Whose More Partisan?

I have heard a lot recently regarding the GOP being the nasty party-line guys voting constantly for partisan gain.  This morning I looked at The Washington Post, which had a database of party line voting (see here).  Below are the US Senators grouped by party and ranked according to the portion of their votes that follow their party's lead.

We can argue forever on the merits of their individual votes, and the good and bad of the items they voted on.  But I do think it is clear which party is more partisan in its voting. I won't tell which party.

Look at the data and decide for yourself.

My apologies for the format of the names. That is how it came from the Post, and I didn't bother to clean it up, since the names were not the issue.

The Republican side 

McConnellMitch McConnell		KY	93.00%
AyotteKelly Ayotte		NH	93.00%
ThuneJohn Thune		SD	93.00%
CornynJohn Cornyn		TX	93.00%
KylJon Kyl		AZ	92.00%
CoatsDan Coats		IN	92.00%
PortmanRob Portman		OH	92.00%
BarrassoJohn Barrasso		WY	92.00%
EnziMike Enzi		WY	92.00%
McCainJohn McCain		AZ	91.00%
BoozmanJohn Boozman		AR	91.00%
ChamblissSaxby Chambliss		GA	91.00%
IsaksonJohnny Isakson		GA	91.00%
CorkerBob Corker		TN	91.00%
SessionsJeff Sessions		AL	90.00%
LugarRichard Lugar		IN	90.00%
JohannsMike Johanns		NE	90.00%
BurrRichard Burr		NC	90.00%
HatchOrrin Hatch		UT	90.00%
ShelbyRichard Shelby		AL	89.00%
RobertsPat Roberts		KS	89.00%
ToomeyPat Toomey		PA	89.00%
JohnsonRon Johnson		WI	89.00%
RubioMarco Rubio		FL	88.00%
CrapoMike Crapo		ID	88.00%
GrassleyChuck Grassley		IA	88.00%
InhofeJames Inhofe		OK	88.00%
AlexanderLamar Alexander		TN	88.00%
HutchisonKay Bailey Hutchison		TX	88.00%
KirkMark Kirk		IL	87.00%
MoranJerry Moran		KS	87.00%
WickerRoger Wicker		MS	87.00%
GrahamLindsey Graham		SC	87.00%
RischJames Risch		ID	86.00%
EnsignJohn Ensign		NV	86.00%
CoburnTom Coburn		OK	86.00%
VitterDavid Vitter		LA	84.00%
BluntRoy Blunt		MO	84.00%
HoevenJohn Hoeven		ND	84.00%
CochranThad Cochran		MS	82.00%
MurkowskiLisa Murkowski		AK	77.00%
DeMintJim DeMint		SC	76.00%
LeeMike Lee		UT	76.00%
PaulRand Paul		KY	75.00%
SnoweOlympia Snowe		ME	70.00%
BrownScott Brown		MA	70.00%
CollinsSusan Collins		ME	68.00%
HellerDean Heller		NV	35.00%

The Democratic Side

SchumerChuck Schumer		NY	98.00%
FeinsteinDianne Feinstein		CA	97.00%
DurbinDick Durbin		IL	97.00%
CardinBen Cardin		MD	97.00%
KerryJohn Kerry		MA	97.00%
UdallTom Udall		NM	97.00%
WhitehouseSheldon Whitehouse		RI	97.00%
JohnsonTim Johnson		SD	97.00%
BoxerBarbara Boxer		CA	96.00%
CoonsChristopher Coons		DE	96.00%
InouyeDaniel Inouye		HI	96.00%
FrankenAl Franken		MN	96.00%
LautenbergFrank Lautenberg		NJ	96.00%
MenéndezRobert Menéndez		NJ	96.00%
BingamanJeff Bingaman		NM	96.00%
GillibrandKirsten Gillibrand		NY	96.00%
WydenRon Wyden		OR	96.00%
ReedJack Reed		RI	96.00%
RockefellerJay Rockefeller		WV	96.00%
BlumenthalRichard Blumenthal		CT	95.00%
AkakaDaniel Akaka		HI	95.00%
MikulskiBarbara Mikulski		MD	95.00%
ShaheenJeanne Shaheen		NH	95.00%
BrownSherrod Brown		OH	95.00%
LeahyPatrick Leahy		VT	95.00%
MurrayPatty Murray		WA	95.00%
KohlHerb Kohl		WI	95.00%
BennetMichael Bennet		CO	94.00%
ReidHarry Reid		NV	94.00%
ConradKent Conrad		ND	94.00%
UdallMark Udall		CO	93.00%
CarperTom Carper		DE	93.00%
NelsonBill Nelson		FL	93.00%
HarkinTom Harkin		IA	93.00%
LevinCarl Levin		MI	93.00%
KlobucharAmy Klobuchar		MN	93.00%
MerkleyJeff Merkley		OR	93.00%
CaseyBob Casey		PA	93.00%
CantwellMaria Cantwell		WA	93.00%
LandrieuMary Landrieu		LA	92.00%
StabenowDebbie Stabenow		MI	92.00%
HaganKay Hagan		NC	92.00%
WarnerMark Warner		VA	92.00%
BaucusMax Baucus		MT	91.00%
TesterJon Tester		MT	91.00%
WebbJim Webb		VA	91.00%
BegichMark Begich		AK	90.00%
PryorMark Pryor		AR	90.00%
McCaskillClaire McCaskill		MO	86.00%
NelsonBen Nelson		NE	83.00%
ManchinJoe Manchin		WV	83.00%

New York Education Reform Commission

So yesterday our governor, Mr. Andrew Cuomo, created yet another commission with the alleged goal of improving NY public schools. He has placed Richard Parsons, former CEO of Citigroup, as commission chair. It is interesting that Mr. Cuomo claims poor graduation rates as one of his pet peeves, yet places at the chair of the commission an individual who fell short of graduating from the University of Hawaii after his 4 years there, but found a law school (Albany) that would admit him anyway.

Prior to his Citigroup years, Mr. Parsons was with Time Warner. Here is a quote from the NY Daily News from 2009: "It's no secret that Citigroup board Chairman Richard Parsons has been working for months to repair the financial giant. But, until now, even his closest associates didn't know he also was wrestling with a personal crisis - how to tell his wife and three children he has fathered a child with another woman. Parsons and model-philanthropist MacDella Cooper are the parents of a baby girl named Ella.The 61-year-old former Time Warner chairman said only: "This is a private matter and I prefer not to talk about it at this time." BY GEORGE RUSH, DAILY NEWS COLUMNIST, Thursday, May 21, 2009

I am hoping that news will come out to either verify the love-child story, or refute it.  I wouldn't want an individual with such skeletons in his closet to even partake in reforming anything to do with education.

Back to the commission.
I wonder how many people remember, or have knowledge of, the NYS "Regents Action Plan" from 1984?  This plan, together with a lot of ongoing politics, began the push in New York for all students to take and pass high school regents exams. Prior to that time it was acknowledged and accepted that the regents exam programs were designed to challenge the stronger students (generally the stronger half).  They must have been valued and respected, since masses of people both in and out of the education industry created a loud roar claiming that all students should be able to pass them.

Unfortunately, the smoke and mirror process then began. A good process would have been to investigate the factors that enabled the stronger students to actually be strong, and use the knowledge gained to attempt to strengthen the weaker students.  That, alas, could not happen, because it is based on the premise that there are stronger and weaker students.  Weak students? No!!  They are only underperforming because they have been underprepared!  They have suffered because less was expected of them!!  They are behind because of poverty!! They have been denied chances because of their minority status!!!

Basically, what happened is that the pride of success was granted to the student, but the onus of failure was placed on factors external to the student. The education system began a decades-long run based on the premise that advances could only be gained by systemic changes, absolving students of any role other than their on-going guinea pig status in the laboratory of NY education.

During this time the entire structure of the Regents Exams changed, along with massive changes in content.  The goal was not devising ways and means to strengthen weaker students so they could compete with the stronger students.  The goal was the creation of a system that would enable all students to pass the tests, while making it difficult for stronger students to "ace" them.  New Yorkers must not have been trusted to create such a system, as large parts of it have been farmed out to outside agents such as Pearson.

Watch this commission closely. Education need not be political, but public education will always be political. Watch closely.

I will, without a doubt, expand these thoughts over time.

Remember: you may need to think outside of the box, but the problem you were solving was inside the box.

"When solving problems, dig at the roots instead of just hacking at the
leaves. "Anthony J. D'Angelo, The College Blue Book

Poor Red Sox

Here we have the American League East standings as of the morning of April 25, 2012. I can't remember ever seeing 4 teams tied for first before. It may have happened, but I can't recall it.

While the topic of numbers is open, I have a lotto pay scenario I need you to resolve.

You win a lottery and are given a choice of two payment methods.

Method #1: $23 per day for life.

Method #2:  Your daily payment is randomly chosen from a drwawing out of a hat to be a whole dollar amount of at least $1 but no more than $100.  In choosing this option, starting with the second day, and for each day thereafter, your award gets reduced by a random whole dollar amount between $1 and the amount you were paid the previous day. For example if on day one you drew $78, and on day 2 you drew $98, the $98 dollar amount would be reduced by some value from $1 to $78. Your actual winnings would thus be less than $98. Here are 3 possible outcomes for the first 10 days. (Remember: this is for the rest of your life, and realize that in method 2 some days you might even loose money).



Which of these 2 methods of payment is to your benefit?

Feel free to leave your answer with an explanation. Use the "comment" link below.



Health Insurance or Health Care?

I need someone to help me out. I am confused. Living through the 70's and 80's I heard a constant stream of chatter regarding the increasing cost of health care.  New technologies, new diagnoses, new treatments, people living longer, more people, it all kind of made sense.

Enter the 90's, the conversation seemed to switch from the cost of health care to the cost of health insurance.  People began to expect their health insurance to pay for more and more items. Insurance costs naturally rose. See this web page .

Enter the new millennium. Drug companies began to advertise directly to the patient/consumer.  TV became overrun with ads for every type of pharmaceutical imaginable. (Big difference now is it is targeted: which ads you get depends which channels you watch, which web sites you visit, which magazines you read.)  Most of these drugs are sold only with a prescription, which means that a doctor has to initiate any purchase. Why advertise to the patient? Have doctors lost the initiative? Are patients now prescribing treatment?  If the inmates are running the asylum, its not surprising the cost are going up, no matter who pays.

Procon.org makes the claim that the US and New Zealand are the only countries where "direct to consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs is legal". (See this.)

Is this country going to control its health care costs or be controlled by its health care costs?

A Streakless Start

Here I have the major league baseball standings from this mornings Albany Times Union. Some people may look at this and say "who cares?".

Normally this early in the season not many do care.

But: notice the absence of zeroes in the W and L columns.  Teams have played between 4 and 7 games, yet no team is undefeated, and no team is winless.  No hot streaks and no cold streaks starting this season.

Just for the record, I searched through last year's records and found that the Texas Rangers were the last team to record a loss, after starting the season with 6 wins.  This year, the Mets made it to 4-0 before losing a game. 

I hear people talk every year about the Yankees with comments such as "with the money they spend" and "of course, they buy the championship."  Maybe over the long haul there is such a trend, but in the short haul it looks like parity rules, and perhaps randomness rules, too.

Before anyone places too much emphasis on early season standings, I strongly recommend that they read Leonard Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.

Also, read that book in order to put my last blog entry into perspective, where I show one of my recent Othello game results.

No More Men in Space

I consider myself one of the lucky ones. When I was born air travel was just making a full-scale adoption of passenger jets (a trip to Miami became as time-consuming as a drive to the Catskills). When I got my drivers license $5 would fill the tank, get a glass with a cartoon character on it, with enough left over for a soda and a candy bar. between 1st grade and high school he space race graduated from Shepherd's  and Grissom's  suborbital flights through the Project Mercury men orbiting solo, the tandems of the Gemini missions, through the Apollo trips to the moon and back.

I am know 58. Airlines still use jets. My gas purchases now need a $50 bill, with no glass and an uncertain amount of change, if any.  And the Russians have one the space race.

That last items galls me. Not that the Russians are still sending men into space, but that we, the US, are not. Why not?

I remember JFK's statement about putting a man on the moon, words spoken before Congress in May 1961, when the US man-in-space time was a total of 15 minutes and 28 seconds: I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project...will be more exciting, or more impressive to mankind, or more important...and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish...".

The benefits of the "space race" were plentiful.

The only Presidential statements that come close to Kennedy's in my mind are Reagan's "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall"  and his comment "The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave." This last comment was made during his message to the nation after the Challenger disaster in 1986.

Now we no longer have a space race. No more men in space. People I know say that that is good, we have better things to spend our money on. They must be omniscient, being able to determine the value of scientific quests before they have even happened.

When I see what our culture pays professional athletes and Hollywood actors and actresses, and how we cut funds to schools on an annual basis, I am not surprised that we have killed the space program.  Not surprised at all.

Lucky