Last Thursday, the American Conservative's James Pinkerton and our own David Corn had another one of their frequent diavlogues. Among the topics discussed: Afghanistan, Pakistan, the missing torture memo, and, of course, the new Star Trek movie, which opened this weekend to rave reviews:

If you thought Justin Timberlake and Andy Samberg couldn't top this, you were wrong. Check out their 'ode' to Mother's Day. I watched it Saturday and hit rewind four times, snorting Diet Coke through my nose each time. I only stopped because my stomach hurt so bad. Today? Five times and counting. It's so, so wicked.

If you're feeling less subversive, check out Jimmy Kimmel's take on honoring Mom. It's weirdly sweet and mildly genre-bending. A keeper.

My Mother's Day? Well, my son's birthday is always the day before, so until they're older, Mother's Day doesn't really exist. Thankfully, their school did an incredibly sweet assembly where we were all given roses and escorted by our munchkins to the gym. Then, the kids did the most snot-inducing songs ever. One of them was to the tune of "My Baloney Has a First Name," but still. It killed. When my son's 2nd grade class (he turned 8 on Saturday) did this song, you could barely hear them braying off key while everyone wept and blew their noses. Not me of course. Didn't affect me at all. Sniff. At least not until he stopped singing to just stare at me like I was the most wonderful creature on the planet. Then, he ran to me before the song was even over, took my face in his hands and said: "Now do you know how much I love you?"

Stupid Mother's Day.

From Bill Schneider, CNN election guru and former senior fellow at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute:

"The Republicans aren't a party, they're a cult."

Well, today's GOP does seem to check most of the boxes in the International Cultic Studies Association's "Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups."  Except for this one: "The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members."  That doesn't seem to be much of a priority for them these days.


Last week the British government published a list of people banned from entering the country.  The list included radio shock jock Michael Savage, thus guaranteeing it wide publicity and considerable condemnation.  But wait!  We ban people too.  We just don't make our list public. Graham Bowley reports:

To make the Coordinated Terrorist Watchlist, which has been maintained since 2003, you have to be “reasonably” suspected of “involvement in terrorist activity,” according to Chad Kolton, spokesman for the F.B.I.’s Terrorist Screening Center in northern Virginia. It can be fund-raising or recruiting, “but it’s a fairly high standard,” he said, and so probably does not include simply speaking about terrorism.

"Probably"?  Why does this not reassure me?

If newspapers go away as a way of holding politicians accountable, can blogs replace them?  Andrew Sullivan says yes:

A good blog, with a tenacious blogger, on a difficult subject, can keep at a subject with intensity newspapers are hard-pressed to match. And as long as there are meta-blogs or aggregators or edited blogs that can highlight niche blogging on important, less-read subjects, these issues can be brought to the fore. Ideally, blogs and newspapers form a helpful nexus. But both can and will evolve to save the old civic function of the press.

I don't disagree with this.  Still, even as recently as the 2008 campaign, it was striking how little impact most net-based feeding frenzies had until they were picked up by someone in the mainstream press.  So far, at least, it's still the MSM that mostly provides legitimacy to stories and forces public officials to react to negative publicity.  I wonder how long that will continue to be true?

Just for the hell of it, here's a composite version of the two charts I posted the other day from the stress test report. Basically, for each of the 19 big banks that were tested, it shows estimates of both projected losses under adverse economic conditions as well as the ability to absorb those losses without eating into capital. For example, on the far left, American Express has big expected losses, but also has the capacity to absorb them all via earnings. So, since their capital structure is OK right now, that means it will stay OK and they don't need to raise money.

Next door, however, is Bank of America. They have big projected losses and only a limited ability to absorb them via earnings. That means their losses will eat into their capital. What's more, their capital structure isn't so hot even now. That's why Treasury is requiring them to raise a huge tranche of new money.

Anyway, as you can see, hardly anybody is in really good shape. Even the banks that have adequate capital and income to see them through the recession are still expected to take sizeable losses. And yet, bank stocks are up, up, up. Go figure. If I didn't listen to Paul Krugman so much maybe I would have bought 10,000 shares of BAC a couple of months ago and made a killing. Thanks a lot, Paul.

The residents of the Carteret Islands have finally lost their long battle with global warming.  Sea levels have been rising for decades, crops no longer grow, and they're now left with no choice but to get out.  Dan Box reports:

The evacuation of the Carteret Islands have begun. This morning I stood on black volcanic sand, pressed up right against the jungle, and watched a small white boat powered by a single outboard engine run in against the shore. On board were five men from the Islands, the fathers of five families, who have come to finish building houses and gardens already begun in a cleared patch of jungle at Tinputz, on the east coast of Bougainville. When these homes are ready the five will return to the Carterets, to fetch their wives and children back. Life, they hope, will be better for them here. On the Carterets, king tides have washed away their crops and rising sea levels poisoned those that remain with salt. The people have been forced to move.

This is likely to become an increasingly common story over the upcoming decades, and while there are probably multiple causes, it's likely that global warming is one of the big ones.  We may be the ones causing most of the warming, but we're not the ones who will pay the biggest price.

OK, I'm curious about something.  Let me lay out the issue and then solicit some opinions.

The Los Angeles Times has been running a series of pieces this week that basically declare war on the LA Unified School District.  Now, I don't live in Los Angeles and don't have a dog in this fight, but from everything I've heard LAUSD is so monumentally dysfunctional that they probably deserve whatever they're getting.  So to be clear up front: I don't have any special problem with the Times dedicating lots of space to beating up on the district.

Today's piece, though, is about teachers and aides accused of sexually molesting students.  This is, obviously, incendiary stuff.  And the Times subhead makes the point of today's article crystal clear: "L.A. Unified has failed to follow up on complaints once police or prosecutors dropped criminal actions, leaving students vulnerable to molesters."

Is this true?  Are LAUSD student vulnerable to molesters?  Maybe.  Unfortunately, the story was so poorly written that I literally had to print it out and start circling names and dates to figure out what their evidence was.  When I finished, here's what I had: Over a period from 1995 to 2005 the district, which employs around 50,000 teachers, apparently had three cases in which teachers or aides were (a) accused of molestation, (b) cleared, (c) put back in the classroom, and (d) later convicted of a subsequent molestation.  In addition, there was one more case in which an aide acquitted of molestation charges was briefly put back in a classroom but later fired.

In 2006 the district "tightened its policies" on allowing accused molesters back in the classroom, but then it happened again.  Police told district officials in 2007 that they had "found evidence" of a possible sexual relationship between an assistant principal named Steve Thomas Rooney and a student, but no charges were ever filed.  Rooney returned to work and a year later was arrested for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl.  The case is pending.

This is horrific stuff, and there's not much question that the district screwed up badly in the Rooney case.  But there are still a few things I'd like to know:

 • How does four or five cases over a decade compare to other school districts?  It actually sounds like a pretty low rate of recidivism to me.

 • Exactly what are the district's policies in cases like this?  Amazingly, the article never bothers to say.

 • How many teachers over the past ten years have been accused of molestation, cleared, and then returned to the classroom without further incident?  How many have been accused and then quickly and efficiently dismissed?

 • Given that not all charges are true, and that teachers cleared of charges deserve to be treated as innocent, exactly what is it that critics think needs to be done?  Amazingly, the article never really bothers to dive into this either.  Should the district conduct its own investigations if the police come up empty-handed?  Maybe.  That gets a few sentences in the story.  There's also a vague suggestion that if a teacher cleared of charges is transferred, the principal at the new school should be notified of....something.  It's never entirely clear what.  ("Past misconduct," the article says at the end, but if no charges are filed, or if a teacher is acquitted, there is no past misconduct.)

Considering that this is perhaps the most inflammatory charge that could possibly be leveled at LAUSD, shouldn't the Times address some of these issues instead of just recapping five cases from the past decade?  Shouldn't its readers be given some idea of how pervasive this problem really is?  Of how often molestation charges are brought?  Of how many innocent people have been falsely charged in addition to the possibly guilty ones who got off?  Of what, if anything, needs to be done about it?  Of how other districts handle this?

Seems that way to me.  But then again, I'm not a parent and maybe I'm not reacting as strongly as I should.  Maybe just publicizing the problem is a worthwhile public service.  Maybe.  Read the article and tell me.

The Cost of Housing

Why do houses cost so much today?  In the Wilson Quarterly, Witold Rybczynski writes that even when you adjust for inflation and home size, prices are still considerably higher today than they were 50 years ago.  There are two reasons, he says:

The first is Proposition 13, the 1978 California ballot initiative that required local governments to reduce property taxes and limit future increases, and sparked similar ­taxpayer-­driven initiatives in other states. Henceforth, municipalities were unable to finance the ­up-­front costs of infrastructure in new communities, as they had previously done, and instead required developers to pay for roads and sewers, and often for parks and other public amenities as well. These costs were passed on to home buyers, drastically increasing the selling price of a house.

Interesting!  If Rybczynski is right, we now have lower taxes but higher house prices.  And perhaps that's fair.  But it's also a godsend for everyone who bought a house more than 20 years ago.  In California, it means that your original home price was low because taxes paid for the property improvements.  Then the high taxes that built your neighborhood were capped, which drove up the price of building new neighborhoods, and since housing is fungible it also drove up the price of existing homes like yours.  In other words: low price, low taxes, lots of appreciation.  That's great news for all us baby boomers, but I'm afraid the Xers are paying the price.  Par for the course, isn't it?  Someday you guys are going to figure out just how badly we've screwed you over and it's going to be Soylent Green time.

(Rybczynski's second reason is development restrictions that artifically lower the supply of housing.  Read the whole piece for more details.)

Periodical cicadas best known for their 17-year-long life cycle are emerging four years early in several Atlantic states, including North Caroline and Maryland.

The timing of the emergence is determined during the first five years of the underground development of the juvenile cicadas. Gene Kritsky of the College of Mount St. Joseph and his students have been digging up the insects each year to monitor their growth. They found many cicadas growing faster than expected and predicted their early emergence back in 2000.

The year's emergence is the fifth 17-year cicada brood arriving early. Kritsky described the early appearance of Brood I in 1995 in eastern Ohio, predicted the early appearance of Brood X. Brood XIII appeared early in Chicago in 2003 and Brood XIV accelerated in parts of Indiana and Ohio in 2004. This year's acceleration is overlapping with the distribution of Brood II.

Kritsky's paper to be published in the Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science suggests that mild winters affect trees that young cicadas feed upon, messing with the insects' timekeeping.

In other words, this phenomenon might be another biological response to warming global temperatures.

Anyone witnessing cicadas this year is asked to report the sighting on this mapping website.