The Bad Man of Brimstone

I love this picture at Shorpy.com.

Food Hero–Michael Landrum

Michael Landrum owns one of my favorite restaurants–Ray’s the Steaks. I first ate there 3-4 years ago and it was a disappointing experience.  You had get reservations weeks in advance and there was a small windows when they would take reservations. When I finally got a reservation my steak was overly charred. I don’t like char, so I was disappointed with the experience. On the plus side, however, was the price. The steaks were good quality and inexpensive for quality steak. It would have been a wonderful experience if it had been easier to get reservations and my steak was less charred.

Recently my wife noticed that Ray’s the Steaks appeared not to take reservations any more, so we stopped in on an Saturday afternoon.  I was pleased to discover that you could get steak with “low char.” This time, eating at Ray’s the Steaks was a wonderful experience. The steak was great and the sides were good too.

Over the past year I have eaten quite a few steaks from the standard expensive steak joints–The Palm, BLT Steaks, Smith & Wollensky,  and the Capital Grille, but my favorite steak was at Ray’s. The steak at BLT was a great steak, but I would only eat there if I were eating on an expense account. For my money when I want steak, I’ll always eat at Ray’s.

This article about Michael Landrum is interesting. I love that Landrum doesn’t care about creating pretense in his restaurants. After all, what do I care if there isn’t linen on the tables or art on the walls. If I want to eat steak, I want to eat at a steak joint that serves good steak, not a pretentious steak joint. Landrum is moving Ray’s from its current location and replacing it with a restaurant that  “will not only serve an entrée and three sides for under $18 but will also roll its profits into educational and scholarship opportunities for disadvantaged students.” How great is that?

Reason #2 I Support School Vouchers–They Promote Educational Improvement

In my last post I wrote about the first reason I support school vouchers–they promote the experimentation necessary to improve education. In response to that argument some people will say, “Sure Dan. I’m sure that happens in utopia-ville, but what about here in the real world?” My answer is simple–vouchers improve educational results.

Professor Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas’ Department of Educational Reform examined the 10 random-assignment of voucher programs and he found some interesting results. A summary spreadsheet is available here.

Wolf found that students and families tend to benefit from exercising school choice. He found that in 9 out of 10 experimental studies children benefited from school choice. Wolf also found that 80 percent of parents of students using scholarships in Washington, DC graded schools A or B, compared to 50 percent of the public school group. (Wolf et. al. 2007).

It should be noted that school choice isn’t magic. The results aren’t always startling the first year, but the gains become clear within a few years. Also not all of the studies showed test score improvements in the all of the children, but even when there weren’t improvements in the overall population there were improvements in important subgroups (usually African Americans). For example, in New York a private scholarship program closed the black-white test score gap by half in three years (Howell et. al. 2002).

Lastly, even when there weren’t significant test score improvements, parents were more satisfied with the schools and with the safety of the school when they had some school choice.

As Wolf states, “school choice programs tend to produce a variety of positive outcomes, but not necessarily immediately or under all conditions.”

The children who do not participate in the voucher program also tend to benefit from the increased competition. Belfield and Levin (2005) found that the “evidence shows reasonably consistent evidence of a link between competition (choice) and education quality. Increased competition and higher educational quality are positively correlated.”

In summary, the evidence shows school choice programs tend to provide benefits for children and their parents. These benefits aren’t always dramatic, but the overwhelming majority of studies indeed show benefits. Furthermore, public schools also tends to improve apparently as a result of competition with children in voucher programs. In other words, school choice is a win-win. Children in the programs benefit and children not in the programs benefit as well.

Reason #1 I Support School Vouchers–We Need More Educational Experimentation

Given the current political environment, I think vouchers are the best way to promote creativity and experimentation in schools. For example, take this post from Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution.

You know the plot. Young, idealistic teacher goes to inner-city high school. Said idealistic teacher is shocked by students who don’t know the basics and who are too preoccupied with the burdens of violence, poverty and indifference to want to learn. But the hero perseveres and at great personal sacrifice wins over the students using innovative teaching methods and heart. The kids go on to win the state spelling/chess/mathematics championship. c.f. Stand and Deliver, Freedom Writers, Dangerous Minds etc.

We are supposed to be uplifted by these stories but they depress me. If it takes a hero to save an inner city school then there is no hope. Heroes are not replicable.

Tabarrok explains that according to econometrician Ian Ayres the teaching method that works best is Direct Instruction where teachers follow a carefully designed script.

The problem with this is obvious. As Ayers states, “The education establishment is wedded to its pet theories regardless of what the evidence says.” As a result they have fought it tooth and nail so that “Direct Instruction, the oldest and most validated program, has captured only a little more than 1 percent of the grade-school market.”

What is the best way for more children to have access to schools using direct instruction or other forms of teaching such as Montessori instruction? I don’t know of a better way than vouchers. The necessary experimentation isn’t going to occur at the public schools barring some cataclysmic change from the NEA. But giving parents greater opportunity to choose schools for their children is one step to improving children’s education.

Why Aren’t Conservatives Fiscally Conservative?

I read this post on Red State about which presidencies saw the greatest increase in spending. One part of the post left me gobsmacked. The post shows a graph of discretionary spending growth that shows the spending growth skyrocketing during the Johnson and George W. Bush presidencies with the Clinton 1 term showing serious fiscal restraint. To explain this the author writes:

Allegedly, according to this simple calculation, the most fiscally disciplined Presidents were President GHW Bush, Nixon, and Clinton. Reagan and Carter are in the middle of the pack, and yes, Johnson and GW Bush stick out like Christmas Shoppers with black American Express cards.

What do President Johnson’s elected term and President G.W. Bush’s first term have in common though? War. Do conservatives consider defense spending in Vietnam or Afghanistan and Iraq to be wasteful, liberal growths in government that are to be discouraged? Of course not [emphasis added]. We all know that if you’re an anti-war budget hawk your name is Ron Paul, and nobody likes Ron Paul.

So the argument is that only “liberal growths of government are to be discouraged?” It is completely fine to spend $455 billion on the Iraq war so far and for the Pentagon to ask for another $190 billion more. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing fiscally conservative about this kind of spending.

I’m not militantly anti-war, but this war is awfully expensive and where are the benefits of the half a trillion we’ve spent so far? There needs to be some value for money and I’m seeing precious little value.

Dan Patrick Show Returns to the Radio

In August, as Laura and I were driving to Rhode Island, we listened to the last Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio. I was curious what Dan Patrick was going to do after leaving ESPN.  That question has been answered–he is starting a new Dan Patrick show. He will broadcast on AM570 KLAC in LA from 9am to 12 pm ET and the show will be distributed on the Premiere Radio Networks.  It appears that Dan Patrick wanted more dough than ESPN, Disney, et. al. was will to pay him. Or he thinks that he can take the Dan Patrick brand further outside of Disney. I think it’s an interesting choice.  But if I were him, I would prefer living in LA than living near Bristol, Connecticut.

Why I Support Immigration

This story makes me sick.  Pedro Zapeta came to the U.S. illegally from Guatemala and worked as a dishwasher at $5.50 to $5.75 an hour.  He lived frugally and amassed $59,000. Then he made his tragic mistake–he tried to fly home with $59,000 in his duffel bag. The problem is that the law requires people to report when they try to leave the country with more than $10,000. Moronic customs officials then charged him with being a courier in the drug trade.  I guess their argument was that any latino with money is a drug runner.

Zapeta is still trying to get his money back, but it has been two years and the government still has his money. He didn’t pay taxes when he earned the money, so he should pay some taxes and then the government should give this hard working man his money back.

What is wrong with America?  I like people like Pedro Zapeta. He moved to the U.S. worked hard, lived the American dream, and then wanted to take his nest egg home to Guatemala. This is the best form of foreign aid there is. And yet the government punishes people like Zapeta. It makes me sick.

Jerry Seinfeld Goes Back to Work

What is Jerry Seinfeld up to these days?  He’s still does standup and he has a movie coming out–Bee Movie. I would love to see Seinfeld to a stand up show, but I’m not too interested in Bee Movie.  The trailer doesn’t look very promising.

30 Helens Agree…

The article, Most Koreans Agree on Cause of Climate Change, reminded me of this sketch from Kids in the Hall:

30 Helens may agree on something, or “most Koreans,” but that doesn’t make it so. Does this mean that the earth used to be flat, because most people agreed? Does it mean that slavery was okay, since most slave owners agreed that it was a good thing? Of course not.

Humans, by releasing a lot of carbon dioxide, have helped increase the temperature on Earth. But that doesn’t make humans “the cause” of climate change. In fact, according to the BBC who commissioned the poll, the poll actually asked whether “human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change?” Even I could possibly agree with the BBC’s statement. It all depends on your definition of “significant.” Is is 1% significant, is 2%, or does something need to be 75% to be “significant?”

Things I Like #2–The XLerator

I saw this blog post by Glen Whitman about how he hates bathroom hand dryers. Obviously Glen hasn’t experienced the joy that is the XLerator had dryer. I agree with Glen that standard bathroom hand dyers, such as the World Dryer, are terrible because they don’t work. Honestly, how does World Dyer survive? How can you keep a company going when your product “World Dryer” doesn’t dry hands, let alone the entire world?

Anyway, back to a product that actually works. The XLerator is great because they actually dry your hands. Unlike a standard hard dryer, which lightly propels a few lonely molecules towards your hands, the XLerator unleases a Cat 5 hurricane, drying your hands in seconds. It’s great.

But don’t just take my word for it, check out this happy and surprise first time XLerator user.