Republican Senator Mitch McConnell gave this speech on the Senate floor prior to the capitulation by the 7 Republican senators. It offers a history lesson and is complementary to this posting by Mac Owens.
[Open full post]Well, it’s official. A group is attempting to draft Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey into a run for Sen. Lincoln Chafee’s seat.
A group of Republicans statewide has organized a committee to encourage Cranston Mayor Stephen P. Laffey to challenge Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee in 2006.
There are 85 names on a letter given to Laffey yesterday, including 2000 gubernatorial candidate James Bennett, Cranston state Representatives Carol Mumford and James F. Davey, East Providence Mayor Joseph Larisa and members of city and town councils, party members and business people.
Former Cranston Republican City Committee Chairman Gary Vierra said that he and others — mostly members of the Cranston GOP — were behind the effort, which was launched two weeks ago. Vierra said the signers of the letter consider Chafee — the most centrist of the Senate’s Republicans — does not represent their political views. Laffey is considered to be more conservative.
“I don’t feel [Chafee] really represents the Republican ideals,” Vierra said.
Yesterday, he presented the letter to the mayor, urging him to run.
“We believe that your qualifications, your record of achievement and your personal background make you the right person for the job at this critical time in our nation’s history,” the letter reads.
It also mentions Laffey’s role in turning around Cranston’s finances, and Laffey’s background — a public-school-educated son of a middle-class Cranston family who headed an investment banking firm — as qualifications.
Laffey, who has been uncharacteristically tightlipped when his plans for future office are discussed, said only that he was honored when Vierra brought him the letter.
“I took it, I read it, and I just said, ‘I’m honored, Gary,’ ” Laffey said. He said that knowing he has the support of prominent members of the party will be a big factor if he decides to run for the Senate.
“It does make me pause,” he said. “I take it very, very seriously.”
He said he would call many of the people on the list to thank them and to discuss his options. He said he was not aware there was an attempt to “draft” him before yesterday.
The draft Laffey movement was launched without the sanction of the statewide party. Vierra said that the party leadership is veering too near the political center.
“They are a small group of people who do not listen to the membership,” he said.
The Republican State Central Committee was not informed of the draft Laffey campaign, which was intended to a be a low-profile effort, Vierra said. He added that he did not ask Governor Carcieri to sign on.
The state GOP’s executive director, Jeffrey Deckman, said the draft movement did not signal a rift in the party.
“This party is more together and more open than it has been in 15 years,” he said, and in any party, disagreements will happen, he said.
“I’m not into fighting amongst the party. But I also know not everyone’s going to get along,” he said.
In his perfect world, Deckman said, there would be no primary in the 2006 race for the Senate seat.
“We like to avoid primaries. We don’t like our resources pointed at each other. We want them pointed at the enemy,” he said.
The campaign has not registered with the state as a political action committee and no events are planned yet.
On today’s Dan Yorke show, in an interview with Gary Vierra, Yorke expressed skepticism that Laffey had no prior knowledge of this movement to draft him. Vierra assured that this was the case. Yorke also asked if this was more of a “Laffey’s great” or a “Chafee is awful” based movement. Vierra demured.
Yorke also spoke to Governor Carcieri, who has not committed as of yet, but was complimentary of Laffey’s record and noted that he was also not endorsed by the state Republican party in his run for Governor.
For my part, I tend to believe that conservatives are more fed up with Chafee than they are necessarily enamored with Mayor Laffey’s cult of personality. (There, I said it). By this, I mean that, while the mayor is obviously conservative in many of his stances, and he’s a particularly sound fiscal conservative, he also seems to enjoy basking in the limelight for its own sake a bit too much for me. (The whole radio show imbroglio is a case in point). In short, I must confess I’m not sure how much of Steve Laffey the politician is based on promoting conservative principles and how much is being the establishment gadfly. Being the latter can be fun and entertaining, but, in the long run, it has no inherent worth in and of itself. Laffey’s track record cannot be discounted, but I wonder if his personality won’t end up superseding it, for good or ill.
These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender “disparities” are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There’s a word for this: pathetic.
So says Keith Thompson, who also offers more on his own “conversion.”
[Open full post]Most analysis (like here or here) trying to set up Uzbekistan as a realist-versus-idealist problem in foreign policy is missing an important point. No matter how the US reacts to the Andijan massacre, Uzbekistan’s current government is likely to replace us with the Chinese as an alliance partner. So tolerating their brutal actions makes no sense whatsover.
Here’s the full explanation, in my latest TechCentralStation column.
The Teacher of the Year for the Lucia Mar Unified School District cannot be named within the space of this story.
“It’s everyone,” said Branden Leach, president of the Lucia Mar Unified Teachers Association.
All 575 instructors in San Luis Obispo County’s largest school district are winners, he said. “We all help children in our own special way.”
…at tonight’s school board meeting…Leach will read a statement explaining why the union has decided not to pick a single winner this year.
Leach said Monday that the council of teachers from every campus in the district was in the process of selecting a winner in January.
That coincided with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first pitch for merit pay for public-school teachers. His proposal has met with strong opposition…
“We decided that choosing one among us as the best is similar to merit pay,” Leach said…
Schwarzenegger had proposed putting a measure on the November ballot to institute merit pay…it didn’t qualify in time for a possible November election.
The measure could go before voters next year instead. Schwarzenegger’s plan calls for the elimination of automatic pay increases, instead tying them to student achievement…
Jack O’Connell, the state’s superintendent of public instruction and a former state senator from San Luis Obispo, called the governor’s plan flawed.
“Gov. Schwarzenegger’s proposal to impose merit pay would make the challenging profession of teaching less desirable at a time when we sorely need to recruit, develop and support excellent teachers,” O’Connell said. “His approach would pit teacher against teacher when we know that collaboration is the key to improving student achievement.”
These people simply don’t live in the real world.
Or as James Taranto wrote in the WSJ’s OpinionJournal.com:
[Open full post]We’re not sure arguing that all teachers are equally bad is the best way to win public support.
If you ever wanted some clear examples of how far the NEA teachers’ union (with at least the implicit support of their bureaucratic allies in public education) will go to win desired contract terms, read this posting and learn about three inexcusable actions in my home town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island.
Let’s begin with some background information: To increase the pressure to settle the union contract on their terms, teachers in town – following the direction of their union – are doing what is called “work-to-rule” or contract compliance. What that means in practical terms is that they do the bare minimum to comply legally with terms of the old contract. The bottom line: While teachers are making the same salaries and benefits as last year, they are not doing the same work they did last year. And that hurts our children.
More specifically, “work-to-rule” has led to no before-school or after-school tutoring help for students and the elimination of extra-curricular activities like field trips.
Or so we all thought – at least until some reliable sources shared the following three stories with me:
First, some teachers showed up last Friday to enjoy the light-hearted social setting of the junior/senior prom. But, at the same time, teachers have refused to tutor students in need of academic help.
Second, some teachers who refuse to tutor our children before or after school are currently charging money from parents to tutor children outside of school – i.e., they are getting paid extra money this year to do what has been a part of their regular job description in past years. (Anyone want to bet whether they are reporting this income on their 1040?)
Third, teachers took grade 6 students in the CPT (gifted students) program on an overnight field trip to the Nature’s Classroom in northwestern Connecticut but they refused to take other non-CPT grade 6 students on the annual day trip to Ellis Island and the Statute of Liberty. [See Addendum II below for further information.]
This is outrageous behavior.
But it doesn’t stop there.
At the same time, the NEA teachers’ union continues to demand that all teachers receive retroactive pay for the entire last school year. In other words, they want to be made whole financially – even while their actions make it impossible for our children to be made whole in their educational experience.
I sure hope the School Committee doesn’t “go wobbly” and cave into the demand for retroactive pay. Such a development would endorse this unfair, discriminatory, and inexcusable treatment of our children.
I also hope the media will report on these stories to ensure East Greenwich school and town officials investigate them and provide residents with the public forum in which to express their outrage.
Would you hurt our children just to win better contract terms? Some people would. And that makes them neither friends nor people to be trusted.
ADDENDUM I:
Kim Petti, a Town Council member, responded with these words to an email containing a link to this posting:
I would like to demand Mr. Jolin and these teachers at the 6th grade and any other teachers who selectively shun their duties appear before the town council for an explanation to the tax payers of our town. Furthermore, the children that are hurt by one-sided contracts are the children that now pay taxes. I hope this legacy is not passed on to the next generation. It is our duty to stop our workers from telling the employer what they will do and when. Thank you.
Well said and thank you.
ADDENDUM II:
Sometimes even reliable sources are not entirely accurate. Here is an update on the CPT event from a parent whose child was involved:
…Nature’s Classroom took place at Camp Fuller which is located in Wakefield, not the location in Connecticut. Students were bused to this facility on Monday morning May 8 and returned Friday afternoon May 13. In past years Linda Cram, the CPT teacher, spent the entire week (day and night) with the students serving as liaison for the program, and as a supervisor and chaperone for the East Greenwich students. Parent volunteers rotate shifts and provide additional supervision. At least two parents spend the night each night.
During the initial planning stages earlier in the school year, Mrs. Cram made it clear that without a teacher contract she would be unable to spend the night with the children and would only be able to be present during her normal working hours as called for under the current contract situation. Without a representative from the District in attendance 24 hours a day, the children could not attend this program.
…As it got closer it became clear that [a contract settlement] would not happen. In the end the program was salvaged by administration. Charlie Meyers, the principal at Eldridge, and Joan Sousa, the principal at Hanaford, came to Nature’s Classroom at the end of their day as administrators of their respective schools and took over responsibility for the over 30 students in the program. Mrs. Cram left at the end of each day as she would had she been teaching from her classroom at Hanaford.
Frankly I am unsure of the internal workings which transpired that allowed this to happen, but instead I can only sing the praises of Mr. Meyers and Mrs. Sousa who took on additional work and responsibility so that the program could go forward. They did double duty that week, away from their families, so that our children didn’t suffer yet another lost opportunity…
Thank you for the clarification and kudos to Mrs. Sousa and Mr. Meyers for doing the right thing for our children.
Nothing of this new information changes the bottom line: The teachers are making the same salaries and benefits they did last year but they are not doing the same amount of work as last year. They are acting like hourly paid union laborers and not professionals – but they demand to be treated like professionals. They have to decide whether they are unionists or professionals.
Nothing drives this contradiction home more than hearing that the annual day trip to Ellis Island and the Statute of Liberty did not occur. Guess they could not fit it into their 6 hour work day.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
In a nutshell, here is what I think the negotiating position of the East Greenwich School Committee should be on some of the key financial terms of the contract.
East Greenwich NEA teachers’ union contract negotiations – go here, here, here, and here.
Other Rhode Island public education issues – go here, here, here, and here.
Broader public education issues – go here, here, and here.
If you want another example of how misguided incentives in the public sector lead to bad outcomes, here is another pathetic example (available from the WSJ for a fee):
…What’s meaningful about the [highway] bill the Senate passed yesterday…is just how quickly and utterly some Republicans have abandoned all spending principle.
The 89-11 Senate vote for a $295 billion highway bill exceeds the $284 billion limit that President Bush has said is acceptable. But more than that, it also defies the budget resolution that Congress adopted only last month…The resolution isn’t binding (which is the way Democrats designed it in 1974), but it is intended to provide some parameters for a Republican Congress that’s supposedly serious about changing its free-spending ways. Or so they keep telling us.
It’s bad enough that only nine Members voted against the House version of the highway bill in March, which makes us wonder if there’s any political constituency for spending restraint….But at least the House measure, at $284 billion, stayed within the overly generous spending limits set by the White House.
President Bush has threatened to veto any highway bill in excess of that amount, but apparently Senate Republicans don’t take his threat seriously. Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley is claiming the extra $11 billion is “paid for” and won’t add to the deficit. But Senator Judd Gregg told reporters last week that the higher figure is “quite simply, unequivocally, unquestionably, a budget buster.” He was being kind…
The highway trust fund, supported by federal gas taxes, is the main source of money for highway projects. To claim deficit “neutrality,” the Senate bill mainly diverts general revenue funds into the highway trust, or shifts highway trust fund liabilities into some other fund. But either way, it constitutes deficit spending…
It’s also worth noting that the $284 billion ceiling set by the President is a record high level of funding and $73 billion, or 35%, more than the last six-year bill enacted in 1998. Which is to say that the White House strictures are far from unreasonable. It’s too bad that only nine GOP Senators — Sam Brownback, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, John McCain, Judd Gregg and John Sununu — saw fit to vote against the bill. They were joined by the two Wisconsin Democrats, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, who opposed the measure because they said it shortchanged their state.
The transit bill is already 20 months late, and since there’s little in there to promote the types of infrastructure reforms — toll roads, public-private partnerships — the country could really use…
…a veto is in order. Make that imperative. Mr. Bush has been preaching spending restraint since his re-election, and to let Congress get away with busting the first big spending bill of his second term is to guarantee that he won’t be taken seriously again. Senators are daring Mr. Bush on this bill because they simply don’t believe he’ll use his veto…
Plain and simple, this is nothing but revolting behavior by the Congress.
For more on the broader problem that afflicts public sector incentives, go here, here, here, and here. Then go read Lawrence Reed’s speech entitled Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy.
In the heat of intense political warfare, perspective is often the first thing to disappear. Let’s apply that observation to the debate about Tom DeLay, Republican Majority Leader in the US House of Representatives, and see if we can regain some perspective.
I have been critical of Tom DeLay even before Howard Dean got into the act. I was critical because, like many Americans, I actually believed in the principles outlined in the 1994 Contract With America, which was instrumental in the Republicans gaining majority control of the House. It is my opinion that they have largely squandered that legacy and, as a House leader, that means DeLay deserves criticism because he has become an inside-the-Beltway power broker in a way that is not all that different from the Democrats I have criticized previously.
What do we know about DeLay? We know he is quite effective at power politics. He did not get the nickname “The Hammer” for nothing. By definition, that is going to create some enemies. We also know he has done some wonderful things in his personal life that get little or no publicity and show he is a more complex personality than his nickname suggests:
The DeLays share a deep interest in the circumstances facing abused and neglected children. They got involved with children’s issues after Christine DeLay, a teacher, began volunteering as a Court Appointed Special Advocate for children in foster care. Eventually, the DeLays became foster parents themselves. Today, they are outspoken advocates in favor of reforming the present foster care system by making the child’s best interest the paramount concern.
We should also recognize that DeLay’s religious beliefs put him at odds with the secular left fundamentalists, who show no tolerance toward their philosophical opponents.
Then along comes Howard Dean, who has declared DeLay guilty of crimes for which DeLay has not even been charged. Never mind the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty.
Like all Americans, except for Howard Dean and his ilk, I have no ability to judge whether DeLay might be charged with or found guilty of crimes in the future. All I have the ability to judge today is that there is an intense political storm swirling around DeLay.
Which is why today’s story is so interesting:
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who denies partisan motives for his investigation of a political group founded by Republican leader Tom DeLay, was the featured speaker last week at a Democratic fund-raiser where he spoke directly about the congressman.
A newly formed Democratic political action committee, Texas Values in Action Coalition, hosted the May 12 event in Dallas to raise campaign money to take control of the state Legislature from the GOP, organizers said.
Earle, an elected Democrat, helped generate $102,000 for the organization…
Earle and his staff of prosecutors have obtained indictments of three DeLay associates on charges that their political committee, the DeLay-led Texans for a Republican Majority, broke state campaign finance laws with the use of corporate donations on its way to helping establish Republican control in the state House.
Earle said Wednesday he knew the group that met in Dallas was raising money for Democrats, but that it was not his reason for speaking…
Political analysts said Earle’s appearance left him open to questions about his motives.
“It may help Tom DeLay establish his case that Ronnie Earle’s investigation is a partisan witch hunt,” said Richard Murray, a political scientist with the University of Houston.
“It clearly fuels the perception that his investigation is politically motivated. It was probably not a wise move,” said Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who heads the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics…
Former House Speaker Jim Wright, a Fort Worth Democrat who was forced to resign from Congress in 1989 after the House Ethics Committee began investigating whether he improperly profited from a book publishing deal, was among those who attended the event. He is scheduled to speak at the committee’s next fund-raiser in June…
Dallas lawyer Ed Ishmael, another co-founder of the Democratic committee to which Earle spoke, is described on the group’s Web site as “a leader in the Howard Dean presidential campaign” of 2004.
[Here, on June 20, is some additional information on the behavior of Ronnie Earle.]
So, from afar, I believe the only credible statement that can be made right now is that DeLay is a partisan and he is being attacked by people with a competing partisan agenda. Welcome to politics, a contact sport.
As American citizens, we can only hope that the truth will prevail even as we simultaneously worry that partisan agendas – regardless of party – will focus on achieving victory at all costs, even if that means sacrificing the search for facts and an honest interpretation of those facts.
Two takeaway thoughts that can help us regain perspective:
First, the intensity of the partisan fighting is directly correlated to what is at stake and big government means there is more to fight over. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers encouraged limited government was their deep understanding of human nature.
Second, since politicians and bureaucrats have no incentive to behave well, a diligent citizenry is crucially important to the ongoing success of our American experiment in ordered liberty.
Howard Dean, national chairman of the Democratic party, thinks Tom DeLay is guilty until proven innocent:
“I think he’s guilty . . . of taking trips paid for by lobbyists, and of campaign-finance violations during his manipulation of the Texas election process,” Dean said.
But Howard Dean thinks Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty:
“I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found,” Dean said during the 2004 Democratic primary campaign. “I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.”
Okay, I get it. Do you?
Here’s the source article.
I have had the privilege of working in the healthcare industry since 1983, joining my first biotechnology startup company in 1985. Just like physics had many of its heady years in the early part of the 20th century, the last 30 years have been similarly exciting times in biology. And there is no end in sight as we continue to learn more about the molecular basis of disease and how the human body works.
The annual American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting has just ended. One Wall Street Journal article (available for a fee) reports:
Drugs that specifically target cancer cells will be the focus of the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual conference…
Targeted therapies are considered the next generation of cancer drugs. Unlike chemotherapy, targeted cancer drugs avoid killing healthy cells, by choking off blood supply or signals that cancer cells need to grow.
Investors are awaiting data on several targeted therapies and their effects on a range of cancers. Presenting research will be companies such as Novartis AG, ImClone Systems Inc., GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Genentech Inc., which is partly owned by Swiss Roche Holding AG.
The annual ASCO conference is closely watched by Wall Street because of the sheer volume of clinical data presented. “It is the most important cancer conference of the year for doctors, patients and investors as well,” said Le Anne Zhao, a Caris & Co. analyst…
The article then goes on to describe how various pharmaceutical companies would be reporting progress on their numerous clinical development efforts.
A second Wall Street Journal article (also available for a fee) tells the story of Genentech’s recent run of drug development successes, as presented at the ASCO meeting:
…the spotlight will be on Genentech Inc., which is rapidly emerging as a dominant force in modern cancer treatment.
…researchers are expected to present details of several ground-breaking studies involving Genentech’s new-style drugs, which precisely target the genetic weak points of tumors. Virtually alone among such similar targeted therapies, Genentech’s drugs have proven surprisingly effective against some of cancer’s biggest killers — lung, colon and breast tumors, which together account for more than 250,000 deaths a year in the U.S.
For instance, Avastin, a new-style medicine that fights tumors by cutting off their blood supply, will be shown to extend the lives of lung-cancer patients and to improve the outlook for women with breast cancer. An older targeted drug against breast cancer, Herceptin, can cut in half the risk of cancer recurrence following surgery for a subset of women with particularly aggressive tumors.
Those results follow a year of other Genentech successes. Last year, researchers found that Genentech’s drug Tarceva also improved the odds of survival for both lung — and pancreatic — cancer patients. And Avastin, which was approved last year for colon cancer, has piled up big sales numbers and proven effective at various stages of the disease as well.
Cancer drugs are notoriously hard to develop. Many seemingly promising drugs often fail outright when subjected to the most rigorous testing, and even among the new class of targeted therapies, disappointments vastly outnumber the rare successes. Over the past few years, however, Genentech’s cancer drugs have bucked that historical trend in an unprecedented winning streak.
“I don’t think anyone expected this,” says Christopher Raymond, an analyst with R.W. Baird & Co. “These guys can’t lose.”
Genentech’s drugs do not cure cancer, and as tested so far, rarely extend life by more than a few months on average. But cancer treatment, like football, is a game of inches, and cancer specialists generally welcome even incremental improvements over existing treatments. In addition, oncologists often point out that because new drugs are usually tested in the very sickest patients, many of them might be more effective at earlier stages of cancer….
Over the past two months, as news of the studies trickled out, its stock price has risen almost 70%. Measured by market capitalization, Genentech recently became the largest biotech in the world, edging out previous leader Amgen Inc. by a few billion dollars. It’s also now bigger than drug-industry stalwarts like Merck & Co. and Eli Lilly & Co.
Genentech’s success in this field is partly a matter of luck, since clinical trials of new cancer drugs remain an inexact science. But it also reflects the scientific rigor of the company’s testing program. Unlike some competitors, Genentech routinely designs drug trials to prove that its therapies extend the lives of patients, an exacting standard that is arduous and time-consuming, but which tends to convince even skeptics when the results are positive…
Having lived nearly 20 years in the Bay Area, I remember watching Genentech grow from a small, young company. They have always been known for doing great research and not letting external pressures – which they certainly experienced a number of years ago – result in taking their eye off the prize. And, with their history of excellence, many of their alumni have gone on to be leaders in other successful biotechnology companies.
This interview with the Genentech CEO conveys the essence of their corporate culture. Another article about the company is here.
This article will educate you if you want to learn more about how breakthroughs in the biological sciences are changing the nature of drug discovery and development.
New drug development takes many years, has a very high rate of failure, and is extraordinarily expensive as this article notes. You can read more about the drug development process here. It is important to remember these facts when people with narrow political agendas focus on only 1-2 issues that alone do not tell a complete story. Successful innovations from companies like Genentech happen because they have the freedom to innovate and the ability to be rewarded for success after achieving the innovation.
Good research has led to valuable medicines, which are saving people’s lives. It’s why many of us in the industry are excited to get up and go to work every morning…knowing that we, too, have an opportunity to change the world in a wonderfully positive way.
