O Holiday Tree!

"Personally, I like to say 'Merry Christmas,' but yesterday, when some shopkeepers said 'Happy Holidays' to me and I said 'Merry Christmas,' I had the disgusting feeling that we had just engaged in a political argument!"

Ann Althouse, December 5, 2005

And they’re off!

No sooner has the turkey been eaten and the hunting gear stowed than we’re back to defending the word “Christmas.”

It’s a slippery slope, you know. Gving in to “Christmas” is that very last step: the one that gives, just a little, and makes you think maybe this path isn't all that safe. And then you’re hurtling breakneck down the muddy embankment until you run smack into theocratic despotism.

And then you stop.

The Assembly Committee on State Affairs held a hearing this week on Assembly Joint Resolution 5, calling for the state’s “Holiday Tree,” which for all the world looks exactly like an enormous Christmas tree, to be called a “Christmas Tree.”

[Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids)] said the tree was known as a Christmas tree from 1916 until wobbly state officials changed its name in 1985.

"I am here today to voice the ire and frustration of the majority of people of the state of Wisconsin who want their Christmas tree back in the state Capitol, not a politically correct holiday tree," Schneider said, nearly shouting.

And in this corner:

Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation said lawmakers shouldn't waste their time debating such trivial issues. Calling it a "Christmas" tree would offend nonreligious people and amount to a government endorsement of Christianity, she added.

Yeah, okay. Fine. We’ll find a nice, big evergreen that looks just like a Christmas tree; we’ll decorate it with lights and cute child-made ornaments, just like a Christmas tree; we’ll put it up right after Thanksgiving and take it down after New Year’s, when most of the rest of the Western world is celebrating…wait for it…Christmas.

We just won’t call it a Christmas tree. Problem solved.

If Ms. Gaylor were serious, she’d insist that we have no tree at all. It means something, no matter what you call it.

But then she’d miss out on the free publicity.

Here’s the rub: in a broad, vague, theoretical sense, Ms. Gaylor is correct. Government shouldn’t make statements of any kind – positive or negative – regarding religion.

Doing so may not amount to “establishment,” or “prohibiting the free exercise,” or “abridging the freedom” of religion, which the First Amendment forbids. But anything government does means the use of tax dollars, collected from everybody: Christian or not.

Some of those “nots” may view such use of their tax dollars as implicit support of something in which they do not believe and, thus, a violation of their First Amendment rights.

It’s the same argument we pro-lifers make about funding abortion with tax money. It’s the same argument we free-speech conservatives use against funding political candidates with tax money.

But: this cuts both ways. Removing religious symbolism is itself a non-neutral action. A statement all its own.

Taking the phrase “In God We Trust” off our money. Stopping the practice of a prayer before each Legislative session. Removing the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Telling a school child he can’t distribute Veggie Tales bookmarks to his classmates.

Changing the “Christmas tree” to a “Holiday tree.”

Rather than protecting against the establishment of religion, these actions make the statement that theistic belief does not belong. In fact, it is a statement of atheism.

There are other reasons to dislike what Ms. Gaylor and her group promote. For one thing, y’know, it’s Christmastime. All this “War on Christmas” stuff, real or not, is interfering with my Peace on Earth and Goodwill toward Men.

Then there’s the eye-roll factor. Oh, for crying out loud, why do they come after the Christmas trees? Don’t they have anything – anything at all – better to do?

They’re Christmas trees! The entire Western world – and even more of it than that – celebrates Christmas, whether they’re Christian or not!

Just give us this one. Stop wasting your time. And ours.

They won’t, of course. They are the perpetually aggrieved: they find purpose in their sense of outrage. Without outrage, they lack a reason to get out of bed.

Thus, sorry, but that glitter-drenched angel made out of construction paper and pipe cleaners has to go.

Unless you call it a fairy. Then it can stay.

Are We Really Mad at Cable?

The Sci Fi Channel has a new show called “Tin Man” starting soon: sort of a re-imagining of The Wizard of Oz, it looks like. I’d love to watch it.

Can’t, though. Basic cable doesn’t carry that channel, and the cable company would charge us more for the expanded package, which does.

Ditto Fox News and MSNBC. The History Channel. Discovery Channel. All on expanded cable. And I have no idea whether the Sopranos finale was any good or not, because I didn’t see it. In fact, I’ve never seen a single episode. Because…

…well, I think you’ve got the picture.

It’s not a big deal, really. It’s like going to the movies: you can, if you want to spend the money. If you don’t, well, you don’t have to. No big deal. Nobody gets mad.

But now, it’s affecting our football. People are getting mad, or so I hear.

The Green Bay Packers play the Dallas Cowboys this Thursday night. The game will air on NFL Network. Most of the state – myself included – doesn’t have that channel, so we can’t watch.

And it’s a tough game to miss. Both teams are 10-1. Packers QB Brett Favre leads the NFC in passing percentage and yardage. Cowboys QB Tony Romo leads the NFC in touchdowns and passer rating.

Favre would be a shoo-in for MVP, had the Patriots not signed Randy Moss. Romo’s a local boy who grew up in Burlington.

The game is in Dallas, where the Packers have, historically, lost. Between 1993 and 1996, Green Bay played seven games in Dallas, including three playoff games, including the 1995 NFC Championship game. We lost them all.

Thus, we’re all really looking forward to this game. It’s got history. Star power. High-octane offenses. The local angle. Playoff implications. And the two best teams in the NFC.

And I won’t see it. Because it’s on the NFL Network and – like the History Channel, Fox News, Sci Fi, and HBO – I’d have to pay more to get it.

That’s causing consternation. At least, that seems to be causing consternation. People are ticked off – or so the story goes – because we can’t get the game on TV.

Whether your average folks really are up in arms, I dunno. I’m not. But it keeps making the news.

Who’s at fault? The cable companies? They are trying to shunt NFL Network onto a special “sports tier,” which would cost customers more. So they’re being greedy, right? Trying to make a buck off our love of football.

But what about the NFL? Football is, usually, available on regular TV and/or the widely available ESPN.

Those channels make money by broadcasting football. The NFL figures: why shouldn’t they be making that money? So they get greedy, start their own network, and bring the pressure on cable companies to carry it.

Side note: I’ve seen a little of the NFL Network’s offerings. I have two words for what I saw: not good.

Not. Good. Hey, NFL: just because a guy was a famous and flashy football player doesn’t mean he’ll be a good TV analyst. Most of them won’t. It’s a different skill set.

Anyway, the NFL has decided to take some of their product – which they own – and make it exclusively available at their store, and nobody else’s.

Then they’re telling the landlord how much rent they’ll pay, and since the landlord isn’t willing to rent the space at that price, they’re blaming the landlord. And they’re telling us to blame the landlord, too.

Well, I don’t blame the landlord. I don’t really blame the NFL, either, although I wish they’d stop acting like whiny prima donnas.

I said earlier that most of the state can’t watch the game. Actually, we can. We can go to a bar, or to someone else’s house, or we can buy a dish and pay the extra money.

But some of us think our time and money are better spent elsewhere.

So. This Thursday, I will listen to the game. I’ll follow it on the internet. I’ll know what’s going on, even without being able to see.

I won’t waste valuable effort complaining that I don’t have something that I could have, if I’d only spend the money.

What do Brett Favre, Barack Obama, Ed Garvey, my father-in-law and a 6-point buck all have in common?

They all appear in this post!

As usual for the Day After Thanksgiving, I’m way too full to write a whole column. Not to mention: it’s the Day After Thanksgiving! You shouldn’t be reading internet columns, you should be doing something…Thanksgivingy!

Therefore, I offer this smattering of bloggisms, beginning with:

Sports!

The Packers are 10-1: their best record since, what, 1857? Brett Favre is playing like a 26-year-old stud and breaking records every time he takes the field.

And now he’s hinting he might be back again next year. And why not?

Too bad for Aaron Rodgers. Hey, it’s not his fault he was such a wasted draft pick. The Packers should’ve taken me up on my offer.

Here’s the question: are this year’s Packers like the 1995 version, on the rise and a year away from winning the Superbowl?

Or are they more like the 1989 Packers? The Lindy Infante, Don Majkowski Packers, who went 10-6 (best in 17 years) only to sink back to 6-10 the following year?

One might ask a similar question about the Brewers, mightn’t one?

Obama admits drug use

Presidential candidate Barack Obama admits to using drugs – including cocaine – in front of a bunch of teenagers. Mitt Romney says that’s a mistake: a wannabe role model shouldn’t be blabbing about his personal failings. Rudy Giuliani admires Obama’s honesty.

I’m on Giuliani’s side. And Obama’s.

If Romney’s right, then youthful indiscretions can, will, and must follow us around forever – we can either keep them secret, or we can never be any kind of role model.

Romney is right in that we don’t want young people thinking they can use drugs, maybe do other harmful things, and that they’ll just be okay. Some of them will be okay. Others won’t.

But: six of one, half a dozen of another. Is it better to have a role model who succeeded big despite early mistakes like drug use? Or a role model whose life hit bottom, to illustrate just how bad those mistakes can be?

Or should we insist on role models who never made those mistakes? No drugs, no underage drinking, no drunkenness, no premarital sex, no skipping class, no joyriding, no cheating on a test.

If so, it eliminates a lot of us. Myself included.

Green Friday

It’s been a personal tradition to go shopping – just a little – the Day After Thanksgiving, for no better reason than to breathe in all that rampant capitalism.

Aaaaaaah. The sweet, sweet smell.

But…why do we call it “Black Friday?” Who coined that phrase? Some socialism-addled Lefty?

Call it Green Friday, says I.

UPDATE - both my father-in-law and my little brother say it's "Black" Friday because that's the day all the stores go into the black. So let it be done - Black Friday it is!

Bill and Ed

Both Ed Garvey and Bill Wineke say President Bush is taking credit he doesn’t deserve for the recent exciting developments in Stem Cell Research.

At least Wineke spells the scientist’s name right. It’s Dr. James Thomson. Not Thompson, as Ed insists. I think Ed’s got Tommy on the brain.

Ed writes: “True to form, President Bush took credit. I'm not making this up.”

And: “Congratulations to the Thompson [sic] team and to Jim Doyle for helping to shield the team from the radical R-T-L crowd.”

Wineke says something similar, but has a larger and more interesting point: without embryonic research, he suggests, this new development wouldn’t have been possible.

Maybe so, but: would scientists have discovered “reprogrammed” skin cells, turning them into something like embryonic stem cells, if it weren’t for President Bush and the “radical R-T-L crowd?”

Without this intense debate over ethics, would this have happened? Would anyone even have tried?

Hunting

No deer for us. Not yet, anyway. At 7:05 Saturday morning, hunting on my father-in-law’s Adams County land, a 6-point buck walked right out in front of me. Easy shot, which I didn’t take, because we were in Earn-a-Buck and I hadn’t Earned my Buck yet.

And then, driving into my own driveway last night, no fewer than four – yes, four – does bedding down right in my back yard.

Son of a…

Stupid city limits.

Oh, well. We’re going out again tomorrow. So all you deer – you’ll be perfectly safe in southern Adams County. I swear. No danger whatsoever.

And the thankfulness this year goes to (envelope, please)…

New experiences, and new opportunities. I’ve had lots of both, and will have lots more.

But mostly, having my wife and family to come home to. They love me just as well, whether I’m doing something new or not, and whether I’m doing it well or not.

Embryonic Stem Cells: New Developments, Same Debate

There’s more good news on the stem cell front.

Good news, but not the last news. Far from it, so let’s not explode in a fit of finality.

Here’s the gist:

In a paper to be published Nov. 22 in the online edition of the journal Science, a team of University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers reports the genetic reprogramming of human skin cells to create cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.

Cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, meaning they can be used just like stem cells taken from embryos. All the vast potential of embryonic stem cell research, achievable without using or destroying a human embryo. Unhindered research into this incredibly exciting new branch of medical science, without the ethical concerns. All the upside, none of the downside.

Theoretically, at least. For now.

Great news: yes. The end of the debate: no. For several reasons.

First, because we’ve had good news on this front before.

Sixteen months ago, it was a new procedure to extract the stem cells without destroying the embryo. That didn’t end the debate, to the Left’s facetious dismay: social conservatives still balked, because that research still required use of a human embryo.

Then, earlier this year, it was amniotic epithelial cells, taken from the placenta. Supposedly, they had the same potential as embryonic stem cells. Don’t know what happened to those. They kinda faded from view.

Hopefully, this new development won’t.

It shouldn’t, if for no other reason than: the guy announcing it was the University of Wisconsin’s Dr. James Thomson, who gave embryonic stem cell research its first big break back in 1998.

"The induced cells do all the things embryonic stem cells do," explains Thomson, a professor of anatomy in the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. "It's going to completely change the field."

In addition to exorcising the ethical and political dimensions of the stem cell debate, the advantage of using reprogrammed skin cells is that any cells developed for therapeutic purposes can be customized to the patient.

"They are probably more clinically relevant than embryonic stem cells," Thomson explains. "Immune rejection should not be a problem using these cells."

When the guy who invented ESCR says this is just as good, I guess we ought to listen.

On the other hand, we should listen when he says this, too:

An important caveat, Thomson notes, is that more study of the newly-made cells is required to ensure that the "cells do not differ from embryonic stem cells in a clinically significant or unexpected way, so it is hardly time to discontinue embryonic stem cell research."

Let’s call this the “no stone unturned” argument. No matter how successful the “reprogrammed” skin cells prove to be, some scientists will want to keep on with the embryos, because who knows what we might discover?

It’s a cousin of the “investment” argument: when a scientist has invested so much time, money, reputation in a particular theory, he simply can’t accept any competing theory, no matter how much better the new theory is.

Both will play a role here. And here’s another reason this debate isn’t going away: even if Thomson and his peers successfully make “reprogrammed” cells the best thing to happen to medical science since moldy bread, we’ll still have many thousands of frozen human embryos, “left over” from fertility treatments.

What do we do with those? Leave them frozen forever? Won’t they, eventually, be destroyed anyway?

And aren’t we creating more of them all the time?

Why shouldn’t we use them to better mankind?

For the same reason we shouldn’t experiment on Great-Grandma, either, I say.

Regardless. As writer Wesley J. Smith put it:

…the President believed wholeheartedly that the raw talent, intelligence, and creativity of the science sector would find a way to obtain pluripotent stem cells (the ability to become any cell type) through ethical means.

I have that same faith, so here’s the next challenge for the scientific community: find a way to conduct fertility treatments without creating additional embryos.

Someday, we’ll be able to do that. Someday, there will be an end to the stem cell debate.

Regardless of today’s headlines, that day isn’t today.

Gone Huntin'

I was going to post something today, but now I can see I won't have a chance to finish it. Too bad. It was gonna be a really good one.

Well, okay, maybe I'll post it next week. Meantime, the tree stand awaits.

If you're interested, here's the column I wrote last year, after opening weekend: A City Kid in the Woods:

Impatient. Hey, I’m an American. We’re an impatient people. We want things now. Fast food. Supermarkets. High speed internet. Eight-lane highways. Why isn’t mass transit more popular? Because we have to wait for it!

So why am I sitting out here waiting to harvest my own food?

...And that might not even happen! What if I don’t see one at all? I’ve been out here two whole hours, and I sure haven’t seen one yet. And it’s cold. And I’m tired. How did I ever get talked into doing this ridiculous...

Read the rest.

Safe and successful hunting, people.

A Study that's Worth a Laugh

What, precisely, is going on with Wisconsin’s schools?

In this corner, you have the doomsayers. The people in the chicken suits, screaming in terror and pointing at the sky. The people who say we need a seven-plus-figure referendum passed now, or worse: we need reform.

And in this corner, you have the cheerleaders. The people touting Wisconsin’s fantastic schools. Our qualified teachers, and successful students. How well we’re overcoming obstacles, graduating our kids, sending them on to college.

And, more often than not, they’re the same people.

This is hardly a new observation. Wisconsin’s education bureaucracy has the trick down pat: they can turn on a dime, first touting excellence such as the world has never seen, then tearing their clothes and wailing their desperation.

It’s a transformation to make Dr. Jekyll seem the model of behavioral consistency.

And somebody’s taking notice. According to the Journal Sentinel:

For the second year in a row, Education Sector put Wisconsin at the top of its Pangloss Index, a ranking of states based on how much they are overly cheery about how their students are doing.

Huh. “Overly cheery.” There’s a subjective measurement if I’ve ever seen one.

The study compares…um…honestly, I’m not sure what it’s comparing to what. The Journal Sentinel says it ranks “the author's assessment of data related to what a state is doing to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind education law.”

Whatever that means.

Anyway, how’d we end up with overly cheery? Did we just barely scrape past very cheery? Are we a tad below insanely cheery?

When was this data collected? Does the author know the Packers are 8-1? Because that’s affecting cheeriness in Wisconsin right now. Did he take that into account?

The fact is, Wisconsin does have good schools. Sometimes great ones. According to WEAC, the state teacher’s union, Wisconsin schools rank:

• First for the percentage of highly qualified teachers in the nation;
  
• First or second on the ACT college entrance examination for 18 consecutive years;
  
• First for lowest in dropout rates;
  
• Second on an international science test comparison;
  
• Fourth in the percentage of 8th graders scoring at the highest two levels in math, and sixth in percentage of 8th graders scoring at the highest two levels in reading in the National Assessment of Educational Progress;
  
• Fifth for graduation rates;
  
• One of the eight "smartest states" based on the quality of public elementary and secondary schools;
  
• In the top 10 for Advanced Placement scores; and
  
• Among the safest in the nation.

Huh. We’re good.

Not only does that contradict the “doom and gloom” scenarios, it also makes one wonder how, when we are so good, we can be “overly cheery.” If the teacher’s union is right, then aren’t we due a little cheer?

The other possibility is that we’re overstating the facts. This seems hard to believe, though: dropout rates and test scores are too easy to verify.

So whatever this study is talking about, I don’t know. I’ll pay it no more mind.

Will the educational establishment? So far, they haven’t responded to it. Not publicly. Last year, though:

In 2006, Tony Evers, the deputy state superintendent of public instruction, objected strongly to a nearly identical ranking from Education Sector…

Again: huh. Why wouldn't they use this study to prove they need more money?

You know what we have here, I think? An illustration of the danger of success.

Wisconsin has great schools. Not every single school, nor every single teacher. Not for every single student. But on the balance, we’re doing pretty well.

The educational bureaucracy can’t say so. If they did, it would nullify their hunger for ever-greater shares of our take-home pay.

But on the other hand, they have to say so. Success justifies your existence: you can’t just wail and gnash your teeth all the time.

So. They don’t dare tell us our schools are failing, because they’ve been in charge of our schools for so long.

They don’t dare tell us our schools are succeeding, because then they can’t demand more money.

It’s enough to drive a person crazy.

Which makes me think I’ve got this thing figured out: it isn’t “cheer” at all. It’s insane, maniacal laughter.

School Funding Reform Now! Or...not.

If you want to kill a good idea, the old joke goes, send it to a committee.

So, what if the idea adds up to…nothing?

Next week, the Senate Committee on Education will hold a hearing on comprehensive school funding reform.

Well, wait: the hearing isn’t on reform, exactly. Not as such. It’s on the need for reform. Whatever sort of reform may or may not take place at some unspecified point in the near-or-distant future – or even whether reform will happen – they’re not talking about that.

Seriously. They’re doing it again.

This time, a bevy of legislative Democrats have proposed Senate Joint Resolution 27, “calling for changes to the state’s public school funding formula to be enacted by July 1, 2009.”

What changes, exactly? Well…um…it has to be more fair. And it has pay for mandates, and for special circumstances, and it has to keep property taxes down while treating taxpayers equitably.

How, precisely, will it do that? Dunno. They haven’t worked that out.

And it has to be based on “the actual cost of what is needed to provide children with a sound education.” Quick, now, how many of you think “the actual cost” will turn out to be less than we’re spending now?

Any chance they’ll take a good long look and decide it only costs five grand per year to educate a kid? Any chance at all?

Anyone?

I don’t think so, either.

Anyway. This isn’t the first time Democrats have tried something like this: almost exactly two years ago, it was a bill calling for comprehensive health care reform. That bill didn’t propose any actual changes, either. It simply required a future Legislature to pass universal health care.

A bill to require a bill. Genius!

I had a grand old time making fun of it, but let’s be fair: in 2005, Democrats were in the minority in both legislative houses. They had no power to advance legislation.

Sure, they still could have drafted the bill anyway. They could have gone ahead and done the research, consulted experts, even held hearings. They were legislators, after all, with staff, and resources, and a small army of lawyers and drafters at their command.

They chose, instead, to go for the symbolic gesture.

Which is fine. Like I said, they had no actual power back then. But today, they do. They control the Wisconsin State Senate. They could – if they really wanted – pass an actual bill.

Pass the reforms they say they want.

And…they’re not. They’re still going for the symbolic gesture.

That’s leadership!

I’ll give them one thing: the resolution does point out a problematic facet – “problematic” from a certain point of view – of our school finance system.

We finance schools primarily through the property tax. Some of our districts have far higher property values than others. Thus, they can raise (and spend) far more money at lower tax rates than low-value areas.

That’s why we have equalized aid: the state pays out to school districts inversely, depending on their property values. Richer districts get less, poorer districts get more. Over 40% of the state’s general fund – billions of dollars – is used for this purpose.

That still isn’t enough to bridge the gap, though. Although some districts get nearly all their money from the state, while others get almost nothing – rich districts can still spend far more on their schools than poor ones.

As I said before, this is problematic from one point of view. And that point of view is: more money equals better schools. It’s the point of view that we’re just not spending enough.

That’s the real purpose behind this resolution: “reform” really means “spend more.”

Here’s the rub: school districts in Wisconsin can already spend as much as they want – can double their spending if they want – as long as their voters agree. They don’t need “reform” to do it. They can do it right now.

Oh, but the voters don’t always agree.

That’s the real problem: they – the education bureaucracy – wants more money, but they have to go through the voters to get it. They don’t like that. They want that “reformed.”

Their legislative champions want that, too. Or…maybe they don’t. After all, if they did, wouldn’t they propose something…real?

Primary Decisions

If our decision means something, it means we’ll have to make one.

All year, I’ve been pooh-poohing the presidential primaries. Wisconsin’s primary comes so late in the season, I reasoned, the nominees will already be chosen by the time we get to vote.

Last week, I hedgingly reversed my course. Because of the tightly-packed and frontloaded nature of next year’s presidential primary, two or three Republican candidates could still be in the running by the time it gets to us, on February 19.

Ergo, we might get to cast a meaningful vote.

Which puts me in an unexpected position. I’ll have to decide whom to support.

So will you, of course, but that’s beside the point. The world doesn’t revolve around you.

I won’t concern myself with the Democrat primary, mainly because there won’t be one by the time February rolls around. Hillary Clinton will, I predict, win the nomination early.

Given my track record on predictions, nobody should take that to the bank. But come on: Edwards is too pretty, Obama is too goofy, and the rest of the Democrats are either interchangeably boring, nuts, or running for Veep.

Plus, I offer this truism: anyone who underestimates a Clinton deserves the butt-whooping they’re about to receive.

So, there. Clinton’s in. Wisconsin Democrats, take February off.

Back to my unexpected conundrum. Republican voters will have to pick a Republican candidate, should February be meaningful for us. I will have to decide whom to support.

I hadn’t expected that, so I’ve barely paid attention to the candidates, their positions, their debates. What for? I simply hoped that, whichever candidate emerged at the far end of Super Duper Tuesday, it would be one I could enthusiastically support.

But now, I think, I’d better start paying attention. I’d better choose.

So. How do I do that?

Well, I’ve got my issues. Which candidates are on my side?

That’s both too easy, and not good enough. In 2004, Social Security reform – also known as Ending the War on Children – was my second-biggest issue, and my candidate, President Bush, was saying all the right things.

Three years later, your children and mine are still being led off to the Gulag of Future Entitlement Spending. So, obviously, that plan wasn’t perfect.

Nor was it wrong: I had two other big issues: the war, and judicial nominees. We’ll have to see how those nominees pan out (so far, so good), but the war is the single most important issue facing us today. Period.

And President Bush has remained steadfastly consistent on that issue.

Standing firm. Staying the course. Proving to the world that we’re serious, now and forever. Attacking us has long-term, far-reaching, serious and, if necessary, deadly consequences.

He didn’t have to stick by that. He could have swayed as center-left Republicans voted against him; as candidates ran away from him; as his polling numbers dropped, and dropped, and dropped; as Republicans fell into the congressional minority.

He could have made a politically-motivated decision. He didn’t. He stood firm, when other politicians would have withered.

It’s cost him. It’s cost me: supporting the war cost President Bush the capital he needed to reform Social Security.

Still, he’s given me the template I want in my next President, or at least my next presidential candidate. I want the guy who’ll stand firm, even when the polls tell him to waffle.

So, which candidate is that? Heck if I know. Romney’s got a lot of executive experience, but so does Guiliani, and he got his by standing up to the mob. McCain’s got the bio. Thompson? He looks the part. Sounds it. But I have no idea.

I suppose I should mention: this could turn against me. Standing strong on the war could as easily be standing strong on retreat and isolationism, amnesty without border control, socialized medicine. Or some such foolhardiness.

Still, I’d rather have a President who will stand for something, who will champion it and stand firm, even when it seems the whole world is against him, than one who swings back and forth with the political winds.

So I haven’t made my decision yet. But at least I’ve got some parameters.

The Second-Most-Important Reason to Support School Choice

Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Because then, if you lose that basket, you’re all out of eggs.

Metaphorically speaking.

That’s particularly important in politics: don’t rely too much on any one thing – any one issue, any one position, any one argument. Because if that argument is found to be false, then you’ve lost.

Here’s the kicker: your opponents will try to make you focus on one, and only one. All the easier to kick the chair out from under you. And if they can’t make you put all your eggs in that one basket, they’ll just pretend that you did.

The war in Iraq is “based on lies” because we never found huge stockpiles of WMD there. President Bush was “raising the bar” on stem cell research, because a potential breakthrough that spares the embryo didn’t get him right on board.

See how it works?

We have a new example now: school choice.

The Wisconsin Public Research Institute (WPRI) published a study last month, claiming that “school choice” has no effect on school performance.

This came as a shock to those of us who support choice: we – well, I – thought that having schools compete with each other for funding and students would help improve their performance.

That wasn’t the only reason for supporting choice. It wasn’t even the most important reason.

No matter. Anti-choice advocates have pounced. The Capitol Times used the study to call for an immediate end to school choice. Blogger Jay Bullock, himself a Milwaukee-area teacher, gave it the old-fashioned “told you so.”

But the study was a narrow one. It did not, as Professor John McAdams of Marquette University pointed out, include the Milwaukee School Choice Program, which gives parents vouchers to send their kids to an approved private school. It only studied the effects of more limited choices offered within Milwaukee’s public school system.

Thus, the study is limited both in scope and usefulness, and other, broader studies have reached the opposite conclusion.

All that aside, I’m genuinely surprised. Even given the study’s limits, I’d have expected better results.

Competition has given us better and faster computers at lower prices. Expose schools to competition, I reasoned, and something similar ought to happen.

In retrospect, perhaps that was naïve. The government’s pockets are too deep. Bureaucratic protections are too strong. Maybe there’s not enough at stake: no owner, who stands to lose his entire investment.

Maybe that’s why we were wrong.

But even so, it shouldn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter, because they’re our kids. Not the government’s, not the school’s. Ours.

You wouldn’t get that idea, to judge from the anti-choice reactions. Just bring up homeschooling at a school board meeting. Watch the reactions. The educracy wants kids forced into whichever school they choose – neighborhood schools, I suppose, unless they have to be bussed out fifty miles or so to balance racial percentages in the suburbs.

You must attend this school. Parents, your children will attend this school. You don’t like it? Tough. We own them. And we own you, too. Make your schools better, if you think they’re not good enough.

That didn’t work out so well in the decades before school choice, but whatever. Just don’t butt in too much.

Because then we’ll sue.

In one way, this isn’t so unreasonable. We, as a society, have decided to provide education. Thirteen-plus years of (mostly) free schooling, with books, buildings, university-trained teachers. We can’t be expected to cater to every individual wish – not when we’re already doing so much.

Public schools can’t be expected to do everything, anyway. Not when so much depends on the student’s home life, which is out of the government’s control. For now.

On the other hand, there’s no reason parents shouldn’t have as much authority over their own children – their children – as possible, within the framework we’re already providing.

The other side doesn’t want that. If we’re providing, their logic dictates, then we’re controlling. Beggars can’t be choosers. You want our help, you follow our rules.

Socialist health care advocates, take note.

But. Government doesn’t own us – we own them. We shouldn’t be stuck with whatever the government puts in front of us, like it or not. We should be free to choose other options.

That’s why I support school choice. That’s the biggest reason, and it always was.