This will serve to make it official. Only our wise government overlords and criminals (yes, these are one in the same) can use force.

Don’t be fooled. This has nothing to do with Trayvon. Regardless of what really happened with Trayvon (contrary to popular belief, the media is not a jury of anyone’s peers — remember Duke Lacrosse), he is now both unfortunately dead and a pawn of a ruling class bent upon preserving preserving their monopoly on deadly force.

In a blog post last week, E.J. Montini wrongly misinterpreted intent and history of a recently filed application for citizens initiative in Arizona relating to nullification of federal law.

Montini writes:

According to the Arizona Capitol Times a group of citizens is trying to do what the Legislature has tried and failed to do not so long ago – secede from the union.

A reading of the initiative as filed reveals that Montini is sensationalizing the scope of the initiative, and/or is entirely unclear of the states rights notion of nullification, as opposed to secession.

The initiative clearly affirms the right of the State of Arizona to reject any federal law deemed unconstitutional.  It is clearly not a call for the State of Arizona to secede from the Union should it deem a law unconstituional

The doctrine of nullification invoked in this initiative has a long and valid history.  Our Founders and those instrumental in the authoring of the US Constitution supported the notion of states nullifying federal law as an important check on federal power.  The concept was discussed and supported as a necessary factor for ratifying the US Constitution in the 1788 Virginia ratifying convention.  Thomas Jefferson introduced the term “nullification” in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

Far from the radical notion of secession, nullification, although mostly forgotten, is a critical check on federal power, and could act as such today.

Montini’s lumping nullification into the more radical notion of secession, and his mockery of it , demonstrate his disregard for history, and his inability to accept the idea that anyone besides our wise federal overlords can possibly govern.  In Montini’s mind, dissent at the state level violates the status of ordinary citizens as chattel of our federal masters, and is thus worthy of mockery.

Tom Woods, a best selling author and a far smarter and more studied historian and scholar that Montini might ever dream of becoming, has written extensively on the doctrine of nullification.

In summary, George Takie expressed shock and dismay over Asian workers treatment as they exercised the opportunity presented by industrialization to better their lives by moving from communal subsistence farming to factory jobs.

Setting aside Takei’s ignorance of the economics of emerging economies and his overflowing western guilt, his post turns out to have one major flaw.

It’s based upon lies.

It turns out that This American Life, the radio show who broadcast the piece by Mike Daisey that set off the firestorm of liberal guilt did some fact checking after airing the piece, and found it lacking one of the basic elements of good journalism:  truth.  BBC reports on their retraction here.

The problem is that George Takei hasn’t issued a retraction or follow-up on his blog post.  In fact, the liberal media and anti-capitalist pundits have largely ignored the retraction, and continue to whine about the unfairness of horrible capitalism.

I offer an explanation of this lack of follow-up.  They don’t care about the workers for whom they expressed concern.  They were merely easy weapons to be used in an ongoing attack on capitalism.

I like George Takei and his blog.  I hope he proves me wrong.  I doubt he will.

The comment, questioning the accuracy of my claim that Arizona’s law allowing registered conceal carry of guns was passed in 1994, is brief but deceptive in it’s importance.

Rich Moss ‎@ jack we just passed the conceal carry law so your data does not show any changes made by the law yet…. if we passed it in 1994, then it would show proof.

Simple enough:  Rich confused the recent unrestricted concealed carry law with the much earlier law allowing concealed carry with permit (CCW).  He was mistaken (and yes, I’m the jerk who points this out).  I was correct, and his comment turned out to support my claim that violent crime began to decrease immediately after passage of the registered conceal carry law.

Bully for me.

There’s much more importance to this.

Rich, who is politically aware enough to specifically question another comment’s accuracy on the Facebook page of a veteran Arizona Republic columnist, has been unaware that his fellow Arizona citizens have been legally carrying concealed guns since 1994.

Wait!  The anti-firearm crowd would have us believe that Arizona is the wild west (if the wild west were actually wild, lawless, and full of frequent shoot-outs) due to our gun laws.

But here’s a seemingly rational, informed guy who had no idea that his neighbors were packing heat for the last 18 years.  He likely hasn’t been shot as a result, or shown the business side of a gun.  Easy access to guns by his law abiding neighbors changed his life so little that he never noticed them carrying guns.

In this sense, EJ Montini is right.  Arizona gun owners are indeed responsible.

In his post, he states,

The easy access to firearms in Arizona has NOT made us the safest state in the nation.

Nor has it made us the UNSAFEST.

The problem here is Montini’s application of statistics.  He fails to define what he means by safe.  However, let’s assume his notion of safe relates to crime.  Comparing crime rates between a state like Arizona, with nonrestrictive gun laws, to states with more restrictive gun laws is a false comparison.  It fails to take into account the myriad of other factors influencing crime rates in a given locality.

The better comparison is to look at crime rates within Arizona before and after significant changes in gun laws.  A graph of such a comparison is included below.  It charts violent crimes in Arizona per 100,000 in population.

Note that the graph takes a marked downturn after 1994.

Arizona began allowing concealed carry guns in 1994.

Source: DisasterCenter.com

A brokered convention occurs when no single candidate has the required number of delegates to achieve nomination on the first vote at the convention. The last brokered convention was the 1952 Democratic National Convention, from which Adlai Stevenson emerged as nominee. FDR was the last nominee to emerge from a brokered convention to win the presidency, in 1932.

The possibility of a brokered convention raises questions.

Just how divided are the social conservative Santorum supporters from the old-guard Romney supporters? Are they so divided that compromise via political horse-trading will not allow one of the two candidates to emerge as victor?

Is the GOP capable of unifying around a new, white-knight candidate drafted on the convention floor?

Is the GOP divided to the extent that compromise is not an option for a signficant number of party members?

If the last of these is the case, then I suggest that this situation is precisely the sort of environment that generates an independent candidate, or even better, a third party.

Granted, a third party or independent candidate carrying the flag for social conservatives or moderates is hardly the party or candidate to provide much of an alternative from status quo politics; however, perhaps that sort of splintering might open the door for cracks in the two party system. I admit, it’s a long shot, proposed with an unusual degree of optimism on my part; however, strange times and unusual situations are fertile ground for change.

This is the sort of change for which we can all hold out hope, and perhaps endorse if given the opportunity.

Montini begins:

A couple of hundred “thugs” are expected to gather at the State Capitol Thursday.

I thought perhaps he was referring to our legislators, but was disappointed to find that he was making an overly dramatic point by claiming that those of us horrible people who oppose public employee unions view public employees as “thugs.”

Although I try to avoid judging individuals based upon their group affiliations (I’m intolerant of nearly everyone based upon their merit as individuals), I should give Montini credit.  I do view some public employees as thieves, lazily scamming the taxpayers for wages rather than earning them by hard work.  I’ve detailed my complaints against some in Arizona Department of Education here, here, and here.

Montini’s defense of public employees and their unions relies largely on an appeal to emotions.   This is nothing new.  It’s the “we need higher taxes for the children” argument, a powerful motivator since many voters have completely lost the ability to reason rationally or philosophically, and can easily be swayed from whatever remains of a residual sense of wrongness by sentimental arguments.  The appeal to emotion is a great tactic when one has no real argument.

In sentence fragments that would make a high school grammar teacher he defends cringe, Montini writes of our public employee union members.

They’re the people to whom you trust your children. Or count on to process your tax returns or business licenses. The people you call in the middle of the night when you hear a noise outside your window. The men and women who respond to your 911 call when you smell smoke. The people who come in the ambulance when your husband is experiencing chest pains.

He’s correct.  Our public servants, our fire fighters, paramedics, police officers, and teachers provide valuable services to the taxpayers (services that should be privatized, but that’s a different argument).  They should be rewarded for these services, and they are.  They’re paid wages.

Montini wants those wages and compensation packages, including job security promotions, benefits, and such, to be subject to and determined by collective bargaining conducted by labor unions.

It’s easy to be swayed by this argument.  The problem is that this appeal to emotion hides the fact that there is no reasonable, rational argument for this to be the case.

Public employees are paid by tax dollars, appropriated by elected officials.  Union dues, garnished from the paychecks of public workers, are used to fund the election campaigns of elected officials sympathetic to the union cause.  In this fashion, public employee unions essentially choose their bosses.

In the private sector, this model is not dissimilar from that of an employee owned business.  Employees elect board members, who run the company.  If the company performs poorly under the management of these board members, the board members can be replaced.

The government doesn’t work this way.  The government is not a business and has no profit motive nor real repercussions for poor performance, except for the replacement of elected officials.

However, public employee unions fund the election of public officials, who then reward the union membership with higher wages, better benefits, and greater job security, all funded by the taxpayers.  There is no incentive for these elected officials, nor the workers whose unions funded their campaigns, to deliver better services at lower costs, because governments very rarely go bankrupt.  They simply tap the taxpayers for more money.  Voters can replace these elected officials, but this is difficult in an environment where they are well-funded by union campaign donations.

In this way, public employee unions perpetuate government waste.

Despite the history of the labor movement in the private sector, whether or not one agrees with it, comparing public employee unions to private employee unions is not a valid comparison.  They are very different, and the same labor regulations should not apply.

Abolishing public employee unions is a step toward better and more efficient government.

I could not find a transcript of this address on the Arizona state legislature site, although it did mention that he spoke here, nor could I find a transcript on the Arizona Department of Education web site using reasonable search terms.  However, Sonoran Alliance published a transcript on its web site.  References to specific content in Super John’s address are based upon Sonoran Alliance’s transcript.

In the conclusion of his address, Super John drew attention to the Free Throws program, without explaining anything about it.  He stated:

Now I’d like to share with you an exciting and promising classroom redesign program we are piloting with hundreds of students in several schools, with the promise of over 8,000 students in one school district alone. While still early in the process, our pilot program, Freethrows, is beginning to show enormous promise for significantly improving elementary math achievement, basic math fluency and student engagement.

We also have the opportunity to develop a Freethrows program for language arts and phonics. Our expectation is that Freethrows Language Arts will substantially increase student literacy and help all students excel under “Move on when Reading.”We are committed to having every child reach proficiency in reading by 3rd grade.

Reading proficiency is the cornerstone to future academic success; we cannot leave one child behind. We are asking you to follow our math progress in Yuma elementary District. If we can continue to produce the excellent results in student math growth, that we have initially observed, we expect that you will want us to develop a Freethrows environment to produce the same great results in reading proficiency.

What is this magnificent Free Throws program, you might ask.

Free Throws is an educational computer game.

I am not criticizing the use of computer gaming for education.  I’m in favor of it.  However, I am criticizing the fact that ADE IT (in cooperation with ASU) is inventing this game from scratch, to the tune of at least $10M.

Instructional software is not a new commercial development.  Take a spin through the toy section of Target, and you’ll see fantastic and inexpensive educational computer games from Leapfrog.  There are plenty of other vendors offering a wide variety of software, and I suspect that a number of these vendors would welcome the opportunity to partner with ADE and ASU to customize their products to meet the needs of Arizona schools.

In the ADE strategic plan for 2011-2012,  mention is made of identifying commercially available software options for the Free Throws project (to be completed by October 31, 2011).  How thorough was this search?  What companies were contacted?  Why were they rejected in favor of a massively expensive in-house development effort?

In the same strategic plan, dates are wrapped around release milestones in the Free Throws project.

9. By June 1, 2013, launch a redesigned classroom to achieve breakthrough-levels of academic gain
Objectives:
a. Conduct 4th grade Free Throws (Math fluency) pilot in at least 9 elementary schools, and evaluate and report results against control group by June 1, 2012
b. Conduct Mind Research (conceptual Math) pilot in at least 15 elementary schools, and evaluate results against control group by June 1, 2012
c. Conduct “blended pilot” of Free Throw, Khan and Mind Research in at least one elementary school by June 1, 2012, conduct analysis and report on effects.
d. By June 15, 2012, develop at least 3rd grade through 6th grade Free Throws modules for implementation for the 2013 school year.
e. Develop framework for Free Throws-type language arts learning in at least three grades by June 15, 2012, and prepare a pilot to be implemented in at least 10 schools in the 2013 school year.
f. By October 31, 2011, identify viable options from commercially available software applications to evaluate adaptive technology options for Math and Language Arts.

June 2012 appears a lot there for pilots.

If pilot programs are set to begin in June 2012, exactly what is showing promise in “piloting with hundreds of students in several schools” as Super John claims?  My sources in ADE indicate that a version of Free Throws does exist and has been developed in cooperation with ASU for several years (with development costs to the tune of $15M).

Why wasn’t a search for commercial alternatives or partners conducted prior to now (or least prior to the October, 2011 deadline)?  Is it reasonable to expect that the state is going to attract the kind of software development talent present in the private sector for educational software development?  That’s a rhetorical question.

Since a version of Free Throws already exists, what effort and cost is involved in rolling it out to more schools, for pilots and full release?  Is this software scalable?

Given the prominence of Free Throws in Super John’s speech, one must also ask the question:  is a computer game really the best example of success ADE can showcase?

[Added 2/29/2012:  The Repugnant did a rather big article lauding Super John for Free Throws.  They disagree with my sources within ADE IT on budget by several million dollars.]

As reported, the bill is part of the Goldwater Institute’s contributions to the state legislative agenda. The Repugnant’s editorial was followed quickly by a Facebook update by big-fish-in-a-small-pond EJ Montini and a post completely devoid of original content by the Arizona DNC marionettes at Blog For Arizona. This kind of rapid mobilization of the Arizona talking point leftists is usually reserved for anything involving immigration or Sheriff Joe, and I’m certain a protest in Tucson will follow tomorrow.

This is all quite easy to joke about, and that’s my point. The ordinarily sensible Goldwater Institute has slid into a pit of legislative cynicism by proposing this measure.

The Arizona legislature is considering a new bill that punishes the legislature for passing too many bills. Under the guise of protecting taxpayers from pointless and burdensome regulation, the bill introduces additional hoops through which taxpayers seeking the tax relief offered by the bill must jump, and will inevitably create additional bureaucracy in order to process claims for tax credits.

I think the absurdity and cynicism evidenced in this bill are telling. It’s the legislative equivalent of pinning down your little brother and making him hit himself with his own fist. But state government and tax law are much more serious than sibling horseplay. Regulations affect people’s lives. Taxes affect people’s lives. This sort of “we’ll show you” lashing out is not a solution. Rather, it exacerbates the problem.

Rather than HB 2815 punishing the state for excessive regulation, the Goldwater Institute, state and local governments, and taxpayers should spend their time and energy rolling back the laws that create the excessive regulation.

This is all well and good — ADE school performance data is a mess.  However, the solution doesn’t require a tax credit to inject additional money into the already bloated education budget.  It involves sound data management in keeping with best practices already used by nearly every private sector organization that has realized the benefits of data mining.

Regardless of whether I agree with State management of  education, I do agree with the necessity of sound performance metrics for schools and teachers based upon reliable and consistent data.  If we are to measure performance of schools, then we need to have consistent data upon which to base performance metrics.  That’s a no-brainer, right?

No, not right, at least in the bizarre world of bureaucratic government.

ADE is funded, in large part, by federal and state programs that specify specific (or not so specific) action plans and metrics for measuring the success of those action plans.

So, for instance, ADE might get a federal grant of $5M for third grade reading learning.  Attached to this grant are metrics to measure success.  ADE passes those metrics along to the schools participating in the program, and requires schools to provide data to fuel those metrics.

And then there’s another grant, for $10M, for 2-4 grade reading learning.  Attached to this grant are metrics to measure success, slightly different from the metrics and data required for the previous third grade reading program.  So, ADE  passes those metrics along to the schools participating in the program, and requires schools to provide data to fuel those metrics.

Multiply this times 100.  Seriously — this is how ADE gets its funding, and this is how schools and districts get ancillary funding.  In trade, the schools and districts must supply overlapping data sets for each program.

Reporting this data costs money.  In fact, it costs a lot of money.  The cost is multiplied by ADE, who separates each program and data set, so even if multiple programs report the same data, each program is held separate and must report its data separately.  So, a school might report progress for students over a 3 month period, and separately  report progress for students on a 12 month period that contains that 3 month period.  Separate teams in ADE information technology will manage this data for grant program purposes.

Private organizations who give a crap about profit and waste have a mechanism of serving these separate data reporting needs from a single source.  It’s called a data warehouse.  The organization gathers a bunch of data, once, and stores it.  Reports to fulfill various reporting needs draw from this central data warehouse.  They gather data once, and it serves multiple needs.

ADE doesn’t need more money for data management, as Huppenthal claims.  ADE needs to adopt fundamental IT best practices to better serve its customers  (the taxpayers).  This isn’t rocket science.  It’s 20 year proven IT best practices.

But the fact is, ADE can’t do this.  It needs more money.  It needs more money because it employs a bunch of lazy idiots who haven’t had fresh skills in 20 years.  Even if they did have fresh skills, they won’t use them, because the efficiencies gained from those skills would render jobs obsolete.

Huppenthal cannot solve this problem with more money.  He can solve this problem with new talent, new ideas, and fewer idiots on the ADE payroll.