The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

Archive for January, 2005

We do not stand alone

January 10th, 2005 by danimal

Well, folks, I’m kind of playing catch-up here, not 24 hours removed from my honeymoon. But I had to note the latest brilliance from PFC Vice Chair Mason Quiroz, our erstwhile tag, now revealed as the catalyst of the PFC’s illegal actions against us. Witness him now badgering an utterly uncontroversial law school community outreach program:

ASUO Controller Will Richard praised law student organization Family Law in Practice’s “positive growth.”

But Quiroz took issue with FLIP’s acronym. “Be careful about your acronym,” he said. “It’s a derogatory name for Filipinos.”

The organization’s leaders agreed to reconsider the name. FLIP received a total budget of $370 to be used for speakers and networking socials.

Yes, Mason, it is a derogatory name for Filipinos. It’s also a perfectly neutral name for that thing that happens when you perform a somersault in midair. What does this have to do with the organization’s budget?

You can see how, if he considers it worthwhile (and legal) to nitpick the name of a non-political, non-provocative community group like FLIP, targeting us feels entirely legitimate to him. But I could not dream of a better demonstration of why “uneducated” undergraduates should not be representing the State of Oregon in doling out funding according to a highly sensitive set of legal guidelines. I guess I’d respect Quiroz a whole lot more if he said things like this more often:

“I abstain. I’m confused now,” Quiroz said.

Ah, Mason, if only you had realized that a few months ago.

What Better Way to Say…

January 7th, 2005 by melissa

Why can’t you be as fit and attractive as these Olympic athletes?

The Obesity Olympics, very poorly named, brings to mind the dangerously overweight competing in strenuous physical trials to prove, once and for all, who really has the champion inside.

Paul Hamm will teach a 319-pound man how to tumble for ya. Then refuse to give up his medal.
Tanya Harding will teach beautiful inner-swans to glide on the ice, and whack their competitors in the knee.
Marion Jones will inject everyone with steroids.
Eric Rudolph will make bombs.

We’ll all come out feeling like winners, naturally.

Income Inequality: Still Not A Big Deal

January 6th, 2005 by Timothy

Andrew Sullivan, whose blog I’ve just started reading again, points to this Economist piece on income inequality in the United States. While usually a great source for economic reporting, this piece falls into some common traps with welfare analysis and sounds any number of useless alarms.

The common perception is that income inequality in the US is bad and only getting worse, however a closer look at the actual numbers doesn’t paint nearly as bleak a picture as we might be led to believe. The US Census Bureau put out Income Inequality in the United States: 2002, and their most recent data do not seem to indicate a huge leap in income inequality.

The United States Gini coefficient is .0462 according to the above paper in 1979 the US Gini was 0.406*. Like golf, low numbers are preferable from a Normative Economic perspective (more on that later). However, methodological changes make data previous to 1993 not exactly comparable to current data. This is sort of a niggling detail, and a fact largely ignored by pretty much everyone. However, it doesn’t seem like the methodological changes were really large enough to have much of an effect, so I suppose it’s not a big deal to go right ahead and ignore them.

Table 7** from the above report shows that the Gini by quintile for before-tax income is 0.448, slightly but not impressively lower than the above. However, the United States has a fairly progressive taxation structure, and people’s welfare is determined not by their gross income but by their disposable income. The same table shows the Gini for after-tax income to be 0.426, which is significantly lower than 0.462 and lower than the 2001 number of 0.434.

But wait! There’s more! Disposable income is not the only thing that contributes to total welfare, which is really the disparity everyone in the Normative community claims to be interested in, so we’ll have to look at yet a more comprehensive number. Once non-cash transfers and the benefits of employer-subsidized health-care are factored in the Gini drops slightly to 0.421. If you factor in the benefits of Medicare and Medicaid, the Gini drops to 0.405. If the value of home equity returns is considered, the Gini declines to 0.400.

Essentially, the more comprehensive a measure of welfare is used, the less inequality we see. What’s more interesting, and really does expose the lie in “tax cuts for the rich”, is that the top quintile of income earners lost statistically significant shares in all income categories except gross income. Further, while the bottom two quinitiles remained largely unchanged (probably because they really don’t pay taxes at all), the shares of aggregate income in the third and fourth quintiles made statistically significant gains over 2001 in all categories except gross income. What does that mean, kids? That middle class Americans have gained a lot over the last couple of years.

That we have an “inequality crisis” in America is a fallacy. This has been a boilerplate issue for liberals and leftists for a long time now, and is unlikely to go away, but it is important to remember that their claims are not really supported by much in the way of evidence.

Later in the week: Marginal tax rates and government outlays, plus why Normative Economics is fundamentally flawed.

*Table A-3: Share of Aggregate Income Recieved By Each Fifth and Top Five Percent of Households 1967-2002

** Percentage of Aggregate Household Income Recieved By Income Quintiles and Gini Index by Income Definition.

Note to ASUO: Biatch, Give Me My Money!

January 6th, 2005 by melissa

So, while subsidies of ASUO are busy holding us responsible for what people think of our content, the rest of those weed-smokin, booze-drinkin’ wild children in the greater student government are weaseling their way out of responsibility.
They’ve decided they might not repay the retreat funds. The learning experience is so much more important!

“Senate President James George said ASUO members wanted to focus on goals that would benefit multiple groups, such as the creation of a retreat committee and a “dos and don’ts” video…[Chris] Loschiavo said he tried not to propose punishments for the ASUO leaders and instead allowed them to create ideas to help them learn from their mistakes. “It’s never easy to come up with a punishment for yourself,” he said.”

I know, it is so hard to punish yourself! Especially for the “cocky, smooth motherfuckers” of the ASUO who are ducking responsibility for what is, undeniably, the most childish and moronic incident in student government history. I completely agree with the fan-freakin-tastic ODE editorial that so eloquently states;

“While producing a dos-and-don’ts video (hopefully not using incidental fees) and forming a committee are two great steps toward guarding against future misconduct, paying the money back is a crucial step toward making right what they did wrong in the first place. The bottom line is this: Student money that is inappropriately used should be paid back…The ASUO’s lame excuses for refusing to do the responsible thing is further evidence that they just don’t care about the student body and our dime. “

Above brilliant editorial also includes the highlight of the nasty little guestbook entry, in case anyone forgot.

ODE: On The Right Side Of History

January 5th, 2005 by Timothy

As stated above in Dan’s letter, we all know that the magazine has been under attack from the minicrats on the PFC. They understand neither viewpoint neutrality, First Amendment precedent, or even what it means to regulate content:

But Quiroz said he is not judging the magazine’s content, but rather how that content might affect students.

Mason, then, would like to hold the OC responsible for how other people (or person, in this case) feel about the content. As Dan has brilliantly outlined above, there are very few circumstances when this is the case legally and the PFC is has neither the authority nor the understanding to make such a judgement.

Aside from that, I wanted to direct everyone to today’s ODE editorial. It shows a depth of understanding, makes the point logically and swiftly, and is really very persuasive. Today’s editorial is a far cry from Kleckner’s rancid treatment of the issue back in the MEM days. They didn’t even waste column inches talking about how unworthy a publication the OC is before they defended our right to exist. What’s more, the ODE is on the right side from the get-go this time. So, kudos to them. Or “quacks” as they would put it.

Oh, Toto, I Don’t Think We Want to Go Back to Kansas

January 5th, 2005 by melissa

When Wal-Mart runs your life, all your friends work there, they pay your bills, fix your car, provide your medical/optical care, and furnish your house and body, then it’s gone too far.

Wal-Mart Workers to Exchange Vows at Work

Nine months later, Wal-Mart couple shuts down store and chooses register two as a delivery table for the child concieved in the bedding aisle, while on their honeymoon in the linens department… maybe Wal-Mart should have considered providing birth-control coverage for their female employees, after all.

Personally, I’m a fan of Target, but I’m not sure they have them thar fancy Target stores in Kansas.

Plus, Target has no major labor lawsuits pending.

I Have Discovered Yet Another Blog By Econ Profs

January 5th, 2005 by Timothy

What’s more is that this one is also run by folks at GMU, a place steadily gaining on my list of places to apply to graduate school in five or so years. Anyway, Cafe Hayek is a good read, and at least as entertaining as Marginal Revolution.

Also, read this piece on why Grover Cleveland should be your hero.

Was that in the Commerce Clause?

January 5th, 2005 by Timothy

Judge Orders addict with seven children to stop having kids, unsurprisingly the NY ACLU claims that the right to procreate is “fundamental”. Sure I can see the slippery slope argument, but the order isn’t forced sterilization, it’s don’t get knocked up. There are many easy ways to accomplish that goal, so I’m all for it. 3…2…1…que being called a Nazi by the ASUO.

Letter From Washington

January 4th, 2005 by wwb

My sympathies for the DC statehood movement are limited at best, but after reading this morning’s Post, even those minimal feelings are diminished further:

Three District veterans of the war in Iraq yesterday appealed to the U.S. House of Representatives to extend a provisional floor vote to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton when Congress reconvenes today, saying they risked their lives to bring democracy to Baghdad only to return home without a vote in America’s capital.”The maximum is what my buddies and I are pledged to give,” said Army Reserve Spec. Isaac Lewis, 26. “We believe that voting representation is not too much to ask in return.”

Am I the only one who objects to using the strong emotions wrought by our involvement in Iraq to lobby for expanded DC congressional representation? I thank these soldiers for their service, but that has absolutely no bearing on Norton’s job description. Later in the article:

[22-year-old Emory Kosh] called a limited House vote a “good beginning” but less than the rights Iraqi citizens expect to enjoy at month’s end.

Points to the Post for noting that Kosh didn’t just walk in off the street — he’s an aide to Norton. So, she’s enlisted her employee to argue that life in Baghdad is preferable to the District so her party can lose a party-line vote 204 to 232 instead of 203 to 232? If she thinks the Iraq war is an appropriate starting point for debate about DC statehood, then I definitely don’t want her casting votes.

P.S. For the case against making a state of this city (!) and a proposal for a much better alternative, read this.

*Sigh*

January 3rd, 2005 by Timothy

If only things like this would get more attention. Maybe then, just maybe, the name of this category could be changed to “Things That Rock and Everyone Loves.” Okay, yeah, I’m being way over optimistic. Oh well, a man can dream!

Tsunami, Now a Political Dance Party

January 3rd, 2005 by melissa

I caught this on the Today show this morning; I find it disturbing the direction this tsunami fiasco is taking. The entire transcript here, courtesy of “NBC NEWS’ MEET THE PRESS.”

Tim Russert, questioning Sec’y Colin Powell,
“…Much of that opposition comes from the Muslim world, and several of the countries hit by the tsunami have large Muslim populations. `This was a golden opportunity for President Bush to speak to the victims of the tsunami and the Muslim world by showing care and compassion,’ said David L. Phillips, a former senior advisor to the State Department.”

By bringing up this tidbit, is Russert implying that the only reason the United States in sending help at all is to woo the Muslim world?

Golden line of Powell’s reply, “There is always some former official around, some Rolodex ranger that always shows up to criticize what we are doing. “

Russert pushes the envelope: “In terms of winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, how important is it that the West be seen as so much more than indifferent to their needs?”

Powell shutting him down: “We should be seen not just because it’s a Muslim nation but because these are human beings in need. “