alleged preferential treatment of DuPont. I will add this: The state of Rhode Island has a major hurdle to get past the contingency issue. From that, there could well be an onslaught of litigation directed at Attorney General Patrick Lynch and the plaintiff law firm of Motley Rice.It’s not clear how likely a shareholder lawsuit really is, but it is clear that the chances of this all being resolved in a timescale of less than years is increasingly remote. [Open full post]
Not being as well educated on matters of taxation and school financing as Andrew, what strikes me about proposals that include school busing is the way in which progressive strategies wind up harming those whom they are ostensibly (cynically?) promoted as helping.
In constructing a society — an environment — in which individuals, families, and communities are able to improve their standing, perhaps the most critical component is predictability. If a family works and saves in order to buy a house in a higher-quality school district, it must be certain that its children will benefit from those schools. Similarly, if a community raises funds and passes legislation to improve its schools, it must be certain that its children will benefit from those improvements. This consideration applies regardless of the particular benefit being sought, whether it is scholastic or of the sort that is sometimes left unsaid for the benefit of tender sensibilities.
People will not strive if, having striven, they might lose by lottery what they could win by lottery while doing nothing. Moreover, those in the supposedly privileged group will cease to participate in and finance a local system from which they can find themselves randomly excluded or, worse, targeted for exclusion. And one or the other of these possibilities must be the case; either the students to be displaced will be randomly selected, or they will be chosen, probably with heavy consideration given to their particular stereotypes in a “socioeconomic diversity” index. As the more privileged students move beyond the system’s reach, the burden of the new scheme will fall, as such burdens seem often to do, on families that are just beginning to achieve momentum.
The tragedy is that society could achieve its professed goals more smoothly, more organically, and more stably (albeit, perhaps over a greater period of time) by removing barriers and disincentives to advancement, rather than institutionalizing obstacles and backslides. We could ask for no better ballast for social progress than human nature (and, despite attempts throughout history, we cannot deny it, anyway). But one gets the impression that the progressive mind sees people not as individuals capable of self-determination, but as slaves shackled to their circumstances. At the least, they must be concerned that people who credit themselves with the progress that they’ve made in life will be less inclined to accede to the schemers’ plans.
The inclusion of this item in Senator Tom Coburn’s national healthcare proposal…
Keeping Medicaid on mission: The bill liberates the poor from substandard government care and offers states the option to provide their Medicaid beneficiaries the kind of health care coverage that wealthier Americans enjoy. The bill creates incentives for states to achieve private universal coverage for their population. The bill offers states the freedom to design the programs that serve their beneficiaries with the best care instead of the current, one-size-fits-all straitjacket.…led commenter “mrh” to ask what “liberat[ing] the poor from substandard government care” meant.
John O’Shea of the Heritage Foundation provides the beginning of an answer…
In spite of Medicaid’s hefty price tag, Medicaid patients find it difficult to access the health care system. Medicaid payment rates are considerably lower than physician payment rates under private insurance or even Medicare, in which physician payment is a recurrent problem. This has deterred physician participation in Medicaid. According to a 2003 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC) study, only 69.5 percent of physicians surveyed were willing to accept new Medicaid patients, substantially fewer than the number willing to accept new privately insured patients (99.3 percent), Medicare patients (95.9 percent), and even the uninsured (92.8 percent)….Plenty of references available in the original memo. [Open full post]
Once Medicaid beneficiaries gain access to the health care system, they receive inferior quality of care compared to patients with private insurance.
For example, patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTSE ACS), a form of heart attack, benefit significantly from innovative therapeutic approaches, including early invasive management strategies. These measures have now been incorporated into the guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. According to a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, however, Medicaid patients with NSTSE ACS were less likely to receive evidence-based therapies and had worse outcomes (including increased mortality rates) than patients who had private insurance as the primary payer. This study found that these differences in care and outcomes persisted after adjusting for clinical characteristics (associated illness), socioeconomic factors (education and income), and the type of center where patients received treatment. In other words, the most important predictor of treatment and outcome in the study was whether the patient had Medicaid or private insurance.
Both of these proposed election reforms seem like “no-brainers,” don’t they? Well, maybe not to everyone…(via ProJo’s Michael P. McKinney)
Requiring voters to provide identification at the polls is either a needed safeguard against recent voter fraud or a way to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, elderly, disabled and the homeless from exercising their right to vote.
That’s how testimony played out before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday on the most heated of several bills that would make changes to state election laws.
The voter ID bill, whose prime sponsor is Rep. Susan Story, R-Barrington, split members of the committee and drew opposition from the state chapters of Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union among others…Cliff Montiero, president of the Providence branch of the NAACP, said the organization strongly opposed the bill. “We feel it’s the beginning of the poll tax,” he said. He added: “We do not want to put another burden on the people we are trying to encourage” to participate.
Another Story-sponsored bill drew more uniformly supportive testimony: It would end the option of simply voting for one party or the other in one stroke. She and others said when someone votes one slate but also votes for one candidate from another party, the voter may not realize it can disqualify that ballot.
As I and my fellow citizen/voters stood around the polling place last November–amidst some confusion regarding who should vote in which Ward and put their ballots in which machine–there was a general consensus that a voter-id seemed to make a whole lot of sense. Make the ID free and provide it to everyone. There’s no poll tax, that’s hyperbole. And removing the straight party ticket option is also past due. What do both have in common? They put more responsibility on the shoulder’s of the voter by making the voting process slightly more inconvenient.
I think that being inconvenienced is a price the average Rhode Islander would be willing to pay if they knew that it mitigated against their vote being canceled out by that of red-state residing skinhead voting the straight party ticket for the Republican party?
Over at RI Future, State Representative David Segal (D-Providence) endorses Stephen Alves-style school regionalization, which goes beyond consolidating administration, and could involve sending students from schools in currently high-performing districts to schools in lower performing ones…
Pick up a few more tens-of-millions by consolidating the schools, with the added benefit of increasing equity and socioeconomic diversity, and it’ll be a new day for Rhode Island — we’ll be showing surpluses, as far into the future as we can see.The view on regionalization described by Senator Alves and Representative Segal, as well as the general tenor of Rhode Island politics, should serve warning that some Rhode Island legislators are actively pursuing novel ways of allowing big cities to tap the property tax revenues from surrounding cities and towns, in this case by placing school funding for smaller communities under the control of urban-dominated regional authorities. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.
The problem with Representative Segal’s call for “equity” is that Rhode Island’s state education aid formula is highly inequitable in a way that already benefits the urban core. Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls, and Woonsocket all get over $6,000 per-pupil in state aid. Many of the smaller cities receive aid in the range of $2,000 – $4,000 per student, while towns like Barrington and East Greenwich receive less than $1,000 per student. You do have to admire the chutzpah of a State Rep from Providence who claims that this system can be made more equitable by giving an even bigger proportion of money to Providence!
There are several ways that strong regionalization might be used to manipulate the distribution of school funding further in favor of the cities, all in the name of equity…
- A regional school authority could reduce funding to the non-urban schools under its jurisdiction and direct the money from the cuts to urban ones.
- A regional school authority could force tax increases on the non-urban communities under its jurisdiction and spend the bulk of the additional revenues on urban schools.
Actually, there is one other option…
- A regional school authority could also make provisions for students — and money — from failing urban schools to go to the better schools within its district, effectively defunding the failing schools.
But, ultimately, regionalization is not necessary for implementing a student-focused funding scheme, which can be better achieved through public choice and/or vouchers. [Open full post]
Anchor Rising is, of course, a political blog. Politics is serious business, but sometimes we need to remember the reason for engaging in politics: to defend what we hold dear. And one of the things I hold dear is a good pub. So with your indulgence, I intend, on occasion, to offer my observations on the pubs and eateries of my hometown, Newport.
I will start with my very favorite place in Newport: the Mudville Pub. The food is excellent, the beer is cold, the bartenders are friendly, and the waitresses are hot. One of the owners is Kevin Stachem, a member of PC’s final four basketball team of the mid-70s, who subsequently played for the Celtics. He is always accessible to the patrons and is truly one of the friendliest people alive.
A pub with “Mudville” in its name must have something to do with baseball. Indeed, it is located next to historic Cardines Field across from the Newport Marriott. During the spring and summer, one can sit on the the screened-in deck on the right field line and drink a cold one (or more) while watching some pretty good baseball. Cardines field is the home of the Newport Gulls of the Cape Cod Summer League. Good stuff.
On Wednesday afternoons, the Mudville Pub is also the home of the world famous Mudville Study Group (MSG), an informal gathering of Naval War College students that I have been convening for the last decade and a half. The conversation is wide-ranging and a number of RI luminaries have made appearances, including the Honorable Frank Williams, Chief Justice of the RI Supreme Court, with whom I teach a War College elective on Abraham Lincoln; Jim Taracani of Channel 10; and Dyana Koelsch, a former investigative reporter for Channel 10, who teaches an elective for me at the War College.
Anytime is a good time at Mudville but my favorite times are: Wednesday afternoon/evening with the very gorgeous Melanie, followed by the very funny Mark; Friday evenings with Louie, the embodiment of the Irish bartender and one of the funniest people on earth; and Sunday afternoon with Mo (Maureen), who possesses the loveliest cat eyes and is the mistress of the Bloody Mary.
In fact, today is Wednesday, so I’ll soon be off to a meeting of the MSG. Melanie, here I come.
