Given that the Circuit Courts of Appeals have split on the issue and the highly unusual way in which the 2nd Circuit denied en banc rehearing, the Court will probably take up Landrell.
For those campaign finance junkies among us, the potential for a rethinking of Buckley's holding that expenditure limits are unconstitutional holds a great deal of promise.
Time to break out the cases again. More on this after I have read all the stuff (could be a while).
Court Could Revisit 'Buckley"
Monday, May 16, 2005
Hillary Clinton Campaign Tanking Already?
If you believe the non-denial denials issued by the Hillary Clinton camp, one wonders what the impact of this trial will be. Certainly, there will be an interesting public record to comb through. I am not sure of the "sex" connection--like prostitutes is something new!!.
No, what will be interesting is the efforts of the Anti-Hillary crowd and what they will use from this story.
Just as Disclosure--the concept of a female president is a good thing--just not Hillary Clinton.
The Observer | International | Sex and funds trial damages Hillary hopes
No, what will be interesting is the efforts of the Anti-Hillary crowd and what they will use from this story.
Just as Disclosure--the concept of a female president is a good thing--just not Hillary Clinton.
The Observer | International | Sex and funds trial damages Hillary hopes
Student-Athletes--They Really Do Exist
When I was a high school student many years ago, there existed a distinct dichotomy between the athletes of the school and the advanced students. I could count on two hands the number of varsity letter holders who had a GPA over 3.0 (I am proud to say I was one of them). A surprising number of them were soccer players, a coincidence I can't explain.
Once I was in college, I found that the dichotomy between students and athletes was exacerbated, particularly when dealing with the so-called money sports of football and basketball. But this story highlights the fact that true student-athletes do exist on campuses. Of course, I haven't seen a student-athlete of this caliber on a Division I campus, but maybe one day.
If this man doesn't get a professional soccer playing career, chances are that he will own a soccer team one day.
A Balance of Academics and Athletics - New York Times
Once I was in college, I found that the dichotomy between students and athletes was exacerbated, particularly when dealing with the so-called money sports of football and basketball. But this story highlights the fact that true student-athletes do exist on campuses. Of course, I haven't seen a student-athlete of this caliber on a Division I campus, but maybe one day.
If this man doesn't get a professional soccer playing career, chances are that he will own a soccer team one day.
A Balance of Academics and Athletics - New York Times
The Four Horsemen of Bad Education
Sing it Brother!!!
This post is from Mike Piscal from the Huffington Post, finally an educator who can speak with authority about the broken public education system. I have long advocated that the teacher's unions were one of the biggest criminals in the education system (see previous posts here). It doesn't take a great leap of cognition to understand that bloated bureaucracies don't help educate kids (just look at DC). I am looking forward to Mike's posts in the coming months.
While his posts will undoubtedly be about the Los Angeles school system, I am sure lessons can be applied nationwide.
Mike Piscal--Naming Names
62,000 school children in grades K-12...3,950 students in the 9th Grade...Only around 1,600 graduate...only 900 go to college. Of the 900 who attend college, only 258 graduate from college...There are four special interests that have blocked, clogged, and undermined reform for decades. It is all about money, control, and power. It is diseased value system that leaves our kids uneducated, exposed to violence and drugs, and with too few or zero opportunities to pursue the American Dream. Who are the four? Emphatically, I name names: the teacher’s unions, the University Schools of Education, the bureaucracies, and (unbelievably) the PTA’s.
This post is from Mike Piscal from the Huffington Post, finally an educator who can speak with authority about the broken public education system. I have long advocated that the teacher's unions were one of the biggest criminals in the education system (see previous posts here). It doesn't take a great leap of cognition to understand that bloated bureaucracies don't help educate kids (just look at DC). I am looking forward to Mike's posts in the coming months.
While his posts will undoubtedly be about the Los Angeles school system, I am sure lessons can be applied nationwide.
Mike Piscal--Naming Names
Writing-The Most Important Skill Not Taught Today
Brent Staples argues for a timed writing test for students in the New York Times from yesterday. For those who aren't in the know, the SAT now includes a timed essay section in addition to the traditional verbal and math sections. Staples refers to a survey of the members of the Business Roundtable issued by the National Commission on Writing.
The plain fact of the matter remains that most college graduates cannot write a concise report in a short period of time if their jobs depended on it, and increasingly their jobs are depending on that skill. Having spent several years as a tutor at the University of Maryland Writing Center, I can tell you that most freshmen come to college incapable of writing in a cogent manner. While the curriculum of English 101 focuses on the basics of expository writing, for many students, that Freshman English class is the last class that focuses on the mechanics of good writing. Certainly, other classes require writing of some sort, but few professors outside of the English department grade on the mechanics of writing, rather these non-English professors grade on the content. Content is important and should comprise a major portion of the grade, but if the grading included a mechanics segment(i.e. grammar, spelling, layout, paragraph structure, arugmentative flow) in addition to content, I fear that most students would fail--which of course looks bad for the schools.
A proper education must include writing, and the only way to ensure that writing skills are taught is to test them, thus the SAT now includes an essay section. But, as Staples points out,
The NCTE also suggests "the only way to judge writing was to consider student work that had been rewritten and edited over longer periods of time." What a load of rubbish! I cannot count the number of times I have been asked to produce a 2-3 page memo by the end of the day summarizing everything from client status to a change in the law or regulations. I didn't have the luxury of editing, rewriting, reviewing and then repeating. I had, on a good day, 6 hours to complete such a task--which often involved some research--not just six hours of writing. Usually I have less than 3 hours.
What these English teachers fail to grasp is that good writing is not about eloquent word choice or flowery grammar or exquisite sentence structure. Such concepts are good for novels and storied, but not for business memos or reports. Good business writing is about being concise and clear in your meaning. Good business writing should allow a manager or executive to be able to skim the memo, getting the major points and reading more in depth later.
As an employer, I would love to include a writing test as part of the interview process (but probably would get sued if I did because someone would argue that such a test is discriminatory). I can teach someone with a good mind and a solid foundation what they need to know to succeed in my line of work, what I don't have time to teach is how to write. The corporate world today floats on a sea of information, all of which has to be written about and explained. If a worker cannot adequately express an idea, in basic English, in a reasonably short space of text, then their value as an employee is greatly diminished.
In an era where testing has become the watchword, the fact that the College Board is now testing writing should be an indicator to English Teachers that there is more to English than good literature. The ability to write well, in a time pressured environment, is one of the keys to success. Schools, both high schools and colleges, need to spend more time teaching the mechanics of writing, the "American educational system that fails at every level to produce the fluent writers required by the new economy."
The SAT including a writing section in their test means that, at the very least, people will start to learn that writing matters, but significant steps need to be taken. Staples argues for a doubling of the time spent on writing instruction. I argue that writing instruction must go beyond the English classroom and should extend to all areas of education, including math and the sciences. Every instructor, at every level, should be grading for the mechanics of writing. Every teacher, regardless of their subject matter expertise, should not only know how to write well, but should be able to teach their students as well.
Failing to teach our children to write well leaves them ill-equipped for college and the workforce--just ask the Business Roundtable.
The Fine Art of Getting It Down on Paper, Fast - New York Times
About a third of the companies reported that only one-third or fewer of their employees knew how to write clearly and concisely. The companies expressed a fair degree of dissatisfaction with the writing produced by recent college graduates - even though many were blue-chip companies that get the pick of the litter.
The plain fact of the matter remains that most college graduates cannot write a concise report in a short period of time if their jobs depended on it, and increasingly their jobs are depending on that skill. Having spent several years as a tutor at the University of Maryland Writing Center, I can tell you that most freshmen come to college incapable of writing in a cogent manner. While the curriculum of English 101 focuses on the basics of expository writing, for many students, that Freshman English class is the last class that focuses on the mechanics of good writing. Certainly, other classes require writing of some sort, but few professors outside of the English department grade on the mechanics of writing, rather these non-English professors grade on the content. Content is important and should comprise a major portion of the grade, but if the grading included a mechanics segment(i.e. grammar, spelling, layout, paragraph structure, arugmentative flow) in addition to content, I fear that most students would fail--which of course looks bad for the schools.
A proper education must include writing, and the only way to ensure that writing skills are taught is to test them, thus the SAT now includes an essay section. But, as Staples points out,
The National Council of Teachers of English attacked the College Board for adding a writing segment to the SAT, the college entrance exam required by an overwhelming majority of America's four-year colleges and universities. The test, which consists of a brief, timed essay and a multiple-choice section, has already put schools and parents on notice that writing instruction needs to improve...The group questioned the validity of the tests and trotted out the condescending notion that requiring poor and minority students to write in standard English is unfair because of their cultural backgrounds and vernacular languages.Let's break this down a little from an employer's perspective. As an employer I am not hiring someone who will write reports in their "vernacular language" nor do I care about their "cultural background." I need a person who can do the job and write reports, emails, and other assignments in standard English. I believe I am on safe ground when I say that other employers have the same criteria. On a societal level, if we allow minority and immigrant students to hide behind their "cultural backgrounds and vernacular languages" we then doom these students to employment beneath their skills because we have not provided them with the education and skills to compete.
The council also tried to discredit the idea of timed writing tests. The report seemed to suggest that the only way to judge writing was to consider student work that had been rewritten and edited over longer periods of time. Long-term projects are important, but they do not cover all of the kinds of writing that students will be called upon to produce either in college or in their lives. On the contrary, substantive writing on demand for reports, correspondence and even e-mail is now a common feature of corporate life.
The NCTE also suggests "the only way to judge writing was to consider student work that had been rewritten and edited over longer periods of time." What a load of rubbish! I cannot count the number of times I have been asked to produce a 2-3 page memo by the end of the day summarizing everything from client status to a change in the law or regulations. I didn't have the luxury of editing, rewriting, reviewing and then repeating. I had, on a good day, 6 hours to complete such a task--which often involved some research--not just six hours of writing. Usually I have less than 3 hours.
What these English teachers fail to grasp is that good writing is not about eloquent word choice or flowery grammar or exquisite sentence structure. Such concepts are good for novels and storied, but not for business memos or reports. Good business writing is about being concise and clear in your meaning. Good business writing should allow a manager or executive to be able to skim the memo, getting the major points and reading more in depth later.
As an employer, I would love to include a writing test as part of the interview process (but probably would get sued if I did because someone would argue that such a test is discriminatory). I can teach someone with a good mind and a solid foundation what they need to know to succeed in my line of work, what I don't have time to teach is how to write. The corporate world today floats on a sea of information, all of which has to be written about and explained. If a worker cannot adequately express an idea, in basic English, in a reasonably short space of text, then their value as an employee is greatly diminished.
In an era where testing has become the watchword, the fact that the College Board is now testing writing should be an indicator to English Teachers that there is more to English than good literature. The ability to write well, in a time pressured environment, is one of the keys to success. Schools, both high schools and colleges, need to spend more time teaching the mechanics of writing, the "American educational system that fails at every level to produce the fluent writers required by the new economy."
The SAT including a writing section in their test means that, at the very least, people will start to learn that writing matters, but significant steps need to be taken. Staples argues for a doubling of the time spent on writing instruction. I argue that writing instruction must go beyond the English classroom and should extend to all areas of education, including math and the sciences. Every instructor, at every level, should be grading for the mechanics of writing. Every teacher, regardless of their subject matter expertise, should not only know how to write well, but should be able to teach their students as well.
Failing to teach our children to write well leaves them ill-equipped for college and the workforce--just ask the Business Roundtable.
The Fine Art of Getting It Down on Paper, Fast - New York Times
What about Pelosi? - PittsburghLIVE.com
It makes you wonder. I remember this incident--my question is who was the lawyer who said this was OK or did Pelosi even consult a lawyer?
What about Pelosi? - PittsburghLIVE.com
What about Pelosi? - PittsburghLIVE.com
CBS News | More Parents Outsourcing Etiquette | May 12, 2005�20:30:26
Hat Tip to Joanne Jacobs. This says a lot about modern parenting.
I can't say that I learned all the proper manners for a formal dinner, but certain rules of behavior were instilled by my decidedly middle class parents. Why do parents, particularly those featured in this article need to send their kids to etiquette school? I mean, as a teenager, I may not have known a shrimp fork from a salad fork, but I knew enough to to talk with my mouth full, or behave like an ass at the dinner table.
Apparently these parents didn't teach their kids from a young age so now they have to spend money teaching their kids as teenagers. What ever happened to the idea that parents take the primary role in the social education of their kids, leaving such things as etiquette training if you are going to some high society tea.
If they want to waste their money, perhaps I should open and etiquette school. Lesson number 1--parents teach your kids how to behave at the dinner table--I will teach them which fork to use.
More Parents Outsourcing Etiquette
I can't say that I learned all the proper manners for a formal dinner, but certain rules of behavior were instilled by my decidedly middle class parents. Why do parents, particularly those featured in this article need to send their kids to etiquette school? I mean, as a teenager, I may not have known a shrimp fork from a salad fork, but I knew enough to to talk with my mouth full, or behave like an ass at the dinner table.
Apparently these parents didn't teach their kids from a young age so now they have to spend money teaching their kids as teenagers. What ever happened to the idea that parents take the primary role in the social education of their kids, leaving such things as etiquette training if you are going to some high society tea.
If they want to waste their money, perhaps I should open and etiquette school. Lesson number 1--parents teach your kids how to behave at the dinner table--I will teach them which fork to use.
More Parents Outsourcing Etiquette
Friday, May 13, 2005
NEA Again Screwing Over Members
This little gem from the Education Intelligence Agency, notes that the National Education Association the national teachers union, is sending $2.5 million to the California Teachers Association to oppose ballot initiatives sponsored by Governor Schwarzenegger. According to the EIA, the $2.5 million comes on the heels of the nearly $11 million dollars spent by the NEA opposing ballot initiatives in California since 2000.
Once again, the NEA is spending dues money of teachers without consulting those dues paying members. This just further supports my belief the the NEA and other teachers unions care more about their "political importance" than their members and that unions should not be in teh business of commenting on education policy, but rather stick to their core business of representing union members in contract negotiations.
The NEA can't just stick to money either:
NEA will also take an active hand in the California campaign. The union will publish a list of those who financially support Gov. Schwarzenegger and his various initiatives.
It seems to me that if the California Teachers Association wants to oppose the ballot iniatives, they could (I don't think they should use "mandatory" dues money to do it though). But I fail to see what NEA has to lose in this fight--other than face.
eiaonline.com
Once again, the NEA is spending dues money of teachers without consulting those dues paying members. This just further supports my belief the the NEA and other teachers unions care more about their "political importance" than their members and that unions should not be in teh business of commenting on education policy, but rather stick to their core business of representing union members in contract negotiations.
The NEA can't just stick to money either:
NEA will also take an active hand in the California campaign. The union will publish a list of those who financially support Gov. Schwarzenegger and his various initiatives.
It seems to me that if the California Teachers Association wants to oppose the ballot iniatives, they could (I don't think they should use "mandatory" dues money to do it though). But I fail to see what NEA has to lose in this fight--other than face.
eiaonline.com
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Bill Clinton Understands--Other Dems Don't
From the New York Daily News, Bill Clinton's advice to Democrats:
"Get better tactics. Don't wuss around. And quit saying, 'They're so mean and vicious.' They only do it because it works. When they don't do it anymore, we can go back to a more civilized way of doing business."
Of course, Congressional Democrats won't pay attention, maybe not even his own wife. What Democrats have forgotten is that they engage in the same bitter partisan rancor. There are times when taking the high road works and times when getting in the dirt works. Just like Bill says, change your tactics and don't whine when they don't work.
New York Daily News - Daily Dish & Gossip - Rush & Molloy: Bill: Wuss up with Dems' tactics?
"Get better tactics. Don't wuss around. And quit saying, 'They're so mean and vicious.' They only do it because it works. When they don't do it anymore, we can go back to a more civilized way of doing business."
Of course, Congressional Democrats won't pay attention, maybe not even his own wife. What Democrats have forgotten is that they engage in the same bitter partisan rancor. There are times when taking the high road works and times when getting in the dirt works. Just like Bill says, change your tactics and don't whine when they don't work.
New York Daily News - Daily Dish & Gossip - Rush & Molloy: Bill: Wuss up with Dems' tactics?
Missing Music
Having spent most of the last week listening to CD's of law lectures to get ready for the bar exam, I have not done a "This Week's Listen" in a while. I thought I could go old school, but as I said, not much happening musically. However, Michael over at Highered Intelligence posted this short little quiz about music that I thought was entertaining. So here goes.
1. Of all the bands/artists in your CD/record collection, which one do you own the most albums by?
Probabably Joe Satriani. A close second would be Van Halen.
2. What was the last song you listened to?
"Onda" by Los Lonely Boys--great piece that is largely instrumental.
3. What's in your CD player right now?
The Girl in the Other Room by Diana Krall.
4. What song would you say sums you up?
Good Question. If you look at from my viewpoint, I would probably have to say "Dream" by Van Halen, "Flying in a Blue Dream" by Joe Satriani, or "Duck and Run" by 3 Doors Down. From the viewpoint of others, I think the most likely would be "Cult of Personality" by Living Colour or "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel since most people know about my penchant for politics and history.
5. What's your favorite local band?
Slackjaw (not really local to me, but more down in Charlottesville, VA, but I loved their stuff.)
6. What was the last show you attended?
For kids shows we saw The Wiggles, which for a kids show was quite good. For adult music--
Santana, when he was out promoting Shaman (with a young daughter, concerts are hard to go to.)
7. What artist do you consider to be very underrated?
Tesla. Everybody bashed them as unoriginal, but their straight ahead rock and roll did well. And oh yeah, their Five Man Acoustical Jam album was at the forefront of the acoustical set trend.
8. What's the worst band you've ever seen in concert?
I saw the Cranberries in concert and wasn't all that impressed. Their music was good, but I didn't really dig them live.
9. What band do you love musically but hate the members of?
Wow, a tough one. I don't really have one.
10. What is the most musically involved you have ever been?
This is it, I am a fan of music but never studied music or anything.
11. What show are you looking forward to?
Can't say.
12. What is your favorite band shirt?
I have this shirt from when Dave Matthews Band was on tour supporting "Before These Crowded Streets," for as much as I wear it and it has been washed, the shirt is in remarkable condition. Plus I love the logo.
13. What musician would you like to hang out with for a day?
For music discussion, either Diana Krall or Joe Satriani. To party, no doubt Sammy Hagar.
14. Metal question- Jeans and Leather vs. Cracker Jack clothes?
Jeans and leather.
15. Sabbath or solo Ozzy?
Ozzy
16. Commodores or solo Lionel Ritchie?
The Commodores.
17. Blackjack or solo Michael Bolton?
Anything but Michael Bolton. He is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
18. The Eagles or solo Don Henley?
Tough Choice, but I would go with Henley.
19. The Police or solo Sting?
Again a tough choice. Probably Sting since he has done a lot of different things. But the best musician in the Police was Stuart Copeland.
20. Doesn't emo suck?
I have no clue (seriously)
21. Name 4 flawless albums.
Van Halen--For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge
Joe Satriani--The Extremist
Diana Krall--The Girl in the Other Room
Boston--Third Stage
22. Did you know that filling out this survey makes you a music geek?
And you point is.....
23. What was the greatest decade for music?
Right now. If you can't find something that appeals to you musically, you are trying hard enough. There is great jazz, rock, punk, classical, country, crossover stuff, even rap that is being made. For someone with a lot of musical tastes, this is a great time to be a musical consumer.
24. How many music-related videos/DVDs do you own?
Four or five.
25. Do you like Journey?
Yes.
26. What is your favorite movie soundtrack?
Hmmm. Good Question. I liked the soundtrack for Singles. But for a more classical feel, probably Lord of the Rings.
27. What was your last musical "phase" before you wised up?
Each phase has its own wisdom even now.
28. What's the crappiest CD/record/etc you've ever bought?
Vanessa Carleton--I don't know the name of the album, but I get the feeling the album was put together too fast and centered on one song.
29. Do you prefer vinyl or Cd's?
CD's no doubt about it.
30. What is your guilty pleasure CD, that being the CD you love but would be ashamed to admit you have in your collection?
I can't name one. Every CD I own (even Vanessa Carleton) has an appeal that I would not be ashamed to admit.
1. Of all the bands/artists in your CD/record collection, which one do you own the most albums by?
Probabably Joe Satriani. A close second would be Van Halen.
2. What was the last song you listened to?
"Onda" by Los Lonely Boys--great piece that is largely instrumental.
3. What's in your CD player right now?
The Girl in the Other Room by Diana Krall.
4. What song would you say sums you up?
Good Question. If you look at from my viewpoint, I would probably have to say "Dream" by Van Halen, "Flying in a Blue Dream" by Joe Satriani, or "Duck and Run" by 3 Doors Down. From the viewpoint of others, I think the most likely would be "Cult of Personality" by Living Colour or "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel since most people know about my penchant for politics and history.
5. What's your favorite local band?
Slackjaw (not really local to me, but more down in Charlottesville, VA, but I loved their stuff.)
6. What was the last show you attended?
For kids shows we saw The Wiggles, which for a kids show was quite good. For adult music--
Santana, when he was out promoting Shaman (with a young daughter, concerts are hard to go to.)
7. What artist do you consider to be very underrated?
Tesla. Everybody bashed them as unoriginal, but their straight ahead rock and roll did well. And oh yeah, their Five Man Acoustical Jam album was at the forefront of the acoustical set trend.
8. What's the worst band you've ever seen in concert?
I saw the Cranberries in concert and wasn't all that impressed. Their music was good, but I didn't really dig them live.
9. What band do you love musically but hate the members of?
Wow, a tough one. I don't really have one.
10. What is the most musically involved you have ever been?
This is it, I am a fan of music but never studied music or anything.
11. What show are you looking forward to?
Can't say.
12. What is your favorite band shirt?
I have this shirt from when Dave Matthews Band was on tour supporting "Before These Crowded Streets," for as much as I wear it and it has been washed, the shirt is in remarkable condition. Plus I love the logo.
13. What musician would you like to hang out with for a day?
For music discussion, either Diana Krall or Joe Satriani. To party, no doubt Sammy Hagar.
14. Metal question- Jeans and Leather vs. Cracker Jack clothes?
Jeans and leather.
15. Sabbath or solo Ozzy?
Ozzy
16. Commodores or solo Lionel Ritchie?
The Commodores.
17. Blackjack or solo Michael Bolton?
Anything but Michael Bolton. He is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
18. The Eagles or solo Don Henley?
Tough Choice, but I would go with Henley.
19. The Police or solo Sting?
Again a tough choice. Probably Sting since he has done a lot of different things. But the best musician in the Police was Stuart Copeland.
20. Doesn't emo suck?
I have no clue (seriously)
21. Name 4 flawless albums.
Van Halen--For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge
Joe Satriani--The Extremist
Diana Krall--The Girl in the Other Room
Boston--Third Stage
22. Did you know that filling out this survey makes you a music geek?
And you point is.....
23. What was the greatest decade for music?
Right now. If you can't find something that appeals to you musically, you are trying hard enough. There is great jazz, rock, punk, classical, country, crossover stuff, even rap that is being made. For someone with a lot of musical tastes, this is a great time to be a musical consumer.
24. How many music-related videos/DVDs do you own?
Four or five.
25. Do you like Journey?
Yes.
26. What is your favorite movie soundtrack?
Hmmm. Good Question. I liked the soundtrack for Singles. But for a more classical feel, probably Lord of the Rings.
27. What was your last musical "phase" before you wised up?
Each phase has its own wisdom even now.
28. What's the crappiest CD/record/etc you've ever bought?
Vanessa Carleton--I don't know the name of the album, but I get the feeling the album was put together too fast and centered on one song.
29. Do you prefer vinyl or Cd's?
CD's no doubt about it.
30. What is your guilty pleasure CD, that being the CD you love but would be ashamed to admit you have in your collection?
I can't name one. Every CD I own (even Vanessa Carleton) has an appeal that I would not be ashamed to admit.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Arizona's "Attack on Illegal Immigrants"
From the state that brought you minutemen on the border, comes the veto of a bill that would have made English the official language of the state.
Supporters said the measure was needed to encourage assimilation of immigrants, but opponents said it was an attack on illegal immigrants.
In her veto letter, Napolitano said non-English speakers should be encouraged to learn the language, but that the bill did not do anything to achieve that.
Governor Janet Napolitano (D) may be right that the bill may not accomplish what it purports to be its goals and that is a legitimate reason for vetoing. Not having read the bill, I don't know.
What I do know is this--I am tired of all the liberal gushing about "attacks on illegal immigrants." Illegal immigrants are here breaking the law. They know they are breaking the law and I don't really care if some English as the official language law attacks them. American laws should not be crafted to accomodate the needs of those who are in this country illegally. If a law discriminates improperly against LEGAL immigrants, that is another case and a court of competent jurisdiction will surely strike such a law down.
We as a nation face a security threat for illegal immigration. The border is so porous that it takes volunteers to man it. We should be actively attacking the problem of illegal immigration.
News from The Associated Press
Supporters said the measure was needed to encourage assimilation of immigrants, but opponents said it was an attack on illegal immigrants.
In her veto letter, Napolitano said non-English speakers should be encouraged to learn the language, but that the bill did not do anything to achieve that.
Governor Janet Napolitano (D) may be right that the bill may not accomplish what it purports to be its goals and that is a legitimate reason for vetoing. Not having read the bill, I don't know.
What I do know is this--I am tired of all the liberal gushing about "attacks on illegal immigrants." Illegal immigrants are here breaking the law. They know they are breaking the law and I don't really care if some English as the official language law attacks them. American laws should not be crafted to accomodate the needs of those who are in this country illegally. If a law discriminates improperly against LEGAL immigrants, that is another case and a court of competent jurisdiction will surely strike such a law down.
We as a nation face a security threat for illegal immigration. The border is so porous that it takes volunteers to man it. We should be actively attacking the problem of illegal immigration.
News from The Associated Press
New Democratic Think Tank Created
Courtesy of Drudge comes a report that Markos Zuniga of the Daily Kos and former Howard Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi are forming a Democratic think tank. Their angle--politics, not policy will be their focus. Their goal will be to focus on new media technology that they think will help create Democratic victories at the polls.
Nice try guys, but focusing only winning has produced nothing but losses in the past few years. Why, you may ask? Voters want ideas, policies to talk about. There is no point putting candidates out there with no ideas--just look at John Kerry. The Republican revolution took decades to come to fruition, the Democrats aren't going to win just because they want to. You have to have ideas, real policy ideas to win. Voters don't want mindless dribble.
Furthermore, technology is not going to win the day if you have no message to carry on your new media.
Political Wire: New Democratic Think Tank Created
Nice try guys, but focusing only winning has produced nothing but losses in the past few years. Why, you may ask? Voters want ideas, policies to talk about. There is no point putting candidates out there with no ideas--just look at John Kerry. The Republican revolution took decades to come to fruition, the Democrats aren't going to win just because they want to. You have to have ideas, real policy ideas to win. Voters don't want mindless dribble.
Furthermore, technology is not going to win the day if you have no message to carry on your new media.
Political Wire: New Democratic Think Tank Created
Carnival of Education
Check out the Carnival of Education which includes a compilation of great postings on the subject of education in general. It comes out weekly so check back often.
Shamless Plug Alert!!! I have a posting this week.
Shamless Plug Alert!!! I have a posting this week.
A Modest Proposal for Campaign Finance Reform
The following post is quite long--be forewarned.
The simple fact remains, the impact of the special interest dollar is far less today that it was 30 years ago when campaign finance law really took effect. So the reform community really can't argue with the financially reduced impact of PAC or special interest money--even when pooled together. Furthermore, according the FEC statistics, "Contributions from individuals totaled $613 million and continue to be the largest source of receipts for Congressional candidates, representing 62% of all fundraising." (note that the FEC includes Senate races in those totals).
Is the problem money in general? Perhaps, but a greater concern should not be money in general, but the distrbution of money in the system. In most of my examples, I will be using House of Representatives data from 2004 because it is relatively recent and House races are roughly equal. While some district face higher advertising costs, those districts tend to be much more compact, making travel cheaper. For more geographcially large districts, the advertising costs are smaller, but travel costs are higher. In the end, the average house campaign is roughly equal in population and general costs.
As a result of the vast inequties of funding distrubution, open seat and challengers tend to rely on their own sources of funding, in the form of candidate contributions and loans from the candidates themselves. For all House candidates in 2004, candidate contributions and loans totaled $25.7 million or just over 4% of all sources of funding. But in 2004, incumbents turned to themselves for just $1.38 million of the $25.7 million. Meaning that candidate contributions to incumbent races equated to just 0.3% of funds raised by incumbents.
On the other hand, challengers went to their own pockets for $14.94 million, representing 16.3 percent of their funding. Open seat candidates raided their own piggy banks for $9.39 million, which comprises 12.3% of their fundraising. Open seat and challengers must spend of their own funds regularly just to compete. Adding insult to injury, Congress enacted the Millionaire's Amendment, which grants candidates facing self-funded candidates the right to raise funds under increased limits. Since, as we have seen, incumbent rarely self-fund, the candidates most likely to benefit from the Millionaire's Amendment increased limits are incumbents, further exacerbating the funding inequities.
So what can be done to relieve the funding inequities in congressional campaigns. One proposal has been to institute some sort of public financing of campaigns with voluntary limits on spending in order to obtain the public funds. However, the need for money in campaigns may far outstrip the willingness of taxpayers to support the system. Furthermore, I would object to having my tax dollars spent to enable someone to get elected.
Expenditure limits have been expressly struck down by the courts as violative of First Amendment rights. But oddly enough limits on receipts are okay. The Buckley logic still escapes me since the disclosure regime would ensure that candidates pass the "red-face" test on all contributions. Large contributions from individuals would have to be explained--something neither the candidate or the contributor may be willing to do.
However, what if the window of fundraising were limited. Already many states have a prohibition on fundraising during the legislative session. Clearly, limiting fundraising to periods when Congress is in recess would not work in a national legislature generally in session all the time. But what if the fundraising time for all candidates was limited in time by some other mechanism. Now the heart of the proposal.
I propose the passage of legislation that would:
This proposal does not completely elminiate the incumbent advantage since incumbents will still be able to command more from PACs and other contributors, but it does eliminate a significant advantage available to incumbents--fundraising during the off-year to build a treasury to scare off challengers. With everyone starting at zero, or close to it, the playing field is leveled to a good extent. The limited fundraising window may also serve to increase the competitiveness of elections, allowing candidates who otherwise would be so far behind in the fundraising competition that they simply do not enter the race.
Money is the life-blood of politics, it cannot be escaped and the efforts of reform groups to eliminate money from politics engage in a quixotic quest. The lack of turnover in Congress is also troubling, this proposal may not be the ultimate solution, but it is a start to try to truly level the playing field.
Traditionally, campaign finance laws have been justified under the guise of prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. Today, the concept has been carried forward by so-called "reformers" to include the concept of "circumvention," meaning that money men and women will look for ways around the laws. The fact that circumvention might happed does not take a great leap of congnition.
The problem with the current campaign finance system is not special interest money. Here are some facts.
- In 1976, when the Federal Election Campaign Act as upheld by the Supreme Court in Buckely v. Valeo first applied to federal campaigns the average cost of a campaign for the House of Representatives was just over $80,000. The maximum PAC contribution of $10,000 ($5,000 for the primary and $5,000 for the general election) comprised about 13% of a campaigns budget.
- In 2004, the average House campaign was $534,200 (this is for all candidates), meaning that a $10,000 contribution from a PAC comprised just 1.8% of their budget.
The simple fact remains, the impact of the special interest dollar is far less today that it was 30 years ago when campaign finance law really took effect. So the reform community really can't argue with the financially reduced impact of PAC or special interest money--even when pooled together. Furthermore, according the FEC statistics, "Contributions from individuals totaled $613 million and continue to be the largest source of receipts for Congressional candidates, representing 62% of all fundraising." (note that the FEC includes Senate races in those totals).
Is the problem money in general? Perhaps, but a greater concern should not be money in general, but the distrbution of money in the system. In most of my examples, I will be using House of Representatives data from 2004 because it is relatively recent and House races are roughly equal. While some district face higher advertising costs, those districts tend to be much more compact, making travel cheaper. For more geographcially large districts, the advertising costs are smaller, but travel costs are higher. In the end, the average house campaign is roughly equal in population and general costs.
- Incumbents by far reap among the $613.8 million dollars raised by House candidates in 2004, incumbents received $445.9 million or 72% of the money and that was not for 435 candidates, but 405 incumbents, an average of $1.1 million per incumbent.
- Challengers to incumbents garner far less funds, just $91.7 million or just shy of 15% of funds. For the 650 challenger candidates running for the House 2004, that equates to an average of $141,000 per candidates or a little more than 10% of the average incumbent war chest.
- Open seat candidates gathered the remaining 13% of funds, totaling $76.2 million. But spread over just 94 candidates, the average open seat House candidate raised $810,000--a competitive sum.
As a result of the vast inequties of funding distrubution, open seat and challengers tend to rely on their own sources of funding, in the form of candidate contributions and loans from the candidates themselves. For all House candidates in 2004, candidate contributions and loans totaled $25.7 million or just over 4% of all sources of funding. But in 2004, incumbents turned to themselves for just $1.38 million of the $25.7 million. Meaning that candidate contributions to incumbent races equated to just 0.3% of funds raised by incumbents.
On the other hand, challengers went to their own pockets for $14.94 million, representing 16.3 percent of their funding. Open seat candidates raided their own piggy banks for $9.39 million, which comprises 12.3% of their fundraising. Open seat and challengers must spend of their own funds regularly just to compete. Adding insult to injury, Congress enacted the Millionaire's Amendment, which grants candidates facing self-funded candidates the right to raise funds under increased limits. Since, as we have seen, incumbent rarely self-fund, the candidates most likely to benefit from the Millionaire's Amendment increased limits are incumbents, further exacerbating the funding inequities.
So what can be done to relieve the funding inequities in congressional campaigns. One proposal has been to institute some sort of public financing of campaigns with voluntary limits on spending in order to obtain the public funds. However, the need for money in campaigns may far outstrip the willingness of taxpayers to support the system. Furthermore, I would object to having my tax dollars spent to enable someone to get elected.
Expenditure limits have been expressly struck down by the courts as violative of First Amendment rights. But oddly enough limits on receipts are okay. The Buckley logic still escapes me since the disclosure regime would ensure that candidates pass the "red-face" test on all contributions. Large contributions from individuals would have to be explained--something neither the candidate or the contributor may be willing to do.
However, what if the window of fundraising were limited. Already many states have a prohibition on fundraising during the legislative session. Clearly, limiting fundraising to periods when Congress is in recess would not work in a national legislature generally in session all the time. But what if the fundraising time for all candidates was limited in time by some other mechanism. Now the heart of the proposal.
I propose the passage of legislation that would:
- Ban the raising of all funds for re-election or election campaigns until Jan. 1 of the year of the general election. Essentially, fundraising for campaigns would take place only in even numbered years.
- Prohibit the carrying over of funds from previous elections. One common means to scaring off challengers is have a big bank balance, if all candidates have to start at zero or some de minimis amount, like $10,000 or so, the early funding advantage for incumbents is eliminated.
- Those who are elected and have debts may raise funds to pay down the debts, but no more until the start of the next even numbered year.
- For those who are elected, the candidate must dispose of excess campaign funds by March 31 of the following year in the means currently allowed, usually throught contribution to party committees or charities.
- Special election fundraising can only begin when the governor declares the vacancy and all candidates must start from scratch.
- Political parties and PACs would be able to continue to raise funds at all times.
- Allowances for Presidential campaigns can be made, allowing fundraising to begin fundraising earlier.
This proposal does not completely elminiate the incumbent advantage since incumbents will still be able to command more from PACs and other contributors, but it does eliminate a significant advantage available to incumbents--fundraising during the off-year to build a treasury to scare off challengers. With everyone starting at zero, or close to it, the playing field is leveled to a good extent. The limited fundraising window may also serve to increase the competitiveness of elections, allowing candidates who otherwise would be so far behind in the fundraising competition that they simply do not enter the race.
Money is the life-blood of politics, it cannot be escaped and the efforts of reform groups to eliminate money from politics engage in a quixotic quest. The lack of turnover in Congress is also troubling, this proposal may not be the ultimate solution, but it is a start to try to truly level the playing field.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Not Reading History
Holy Founding Fathers, Batman!!
Also from the NY Times today, comes this troubling story about the civic education of our young people today. While the less than 20 % of young people in New York City not making the grade in social studies is downright scary, the fact that less that 44% of students statewide don't make the grade engenders as much fear in me as the New York City statistic.
While it can be admitted that the NCLB points the focus, rightly in many respects, on reading and math achievement, I am wondering what kids are reading. I love literature and fiction, but if you have to teach a kid to read, why then can't we require the reading to sometimes be about history, civics, government and current events?
As a student of politics, history and the government, I am continually shocked by the lack of emphasis being placed on the understanding of history and our government--at all levels of education. In addition to the dismal performance of elementary and secondary education to provide a foundation of knowledge, colleges and universities fail to require a class in government or history for all students. We must, as a nation, understand a common political heritage as it affects the very fabric of our nation. I used to laugh when Jay Leno's Man on the Street would ask who the Chief Justice was or who the vice President was, but now I find the questions demeaning, particularly when friends from other countries know more about our government than average Americans.
I cannot blame the students for this one. This quote from the article sent shivers down my spine:
New York State administers social studies exams in fifth and eighth grades, but officials said the results get little scrutiny because they are not among the criteria used to determine if schools are performing adequately, either under state regulations or the federal No Child Left Behind law.
"The truth is we do not use it as a measure of accountability," said Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the New York State Department of Education.
Big points to the Department of Education for candor, but candor does not comfort in all cases. Yet, I still have a few problems.
I beleive the lack of voting activity of more than third of Americans in presidential elections and over half in congressional elections is a direct result of the lack of a civics education in elementary and secondary schools. One of the tweaks that should be made to NCLB and state requirements is a stringent history and government requirement. What is the point of a child who can read, but can't understand how our country came to be or how the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary branches interact or who their Congressman and Senators are?
Most City 8th Graders Miss State Norm in Social Studies - New York Times
Also from the NY Times today, comes this troubling story about the civic education of our young people today. While the less than 20 % of young people in New York City not making the grade in social studies is downright scary, the fact that less that 44% of students statewide don't make the grade engenders as much fear in me as the New York City statistic.
While it can be admitted that the NCLB points the focus, rightly in many respects, on reading and math achievement, I am wondering what kids are reading. I love literature and fiction, but if you have to teach a kid to read, why then can't we require the reading to sometimes be about history, civics, government and current events?
As a student of politics, history and the government, I am continually shocked by the lack of emphasis being placed on the understanding of history and our government--at all levels of education. In addition to the dismal performance of elementary and secondary education to provide a foundation of knowledge, colleges and universities fail to require a class in government or history for all students. We must, as a nation, understand a common political heritage as it affects the very fabric of our nation. I used to laugh when Jay Leno's Man on the Street would ask who the Chief Justice was or who the vice President was, but now I find the questions demeaning, particularly when friends from other countries know more about our government than average Americans.
I cannot blame the students for this one. This quote from the article sent shivers down my spine:
New York State administers social studies exams in fifth and eighth grades, but officials said the results get little scrutiny because they are not among the criteria used to determine if schools are performing adequately, either under state regulations or the federal No Child Left Behind law.
"The truth is we do not use it as a measure of accountability," said Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the New York State Department of Education.
Big points to the Department of Education for candor, but candor does not comfort in all cases. Yet, I still have a few problems.
- The taxpayer in me asks why test something (at a cost of millions of dollars per year) and then not including it as a measure of accountability. Test as a measure, but measure your tests.
- The parent in me would ask, why are you subjecting kids to a test with no purpose in terms of teacher/school/school system accountability.
- Finally, the citizen in my cries out for including social studies testing in measures of accountability, because as we all know, if it is tested (and means something) it will be taught.
I beleive the lack of voting activity of more than third of Americans in presidential elections and over half in congressional elections is a direct result of the lack of a civics education in elementary and secondary schools. One of the tweaks that should be made to NCLB and state requirements is a stringent history and government requirement. What is the point of a child who can read, but can't understand how our country came to be or how the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary branches interact or who their Congressman and Senators are?
Most City 8th Graders Miss State Norm in Social Studies - New York Times
Paying for Illegal Immigrant Health Care?
From the NY Times today:
The Bush administration announced on Monday that it would start paying hospitals and doctors for providing emergency care to illegal immigrants....But Dr. Mark B. McClellan, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said a hospital should not directly ask a patient "if he or she is an undocumented alien."
The humanitarian side of me says we should provide medical care to illegal immigrants who happen to need it and to a certain extent I am fine with that. I am also of the opinion that the federal government should pay--to a point.
But why are we not asking someone if they are an undocemented alien. These people come to our country illegally and unless they can qualify for some asylum status, they should be returned to their country as soon as their health allows. This Administration's policies on illegal immigration seems contradictory to their efforts to protect Homeland security. Every agency in America which possesses an opportunity to aid in homeland security should do so, even if it is a hospital. This requirement not to ask if a patient is an undocumented alien flies in the face of other policies.
Let's say, for example, a man comes in with a gun shot wound. Perhaps he was shot by a criminal and perhaps he is a criminal himself. Regardless, the hospital must report the gunshot wound to the authorities. Similarly, if a child comes in and the hospital suspects child abuse, they must call the authorities. If an injured criminal comes to the hospital, they will get treatment--and an escort to jail after treatment is concluded.
Why then should illegal immigrants be treated any differently. In fact, since the illegal immigrant knows she/he has come into the country illegally, they know they are in violation of the law and subject to sanction. Why shouldn't the hospitals notify the authorities if they suspect or know a patient is in the United States illegally? What about illegal immigration makes it different from child abuse or gunshot wounds or the treatment of injured criminals.
We have a moral duty to provide health care, but we also have a legal and moral duty to protect our nation's borders.
Payments to Help Hospitals Care for Illegal Immigrants - New York Times
The Bush administration announced on Monday that it would start paying hospitals and doctors for providing emergency care to illegal immigrants....But Dr. Mark B. McClellan, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said a hospital should not directly ask a patient "if he or she is an undocumented alien."
The humanitarian side of me says we should provide medical care to illegal immigrants who happen to need it and to a certain extent I am fine with that. I am also of the opinion that the federal government should pay--to a point.
But why are we not asking someone if they are an undocemented alien. These people come to our country illegally and unless they can qualify for some asylum status, they should be returned to their country as soon as their health allows. This Administration's policies on illegal immigration seems contradictory to their efforts to protect Homeland security. Every agency in America which possesses an opportunity to aid in homeland security should do so, even if it is a hospital. This requirement not to ask if a patient is an undocumented alien flies in the face of other policies.
Let's say, for example, a man comes in with a gun shot wound. Perhaps he was shot by a criminal and perhaps he is a criminal himself. Regardless, the hospital must report the gunshot wound to the authorities. Similarly, if a child comes in and the hospital suspects child abuse, they must call the authorities. If an injured criminal comes to the hospital, they will get treatment--and an escort to jail after treatment is concluded.
Why then should illegal immigrants be treated any differently. In fact, since the illegal immigrant knows she/he has come into the country illegally, they know they are in violation of the law and subject to sanction. Why shouldn't the hospitals notify the authorities if they suspect or know a patient is in the United States illegally? What about illegal immigration makes it different from child abuse or gunshot wounds or the treatment of injured criminals.
We have a moral duty to provide health care, but we also have a legal and moral duty to protect our nation's borders.
Payments to Help Hospitals Care for Illegal Immigrants - New York Times
"Congentially Democratic?"
In a report from the Washington Post about the gender gap in politics:
Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said that she could not comment on the
specifics of the polls but that she agreed with the general thrust of Lake's
findings. "Women, if left to their own devices, are going to tend and trend
Democratic. That is absolutely the case," she said. "Women are still
congenitally Democratic -- and I'm the Republican pollster saying that."
I don't share the belief that women are "congentially" Democratic--despite polling evidence that speaks to the contrary. Women, while generally more Democratic than the population as a whole, tend to lean toward those issue which have a "fuzzy" edge: healthcare, Social Security, family and economic issues. But the flaw in the poll, as pointed out by the article, is based on the almost generic description of Congressional candidates. I have long held, in repeated posts, that the way parties treat voters assumes the intelligence level of an idiot.
But what appeals to women voters, just as much as male voters, is not issues with warm and fuzzy appeals, but rather candidates with ideas to address their issues. There will always be a segment of voters who will vote one or another based solely on party identification, which is fine. But the swing voters in America will always respond to ideas. Bush won in 2004 because he had ideas, right or wrong, and people could formulate an opinion based on those ideas. Kerry--well not so much.
Currently, the Democrats continue to fail to pursue ideas and base their strategy on being anti-Bush. Something that is not going to win friends and influence people--including women.
I believe that once candidates with real ideas are presented to people, you will begin to see changes in that gender gap.
Women Returning to Democratic Party, Poll Finds
Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said that she could not comment on the
specifics of the polls but that she agreed with the general thrust of Lake's
findings. "Women, if left to their own devices, are going to tend and trend
Democratic. That is absolutely the case," she said. "Women are still
congenitally Democratic -- and I'm the Republican pollster saying that."
I don't share the belief that women are "congentially" Democratic--despite polling evidence that speaks to the contrary. Women, while generally more Democratic than the population as a whole, tend to lean toward those issue which have a "fuzzy" edge: healthcare, Social Security, family and economic issues. But the flaw in the poll, as pointed out by the article, is based on the almost generic description of Congressional candidates. I have long held, in repeated posts, that the way parties treat voters assumes the intelligence level of an idiot.
But what appeals to women voters, just as much as male voters, is not issues with warm and fuzzy appeals, but rather candidates with ideas to address their issues. There will always be a segment of voters who will vote one or another based solely on party identification, which is fine. But the swing voters in America will always respond to ideas. Bush won in 2004 because he had ideas, right or wrong, and people could formulate an opinion based on those ideas. Kerry--well not so much.
Currently, the Democrats continue to fail to pursue ideas and base their strategy on being anti-Bush. Something that is not going to win friends and influence people--including women.
I believe that once candidates with real ideas are presented to people, you will begin to see changes in that gender gap.
Women Returning to Democratic Party, Poll Finds
Opinions Galore
Now that I am not suffering under the law school exam gun, the opinion machine begins to rage. Coming soon to a blog near you--Opinions Galore.
Here goes......
Here goes......
A semi-Endorsement for Arnold's Redistricting Plan
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had proposed to change the way in which congressional and state legislative districts are drawn in California. Instead of the power residing with the legislature (who has a real conflict of interest in the matter), he proposed replacing the legislature with a panel of retired judges.
The wisdom of Schwarzenegger's proposal and politics for getting past aside, The San Francisco Chronicle (definitely not one of hte governor's media supporters) offered a back-handed approval of the goal of the effort.
California, like most states, suffers from the very long term service of most House members, perhaps to the detriment of the nation. Many members of Congress, once elected are virtually unbeatable save for scandal, ambition to run for another office, old age or death. The incumbent has so many advantages that need to be blunted, but the fact that a legislature can draw a district map that threatens no-one (called a sweetheart gerrymander) offends the notion of fair play.
Competition for Congress
The wisdom of Schwarzenegger's proposal and politics for getting past aside, The San Francisco Chronicle (definitely not one of hte governor's media supporters) offered a back-handed approval of the goal of the effort.
California, like most states, suffers from the very long term service of most House members, perhaps to the detriment of the nation. Many members of Congress, once elected are virtually unbeatable save for scandal, ambition to run for another office, old age or death. The incumbent has so many advantages that need to be blunted, but the fact that a legislature can draw a district map that threatens no-one (called a sweetheart gerrymander) offends the notion of fair play.
Competition for Congress
For First Time, Scholars Link Voting, Religion
This looks like an interesting study discussed in Roll Call (subscription required). The link between Congressional voting and religion may be a bit more tenuous that seems to be suggested. I am not sure the link between regligion and party ID is not stronger than the researchers may believe, but at least someone is looking at the issue.
It has been widely known that churchgoers vote in elections far more regularly than non-churchgoers. But whethe Congressmen allow their religious beliefs to influence their voting patterns is not as well known. I would imagine that on inherenly moral issues (such as abortion or right to die matters) that there may some correlation between religion and votes, but whether religion influences the more day to day voting patterns seems a little far-fetched to me. So much of Congressional voting patterns can be traced to partisan identification and consitutent needs/desires.
I hope to be able to get this study sometime soon.
For First Time, Scholars Link Voting, Religion
It has been widely known that churchgoers vote in elections far more regularly than non-churchgoers. But whethe Congressmen allow their religious beliefs to influence their voting patterns is not as well known. I would imagine that on inherenly moral issues (such as abortion or right to die matters) that there may some correlation between religion and votes, but whether religion influences the more day to day voting patterns seems a little far-fetched to me. So much of Congressional voting patterns can be traced to partisan identification and consitutent needs/desires.
I hope to be able to get this study sometime soon.
For First Time, Scholars Link Voting, Religion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)