More HPV vaccination facts

My debate with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Kathy Stein on "Kentucky Tonight" over her bill to require HPV vaccinations for middle school girls seemed to go well last night. I will post the podcast from KET as soon as it is up. Meanwhile, here is an interesting article filled with facts on the issue that was posted today on the Rural Democrat blog.

Herald-Leader runs UK domestic partner benefits editorial today

The Lexington Herald-Leader ran my opinion piece on UK's domestic partner benefit plan today. The editors lopped of a little at the beginning and a little at the end--just enough to make a couple of comments in the middle of the piece a little mysterious. But other than that they pretty much left it as is.

For the complete original version of the article, see below.

KY Humane Society ads may be no laughing matter to pets--or parents

I was quoted in the Louisville Courier-Journal yesterday on a new campaign by the Kentucky Humane Society to promote its "SNIP" clinic to spay and neuter animals. The ads are causing a controversy because they use some rather tasteless language to get attention.

Some of them are simply, as one of their spokespersons said, "edgy"--and funny. In one, a dog is pictured, looking at the viewer, with the caption, "You're going to cut off my what?" The others, however, I can't mention on this family-friendly blog.

When the CJ reporter called, I simply responded that some of them were funny, but many were definitely "R" rated--and that the animals that appeared in the ads must have the same talent agent as Dakota Fanning.

Besides, most pets would not consider this a laughing matter.

Seriously, I can't imagine this will play well around the state. Is there some reason that, in encouraging people to make sure their pets don't have offspring, we have to contribute the explicitness of our public discourse that, in the end, only undermines the social stigma of casual sex that is one of the few things that really works to discourage our young people from acting like the animals portrayed in these ads?

Television debate on HPV vaccinations

State Rep. Joe Fischer and I will be debating House Judiciary Committee Chairman Kathy Stein and Tracy Goff Herman, deputy director of Kentucky Youth Advocates on the issue of mandatory HPV vaccinations for middle school girls. The debate will air on KET's "Kentucky Tonight," on Monday night at 8:00 p.m.

What is UK scared of?

I was quoted today in the Lexington Herald-Leader in a story about an e-mail survey of faculty and staff views on domestic partner benefits sent to University of Kentucky employees by The Family Trust Foundation, in which The Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, the parent organization of The Family Foundation, is labeled "an offshoot of the national Family Foundation."

First of all, The Family Trust Foundation is not an offshoot of anything. Second, there is no such thing as a national Family Foundation. Third, all this was pointed out to the Herald before the story went to print, but they ran it anyway. I guess it's hard for the media to pass up chances to talk about some vast right-wing national conspiracy, even if it has to invent facts to establish its existence.

The University of Kentucky responded to the e-mail survey with an e-mail of their own trying to scare respondents into not answering the survey. Ironically, one of the questions on the survey was whether UK employees felt pressured or in any way intimidated about expressing their views on the issue of domestic partner benefits. So here's the University trying to intimidate their employees with dire warnings about what might happen if they respond.

The irony is profound.

Apparently there were some recipients who claimed they were duped into thinking that the survey was a University-sponsored survey. Of course the e-mail said in the very first paragraph that it was a third party survey, and even said who it was who was conducting the survey.

Now, we know we have a problem with illiteracy in this state, but at our state universities?

Several criticisms were interesting. First was that the question that asked recipients to rank domestic partner benefits as a priority in relation to other university goals, to which UK research specialist Zina Merkin responded that this set up a "false dichotomy. "

No. Sorry. Respondents were asked to prioritize several university goals, but they are also given the chance to rate several of these items on a scale of 1 through 5. You could give all the options a 5 if you wanted, including domestic partner benefits.

Then there was the charge that the survey was a "push poll" (a survey that prompts you to answer a question in a predetermined way by the phrasing of the question or by placing it next to another question that would prompt you to answer in one particular way). This is interesting because the University itself did a survey of their own on this issue which it has yet to release to the public.

We wonder if there are any leading questions on that survey?

"It's meant to manipulate people's thinking and put ideas in their head [sic]," charged Merkin. Has she read the two reports on domestic partner benefits from UK's Work-Life committee? Can she seriously say these are not meant to do the same thing on the other side of the issue?

I wonder where Merkin stands on the domestic partner benefit issue, and how it affects her comments to newspapers about groups that disagree with the policy? Surely, being a "research specialist," she is completely impartial.

Right.

What is surprising is the almost fanatical reaction the survey has caused. It's just a little ten question poll for crying out loud. Why are so many people upset that someone is asking questions of UK staff?

Does the administration think it is the only entity entitled to talk to their employees? And aren't these the same people who are always talking about academic freedom?

A reporter from the Kentucky Kernel called me today and asked if we felt we had overstepped out bounds by communicating with staff given the fact that we were not an official part of the University. I asked her whether the Kernel was an official part of the University (they aren't) and whether she felt, as a Kernel reporter, she had the right to talk to faculty and staff (she does).

Oops. Wrong question.

Is the administration upset because its staff received what some have charged (incorrectly) is spam? If the e-mail was spam, then how did it make it through what you would presume to be pretty good University spam filter? Surely UK, the home of the best and brightest, an aspiring top 20 school, has the ability to stop what it thinks is spam?

Or maybe the University is just scared of what we might find.

The bad news for Fletcher is good

At the risk of sounding like a Pollyanna, I'm going to say the same thing about Sen. Jim Bunning's endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Rep. Anne Northup as I said about Northup's candidacy per se: namely, it's not bad, it's good for the Fletcher campaign--if it is handled right by Fletcher.

How often does a sitting governor get to run against the establishment?

Gov. Fletcher now has the opportunity to run against his own party's establishment (Northup, Bunning, McConnell) at a time when there is an anti-establishment sentiment among the electorate.

Should someone in the Fletcher campaign try to get Hal Rogers and the rest of Kentucky's congressional delegation to endorse Northup?

It's a thought.

If Northup's line-up includes only Washington big shots and Fletcher continues lining up state legislators and county judge-executives, Fletcher can portray his race as grass roots Kentucky vs. the Washington big shots (and the former Washington big shots, a.k.a. Northup)

Finally, Ernie Fletcher is getting good breaks. Ironically, they're coming in the form of bad news.

UK's comedy routine

In a recent editorial, the Lexington Herald-Leader defends the University of Kentucky against our criticisms about their proposed domestic partner benefit plan. Here is the response I submitted today:

In a recent editorial, the Herald-Leader said that we had “risen up in righteous anger” at UK’s proposed plan to provide taxpayer-subsidized benefits to live-in sexual partners of its staff. We don’t know what made the Herald think we were angry. The sound coming from our offices down the street was much more likely to have been laughter and guffaws caused by the increasingly ridiculous arguments made by supporters of UK’s proposed domestic partner benefit policy.

And we are having an even harder time trying to keep a straight face after reading the Herald-Leader’s recent editorial in which it continues to insist that there is some kind of relationship between instituting a domestic partner benefits plan and becoming a top 20 research school.

This is an argument that belongs at Comedy Off Broadway, not at a newspaper run by grown ups.

While UK continues to fall behind in areas that do matter to rankings agencies, like class size and quality of teaching, it insists on focusing on things that don’t matter, like domestic partner benefits.

UK hasn’t even cracked the top 100 yet, let alone the top 20. It didn’t make The Consus Group’s list at all. In U. S. News and World Report’s “America’s Best Colleges, 2007” report UK came in an unimpressive 112th.

It didn’t even have the consolation of making the list of top party schools. At least then it would have had an excuse.

All this is not to say that UK is not top 20 in something. As a matter of fact, in The Princeton Review rankings, UK made the list of schools where “Professors Make Themselves Scarce”, where it ranks 20th, and the list of schools at which “Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper Level Courses.”

Where does it rank in this latter category? 4th in the nation. Congratulations.

So what is UK doing about this? Is it trying to reduce class sizes and track down these missing professors? No. Instead it recently increased the maximum size of its classes.

And the missing professors? Maybe someone needs to let the bloodhounds out of their cages, but more likely, these are dedicated professionals who just can’t get in the door of their increasingly overcrowded classrooms.

According to the University, one of the reasons for instituting a domestic partner benefit plan is to send “a strong message about institutional priorities.”

No kidding.

Any school that seriously thinks it can attain top 20 status by instituting a domestic partner benefits plan while ignoring its fundamental problems deserves to be booed off the stage.

Then there is the matter of how much it’s going to cost for the University to share the taxpayers’ love with the unmarried partners of its staff, and here is where you want to start reaching for the rotten vegetables.

Let’s roll back the tape to October 19, 2006: “It doesn't cost taxpayers anything,” opined the Herald’s editorial seers, “to allow workers to pay extra to insure those with whom they share their lives.” The plan, we were assured, wasn’t going to cost anything.

And what is the Herald saying now—now that the University has itself admitted that it is planning to subsidize these lucky individuals to the tune of $633,000 a year? “It would be quite a bargain,” says the now fully informed Herald, “for the university to gain full access to that part of the talent pool by spending only 1 percent of its health care budget.”

Before it was free, and now it’s a “bargain.” Can you spell B-A-C-K-P-E-D-A-L-I-N-G?

We have this feeling (call it a hunch), that the taxpayers who fund the University and the parents who pay their children’s tuitions can think of better ways to spend their $633,000 a year than underwriting the sexual lifestyles of unmarried university employees.

And speaking of tuition, have we mentioned that UK wants to raise it again?

The University also intends to visit state lawmakers next month to ask them to fund projects vetoed last year. When it does, legislators need to ask some hard questions about UK’s “institutional priorities.”

We hear they can be a tough audience.

Why Northup's candidacy is good for Fletcher

Much of the speculation over the Republican nomination for governor in Kentucky has centered on the threat Anne Northup poses to Gov. Ernie Fletcher's reelection. But Northup's candidacy is not a threat to the Fletcher administration; it's an opportunity.

Ryan Alessi's article today, titled, "Fletcher Moves to Stop Mutiny," has a slightly negative slant on Fletcher, portraying the Fletcher campaign in a defensive posture. Some national political wags are even saying the race is Northup's to lose.

This is a mistaken assessment. Here's why:

First, Northup is overrated. Although she's a competent campaigner, smart and determined, and she is from Jefferson County, the most populous county in the state, she apparently has little campaign apparatus outside the county. Larry Forgy is right: more people know Anne Northup "in Floyd County, Indiana than in Floyd County, Kentucky." In addition, some analysts are forgetting she lost there.

Her chances to build an organization were dealt a blow recently when Republican legislators began lining up for Fletcher in numbers that must have surprised even Fletcher supporters. This certainly must have surprised Northup's campaign, which was probably expecting just the opposite.

It was Northup's Bay of Pigs.

Most of these commitments came from the Senate, but there would have been more from the House had not Jeff Hoover (R-Jamestown), Northup's running mate, been Minority Floor Leader there. Hoover's leadership position in the House will help the campaign's success outside Louisville, but most of that help will be in the fact that some support for Fletcher will be neutralized rather than that Hoover will get the necessary support from members. But the election of Stan Lee (R-Lexington) to minority whip has to be seen not only as an indication of dissatisfaction with Hoover's get-along-with-the-Democrats approach that has characterized his tenure, but proof that there is a willingness among members to openly buck his leadership. This can't bode well for Northup.

Second, Fletcher is underrated. He is the sitting governor after all. The power of his position was on display in the recent commitments the governor received from lawmakers and county judge-executives. In addition, Fletcher's chief activity over the last few months has been announcing projects county to county. Local officials don't forget such things.

So if it is true that Fletcher's chances are better against Northup than the analyst's think, what is it that makes Northup's candidacy good for the governor's prospects?

First, attention. One of the problems Fletcher has had during his administration is the poor communication of his accomplishments. The Fletcher administration would probably say that this is due to an anti-Fletcher media, and this is probably at least partly true. The governor has not exactly gotten good breaks while in office either. But the Fletcher administration seems to keep its spokesmen on a short leash, and this hasn't helped.

The Fletcher administration needs a Tony Snow--bad.

The fact that Fletcher now is in a position of having to get out and campaign early is placing some much needed pressure on getting its message out. The Governor's chief of staff, Stan Cave is the best spokesperson the administration has, but his adminstrative duties obviously place limits on what he has been able to do. The Northup candidacy has forced the administration into a position in which it must deploy Cave. Cave is not known to suffer fools glady, particularly those he feels inhabit the media. But Cave is everything Fletcher is not. Fletcher is not a fighter (despite his military background). Cave is. The sooner he is out with Larry Forgy battling for the administration, the better off it will be.

The only time Fletcher has made the news over the past year is in regard to the hiring investigation. Northup's challenge to Fletcher will force the administration into changing that sooner than it otherwise would have.

The second reason the Northup candidacy helps is that it could provide the Fletcher administration with a victory it needs to shore up the public image of a less than competent administration that has developed over the past couple of years.

Fletcher does not wield power very well. He doesn't understand the mystique of the governor's office. He comes out of his hospital room after an illness last year in his hospital pajamas. No governor who understands the importance of a public persona would address the cameras in his pajamas. No one should have seen Fletcher during that time.

While he is seen when he shouldn't be, he often isn't seen when he should be.

When the Comair flight crashed at Bluegrass field last summer, the governor should have been on the spot giving a speech the next day putting the tragedy in perspective, much as Reagan did after the first shuttle crash--even if he had to fly back from Europe to do it. Instead, little was seen of him.

These tendencies have caused a crisis of confidence among many people in Fletcher's leadership. But this perception could be changed if he is able to beat a viable opponent in the primary. Victories inspire confidence, and victories have been few and far between during Fletcher' tenure. The failure to get Larry Forgy on the Republican state executive committee last year, for example, hurt--less because Forgy didn't make it than because it contributed to the perception that Fletcher is weak. It probably shouldn't have been attempted in the first place unless it was a sure thing.

A victory over Northup, however, would provide Fletcher not only with a victory over Northup, but a victory over Sen. Mitch McConnell, who is said to run the state party, and is perceived to be invincible. McConnell is clearly behind Northup, even though he claims to be neutral in the primary. Fletcher has been manhandled by McConnell's minions (such as Jack Richardson, head of the Jefferson County Republican Party). A Fletcher victory against Northup would change all that.

If Fletcher is successful against Northup, he has an important victory in his pocket as he enters the general election--and he will have slain a much larger dragon than any he will face in the general election. If he can beat McConnell, he will have achieved something no Democrat has been able to accomplish so far.

Most importantly, he will have changed public perception, which has always been his chief problem.

Spielbergia: What Steven Spielberg means to American culture

There is a fascinating article on the relevance of Steven Spielberg's movies to American Culture at The Virginia Quarterly Review.

KY HPV vaccination controversy makes Time Magazine

Time Magazine has a story in its Jan. 17th edition on the debate in Kentucky over mandatory HPV vaccination for middle school girls. Boy it didn't take Rep. Kathy Stein (D-Lexington), the new Judiciary Committee chairman and author of the bill, long to start drawing national attention for her views.

Top ten books of all time

Time Magazine went out and asked the 125 most notable writers in the world what they thought the ten greatest books of all time were. The compiled the list and these are the consensus favorites:

1. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
2. Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
3. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
4. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Hamlet by William Shakespeare
7. The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald
8. In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
9. The Stories of Anton Chekhov by Anton Chekhov
10. Middlemarch by George Eliot

Now this list is terribly heavy on modern writers. In fact, the oldest book on the list is Hamlet (early 17th century). Where is Homer? Where is Virgil? Where is Dante? In fact, there is no poetry on the list at all. Maybe that is intentional, but it is still unfortunate.

And why two Tolstoy's and no Dostoevsky?

Well, it's a good discussion starter anyway.

Kentucky economically classed with Portugal

Norwegian researcher Carl Stormer classes Kentucky with Portugal in terms of its gross national product (GNP). In a map showing each state of the union labeled with the name of the country with the most comparable GNP, Kentucky is closest to Portugal.

Could this mean better soccer, tastier wine, and more attractive architecture? Or worse government and harder to pronounce geographical locations? I'm ready to fully convert over, mostly because of their clearly superior flag.

The comparison of other states is also interesting: California matches up with France, Illinois with Mexico, Indiana with Denmark, and Ohio with Australia. Virginia gets matched with Austria, North Carolina to Sweden, and South Carolina to Singapore. Tennessee gets to be Saudi Arabia.

Among the big states, California is most like France, Texas like Canada, and New York like Brazil.

Oh, and Alaskans will want to familiarize themselves with Belarus.