The Washington Times has a series of articles on mental illness in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina. The first article is here, the second is here; the third is yet to be published. In a similar vein, the Washington Post today has an article on one family's unemployment resulting from the current recession.
Published as "news" stories, both are dishonest,thinly-guised editorials in favor of more government-funded intervention.
The Times' series is striking for what does not appear (at least not yet) - any assessment of pre-Katrina mental illness. What was the state of mental health (both illness and treatment) in New Orleans pre-Katrina? Despite the bleakness of the article(s), my sense is that pre-Katrina, things were worse. Not from what was written, but from what was not written.
The Post article is somewhat more honest in that from the vignette, the reader can see that the wounds were self-inflicted. Not that that's any consolation to the family profiled.
Two questions arise.
First, are either of these news? Personally, I don't think so, but I'm open to differing opinion.
Second, and more important, should public policy be based on anecdote? This one I'm firm on - absolutely not. No policy is ever perfect; there are always consequences; and policy-makers must err on the side of the public good even when individual anecdotes are compelling ("Not Yours to Give").
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
VICTIMS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The Senate begins debate on the Sotomayor confirmation.
My own feeling, based on her repeated “wise Latina” comments and the Ricci v. DeStefano decision (New Haven firefighter discrimination) reversing Sotomayor, is that she will become the first “affirmative action victim" appointed to the Supreme Court.
Barack Obama is, of course, the first “affirmative action victim” elected to be President.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor says she is a "perfect affirmative action baby," and that she was accepted to Princeton and Yale despite her lackluster test performance compared to other applicants.
She made these comments in a video dating back to "early '90s" that she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week as part of her Supreme Court nomination process.
Sotomayor admitted that her acceptance to the Ivy League schools would have been "highly questionable" if not for affirmative action.
"My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale," she said on a panel for a nonprofit law organization.
My own feeling, based on her repeated “wise Latina” comments and the Ricci v. DeStefano decision (New Haven firefighter discrimination) reversing Sotomayor, is that she will become the first “affirmative action victim" appointed to the Supreme Court.
Barack Obama is, of course, the first “affirmative action victim” elected to be President.
NEWS?
Shepard Smith always starts the Fox Report with “The NEWS starts now!”
If that’s the case, then what was I watching on Special Report (just before I turned him off)?
If that’s the case, then what was I watching on Special Report (just before I turned him off)?
WHY IS JIMMY CARTER SMILING?
Failing at failure – from the comments at Grouchy Old Cripple: “So, He's going to fail at being the worst Prez ?”
Via Don Surber.
OBAMA APPROVAL INDEX
Former President Bush didn't hit a -30 approval rating in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll until the last full month of his presidency. President Obama appears to be on track to match that rating in the first full year of his first term.
Who said the man isn't capable?
[Update & Bump] From another comment thread: "Maybe he can now claim he has “inherited” Bush’s poll numbers too."
THE FOLLY OF HATE-CRIME LAWS
I rarely agree with Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, but this is a commentary with which I can agree. Writing on the murder of Holocaust Museum security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns by James von Brunn, an apparent consummate bigot:
Finally - an admission by a man of the Left that "hate crime" laws serve no purpose beyond political pandering.
Exactly.
Yes. And exactly the reason "hate crime" should be regulated to a historical footnote.
The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. -- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech.
Finally - an admission by a man of the Left that "hate crime" laws serve no purpose beyond political pandering.
[Stephen Tyrone] Johns is dead no matter what [James] von Brunn believes. The penalty for murder is severe, so it's not as if the crime is not being punished.
Exactly.
The added "late hit" of a hate crime is without any real consequence, except as a precedent for the punishment of belief or speech. Slippery slopes are supposedly all around us, I know, but this one is the real McCoy.
Yes. And exactly the reason "hate crime" should be regulated to a historical footnote.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Cash for Clunkers is a prime example of the unanticipated consequences of hastily drafted legislation.
Even the New York Times has chimed in:
Via Don Surber. I wrote on it here.
[D]ealers are required to destroy the clunkers, which will reduce the supply and increase the price of spare parts for those low-income folks who can't afford to trade their clunkers in even with a $4,500 subsidy. So much for helping the poor.
This brings to mind a similarly well-intentioned 2000 Arizona law that paid $22,000 per vehicle to owners of cars operable with alternative fuels . Sport utility vehicle owners began installing small propane tanks and pocketing the money; the law didn't say they actually had to use the propane.
Even the New York Times has chimed in:
[T]he requirement to demolish old engines ... has bolstered criticism from the right that the program was intended for “limousine liberals.”
Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” William Kristol, the conservative editor of The Weekly Standard, said the rebates were going to middle-class people who would have eventually bought a new car anyhow.
Instead of helping the legions of unemployed, the money is going to a “bunch of upper-middle-class people who have some cars sitting around from 12 years ago,” Mr. Kristol said. “Now they’re just accelerating their purchase to get 4,500 bucks.”
Via Don Surber. I wrote on it here.
JEEZ ....
U.S. Calls Summit on Texting While Driving:
Doesn't the Obama administration have something better to do, like destroy the U.S. economy or save the world from godless communism, or whatever?
The Obama administration will convene a summit of experts to figure out what to do about the problem of texting while driving ....
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will announce his decision to gather senior transportation officials, safety advocates, law enforcement representatives, members of Congress and academics who study distracted driving ....
"When we are done, I expect to have a list of concrete steps to announce," LaHood said.
Doesn't the Obama administration have something better to do, like destroy the U.S. economy or save the world from godless communism, or whatever?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
