Stephen Kershnar
Gratitude and Veterans: Breaking the Faith
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
October 4, 2010
In the United States, it is an article of faith that citizens should be very grateful to veterans. Presidents regularly reaffirm this faith. On Veterans Day in 1993, President Bill Clinton said, “Today we gather to honor those who have rendered the highest service any American can offer to this nation: Those who have fought for our freedom and stood sentry over our security. … [T]oday we join as one people to appreciate a debt we can never fully repay.” Other recent Presidents have all said similar things.
There are two federal holidays in the United States dedicated to veterans or a portion of them. Veterans Day, which occurs on November 11th of every year, honors military veterans. Memorial Day, which occurs on the last Monday of May, honors U.S. soldiers who died while in military service. Both are federal holidays. There are many federal, state, and local statues and memorials that honor veterans or some portion of them. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. is a high profile instance. In ordinary English, people work as farmers or garbage men, but serve in the military.
In contrast to U.S. citizens’ attitude toward veterans, they are not very grateful to farmers, sanitation workers, intellectuals, and so on. These groups get no holidays and there are far fewer public expressions of gratitude toward them. I assume this general lack of gratitude is correct.
Despite this disparate treatment, farmers did as much historically for Americans as did the military. Specifically, their food added as much to our well-being as did the military’s protection. To see this, consider the conditions Americans would be in if no one grew food and no one worked as a soldier. They would be in bad shape in both cases, but probably worse in the former. A similar thing is true of intellectuals. In forming the system that created and protected liberty in Great Britain and the United States, intellectuals played a vital role.
If we look at individual veterans rather than veterans as a group, leaving aside commanders such as General Patton, we can see that no one veteran contributed that much to a war effort and, in any case, many veterans were adequately paid for their work. Consider contribution. That no one veteran contributed that much to the war effort can be seen in that in most cases, one soldier’s presence did not turn the tide of a battle, let alone the war. In addition, had a particular man not joined the military, it is likely that someone else would have occupied his position. Next consider compensation. For example, consider the salaries of officers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to military analyst Rod Powers, when a person comes into the military as a commissioned officer, an O-1, he makes an average starting salary of $45,969.67. A seasoned officer, for example, an O-4 with 10 years of experience, takes home an average of $94,313.54. This is not bad pay, even when we take into account the officers’ skills. Enlisted men also get paid moderately well, again controlling for skills.
One objection is that combat veterans took great risks in fighting overseas. As the recent flap in Dunkirk illustrates, not all veterans saw combat. Different jobs have different costs and benefits. A person is free to take a job or not take it. If he takes it, particularly if he does so because he likes the cost-benefit package, then so long as he is paid and faces predictable costs and risks, he has no business demanding gratitude. Nor does he merit it.
To see this point, compare the fatality rate of three jobs: member of the military, logger, and fisherman. At the height of the U.S. military insurgency in Iraq, which occurred in 2006, American Thinker writer Steve Gilbert reports that the fatality rate was .13%. Gilbert reports that this is roughly the same rate it has been for the last 25 years. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the fatality rates/average salaries for other professions in 2008: fisherman (0.13%) and logger (0.12%). The salaries of fishermen and loggers are lower than that of the military and the fatality-risk roughly the same. Fishermen and loggers miss out on some hardships (for example, they might spend less time away from their families), but they also miss out on some benefits (for example, they might not form the same lasting friendships or take as much pride in what they do). The attractiveness of various cost-benefit packages varies from person to person. If someone chooses one package (for example, a military package) over others (for example, a logger package) knowing the costs and risks, it is hard to see why we should be grateful to him. It is also hard to see why he serves others rather than merely working for them.
A second objector might concede that perhaps we shouldn’t be grateful to veterans or combat veterans, but we should be grateful to veterans who were injured or killed. To see why this is mistaken, consider people who win a lottery. The lottery is fair if it was reasonable to both parties when the ticket was purchased. If it was reasonable to both, then neither party need be grateful to the other. Next consider a reverse lottery. Here players get a good sum of money in return for taking a small risk of death or severe injury (perhaps, they will have to donate an organ). Again, if reasonable, no gratitude is owed. Military service is like a reverse lottery. If the contract when members signed up was reasonable for them and the citizens who hired them, then neither need be grateful.
A third objector might claim that my discussion misses the issue because many young men were made to fight via the draft and hence we should be grateful to them. Let us assume that draftees were made to fight against their will. If this is correct, then we should not be grateful to them any more than we should be grateful to slaves. Neither was motivated by altruism. A former slave owner probably should be sorry for what she did to the slave and should compensate him, but given that the slave did not act out of concern for the owner’s well-being, she should not be grateful.
I think this essay contains a positive message for people considering joining the military or staying in it: It is important that your life go well. Hence, other things being equal, you should join the military or stay in it only if you like the job, people, or values that comprise it. Viewing your life in the military as a service or a sacrifice is not only a mistake, but also prevents you from focusing on what should guide your decisions.
06 October 2010
22 September 2010
Irresponsible Political Hack: Brian Higgins
Stephen Kershnar
Brian Higgins: Western New York’s Big Spender
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
September 12, 2010
Many people wonder how our federal government could have become so irresponsible. Western New Yorkers need not look elsewhere to discover the answer. The state’s 27th Congressional District includes two-thirds of Buffalo, most of the city’s Eastern and Southern suburbs, and all of Chautauqua County. It’s a district that has been gerrymandered for political purposes. This district has repeatedly elected Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY). Higgins is a great example of why Americans are disgusted with Congress. One recent NBC/Wall Street Journal August survey found that only 21% approve of the job Congress is doing. The 21% must have been on drugs.
How bad is Higgins? In 2009, Higgins received an F from the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). This grade doesn’t do justice to his assault of the taxpayers. In 2009, the NTU gave him a grade of 2 (out of 100). Just imagine what you would think if your child or students earned that grade. He consistently soaked the taxpayer more than his Democratic colleagues have done over the last five years do and that’s not easy. Despite his voting pattern, he faced minimal Republican opposition in 2006 and 2008 and received more than 70% of the vote in both elections.
Not only does he view the taxpayer as a chicken, fat and ready for the plucking, he is also an unimaginative lockstep Democrat. According to The Washington Post Votes Database, he voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 99.1% of the time during the current Congress. This, of course, does not include the roughly one out of twenty votes that he missed.
It is worth considering some of the bills he supported. Higgins voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that was signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2008. The program was sold as a plan for the government to spend up to $700 billion in order buy toxic assets. These are illiquid, difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions. The program mysteriously transformed into a program that allowed the government to own portions of banks and other major industries. This involved giving $40 billion to deserving institutions as Citigroup, Bank of America, and AIG (American International Group). The evidence that this was necessary to avoid a financial meltdown is weak at best. In contrast, it is clear that it was sold to the American public under false pretenses. In Higgins’ defense, he joined economic heavyweights as Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain in voting for this monstrosity.
Some of the TARP money was used to nationalize GM. The U.S. government got 61% of it and GM’s union got 17.5% ownership stake. Chrysler also got $11 billion. How any of this related to toxic assets or financial institutions is still a mystery.
Higgins and the Democrats then became spending legends. Not satisfied with TARP, they passed the Stimulus Bill in February 2009. It allowed the government to spend $787 billion for a Christmas tree of benefits for various groups, including extending unemployment benefits and massive handouts to the states. Apparently, these generous souls were horrified at the idea of cutting taxes, but the idea of shoveling money at state governments just felt right. At the time the bill was passed unemployment was 8.2%. It is now 9.6%. Even the Congressional Budget Office predicted that in the long run the massive spending bill would be a drag on the economy. Of course this money went on the federal credit card since the country was already running a deficit. This past August, Higgins and company spent another $26 billion in welfare to state governments so that they could continue their irresponsible spending on education and Medicaid. The bill was a thinly disguised payoff to prevent layoffs to key Democrat constituencies.
Higgins further distinguished himself by voting for such abominations as Obama Care (the attempt to further socialize medicine) and cap and trade (a series of massive new energy taxes and regulations). After the election one can bank on Higgins joining Democrats when they try to give amnesty to illegal aliens and raise taxes on the rich, small businesses, inheritors, and other chickens ready for plucking.
Higgins won a tight election in 2004. However, given the spread of his recent victories, it appears that he is now the 27th District’s Congressman for life. Why does he keep getting elected?
One reason is that Buffalo is a left-wing city. According to Wikipedia.com, even when Jack Quinn was the 27th District’s Representative, it was the most Democratic district in the country to be represented by a Republican. Also, Buffalo is one of the poorest cities (roughly 29% of its people are below the poverty level) and poor cities do not vote for Republicans. Buffalo hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1954. This is a common pattern among the poorest cities. If you consider other poor cities, such as Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Saint Louis, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia, none of these cities has elected a Republican mayor in years. Two have not elected one in a couple of decades (Cincinnati and Cleveland) and the rest haven’t elected one in nearly 50 years. Obviously, this has worked out well for the residents, who remain mired in poverty.
A second reason is that Higgins gets infused with union money. According to OpenSecrets.org, five of his top six contributors (11 of his top 25) to his 2009-2010 campaign committee are unions. An interesting issue is whether union support explains his vote or whether the causal arrow goes in the opposite direction. My guess is that it goes both ways.
A third reason is that the local news media have not highlighted just how far left Higgins is. One searches in vain for Buffalo News articles highlighting Higgins’ spending habits or his lockstep party voting (perhaps I missed the articles). Higgins actually labels himself a moderate, raising the issue of whether his nose grows longer when he says this. A fourth reason is that Higgins dispenses pork to generate further support. He is hardly alone in doing so. Here he joins the long tradition that includes Congressmen we can all be proud of, such as the late Dan Rostenkowski, Ted Stevens, and Robert Byrd.
Brian Higgins is far-left member of Congress and part of the Obama revolution. He is a case study in how a big-spending Congress stays in power and runs the economy into the ground. Western New York has only itself to blame for him.
Brian Higgins: Western New York’s Big Spender
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
September 12, 2010
Many people wonder how our federal government could have become so irresponsible. Western New Yorkers need not look elsewhere to discover the answer. The state’s 27th Congressional District includes two-thirds of Buffalo, most of the city’s Eastern and Southern suburbs, and all of Chautauqua County. It’s a district that has been gerrymandered for political purposes. This district has repeatedly elected Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY). Higgins is a great example of why Americans are disgusted with Congress. One recent NBC/Wall Street Journal August survey found that only 21% approve of the job Congress is doing. The 21% must have been on drugs.
How bad is Higgins? In 2009, Higgins received an F from the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). This grade doesn’t do justice to his assault of the taxpayers. In 2009, the NTU gave him a grade of 2 (out of 100). Just imagine what you would think if your child or students earned that grade. He consistently soaked the taxpayer more than his Democratic colleagues have done over the last five years do and that’s not easy. Despite his voting pattern, he faced minimal Republican opposition in 2006 and 2008 and received more than 70% of the vote in both elections.
Not only does he view the taxpayer as a chicken, fat and ready for the plucking, he is also an unimaginative lockstep Democrat. According to The Washington Post Votes Database, he voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 99.1% of the time during the current Congress. This, of course, does not include the roughly one out of twenty votes that he missed.
It is worth considering some of the bills he supported. Higgins voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that was signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2008. The program was sold as a plan for the government to spend up to $700 billion in order buy toxic assets. These are illiquid, difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions. The program mysteriously transformed into a program that allowed the government to own portions of banks and other major industries. This involved giving $40 billion to deserving institutions as Citigroup, Bank of America, and AIG (American International Group). The evidence that this was necessary to avoid a financial meltdown is weak at best. In contrast, it is clear that it was sold to the American public under false pretenses. In Higgins’ defense, he joined economic heavyweights as Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain in voting for this monstrosity.
Some of the TARP money was used to nationalize GM. The U.S. government got 61% of it and GM’s union got 17.5% ownership stake. Chrysler also got $11 billion. How any of this related to toxic assets or financial institutions is still a mystery.
Higgins and the Democrats then became spending legends. Not satisfied with TARP, they passed the Stimulus Bill in February 2009. It allowed the government to spend $787 billion for a Christmas tree of benefits for various groups, including extending unemployment benefits and massive handouts to the states. Apparently, these generous souls were horrified at the idea of cutting taxes, but the idea of shoveling money at state governments just felt right. At the time the bill was passed unemployment was 8.2%. It is now 9.6%. Even the Congressional Budget Office predicted that in the long run the massive spending bill would be a drag on the economy. Of course this money went on the federal credit card since the country was already running a deficit. This past August, Higgins and company spent another $26 billion in welfare to state governments so that they could continue their irresponsible spending on education and Medicaid. The bill was a thinly disguised payoff to prevent layoffs to key Democrat constituencies.
Higgins further distinguished himself by voting for such abominations as Obama Care (the attempt to further socialize medicine) and cap and trade (a series of massive new energy taxes and regulations). After the election one can bank on Higgins joining Democrats when they try to give amnesty to illegal aliens and raise taxes on the rich, small businesses, inheritors, and other chickens ready for plucking.
Higgins won a tight election in 2004. However, given the spread of his recent victories, it appears that he is now the 27th District’s Congressman for life. Why does he keep getting elected?
One reason is that Buffalo is a left-wing city. According to Wikipedia.com, even when Jack Quinn was the 27th District’s Representative, it was the most Democratic district in the country to be represented by a Republican. Also, Buffalo is one of the poorest cities (roughly 29% of its people are below the poverty level) and poor cities do not vote for Republicans. Buffalo hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1954. This is a common pattern among the poorest cities. If you consider other poor cities, such as Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Saint Louis, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia, none of these cities has elected a Republican mayor in years. Two have not elected one in a couple of decades (Cincinnati and Cleveland) and the rest haven’t elected one in nearly 50 years. Obviously, this has worked out well for the residents, who remain mired in poverty.
A second reason is that Higgins gets infused with union money. According to OpenSecrets.org, five of his top six contributors (11 of his top 25) to his 2009-2010 campaign committee are unions. An interesting issue is whether union support explains his vote or whether the causal arrow goes in the opposite direction. My guess is that it goes both ways.
A third reason is that the local news media have not highlighted just how far left Higgins is. One searches in vain for Buffalo News articles highlighting Higgins’ spending habits or his lockstep party voting (perhaps I missed the articles). Higgins actually labels himself a moderate, raising the issue of whether his nose grows longer when he says this. A fourth reason is that Higgins dispenses pork to generate further support. He is hardly alone in doing so. Here he joins the long tradition that includes Congressmen we can all be proud of, such as the late Dan Rostenkowski, Ted Stevens, and Robert Byrd.
Brian Higgins is far-left member of Congress and part of the Obama revolution. He is a case study in how a big-spending Congress stays in power and runs the economy into the ground. Western New York has only itself to blame for him.
24 August 2010
Education: Students Take it Easy
Stephen Kershnar
Colleges Students: Less Studying, More Recreating
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
August 23, 2010
College students are studying a lot less than they used to. An interesting issue is why they are and whether we should care about it.
In a study by Philip Babcock of University of California-Santa Barbara and Mindy Marks of University of California-Riverside found that students study roughly 40% less than they used to (14 hours per week versus 24 hours per week). Their study looks at the period from 1961 to 2003. They argue that the trend is a general one in that it can be seen across different types of students: those who work and those who don’t, every major, and different calibers of colleges (elite to bargain-basement). This is not a recent phenomena, most of it happened before 1981, suggesting that the pattern is not due to technological advances, such as the computer.
This difference is not due to students being more prepared. Babcock and Marks point out that there is little evidence that recent students are more prepared than earlier ones. The former do not have higher test scores when they enter college. For the 2007-2008 academic year, the U.S. Department of Education found that roughly a third of students needed at least one remedial class. At public two-year classes, this disgraceful number was 42%.
Nor is the difference due to lack of spending on college. According to the New York Times, the cost of college in 2008 was roughly $19,000 per student. This is $10,600 more than in other developed countries.
There are several explanations for the lesser effort. University of California at Berkeley professor David Kirp and fellow researchers argue that market pressures have caused colleges to cater to students’ desire for leisure. Kirp and company support this claim by arguing that student evaluations, which became popular in the 1960’s and 1970’s, reward easier instructors and punish harder ones. On their theory, because many faculty prefer to spend their time on research and students prefer to spend their time on leisure, the faculty trade higher grades for better evaluations. Ohio University Economist Richard Vedder points out that in the period during which studying has dropped, grade inflation occurred. He notes that grade point averages have risen by half a letter grade during this period (2.5 or 2.6 to 3.0). Babcock and Marks note that they are hard-pressed to name a reward that faculty get for maintaining high standards. The penalties for doing so are clear.
Another explanation is that grades matter less than they used to. Stanford Economist Caroline Hoxby argues that the difference between the ability-levels of students at different colleges has increased over time, while the difference between the ability-levels of students at a particular college has decreased. That is, colleges are getting better at segregating by ability. Probably as a result of this, employers depend less on college grades in hiring than they used to and so students put less time in to getting better grades and more time into getting in to college than they used to.
There is some reason to believe that students who study more learn more and earn more. In general, undergraduates are not given an exit exam, so it is difficult to determine how much they learn in college, let alone whether they are learning less than they used to. However, there is some reason to believe that they are learning less than they otherwise would were they to study more. Studying more increases both academic performance (specifically, grade point average) and future earnings. Decreases in study time have been found to cause lower grades. Greater studying has been found to correlate with greater wages, although whether the former causes the latter is less clear. If extra studying produces valuable knowledge or skills, then less study time does cost both the students and their society.
I wonder if this is an issue that we should care about. After all, students are like the rest of us. They must choose between learning less and recreating more. For example, when we spend Sunday afternoon watching the NFL, we lose out on valuable learning time. I don’t there’s a right answer as to how much students should study.
The problem with this live and let live approach is that we are paying through the nose for public colleges and as such students’ studying time is relevant in our deciding whether we are wasting money. After all, people should feel free to improve their abilities in ultimate Frisbee, surfing the net, and sex, but they shouldn’t expect taxpayers to subsidize their doing so. Perhaps our money would be better spent on paying only for those students who study more or do better, rather than the indiscriminate grants and subsidies that currently bloat college spending.
One way to generate more studying time might be to have mandatory exit exams that would allow colleges to be measured and compared in terms of how much education they provide to students. Many colleges would feel the pressure from prospective students, employers, and alumni and respond by developing incentives for students to study more. Just as public school teachers in K-12 screamed bloody murder when exit exams were introduced, college faculty (myself included) and administrators would likely do the same. Some colleges might decide to opt out and they should be allowed to opt out, so long as they go off the public dole. If exit exams were made a condition for federal or state aid, taxpayers would be better able to see whether their tax dollars were being spent wisely.
I’m not sure that less student studying is a bad thing or that exit exams are a good solution, but less sure that the status quo is adequate.
Colleges Students: Less Studying, More Recreating
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
August 23, 2010
College students are studying a lot less than they used to. An interesting issue is why they are and whether we should care about it.
In a study by Philip Babcock of University of California-Santa Barbara and Mindy Marks of University of California-Riverside found that students study roughly 40% less than they used to (14 hours per week versus 24 hours per week). Their study looks at the period from 1961 to 2003. They argue that the trend is a general one in that it can be seen across different types of students: those who work and those who don’t, every major, and different calibers of colleges (elite to bargain-basement). This is not a recent phenomena, most of it happened before 1981, suggesting that the pattern is not due to technological advances, such as the computer.
This difference is not due to students being more prepared. Babcock and Marks point out that there is little evidence that recent students are more prepared than earlier ones. The former do not have higher test scores when they enter college. For the 2007-2008 academic year, the U.S. Department of Education found that roughly a third of students needed at least one remedial class. At public two-year classes, this disgraceful number was 42%.
Nor is the difference due to lack of spending on college. According to the New York Times, the cost of college in 2008 was roughly $19,000 per student. This is $10,600 more than in other developed countries.
There are several explanations for the lesser effort. University of California at Berkeley professor David Kirp and fellow researchers argue that market pressures have caused colleges to cater to students’ desire for leisure. Kirp and company support this claim by arguing that student evaluations, which became popular in the 1960’s and 1970’s, reward easier instructors and punish harder ones. On their theory, because many faculty prefer to spend their time on research and students prefer to spend their time on leisure, the faculty trade higher grades for better evaluations. Ohio University Economist Richard Vedder points out that in the period during which studying has dropped, grade inflation occurred. He notes that grade point averages have risen by half a letter grade during this period (2.5 or 2.6 to 3.0). Babcock and Marks note that they are hard-pressed to name a reward that faculty get for maintaining high standards. The penalties for doing so are clear.
Another explanation is that grades matter less than they used to. Stanford Economist Caroline Hoxby argues that the difference between the ability-levels of students at different colleges has increased over time, while the difference between the ability-levels of students at a particular college has decreased. That is, colleges are getting better at segregating by ability. Probably as a result of this, employers depend less on college grades in hiring than they used to and so students put less time in to getting better grades and more time into getting in to college than they used to.
There is some reason to believe that students who study more learn more and earn more. In general, undergraduates are not given an exit exam, so it is difficult to determine how much they learn in college, let alone whether they are learning less than they used to. However, there is some reason to believe that they are learning less than they otherwise would were they to study more. Studying more increases both academic performance (specifically, grade point average) and future earnings. Decreases in study time have been found to cause lower grades. Greater studying has been found to correlate with greater wages, although whether the former causes the latter is less clear. If extra studying produces valuable knowledge or skills, then less study time does cost both the students and their society.
I wonder if this is an issue that we should care about. After all, students are like the rest of us. They must choose between learning less and recreating more. For example, when we spend Sunday afternoon watching the NFL, we lose out on valuable learning time. I don’t there’s a right answer as to how much students should study.
The problem with this live and let live approach is that we are paying through the nose for public colleges and as such students’ studying time is relevant in our deciding whether we are wasting money. After all, people should feel free to improve their abilities in ultimate Frisbee, surfing the net, and sex, but they shouldn’t expect taxpayers to subsidize their doing so. Perhaps our money would be better spent on paying only for those students who study more or do better, rather than the indiscriminate grants and subsidies that currently bloat college spending.
One way to generate more studying time might be to have mandatory exit exams that would allow colleges to be measured and compared in terms of how much education they provide to students. Many colleges would feel the pressure from prospective students, employers, and alumni and respond by developing incentives for students to study more. Just as public school teachers in K-12 screamed bloody murder when exit exams were introduced, college faculty (myself included) and administrators would likely do the same. Some colleges might decide to opt out and they should be allowed to opt out, so long as they go off the public dole. If exit exams were made a condition for federal or state aid, taxpayers would be better able to see whether their tax dollars were being spent wisely.
I’m not sure that less student studying is a bad thing or that exit exams are a good solution, but less sure that the status quo is adequate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
