August 20, 2008, 8:20, 9:10, 9:40 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, is now being updated as a Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"Forbes, Mural, Poverty and 7 Presidential Candidates," August 17, 2008."Earthpark: 'Pretty Quiet Phase; No Timetable to Speak of,'" August 14, 2008."UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2006.
"How to Build an Indoor Rain Forest," July 10, 2008.
"What We Know That Ain't So," July 28, 2006.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Earthpark, Editorials and Beating Dead Horses," August 15, 2008.
"Alcohol, Three Items and a Comment," January 22, 2008.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries
Higher Education's "Leadership"
A group of 114 college and university presidents calling themselves "higher education leaders" has formed what they call the Amethyst Initiative and "have signed their names to a public statement that the 21 year-old drinking age is not working, and, specifically, that it has created a culture of dangerous binge drinking on their campuses."
For the story that first reported their actions, and got this controversy started, see Justin Pope, "College presidents seek debate on drinking age," Associated Press [Yahoo! News], August 18, 2008, 9:57 p.m. ET ("Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on. . . . . University of Miami President Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, declined to sign. 'I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress,' Shalala said in a telephone interview. 'To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all.' . . . McCardell cites the work of Alexander Wagenaar, a University of Florida epidemiologist and expert on how changes in the drinking age affect safety. But Wagenaar himself sides with MADD in the debate. The college presidents 'see a problem of drinking on college campuses, and they don't want to deal with it,' Wagenaar said in a telephone interview. 'It's really unfortunate, but the science is very clear.' Another scholar who has extensively researched college binge-drinking also criticized the presidents' initiative. 'I understand why colleges are doing it, because it splits their students, and they like to treat them all alike rather than having to card some of them. It's a nuisance to them,' said Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of Public Health. But, 'I wish these college presidents sat around and tried to work out ways to deal with the problem on their campus rather than try to eliminate the problem by defining it out of existence,' he said.")
The Initiative's proponents have come upon the brilliant insight that if illegal behavior on campus is a problem the simplest way to prevent it is to repeal the law. No law, no illegal behavior. With creative insights like that no wonder they've been able to make it to the top of their academic totem poles.
Who are these folks? Well, a week ago Forbes magazine came out with a listing of 569 colleges and universities (including Iowa) that it considered "America's Best." Hana R. Alberts, Michael Noer and David M. Ewalt, eds., "America's Best Colleges," Forbes, August 13, 2008, 6:00 p.m. ET.
The ranking includes Forbes "ten best." They are:
# Princeton University
# California Institute of Technology
# Harvard University
# Swarthmore College
# Williams College
# United States Military Academy
# Amherst College
# Wellesley College
# Yale University
# Columbia University
Cross-check this list with Amethyst's 114 "signatories" and you will find not a single one of America's ten best has joined the effort.
Fortunately, our own UI President Sally Mason has chosen to join with "America's Best" rather than this rather embarrassing movement of self-proclaimed "higher education leaders."
"I do not agree that lowering the drinking age would be effective at this time," Mason wrote in a letter Tuesday to John McCardell, president emeritus of Middlebury College in Vermont [who] started the Amethyst Initiative . . ..
Mason explained that because 19- and 20-year-olds can enter Iowa City bars, many underage patrons are drinking alcohol and getting drunk.
"As a consequence, one-in-five of our students reports being assaulted by a drunken peer. One in three reports being the subject of an unwanted sexual advance. This is simply unacceptable and I do not believe that these statistics would change in the current cultural environment with a lowered drinking age," Mason wrote.
Erin Jordan, "U of I president opposes lowering drinking age," Des Moines Register, August 19, 2008, 4:56 p.m. And see, Brian Morelli, "Locals weigh in on drinking age debate; UI president says proposal won't solve the problem," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 20, 2008; and Editorial, "Drinking Debate OK," The Gazette, August 20, 2008, p. A4 ("[W]e’re skeptical that expanding the pool of legal drinkers will somehow diminish campus alcohol issues. We think the 21-year-old threshold should not be changed to simply accept bad behavior or to relieve college administrators from having to deal with tough issues spawned by excessive drinking.").
So why do I say the 114 are "embarrassing"? Because this effort represents what many consider disappointing about "the academy" and its "higher education leaders."
They are disingenuous.
It is clear from the statement they have all endorsed that they want to lower the drinking age to 18. Under headings such as "It's time to rethink the drinking age," "Our experience as college and university presidents convinces us that Twenty-one is not working," and "How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?" they use arguments such as, "Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer."
OK. That's fine. We've all heard those assertions before. No reason why advocates can't continue to use them.
The problem is that when these academic leaders are called on the fact they are ignoring the scientific literature on the subject that has come from research at "America's Best" academic institutions, they do the little sidestep . . .
[The preceding one-minute fair use clip is from the delightful 1982 R-rated full-length musical comedy, "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," staring Burt Reynolds and Dolly Parton, among a great many other accomplished and well-known actors, and still available for rental and sale. It's based on a true story of a brothel outside LaGrange, Texas, that was ultimately closed down in 1973, following the work of investigative reporter Marvin Zindler of KTRK-TV, Houston. The writing was done by Larry King (whom I remember from Austin in the 1950s), the Governor was played by Charles Durning, and the studio was RKO Pictures. The film is copyright by, presumably, RKO. The use of this miniaturized, very brief clip is for non-commercial, educational and commentary fair use purposes only. Any other use may require the permission of the copyright owner.]
. . . and say, "Oh, we're not really proposing the age be dropped to 18, our statement just calls for 'an informed and dispassionate public debate.'" Which, indeed, it does.
But for a group of academics to say they want an informed debate while simultaneously excluding from that debate any and all solid evidence that is contrary to their position, and urging little better by way of support than one could get from any drunken undergraduate at one of their campus bars on a Friday night, does not speak well for "the academy."
See, e.g., these excerpts from "Underage Drinking: Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?" Alcohol Alert, no. 67, January 2006, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Perhaps most telling is this statement under "Interventions for Preventing Underage Drinking": "Increasing the age at which people can legally purchase and drink alcohol has been the most successful intervention to date . . .."
The "most successful intervention to date" and these 114 "higher education leaders" (a) make no reference to the finding, and (b) pick doing away with it as their top priority for treating the binge-drinking problem?
"NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] estimates that a legal drinking age of 21 saves 700 to 1,000 lives annually. Since 1976, these laws have prevented more than 21,000 traffic deaths. Just how much the legal drinking age relates to drinking-related crashes is shown by a recent study in New Zealand. Six years ago that country lowered its minimum legal drinking age to 18. Since then, alcohol-related crashes have risen 12 percent among 18- to 19-year-olds and 14 percent among 15- to 17-year-olds (62)."
The report begins:
"Alcohol is the drug of choice among youth. Many young people are experiencing the consequences of drinking too much, at too early an age. As a result, underage drinking is a leading public health problem in this country.
"Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings. . . .
"According to data from the 2005 Monitoring the Future (MTF) study . . . 11 percent of 8th graders, 22 percent of 10th graders, and 29 percent of 12th graders had engaged in heavy episodic (or “binge”) drinking within the past two weeks.
"Other research shows that the younger children and adolescents are when they start to drink, the more likely they will be to engage in behaviors that harm themselves and others. For example, frequent binge drinkers (nearly 1 million high school students nationwide) are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, including using other drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, having sex with six or more partners, and earning grades that are mostly Ds and Fs in school."
Aside from the deaths and "risky behaviors," what are the effects of binge drinking?
"Brain Effects—Scientists currently are examining just how alcohol affects the developing brain . . .. Subtle changes in the brain may be difficult to detect but still have a significant impact on long-term thinking and memory skills. Add to this the fact that adolescent brains are still maturing . . .. Research has shown that animals fed alcohol during this critical developmental stage continue to show long-lasting impairment from alcohol as they age. . . ."
And see also, Harvard School of Public Health, College Alcohol Study, "Key College Alcohol Study Publications."
In general, we know that alcohol is our nation's number one hard drug problem by any measure. Roughly half of prison inmates have a problem of alcoholism or alcohol abuse. Similarly, alcohol is involved in roughly half (give or take) of all crimes, including sexual assaults, spousal and child abuse. It involves roughly 10 million Americans -- who then have an adverse impact on maybe 30 million more (such as family members and co-workers). It causes more, and more serious, permanent health effects (e.g., brain and liver damage) than some of the drugs that are illegal and thought to be more dangerous. It's involved in many if not most accidental injuries and deaths -- automobile and other. And the economic losses, from a whole variety of related consequences, run into the billions.
As if that were not enough, as the NIH's and other studies point out, there are additional consequences for binge drinking adolescents above and beyond those for adults.
It's counter intuitive that making it easier for even more young people to get access to even more alcohol, and driving down the problem to junior high students and younger, is somehow going to improve the situation.
I understand the impact of the profits of local bar owners on their community's city council members, college and university administrators, and media (advertising). I understand the political power that comes from the profits of an alcohol industry engaged in heavy advertising and promotional campaigns aimed at encouraging college students' "culture" of binge drinking. I understand the need for the additional tuition cash flow provided by those who come to school more to party than to learn.
But I also understand the need for "higher education leaders" to provide some leadership -- even if it involves some risk to their future job opportunities at even higher salaries.
The NIH report also lists some six strategies for serious improvement, and four case studies. There is a literature out there. We know what to do. We know what works -- and what doesn't. And what these "higher education leaders" have been doing, and what they are now proposing to do, hasn't and won't work.
Indeed, it's sad to say, but after years of their deliberately choosing to do nothing very effective, it's hard to believe they have ever really wanted to do anything that would work.
# # #
August 19, 2008, 8:10 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Earthpark: 'Pretty Quiet Phase; No Timetable to Speak of,'" August 14, 2008.
"Forbes, Mural, Poverty and 7 Presidential Candidates," August 17, 2008.
"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, is now being updated as a Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2006.
"How to Build an Indoor Rain Forest," July 10, 2008.
"What We Know That Ain't So," July 28, 2006.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Earthpark, Editorials and Beating Dead Horses," August 15, 2008.
"Alcohol, Three Items and a Comment," January 22, 2008.
And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries
Restrict building in floodplain
In the course of lavishing -- deserved -- editorial praise on local hero Steve McGuire the Press-Citizen closed its editorial with, "we also hope that the Flood of 2008 teaches us all that we need to restrict the building of any new structures in the floodplain . . .." Editorial, "Look for a Hero, and You'll Find Steve McGuire," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 19, 2008, p. A8.
It's a theme we explored here yesterday in "Go With the Flow," August 18, 2008.
Iowa Farming: Corn, Beans and Data
In 1979 I was a "presidential adviser" helping to arrange a White House Conference on Libraries and Information Services. It was far enough along in the "Information Age" that one could see through the fog with some precision to where we would likely be 10 and 20 years later. In the 1980s I was writing a nationally syndicated column, "Communications Watch," and hosting a weekly TV program distributed by PBS, "New Tech Times." Alas, both would have been more successful had they not been 15 years ahead of their time.
Equally untimely when I returned to Iowa in 1980 were my efforts to get Governor Terry Branstad to share my enthusiasm and see the potential of of the Information Age for Iowa's economy. The high tech, high pay jobs with CompuServe in Columbus, Ohio, could have been in Coralville. The lower-paid jobs as 800-number operators in Omaha could have been in Council Bluffs; the Visa receipt processors in the Dakotas could have been in Davenport. In spite of what I recall as three exchanges of letters I was never able to get the idea through to him. (He ultimately referred me to the State employee responsible for paying the State's phone bill every month.)
I had an equivalent experience years later with the University upon returning from Seoul, South Korea, with a proposal for a multi-billion-dollar cash flow project providing education to business employees around the Pacific Rim. Ditto with a multi-million dollar offer from Washington, D.C., for the UI to do a rural delivery tele-medicine project (no one was -- then -- interested in the idea); or online delivery of education in the U.S., then said to have no future, and now a centerpiece of universities throughout the country -- all of which were offered by me pro bono without the prospect of a dollar for myself.
So I was pleased to see that last Sunday's Register had a major story on Iowa's actual, and future potential, "data centers." Donnelle Eller, "Iowa poised to collect even more data farms," Des Moines Register, August 17, 2008, p. D1.
That's a far cry from everything we could have been doing over the past 30 years with electronic economics. But better late than never, I guess.
Although, like any other get-rich-quick proposal (see Earthpark), it's necessary to do a little analysis before taking the leap.
A Register reader added a comment to Eller's story suggesting those interested in economic development from data centers consider why Microsoft makes much more sense (and dollars) for economic development than Google. If you're playing an active role in this Iowa effort you'll want to read the article they recommended: "Google vs. Microsoft in Data Center Economics," Data Center Knowledge, April 16, 2008.
What's Fair is Fair
This year's Iowa State Fair (August 7-17) "was the most-attended fair in the event's 154-year history. This year's estimated total of 1,109,150 exceeded the record of 1,053,978 set in 2004 by more than 55,000, according to fair records. . . . Jessica O'Riley, communications manager for the Iowa Division of Tourism, said the record attendance can be attributed to a national travel trend. 'People are taking shorter, more frequent trips,' said O'Riley. 'With gas prices as they are, the fair remains one of those favorite vacation destinations.'" Molly Hottle, "U gotta smile at fair attendance numbers," Des Moines Register, August 19, 2008.
That's good news and bad news. The good news is that the Iowa State Fair remains one of the nation's top attendance state fairs. The bad news is that the analysis of why that is should send up an enormous red flag for those who casually base projected attendance for their proposed attractions on the total population living within 250 miles of their community.
# # #
August 18, 2008, 11:00 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Earthpark: 'Pretty Quiet Phase; No Timetable to Speak of,'" August 14, 2008.
"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, and related Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"Forbes, Mural, Poverty and 7 Presidential Candidates," August 17, 2008.
"How to Build an Indoor Rain Forest," July 10, 2008.
"UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2006.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"What We Know That Ain't So," July 28, 2006.
"Alcohol, Three Items and a Comment," January 22, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"How Do You Protect a City from Floods?" . . .
. . . The Gazette asks by way of a page one headline this morning.
It's kind of a no-brainer, as we say -- as The Gazette's story about Grand Forks, North Dakota, explains.
You "go with the flow" -- not against it.
You want to minimize or eliminate economic losses from floods? Don't put things of economic value where it is likely there will some day be flood waters. Pretty simple, huh?
Every community wants and needs some open areas anyway for walking, jogging and bicycling trails; for softball fields and Frisbee golf; for picnicking and camping; for prairies and pasture; for nature preserves and wetlands. By using the lands along rivers and streams for such purposes the community gains a number of other benefits as well as the attraction of flowing waters for those seeking recreation.
There are fewer floods. The ones that occur are less severe. They come on more slowly. And they cause no economic damage to businesses and homes.
How can that be?
Homes, businesses, roads and parking lots not only suffer economic losses, they actually help bring on the flooding and make it worse. Why? Because they cannot absorb rainfall. They increase, and speed up, the run off.
Grasses, prairies, wetlands and filters (growth immediately adjacent to rivers) can sometimes absorb as much as a five-inch rapid rain with no runoff whatsoever. They can prevent some flooding entirely. Such runoff as there may be will be much less, and slower, than from hard surfaced areas.
And if such a floodplain is ever covered with water the only loss is the inability to use the area for recreation until the waters recede, and the economic cost of a minor cleanup.
Such intelligent use of land -- building homes and businesses above and away from floodplains, and deliberately preferring floodplains for parks and conservation areas -- is not something that any preexisting community can do over night. But there's no reason why every community cannot adopt and execute such a 30- or 50-year plan.
* Immediately stop putting public money into (or providing TIFs and other tax forgiveness for) public, corporate or private structures in such areas -- whether for repair, rebuilding or new construction.
* Immediately focus on such land as is currently available to the city or county that is within floodplain areas and begin using it for recreational and conservation purposes.
* Modify zoning and building code regulations, and utilize such incentives as may be available, including buyouts, to encourage movement of businesses and homes out of floodplains.
By providing sufficient time for transitions, and depreciation accounting, the burden on current business and home residents would be minimized if not eliminated and the entire community would share in the benefits.
This is not a theoretical dream. Other communities are doing it. Iowa's cities should, too.
Clearly, Grand Forks' approach to flood control involved far more than greenways, but equally clearly greenways played a major role.
Here's the story:
"[T]he 2,200 acres of park and trails between the levees and the river have become an asset.
"Pedestrian bridges span the river at the north and south ends of the city.
"The former Lincoln Park neighborhood is a shady park with a Frisbee golf course and dog park.
[Photo Credit: Jim Sloslarek/The Gazette.]
". . . Bicyclists zip in and out of the levee gateways. Couples stroll along the water. There's steady foot traffic across the DeMers Avenue bridge.
"Shawn Clapp . . . said the riverfront is even busier when students return to the University of North Dakota for fall classes. People want to be protected from the river, but they still want to be around it . . .. [B]y protecting the city but inviting people into the greenway, [Grand Forks] accomplishes both.
"'It's just an entrance to your greenway,' he said. 'You almost forget that it's there.'"
Adam Belz, "The Floods of 2008: How Do You Protect a City from Floods?" The Gazette, August 18, 2008, p. A1; online as "How Do You Protect a City from Floods?" August 17, 2008, updated 12:17 p.m.
Coincidentally, the Register had an op ed this morning pleading for the protection of an Iowa greenway that's already in existence. John Wenck, "Seek other options: Don't build road through river greenbelt," Des Moines Register, August 18, 2008. Wenck, outreach coordinator of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, notes, "Iowa is one of the most altered states in the Union. More than 90 percent of the land has been converted into farm fields and development properties since the 1830s. . . . [T]here is a push to widen and extend Northwest 26th Street through the Des Moines River Greenbelt, which will destroy natural habitat and negatively impact recreation for miles along this beautiful stretch of river."
And see, "Flooding resulted in part because so many of Iowa's wetlands have been destroyed and the landscape has been so altered. The Register reported that 'tons of waste spilled into floodwaters.' Pesticides, chemicals, oils, sewage, hog manure and even hogs wound up in our waters." Neila Seaman, "Don't neglect environment in recovery discussions," Des Moines Register, August 13, 2008.
# # #
August 17, 2008, 11:30 a.m., 2:30 p.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Earthpark: 'Pretty Quiet Phase; No Timetable to Speak of,'" August 14, 2008.
"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, and related Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"How to Build an Indoor Rain Forest," July 10, 2008.
"Georgia on My Mind," August 13, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
Forbes and Ferentz
Forbes magazine has been ranking colleges and universities -- and their football coaches. Forbes is no friend of the University of Iowa. It ranks the University 331 out of the 569 ranked schools. Hana R. Alberts, Michael Noer and David M. Ewalt, eds., "America's Best Colleges," Forbes, August 13, 2008, 6:00 p.m.
And while "We're Number One!" "We're Number One!" in at least one category, we'll probably want to consider postponing any public celebrations of the honor.
Forbes ran a kind of comparative benefit-cost analysis of what every college football coach is being paid, and what they are producing for the money. The University of Iowa came in number one in the nation for "most overpaid coach."
Peter J. Schwartz, "The Business Of College Football; The Best (And Worst) College Football Coaches For The Buck," Forbes, August 13, 2008, 6:00 p.m. ET ("But the best bargain was Ohio State’s Jim Tressel, who scored a 122. Tressel has led the Buckeyes to the last two national championship games (losing to Florida in 2007 and Louisiana State in 2008) and was paid $2.6 million last season, less than eight of his peers. . . . The most overpaid coach is Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz, who made $3.4 million last year despite lackluster results on the field, for a score of 71. Just how lopsided is Ferentz’s deal? During the last three years he’s pocketed $10 million, including a record $4.7 million in 2006, but has led the Hawkeyes to just a 19-18 record.").
If the Press-Citizen's Pat Harty is to be believed, it doesn't look all that much better for the 2008 football season. Pat Harty, "Lack of competition for starting jobs is alarming," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 17, 2008, in this morning's paper as, "Offense Up in the Air; Lack of Desire is Alarming," p. B1.
Of Mural and Money
Fungibles -- whether bushels of graded corn or cars -- have cost, market price, and based on their potential use by the owner, a "value." Lose one, or break one, and you can just buy another. "It's only money."
Irreplaceable natural resources, such as petroleum, are thought to have a "value," and price, that are merely equivalent to the cost of removing and consuming them (plus profits) -- not the millions of years it will take to replace them, or the billions of dollars it will take to find replacements for a fossil-fuel-based economy. It's "use it and lose it."
Paintings, or a multi-generation family Bible, likewise, have a cost (materials and artist's time) and market price. But their "value" is something that exits separate and apart from the economist's realm.
And so it is with the UI's Jackson Pollock painting. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Selling the Pollock" in "Floodplains, Art and Celebrities' Affairs," August 9, 2008, and . . .
Editorial, "True value of Iowa's art? Priceless," Des Moines Register, August 17, 2008 ("'Mural' belongs to the people of Iowa - those alive today and future generations. It's one of Iowa's gems, the same way public land, artifacts, monuments and rare documents are pieces of this state's history. . . . Iowa leaders should recognize the value of these items and places - beyond what they could bring at an auction.").
Pamela White, "What's the value of 'Mural'? Irreplaceable," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 16, 2008 ("Museums have stringent standards regarding when it is appropriate to sell artwork from their collections. Donors give their art to museums in trust so future generations may enjoy and learn from them, and it is the duty of the museum to honor the donor's intention and to ensure that the art remains in public, not private, hands.").
Performance and Poverty
Richard Doak, who has had a long and distinguished journalistic career, including as an editor and columnist, is in fact one of Iowa's best sources of thoughtfully creative public policy analyzes. This morning he lays out a persuasive case for increasing educational performance by decreasing poverty. Richard Doak, "Best reform in education? End poverty," Des Moines Register, August 17, 2008 ("Poverty in itself does not produce low student achievement, but the conditions of life for children in poverty are not conducive to learning. . . . In the richest country in the world, a certain level of poverty seems to be increasingly intractable, chronically pushing down the average on test scores, among other social pathologies.
Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan and other countries that outperform the United States in education are not as wealthy as America, but their gaps between rich and poor are not as wide. The wealth they do have is more evenly distributed. So is their student achievement.
We might not want to talk about it, but one of the most serious problems in contemporary America is the deep and widening chasm between rich and poor. There is a segment of the population . . . who are at risk of becoming members of a permanent underclass . . . in which poor and undereducated parents beget poor and undereducated children. . . .
[P]oliticians find it convenient to blame the schools, bash teachers and demand non-solutions such as vouchers. The political right chants a mantra that is uttered like one word: thefailingpublicschools.
Wrong. It is not the public schools that are failing. It is the larger American culture and economy.").
Look Who's Running for President
Jason Clayworth, "Seven presidential candidates on ballot," Des Moines Register, August 16, 2008,
"Iowans will have seven presidential candidates to choose from when they go to the polls in November," and here they are:
"PRESIDENT: (In addition to Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama) Bob Barr, Wayne A. Root for the Libertarian Party; James Harris, Alyson Kennedy for the Socialist Workers Party; Gloria La Riva, Robert Moses for the Socialism and Liberation Party; Cynthia McKinney, Wendy Barth for the Green Party; Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez for the Peace and Freedom Party."
. . . Knock, knock. Who's there? Shmoo. Shmoo who?
A high school friend who has been staying at our home just gave me what I guess is what we used to call a "house gift." It's called a "shmoo" (spelled by some as "schmoo").
In case shmoon (the plural) are unfamiliar to you, permit me to quote a line from the Wikipedia lengthy entry: "A shmoo (plural shmoon, also shmoos) is a fictional cartoon creature. It first appeared in Al Capp's newspaper comic strip Li'l Abner, on August 31, 1948."
In short, the Shmoo is coming up on his or her 60th birthday.
The only reason I mention this gift at all, thereby risking your judgment that I have finally totally fallen off the ledge, is because the donor is curious to know how many of you out there have any memory of these creatures -- or in fact actually have one of your own. I think it is social science research of some kind. Feel free to attach your comments to this blog entry and I'll pass them along to him.
# # #
August 15, 2008, 10:25 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, and related Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"Earthpark: 'Pretty Quiet Phase; No Timetable to Speak of,'" August 14, 2008.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"Public Transportation and Energy Policy," August 11, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008."Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Georgia on My Mind," August 13, 2008.
"Anonymous Electronic Speech," August 10, 2008.
And see, "500+ Posts Index"
Beatings Prove Ineffective in Resuscitating Dead Horses
Yesterday The Gazette reported the demise of Earthpark. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark: 'Pretty Quiet Phase; No Timetable to Speak of,'" August 14, 2008.
Today it's making an editorial effort to beat some life back into this dead horse. Editorial, "Earthpark's Fade is Lamentable," The Gazette, August 15, 2008, p. A4.
Here are some excerpts:
Visionary. Bold. Spectacular. . . . We don't enjoy the prospect of giving up on this idea [that] represented the type of forward thinking that the Vision Iowa Program was intended to generate . . . a world-class attraction that would provide a big economic boost to the state . . .. [Notwithstanding the reduction from a $350- to a $140-million project it is] still a grandiose endeavor. . . . [T]he [Senator Grassley $50-million earmark] grant was rescinded in December when the developers missed a deadline to provide matching support. . . . Earthpark's demise in Iowa . . . should be lamented. . . . We'll likely never know if it could have worked here. At the least, we hope . . . entrepreneurial Iowans won't be discouraged about dreaming and putting big ideas on the table again."
Where does one begin with this kind of boosterism, cheer leading "analysis"?
Before I start on that, there's a related matter worthy of comment.
Earthpark's online listing of its board of directors includes "Joe Hladky/Gazette Communications," now identified on The Gazette's editorial page as "Chairman of the Board" of Gazette Communications (having formerly been President and Chief Executive Officer).
To the best of my knowledge this association has never been revealed over the course of the last ten years in any article or editorial praising Earthpark.
Don't get me wrong; I had tremendous regard for this locally-owned newspaper-television media company as an FCC commissioner, and I still do. The civic leadership it offers eastern Iowa in general, and Cedar Rapids in particular, is remarkable -- as is its news coverage, especially for a paper with a subscription base of its size. It's been innovative technologically, as with its online version. KCRG-TV is my TV station of choice, and our family has long subscribed to the hard copy version of The Gazette. Obviously, much-to-all of this can fairly be credited to Mr. Hladky, the other executives, and editors.
But I do think an undisclosed association of a newspaper executive as a board member of a local project being reported on, and editorialized about, is at least mildly troublesome.
The Society of Professional Journalists' "Code of Ethics" provides, in part:
Journalists should:
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— [S]hun . . . service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
I'm not going to pass judgment on whether what was done was technically "unethical." I'll leave that to The Gazette's ombudsperson, journalism professors, professionals, and others. Though I rather suspect the paper would not permit a reporter to cover a story about a controversial proposal of an organization while simultaneously serving as a board member of that very organization.
But I have and will comment about the analysis in this morning's editorial. Much of what I have to say about it can be found in my Earthpark/Iowa Child Web site, and the 30 or so publications of mine to which it links (along with the hundreds of news stories and commentaries of others), and yesterday's blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark: 'Pretty Quiet Phase; No Timetable to Speak of,'" August 14, 2008.
Much of what I've questioned about Earthpark's first ten years is illustrated in the editorial.
* The issue here is not whether something is "visionary. Bold. Spectacular" and "forward thinking." It's not about the desirability of encouraging "entrepreneurial Iowans" to dream and put "big ideas on the table." Of course we need "visionary" ideas -- at least those that can pass "the laugh test" (which the rain forest failed).
* The issue involves the next step: the evaluation of those ideas; are they economically, technologically, environmentally and politically feasible? Is there local support -- for the idea, and the provision of the necessary money? Is that money in hand to complete the project? Is there a clear focus of purpose? Is there a business plan, and if so is it realistic in its projections of a cash flow sufficient to keep the project in operation? Not only did the rain forest fail these tests as well, the cheer leaders and editorial writers (including this morning's) failed to even acknowledge that such issues were relevant. It was sort of, "Damn the torpedoes; it's visionary; full steam ahead; let's do it."
* To say that "the developers missed a deadline" is misleading at best; it sort of suggests that of course they had the $50 million match in the bank, but somehow overlooked filing some paperwork on time. More accurate would be to acknowledge that the developers were unable to find a single Iowan, or Iowa community, willing to contribute a single dime to this project over the course of ten years' of vigorous fund raising efforts (beyond the seed money from the guy with the idea, Ted Townsend).
* Similarly, to characterize this scaled back proposal as "still a grandiose endeavor" is also misleading. It fails to acknowledge that the project's own consultants advised the board that it would need to create "the world's largest" -- requiring about a $350-million structure -- to have a prayer of making a go of it. A $140-million indoor rain forest is virtually doomed to financial failure and is scarcely a "grandiose endeavor."
* Finally, there's the matter of the use of taxpayers' money. If an entertainment/educational venue can't make a go of it with marketplace forces, if owners, investors, venture capitalists and banks' loan officers aren't willing to put money into it, why should taxpayers? But I won't go on about that.
Boosterism and "vision" have their place. So do realism, analysis, detailed business plans, and a close watch over taxpayers' money. The mainstream media and public officials do no one a favor when they concentrate exclusively on the former while ridiculing those who insist on going through the latter.
# # #
August 14, 2008, 7:45 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, and related Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"Public Transportation and Energy Policy," August 11, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Anonymous Electronic Speech," August 10, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
And see, "500+ Posts Index"
"It Never Died," Said He
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
alive as you and me.
Says I "But Joe, you're ten years dead"
"I never died" said he,
"I never died" said he.
"Joe Hill," and see Wikipedia, "Joe Hill," for "the rest of the story."
Joe Hill was killed by firing squad, and yet lives on in the passions and songs of labor activists.
Earthpark -- aka "The Iowa Child Project," "Coralville, Iowa, Rain Forest," "Iowa Environmental/Education Project," "Iowa Environmental Project," and simply "The Environmental Project" -- an unfunded proposal for an indoor rain forest attraction in Iowa, was pitched to, and turned down by (sometimes more than once) Cedar Rapids, Coralville, Des Moines, Dubuque, Grinnell, Iowa City, Riverside, and Tiffin. Eventually landing somewhere under a tulip bed in Pella, now even Pella's "city officials . . . have not heard from Earthpark's representatives for several months [and have] put no money toward the project."
Notwithstanding this decade-long history that would have been at least discouraging to mere mortals, and thought to have been equally dead from the financial equivalent of a firing squad (its inability to match a $50 million earmark from Senator Chuck Grassley), Earthpark appears to be as alive as Joe Hill in the passions of its cheerleaders.
The Gazette brings us this odd "man bites rain forest" story in this morning's paper. Gregg Hennigan, "Vanishing Rain Forest; To Keep the Earthpark Dream Alive, Backers Would Consider Leaving Iowa," The Gazette, August 14, 2008, p. A1 (and source of the quote, above).
Although Hennigan quotes Earthpark CEO David Oman as acknowledging that he, financial backer Ted Townsend, and their Earthpark board are in a "pretty quiet phase" that has "no timetable to speak of," they remain in existence and "have not given up on the project."
Indeed, he quotes board member Linda Neuman as saying, "I think everyone on the board just thinks it's a terrific project and it's kind of a shame that it hasn't gotten legs here in Iowa." He indicates she also believes that "it's possible Earthpark could move to a different state" and that "the board has not discussed abandoning the project."
Although I'm described in Hennigan's story as a "critic" of the project -- and I can understand how one might get that impression -- I have thought of my role as more one of asking questions, and attempting to extract through the promoters' firewall lacking in transparency what I thought to be basic information about their proposal, than "criticism" as such. In fact, it's very hard to be either critical or supportive of anything without knowing what "it" is. As one critic put it, "It's a floor wax; it's a desert topping; it's whatever they want it to be."
I have written at great -- some might say excessive -- length about "Iowa Child/Earthpark" over the years. See the Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark," and its links to some 30 published and unpublished pieces of mine, along with 100s of media stories, reports, and comments of others. Needless to say, I'm not about to try to summarize all of that material in this little blog entry.
The project as been besieged with problems involving virtually all the fundamentals of such an undertaking.
* From the time Ted Townsend first thought of the idea (and pledged $10 million of his own money to it) until today there has been an ongoing shift in focus (e.g., tourist attraction, national research center, school, IMAX theater, teacher training facility, indoor rain forest camp ground, with animals, without animals) -- so it's been hard to know at any given point in time just exactly what they are talking about.
* Without a clear focus and project design it has been impossible to come up with a meaningful, realistic business plan (i.e., plans for coming up with the grants to sustain a national research facility are very different from realistic plans for raising enough admission income from visitors to sustain the operation of a "tourist attraction").
* Notwithstanding their own consultants' advice that they needed to have "the world's largest" whatever to have a prayer of getting enough visitors -- roughly a $300-350 million project -- as the focus and project shifted over time so did the construction budget, to $225, then $180, and now apparently $140 million, thereby making the possibility of financial viability ever less likely.
* The projected operating costs would have required that every Iowa man, woman and child -- from newborn babe to the terminally ill -- pay full fare at the gate at least once every two years for the entirety of their lives. To expect every Iowan to visit even once is a bit optimistic; to expect them to return with the regularity of migrating birds seemed to most economists to be wildly unrealistic.
Even though continuing operating costs were the most serious problem, most observers ignored it. They chose to focus on construction costs instead.
* But in fact the failure to raise those costs told an even more dramatic story. Notwithstanding the involvment of one former (and very popular) Iowa governor, Bob Ray, as board chair, another candidate for governor (David Oman), the Chair of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (Chuck Grassley), prestigeous board members and consultants, the backing of one of Iowa's wealthiest business persons (Ted Townsend), access to the nation's Republican Party leadership, the CEOs of the nation's largest corporations and foundations, not to mention the Iowa business community, and widespread support from the state's newspapers and elected officials -- they have been unable to obtain one bankable dime, from anybody, during the past ten years!
The question raised by Gregg Hennigan's story is: "OK, so they forfeited the $50 million Grassley grant; but has anything changed during the past year or so to suggest improvement on any of these fronts?" And the answer, sadly (or happily, depending on one's perspective) must be, "No" -- or at least not on the basis of anything the promoters have revealed to us during the interim.
Something I have found as mysterious as it has been disappointing during this past decade has been the seeming willingness, indeed enthusiasm, of elected officials and editorial writers to sing the praises of Iowa Child/Earthpark over the years as "a good idea," worthy of taxpayers' money, without addressing the underlying issues I've briefly noted above.
Any project must first pass "the laugh test" (something Earthpark failed to do, from Dave Barry's columns, through editorial cartoons, to "West Wing," to Senator John McCain and Governor Chet Culver). There needs to be an initial reaction to "the idea" -- whether "Wow, that's a great idea!" or "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of." And I can understand how some might think an indoor rain forest to be "a good idea."
But it is totally irresponsible -- in my opinion -- for editorial writers and public officials to then leap to the conclusion that we ought to execute every "good idea" without even bothering to mention (let alone seeming to care about) the need for precise planning and focus, physical and technological feasability, a rational business plan, construction funds in hand at the outset, and reasonable prospects for perpetual funding of operations.
A zoo exhibit of pigs with the ability to fly would no doubt attract a goodly number of tourists. It is, in that sense, "a good idea." But it would be irresponsible to put a $50 million earmark of federal taxpayers' money into the project without, first, working through some of the rather obvious initial challenges; namely, where to find, or how to breed, such pigs.
Moreover, the economic picture has not been improving for attractions of this kind anywhere in the U.S. See, e.g., Tom Barton, "Living History Farms sells 40 acres to developer," Des Moines Register, August 13, 2008; Living History Farms, "About Living History Farms" ("In 1999, attendance reached 110,092 museum visitors"); David A. Fahrenthold, "Living-History Museums Struggle to Draw Visitors; Creativity Drives Changes in Hunt for Attendance," Washington Post, December 25, 2005, p. A3; Sonja Barisic, "A 'Revolutionary' idea to lure tourists," Associated Press/Deseret News, April 9, 2006 ("Colonial Williamsburg officials have blamed declining attendance in part on less focus on Colonial history in schools. Annual paid attendance fell from about 1.2 million in 1988 to 710,457 in 2005."); Bruce Courson, "Why Rural Museums Are Becoming Ancient History," Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2005, 12:01 a.m. EST ("It is a story increasingly common for rural Massachusetts museums within a day's drive of major metropolitan areas. Many have current paid attendance numbers that are nearing 50% of what they were three decades ago.")
I suspect a skeleton of Earthpark will continue as long as Ted Townsend continues to pay David Oman his generous salary, expenses and benefits. But surely at some point Townsend will come to see that he's getting far more return on his money from his "Great Ape Trust" -- a project that's in place, really does have some potential, and could use more of the financial support now going to Earthpark -- than trying to tether to Planet Earth his beautiful dream of a rain forest in a greenhouse.
# # #
August 13, 2008, 8:55, 9:35 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, and related Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"Public Transportation and Energy Policy," August 11, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"Anonymous Electronic Speech," August 10, 2008.
And see, "500+ Posts Index"
Georgia on My Mind
In Iowa, when you mention "Washington," the response is often, "Do you mean Washington state, or Washington, Iowa?" (a town to the south of Iowa City). On the east coast the assumption is you mean Washington, D.C.
Similarly, until this past week, any American's reference to "Georgia" would be either to the State of Georgia or the state song, "Georgia on My Mind" ("Just an old sweet song keeps Georgia on my mind").
But the Georgia on my mind this morning is the country far away, the country with Tbilisi as its capital, recently involved in a struggle with the Russian Army, that hopefully will soon be ended with a cease fire that will hold. See, e.g., Ellen Barry, "Georgia Says Russian Attack Continues in Spite of Accord," New York Times, August 13, 2008.
I'm always a little put off by those who, after a two-day, or two-week, visit to a place (whether in the U.S. or abroad) radiate the impression of deep understanding of the people, place and its problems. So I'm not about to suggest that. (For as good a general background as any, see CIA, "The World Factbook," Georgia.)
But I did spend a very full week or more there ten years ago, attempting to assist the Georgian people's struggle for freedom and democracy insofar as it involved their efforts to rethink their mass media policies.
Today's issues -- Russia's hostility, its enclaves in
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the oil pipeline -- were present then.
So many foreign relations issues -- for all countries -- seem to come back to oil.
But in this case, even more significant are potential future natural gas pipelines. Oil can be put in ocean tankers, rail cars, trucks or barrels. Pipelines, however efficient, aren't the only means of moving it around. The natural gas Europe needs, on the other hand, is usually dependent on pipelines. Which puts Georgia back in the middle of an East-West tug-of-war once again.
No people more deserve to live out their democracy in peace, to see the benefits of their labors, than the Georgians. So my heart goes out to them, and the, what, 15,000, who are now displaced as a result of the recent war.
But as my thoughts drifted back this morning to that earlier time, the friendly, hopeful, courageous and well-educated people with whom I was dealing, their rich cultural traditions, their sense of fun and humor (see "tg013.jpg," below) -- and the short supplies of electricity, with gasoline generators lining the sidewalks outside local businesses, and blood in the street from what was then the most recent assassination attempt -- I set off in search of what I recalled once uploading to some Internet site upon my return.
How I wrote so much in such a short time is beyond both my imagination and ability now, but because it may be of interest to someone reading this blog at this time it is linked below -- along with reference material from others.
Nicholas Johnson, "Georgia's Media Future: Options and Opportunities for the Third Millennium," Chapter 17 in Laura Lengel, ed., Culture @nd Technology in the New Europe: Civic Discourse in Transformation in Post-Communist Nations (Stamford: Ablex Publishing 2000) (posted August 22, 2000).
Nicholas Johnson, " Georgia's Media Future: A Personal View of Options and Opportunities," March 12, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "A Hasty History of U.S. Broadcast Regulation," Transcript of extemporaneous remarks delivered at the Seminar on Proposed Broadcast Legislation
Organized by the American Bar Association, Internews, National Democratic Institute and Open Society Georgia Foundation, Republican Hearing Room, Parliament of Georgia
Tbilisi, Georgia, February 27, 1998.
"Comments of Nicholas Johnson on The Law of Georgia on Broadcasting: Proposed Law of the Parliament of Georgia, March 23, 1998."
"Comments of Nicholas Johnson on the Freedom of Information Proposed Law of the Parliament of Georgia, As translated from Georgian to English by the National Democratic Institute, February 24, 1998," March 17, 1998.
"Comments of Nicholas Johnson on The Proposed Creation of a Public Broadcasting System for Georgia," March 24, 1998.
"Transcript of Lynn Grantz' Interview of Nicholas Johnson on 'Weekly News in English,'" TV7, Tbilisi, Georgia, March 1, 1998, 8:00 p.m. (rebroadcast March 2, 1998, 9:00 a.m.).
Nicholas Johnson and Virtual Someone, "Anticipating the Issues in Georgia's Broadcast Legislation," March 30, 1998.
"List of Participants: Seminar on Proposed Broadcast Legislation," Organized by the American Bar Association, Internews, National Democratic Institute and Open Society Georgia Foundation, Republican Hearing Room, Parliament of Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia
February 27, 1998.
Photos (13) at http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/georgia/graphics/ plus "tg001.jpg," "tg002.jpg," etc., through "tg013.jpg" (subjects unidentified). (Georgian soldiers resting on an armored vehicle in downtown Tbilisi are pictured in "tg004.jpg.")
Giga Bokeria, Givi Targamadze, Levan Ramishvili, "Georgian Media in the 90s: A Step to Liberty," Tbilisi, 1997.
"Georgia 'On Freedom of Information,'" (draft legislation), February 24, 1998.
Marta Cullberg Weston, et al, "Georgia On Our Minds: Report of a Fact-Finding Mission to the Republic of Georgia," July 1994.
# # #
August 12, 2008, 8:10 a.m.
[Note: The "Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 8, 2008, blog entry remains at its former location; however, any updates to it following August 8, 2008, will be found, along with the blog entry as of August 8, at a new Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08."]
Practicing Medicine with an FCC Broadcasting License
Are broadcasters practicing medicine -- or at least undercutting our family physicians ability to do so?
I found a report on last evening's [August 11] "ABC World News with Charles Gibson" a little troubling.
Unfortunately, I cannot now find a link to a transcript or video of what ABC's Dr. Tim Johnson said. But in some ways that helps to make my point. [I subsequently (Aug. 14 9:00 p.m.) found this ABC Audio feed interview with Dr. Tim Johnson that is comparable. He repeats that he's now added a 1000 IU dose to his former 400 IU of vitamin D; he goes on to say that there's no evidence doses in that range and higher cause any harm; and he says nothing about the adverse effects of doses of 2000 IU and above reported by the Mayo site, referenced below.]
Unless we TiVo or tape the TV news, days or even minutes later we have little but faintly recalled impressions to draw upon regarding what we learned; impressions created from moving images (more than the voice over) and however much attention we were paying at the time.
TV news may not be a very efficient, or safe, way of communicating information that matters. In fact a Pew study revealed that the more TV news viewers watched the more likely it was they would be misinformed regarding such things as whether the 9/11 terrorists had come from Iraq, and whether we'd actually found weapons of mass destruction there.
Dr. Johnson was reporting on new studies revealing that some of us, some of the time, have inadequate levels of vitamin D. The more shocking and attention-grabbing suggestion was that, as a result, we were more likely to die.
So what was he, personally, doing with this information? Although he was formerly taking a multi-vitamin with the standard 400 IU of vitamin D he was now, as a result of these studies, adding an additional 1000 IU to his daily intake.
So what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is an application of my late friend, Molly Ivins', insight that her fellow Texans are a people who believe "that more is better, and too much is not enough."
While that observation related to conspicuous consumption generally, especially of hard goods, it is applicable beyond the borders of Texas, automobiles, houses and jewelry.
How many Americans are today buying up vitamin D capsules, hoping that if 1400 IU will keep Dr. Tim Johnson from dying, just to be safe they're going to start taking 5000-25000 IU a day?
To the best of my recollection, during the TV news broadcast there was no effort to explain the many limitations on the studies' findings, or even more significantly the very serious harms that can come from taking excessive dosages of vitamin D.
And yet, as the Mayo Clinic's online resource points out,
"Vitamin D is an essential nutrient for your entire body. Still, it's possible to have too much of a good thing. . . . You're unlikely to get too much vitamin D from the food you eat, and prolonged sun exposure doesn't seem to cause vitamin D toxicity. Over time, however, megadoses of vitamin D supplements can cause nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness and weight loss. More seriously, excessive doses of vitamin D can raise the level of calcium in your blood — which can cause confusion and changes in heart rhythm. Generally, the upper limit for vitamin D is 2,000 IU a day."
Katherine Zeratsky, "Vitamin D: How much is too much? Is it possible to take too much vitamin D? I know vitamin D is important, but I wonder if too much is dangerous?" MayoClinic.com, July 25, 2008.
It's true that sunscreen reduces your skin's ability to make vitamin D from sunlight. But sunscreen also reduces the likelihood of your getting the skin cancer called melanoma -- which, if you're interested in long life, has the possibility of shortening rather than lengthening it. Some may react to Dr. Johnson's comments by risking sunburn (not to mention skin cancer) in their rush to grab as many unscreened rays as possible before school starts -- convinced that tans are now good for you because they are a source of vitamin D.
The power of the Internet is such that it has turned all other media -- radio, television, newspapers, magazines, billboards -- into advertisements for itself, efforts to direct readers and viewers to Web sites. That's where you are sent to see the company's full catalog, T. Boone Pickens' energy plan, the continuing conversation in the ABC "This Week" green room, the online store from which you can order and pay for the advertised product.
And so it is with ABC News. And in fairness, its full-length, online report on the vitamin D studies is relatively full and balanced, complete with scientists' skepticism and warnings. Joseph Brownstein, "'Sunshine Vitamin' May Cut Death Risk; Vitamin D Appears to Cut Risk of Dying Early; Exact Mechanism Remains Unclear," ABC News Medical Unit, abcnews.com, August 12, 2008.
[T]he study's researchers and others were quick to say that the study provides absolutely no evidence for now that taking vitamin D can reduce the risk of heart disease.
"Before we tell all Americans out there that this will definitely prevent heart attack, we need some clinical trials," Michos said.
Some took it a step further and questioned whether low vitamin D levels can even be considered a risk factor at all at this point.
"A relative increase in risk of death of 26 percent is not trivial, but not huge, either," said Dr. David Katz, director of the prevention research center at Yale University School of Medicine.
"Consider that being physically active, not smoking, and eating well could reduce the risk of premature death by as much as 80 percent," said Katz. "We would not want people to get the impression that a vitamin D supplement is a panacea. The findings are by no means that significant."
Others strongly agreed.
"It can't be considered a risk factor with the strength of cholesterol and hypertension until further studies are done," said Dr. Melvyn Rubenfire, the director of preventive cardiology at the University of Michigan. . . .
Dr. James O'Keefe, a cardiologist at the Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., . . . noted that the latest study's findings were unclear because many of the risk factors for heart disease, like obesity, can actually cause a deficiency in vitamin D. So, it may be a marker rather than an agent.
Of course, however much harm can be done by inaccurate, or inadequate, journalistic reports of medical studies, they pale by comparison with the potential harm from the broadcast of pharmaceutical companies advertising of "illegal drugs."
Why do I call them illegal drugs? Because it is against the law for TV viewers to buy the product being advertised. They are not over-the-counter medicines. They are medicines that, by law, can only be authorized for purchase by physicians. So what it the purpose of the commercials? To encourage us to put pressure on our doctors to give us prescriptions for the advertised drugs. And the commercials work.
Moreover, to the extent the effect of this aspect of broadcasting is that we are taking medicines that may be at best unnecessary for our conditions, and at worst actually harmful, it is the result of deliberately manipulative presentations, drawing on all that is known about the psychological and emotional promotion of sales, as applied by America's most professionally skillful advertising agencies. Journalists may be simply not fully informed, or not given sufficient time (or space) to tell the full story. Pharmaceutical companies' presentations are focused on one goal only: an increase in sales. "Broadcast and print advertisements accounted for some 94 percent of the $4.2 billion spent in 2005 on direct-to-consumer drug ads, according to a recent report by the federal Government Accountability Office. It said that such ads are increasing each year by about 20 percent a year, and officials say the spots are working, increasing profits of drug companies . . .." Bill Hendrick, "Self diagnosis from TV drug ads can be dangerous," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 8, 2007.
As a former FCC commissioner I can assure you, whatever Congress originally authorized the Commission's broadcast licenses to permit broadcasters to do, it never intended them to be a license to practice medicine.
Taking excessive quantities of most vitamins only results in a waste of your money as you transfer most of them directly into your local sewer system.
Not so with vitamins A and D.
Before you are swept away with enthusiasm for excessive doses of vitamin D in your quest for life everlasting I'd recommend you see your doctor.
# # #
August 11, 2008, 7:30 a.m.
[Note: The "Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 8, 2008, blog entry remains at its former location; however, any updates to it following August 8, 2008, will be found, along with the blog entry as of August 8, at a new Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08."]
Public Transportation
Having once been a part of a legal team representing American Airlines, and subsequently a United Airlines groupie (lifetime Red Carpet Club membership, credit card, "Mileage Plus"), it is with sadness that I have finally had to acknowledge that our airline industry is disfunctional as a transportation system.
The rising costs for fewer flights, including the nickle-and-diming us for everything from pillows to peanuts, the delays, the even more crowed seats, the lost luggage, the lines and necessity to dress twice the morning of a flight to satisfy the terrorist-prevention folks -- the list goes on.
Add to this the flights' impact on greenhouse gasses, global warming and the ozone hole, and it's just not the transportation system it used to seem to be -- not to mention the fun.
So, looking for another long distance transportation system I decided to try the train on a recent round trip to Denver. I rode a lot of passenger trains in my youth, and used the train from Washington to New York and back when in Washington, but hadn't thought seriously about it as a cross-country alternative until recently.
It was enjoyable. The fares are cheap compared to the airlines. The staff is delightfully friendly. The ride is relatively smooth. The seats are exceedingly spacious -- compared to the airlines the trains' coach seats are better than the airlines' first class. The views are often spectacular. There are none of the lines and the security checkpoints. You just walk from the depot to the train and board. You can get access to your luggage during the trip. Most folks seem to have no problem sleeping in the coach seats, but if you want a bed, in a "roomette" or a "room," they are available for an extra fare.
The downside? Because recent administrations have been more interested in killing off passenger rail entirely than supporting it, the freight trains now own the tracks and get to call the shots -- making passenger trains wait on side tracks while the freight trains pass -- often resulting in cross-country late arrivals of four hours or more. While basic fares are relatively cheap, if you do want a bed you will pay five star hotel rates for a bunk more reminiscent of what you had at summer camp when a kid.
For long distances, even an on-time train will take longer than an on-time plane. Of course, you can't count on on-time planes any more, even if you are willing to put up with the frustrations and indignities of flying. But beyond that reality, there's something stress-reducing about the rethinking of "time" and "life" the rails induce. And it need not be thought of as "lost" or "wasted" time. You can work on the train -- read, write on your laptop (or yellow pad), make cell phone calls -- if you insist, and are the kind of person who gets jittery when forced to relax. But real relaxation is also possible.
As with the near-universal adoption of the rational approach to health care delivery by industrialized countries ("universal, single-payer health care"), the rest of the world has also been much more rational and progressive than we have with regard to public transportation. Some 40 years ago I was riding the 300-km/hour "bullet train" (Shinkansen) in Japan -- as well as the light rail/subway in Tokyo, and the more conventional, ubiquitous rail system to reach the more rural areas.
When serving on our local school board, and writing a column every two weeks about K-12 issues, I drew analogies between the Swiss railroads and their educational system. "The Swiss . . . trains are unbelievably smooth and quiet. You can set your Swiss watch by those trains. They’re non-polluting electric, clean, fast and everywhere. Imagine 10,000 miles of rails in eastern Iowa. With departures every 20 minutes." Nicholas Johnson, "Swiss Education Runs On Time," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 5, 2001, p. 9A.
Think about that. If we had the equivalent of the Swiss rail system in eastern Iowa it would involve 10,000 miles of track, with passenger train connections every 20 minutes.
Senator John McCain can ridicule the suggestion we check the air pressure in our cars' tires if he wants, but the fact is that we need to do anything and everything we can to cut back on the amount of gasoline we go to war for in order to operate our excessively costly and inefficient transportation system that requires everyone to be the engineer of his or her own personal train (automobiles with one or two passengers).
It's not just the cost of gasoline, registration and license fees, insurance, repairs, maintenance, and the enormous depreciating capital costs. It's the multi-billion-dollar cost of highway construction and repair, parking garages and lots, filing stations and the infrastructure to keep them supplied -- not to mention the value of the time lost driving and dealing with slow moving traffic during commutes.
(We've recently increased the mileage on my wife's car from 28 to near 40 miles per gallon with the simple suggestions of driving a slower, steady speed and increasing the air pressure in the tires.)
By choosing to get around locally with a bicycle and occasionally walking I thought I'd cut down the mileage on my own vehicle to about 500 miles a year. When I ran the actual numbers it turned out I had only driven 400 miles in two years. A number of universities are undertaking programs designed to get their students out of their cars and onto bicycles. Associated Press/Atlanta, "Colleges peddle bikes to car-loving students," NPR, August 10, 2008, 2:16 p.m. ET; reprinted as "Colleges Peddle Bike Lifestyle on Campuses," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 11, 2008, p. 6A.
The Press-Citizen addresses this morning the need to promote, rather than curtail, the availability of public (primarily bus) transportation at this time -- yet another sub-set of the public transportation story. Editorial, "Time to Expand, Not Cut, Public Transportation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 11, 2008, p. A11; and see, Editorial, "A Mass Transit Mess; The Bush administration shouldn't borrow money from public transportation to pay for highways," Washington Post, August 5, 2008, p. A18; reprinted as "Views from Other Newspapers: A Mass Transit Mess," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 11, 2008, p. A11.
# # #
August 10, 2008, 9:00, 10:25 a.m.
[Note: The "Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 8, 2008, blog entry remains at its former location; however, any updates to it following August 8, 2008, will be found, along with the blog entry as of August 8, at a new Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08."]
Deliberately mean spirited anonymous comments are finding their way into those newspapers' Web sites that permit readers to post remarks about the online versions of their hard copy stories.
A student directed me to a lengthy New York Times take on "trolling." Mattathias Schwartz, "The Trolls Among Us," New York Times Magazine, August 3, 2008.
This morning the Register turns the inquiry on itself. Rekha Basu, "Spewing Venom; Does Online Anonymity Enhance Valuable Forum, or Encourage Posts that are Rude, Crude, Hateful?" Des Moines Register, August 10, 2008, p. OP1, online as "Stop spewing online venom." She sums up:
As I see it, these are newspapers' alternatives:
1. Do nothing. Continue to block posts that break the rules and let the process regulate itself, so people either become less sensitive or speak out more. The danger is that the civil ones get driven away.
2. Add staff to screen all posts in advance and monitor or moderate discussions - not likely given economic realities.
3. Get rid of newspaper-sponsored chats altogether - a drastic and undesirable move, since they do provide a valuable public forum.
4. Pass new laws to prosecute cyber bullies, like one proposed by Rep. Linda Sanchez of California, making it a federal crime to send a communication with intent to cause substantial emotional distress. That could be hard to determine, and enforce.
5. In my view, the best, most realistic approach, and the one most in keeping with journalistic standards, is to gradually start requiring people to provide their names, and begin matching those to e-mail addresses. It's a safe bet many would stop lobbing missiles in stealth and start being more civil, and the conversations would improve.
I am going to save my own discussion of these issues and options for the Law of Electronic Media classroom this fall -- with, perhaps, some comments here thereafter.
Meanwhile, here are some comments from a family member, entered in another blog, in another context, this past February -- followed with some of his quoted source material:
While it can certainly be abused, the case for anonymity is very strong.
The First Amendment prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech". It certainly does not proscribe anonymous speech or 'pseudonymity'. In fact, "...all of the Federalist Papers were signed by Publius, a pseudonym representing the trio of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay ."[1]
Personal attacks aside, I see no reason why knowing a person's identity is truly important. Even if they claim they are using their real name, how would we know? Chances are, we wouldn't know them anyway. In addition, it is always possible for a person to post as someone else -- anonymity is certainly preferable to that.
Newspapers and private forums certainly have the right to require that people identify themselves, but it seems to me that knowing the identity of every poster is outweighed by the chilling effect it would have. Sure there will be 'trolls' and others who abuse their anonymity, but their posts can be reported to a moderator and deleted, and they can be banned if necessary.
If all online forums required absolute full disclosure of identity, there would be very little online activity. After all, these days just a first and last name is enough for almost anyone to learn your whole life history including your address, phone number, and a map to your house including nice aerial views. Granted, the chance of anything bad happening is slim but why take the chance? Some (reporters, public figures) do -- more power to 'em -- but I certainly wouldn't force anyone to, or insinuate that their opinion doesn't count as much because they post anonymously. After all, many people, businesses and political campaigns rely on polls which are generally anonymous.
It seems to me that the best alternative is to leave it up to the individual.
Quotes and Source Material
"...some users and privacy activists like ACLU believe that Internet users deserve stronger pseudonymity so that they can protect themselves against identity theft, illegal government surveillance, stalking, and other unwelcome consequences of Internet use (including unintentional disclosures of their personal information...). Their views are supported by laws in some nations (such as Canada) that guarantee citizens a right to speak using a pseudonym.[1] This right does not, however, give citizens the right to demand publication of pseudonymous speech on equipment they do not own." [2]
"Pseudonymity is an important component of the reputation systems found in online auction services (such as eBay), discussion sites (such as Slashdot), and collaborative knowledge development sites (such as Wikipedia). A pseudonymous user who has acquired a favorable reputation gains the trust of other reputable users. When users believe that they will be rewarded by acquiring a favorable reputation, they are more likely to behave in accordance with the site's policies." [3]
From the EFF:
"Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
********
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
********
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed, in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington, "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously." [4]
And:
"Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns”. Sony Music Entertainment v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Accordingly, "the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded.” Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2001).
Courts have determined that strict procedural safeguards must be imposed “as a means of ensuring that plaintiffs do not use discovery procedures to ascertain the identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet." Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 771 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001).
“People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law. This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate.” Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Otherwise, “[i]f Internet users could be stripped of that anonymity by a civil subpoena enforced under the liberal rules of civil discovery, this would have a significant chilling effect on Internet communications and thus on basic First Amendment rights.” 2theMart.com, at 1093." [5]
While I can understand why someone who is the victim of a personal attack might want to know the identity of the person attacking them, it seems obvious that outlawing anonymity is not the way to go.
#####
1, 2, 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymity
4: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
5: http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Speech:_Anonymity
Other good links:
http://www.eff.org/issues/cyberslapp
###
"The right to engage in anonymous communication is fundamental to a free society," said Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "It's critical that judges resist attempts by anyone -- public officials especially -- to turn courtrooms into vehicles to harass and intimidate people out of speaking their minds. Thankfully, court after court has recognized that a plaintiff doesn't have an automatic right to pierce anonymity just because he doesn't like what someone has said."
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2006/07/18
###
"Powerful entities are learning that they can use the courts to silence their critics. When individuals choose to participate in a public debate anonymously, they should not have to worry that their identities will be divulged to anyone who doesn't like what they have to say."
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/RMC_v_Does/20010207_eff_pressrel.html
###
"Anonymous speech is part of a vaunted American tradition that goes back to the Founders, who often published unsigned political pamphlets," said Megan Gray, Senior Counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Yet on the Internet, citizens are forced to depend on Web sites or ISPs to protect their anonymity."
"Anonymous speech on the Internet lets people make criticisms that are difficult to state openly, and share information and support about topics that might be stigmatizing, such as addiction or sexual abuse," said Ann Beeson, Staff Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Unless online anonymity is protected, whistleblowers who want to criticize their employers, parents who want to criticize the principal of their children's school - and many others - may be afraid to speak out. That would be a loss for our country." Beeson pointed out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that anonymous speech is a right protected by the First Amendment.
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/20020711_eff_pr.html
###
"In their brief filed today, the ACLU and EFF argue that the Court should adopt the same test currently used to determine whether to compel identification of anonymous sources of journalists or members of private organizations. Under that test, the Court must first determine whether the person seeking the protected private information (in this case 2TheMart.com) has a genuine need for the information in the context of the case and cannot discover the information any other way. If so, the Court must then balance the harm to the anonymous speakers against the plaintiff's need to discover the identity of the speaker. Anonymity should be preserved unless the identity of the anonymous person is clearly shown to be of central importance to the case."
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/2TheMart_case/20010226_eff_aclu_2themart_pr.html
# # #
August 9, 2008, 6:10 p.m.
[Note: The "Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 8, 2008, blog entry remains at its former location; however, any updates to it following August 8, 2008, will be found, along with the blog entry as of August 8, at a new Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08."]
Now . . . Back to a Range of Subjects
Floodplains and Flood Planning
There were more than a couple of lines in Coralville City Administrator Kelly Hayworth's op ed this morning that caught my eye:
"Continued development in the Iowa River Landing will include generous areas of open space along the river . . .. We will work toward dedicating that area [the banks of Biscuit Creek] to green space in the future.
"The Iowa River is one of our greatest assets, and incorporation of green space is a dual-purpose project, allowing us to provide access to the waterfront while also practicing floodplain management."
Kelly Hayworth, "Coralville's post-flood development; Progress will be 'mindful of the flood but not ended by it,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 9, 2008.
What I'd like to see is for Coralville, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids -- all of Iowa's communities along rivers -- to come up with 30-to-75-year plans regarding their flood plains.
Building roads, parking lots, malls, suburban and businesses in floodplains just multiplies the disastrous consequences of floods. Not only does it mean the economic losses will be greater when floods occur, but the rapid runoff it accelerates also means that the floods will occur more often, be of greater seriousness, and the water will run off and rise faster than with consciously developed floodplains.
We need to have recreational areas, wildlife habitats, prairies and pastures, biking and jogging trails, and wetlands somewhere. And Iowa is virtually last in the nation at the moment in our set-asides of land for such purposes. By using land in the floodplains along our rivers for these purposes we get a dual benefit -- radical reduction, if not elimination, of the economic losses from flood damage, and access to these multi-purpose acres that shouldn't be used for anything but recreation and wildlife habitats anyway.
So why a 30-to-75-year plan? Because I wouldn't want to pull off something like this in five or ten years even if we could -- and politically we simply can't. Like using attrition rather than firing when a workforce needs to be reduced, giving owners incentives and as much time as possible to arrange for moves makes it easier on everyone.
Whether we want to provide humanitarian aid to those ravaged by floods (as distinguished from funds for rebuilding) is a subject I'm open to discussing but need not now address.
But it seems to me kind of obvious that we should (1) clearly define the 500-year-floodplain for the relevant rivers; (2) draw up a plan as to how that land might best be used once our project is concluded; (3) forbid any new building (or expansion of the footprint) of homes, businesses, parking lots or roads in floodplains; (4) use every available incentive (such as buyouts) to discourage rebuilding or repair; (5) prohibit the construction of public buildings on such land; (6) prohibit the use of any public money, or tax incentives such as TIFs, for for-profit or non-profit businesses operating in floodplains, and (7) immediately begin the process of conversion, by removing buildings and roads where we can, planting prairies, pastures, trees, and the grasses with root systems that can operate as filters near rivers, and start the demonstration of what wise floodplain planning and stewardship can look like.
Selling the Pollock
The Press-Citizen got it right this morning in its Editorial, "Don't sell priceless 'Mural' to pay off flood damages," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 9, 2008 ("Although [selling Jackson Pollock's 'Mural' painting] might make sense to business school professors, we said it recognized neither the historic importance of Pollock's painting nor how "Mural" has been identified with UI for three generations. A gift to UI from art collector Peggy Guggenheim in 1953, 'Mural' predates the museum itself -- which opened in 1969 -- and is arguably the most important item in the museum's permanent collection. . . . Last year, we said neither Iowa nor the university should surrender the great in order to purchase the mediocre."
There are a couple of issues here -- aside from the old line about "those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing."
(1) I'm reminded of a case some years back when the UI Foundation was given a farm -- with stipulations. Can't swear I've got the facts right, but as I recall them the donor wanted to insure that the tenant on the farm could continue to farm it. The Foundation took the position that once it got the property it could do with it what it wanted -- and what it wanted did not include carrying out the donor's wishes.
I don't know what Ms. Guggenheim had in mind when she donated the Pollock, but knowing something of her commitment to art I can't imagine that she thought the great gift she was giving the University was nothing more than the equivalent of shares of stock, something to be sold whenever the University decided it would rather have the cash the painting could bring at an art auction.
(2) It's not like major gifts of this kind were purchased by Iowa's taxpayers -- who could subsequently legitimately decide to sell them for the money. These were gifts. But for donor generosity we'd never have had the property in question. And the more we unilaterally treat such gifts from the past with such disrespect the less likely we are to receive such gifts in the future. Selling the Pollock is self-defeating over the long run.
(3) Anytime the state, or one of its universities, wants to sell something of extraordinary and irreplaceable value -- I recall the sale of WOI-TV -- I think about how much cash we could get from a sale of Iowa's topsoil. I'm sure there's some guy in Arizona -- or the Middle East -- who would give us big bucks for it. Provide a little water for irrigation and it could create some of the world's best farmland in a desert anywhere on earth.
(4) There are "values" that exist separate and apart from what something will sell for. Have you ever had the experience of reaching for the Phillips screwdriver, or ballpoint pen, in the place to which it was supposed to be returned, and found it wasn't there? Was your reaction affected by the fact that you probably couldn't have sold the ballpoint pen at auction for even 10 cents? Is the home you live in affected by the fact it's now worth 10 times what you paid for it -- when it's the same square feet, with the same view out the front windows -- aside from the fact that you're paying many times more in property tax? So it is with a painting; the quality it has, the pleasure it gives you, the skill of the artist it reflects, is not a function of its dollar value.
So what do I really think? Yeah, I guess you'd have to count me among those -- a group that includes UI President Sally Mason ("I do not want to sell the painting. Let me be fully clear") -- who think we ought to keep the Pollock. Brian Morelli, "Regents to Put Value on UI's Pollock Painting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 7, 2008.
The John Edwards Affair
I have little or no interest in reading, or commenting, about the August 8 story, and ABC Nightline interview, regarding the details of a 2006 affair of John Edwards.
But there's a quote from his interview that I do think worth repeating:
"I went from being a senator, a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate and becoming a national public figure. All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You're invincible. And there will be no consequences."
Rhonda Schwartz, Brian Ross, and Chris Francescani, "Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate; In an ABC News Nightline Interview, Edwards Reveals He Cheated, But Didn't Father Child," ABC News, August 8, 2008.
It's not an exculpatory statement, certainly, and I have no reason to believe it was intended to be. But I do think it is revealing and insightful, and perhaps of some use to those -- whether intrigued or repulsed -- by the behavior of celebrities, whether athletes, politicians, TV/movie stars, rock musicians, corporate executives, or those merely famous for being famous.
The remarkable thing is not that so many public figures seem to fall ill to the condition/attitude he describes but that there are so many who do not.
It's a quality, a characteristic, a kind of pressure on public figure, that should be of interest to all of us in the business of picking our public officials in primaries and elections -- from school board to president -- as well as a subject for study by psychologists and psychiatrists, and political scientists.
It's a notable comment because that kind of self-diagnosis is rare from anyone, but especially those who, by dint of their position, end up having to make very public apologies for their behavior.
# # #
