Folks watching the Democratic nomination process need to go back for another round of popcorn.  Last night was expected to be, finally, the proverbial final nail in Hillary's coffin in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.  Her most strident critics claimed she needed double digit victories in both Ohio and Texas to stay in the game and even her supporters seemed a bit uneasy with her chances.

Well, she got the double digit win in Ohio and the win in Texas was pretty decisive.  Vermont and Rhode Island were a wash.  It's still mathematically possible for her to win the popular vote.  There is one big state left, Pennsylvania, and Hillary's polling an easy 9 points ahead of Obama.  She is down in the delegate count by about 100 but that's nothing when one considers the 350 or so unclaimed superdelegate votes that are still up for grabs. 

A month ago, I never would have expected redo elections in Florida and Michigan to be a possibility.  They would no doubt require a lot of time and expense.  However, the Republican governor of Florida is certainly behind the idea, which gives it legs.  Those two states redoing their elections would give the Democratic party a potential  way out of deciding the nomination without using superdelegates, which would be the least desireable option for the party.  Reliance upon superdelegates to decide the nomination guarantees that someone walks away from the convention feeling pretty upset and taking their disenfranchised voters with them.

I don't think that Hillary pulls out unless some meetings involve superdelegates telling her that they won't support her.  That doesn't seem likely to happen.  If she continues to win the bulk of the remaining elections, then she has the upper hand in arguing her case for the nomination because she'll have the Clinton long history of supporting the Democratic party combined with decisive wins in the most recent elections.  She can claim that proves her viability as a candidate in the general election.  She's now polling within 1% of a general election outcome versus McCain, which is the best showing she's had in polls against the Republican nominee for weeks.  And if Obama's camp continues to pressure her to bow out, that's just going to hurt Obama more as she asserts her right to keep campaigning when she still has a chance of winning.

larger view

The husband and I thoroughly enjoyed the concert on February 2nd.  I've been a fan of Wagner since middle school and the concert offered a nice range of selections from the composer's repetoire. 

We look forward to more concerts and thank you for providing the gift of fine classical music to the community.

For folks interested, the Symphony's schedule and information can be found at: http://www.bakersfieldsymph...

At what point did it become socially acceptable for total strangers to inquire about another's religious beliefs?  I am left speechless when individuals are so without basic tact that they believe it is normal to ask about another's religion within a minute or two of meeting.  Religion is a private matter that every person must struggle with and reconcile; if individuals don't feel the need to shout out their religious affiliations to the rooftops, they shouldn't be put on the spot.

I am not criticizing all Christians or only Christians; rather, I want the public intrusions to end.  It happens in the supermarkets and in the workplace. 

I argued against the imposition of the religiously motivated posters endorsed by the KHSD school district.  During that time, several people asked me to identify my religion.  I refused to answer because the question only served to try to deflect from the strength of my argument by focusing upon religion as a divisive issue.  If I had identified myself as Hindu or Jewish, then an automatic assumption would have been made that I didn't think the posters were including my gods.  If I had identified myself as an atheist or an agnostic, then individuals supporting the poster would just label me as a god-hater and ignore everything that I had to say.  If, on the other hand, I identified myself as a Christian, the response would be no less disturbing: many advocates would have either claimed that I was a deluded Christian or, even worse, acted as if my argument was stronger because I was a Christian.  None of these outcomes are acceptable or productive because arguments should be evaluated based upon the strength of the arguments.

It seems to me that the people who ask about a person's religion at the first meeting, particularly as a way of starting a conversation, are motivated by at least one of two basic insecurities.  First of all, the individual may hope to hear an affirmative answer "yes" that will justify their own spiritual beliefs.   My job is not to confirm or reinforce another's weak religious beliefs.  If someone seeks validation for their religious beliefs from strangers, then I strongly suggest that they reevaluate their beliefs.  Secondly, the individual inquiring is prepared to hear a "no" answer in order to launch into an attempt to convert the other person and earn a bit of religious credit.  If the asker fails to convert the other person, then at least the asker knows to avoid the heathen in future  conversations or to continue the good fight to impose their religious views upon the other.   This reaks of hubris and a complete lack of respect for the other person. 

If you don't push your religion on others at the first meeting, then my critique doesn't apply to you.  Folks who try to convert others like this don't do their religion any favors; they look weak and obnoxious.

My religious views are personal.  I'm not comfortable disclosing my religion to a stranger.  I am not going to share my annual salary or my medical history to a stranger either.

Not to say I told you so but, as I predicted a few days ago, the New York Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt criticized the lack of evidence and poor quality of the McCain article attack.  His article is online at the NYT site.   He sums up some of the evidentiary shortcomings of the piece:

"Two former McCain associates, who were quoted anonymously and described as “disillusioned” with the senator, said he “acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.” John Weaver, a former top strategist for McCain, told The Times he had arranged a meeting at Union Station in Washington in which Iseman was asked to stay away from the senator. Weaver said the message of McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign was “taking on the special interests” and Iseman’s presence could undermine that.

The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance. The Times did not offer independent proof, like the text messages between Detroit’s mayor and a female aide that The Detroit Free Press disclosed recently, or the photograph of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap."

Hoyt spoke to the editors who made the decision to run the story and had this to say:

"But in the absence of a smoking gun, I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.

If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room.A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide. "

He concluded with:

"I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."

Like Hoyt, I think that the exploration of McCain's ties should certainly be investigated.  The media should be investigating all our candidates in order to help voters.  It's good to see that the public advocate of the NYT recognizes that this article failed to do that and instead elevated the equivalent of high school gossip to the front page.

Pretend that I don't get out much.  It's my mom's second trip to California and first trip to Bakersfield.  She is staying for a week.  I have a couple of places I like but would love to hear suggestions.

Tara McLaughlin does a nice job of discussing the recent report of national AP test scores here:

http://www.bakersfield.com/...

The good news is that California's state average AP scores increased, making California one of the best scoring states in the country.  AP scores are a nice way to test a student's readiness for college and gives high school students a chance to get a leg up by earning college credits.

The bad news is that Kern County's students performed much lower than the state's average.   Data for Kern county can be found here:

http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dat...

Two disturbing pieces of data jump out.

First of all, significantly fewer students in Kern are taking AP classes than the rest of the state.  19% of eligible students in the state of California took AP exams.  However, only 11% of Kern students took the tests.

Secondly, Kern students performed significantly poorer than the rest of the state.  As Tara noted, based upon enrollment rates, 19.2% of students scored a 3 or higher in the state (generally a 3 is the minimum required to earn credit).  In contrast, only 8.6% scored 3 or higher in Kern.

So, our kids aren't taking the AP tests as often as the rest of the state and when they do, they score significantly lower than their statewide counterparts.

These results are just part of a wider trend that demonstrates a failure to develop a culture of learning in Bakersfield.  More data about the poor performance of our county's students can be found here:

http://people.bakersfield.c...

larger view

I have to admit, up until a couple of months ago, I didn't even know that Bakersfield had a planetarium.  For "date night" yesterday, the husband and I took our first trip to the Bakersfield Planetarium.  It won't be our last. 

Planetarium director and BC professor Nick Strobel offered a nice introduction to the Bakersfield night sky that will appeal to star-gazers.  Orion, with the belt, I can see.  Cassiopeia, the W, great constellation.  However, if you can see the head of Medusa in the constellation Perseus, you have a better imagination than I.

The show proceeded to a film on black holes.  The special effects projected on the planetarium's dome ceiling offered a fun trip into the center of a black hole.  No matter how many times I read or watch something about black holes, I'm always left in awe.  The film wasn't too heavy on math and science and was accessible to a general audience. 

The whole show lasted about 90 minutes.  The audience was a mix of families with kids and older couples.  The planetarium's schedule of public shows can be found here:

http://www.bc.cc.ca.us/plan...

You do need to buy tickets in advance as they aren't sold at the door.  The planetarium also offers morning and night shows during the week for groups who schedule in advance.  Seems like a great idea for a field trip.

The planetarium offers an awesome educational opportunity for folks who want to learn a bit more about the universe.  And when almost 1 in 4 Americans continues to believe that the sun revolves around the earth, Bakersfield is lucky to have such a resource on the BC campus.

Before super Tuesday, analysts discussed how if the margin in the Republican race was 150+, then the frontrunner would be pretty much established and the other noms would drop.  Romney followed that conventional wisdom, Huckabee did not.  Not too long ago, Karl Rove was on Fox News explaining that Huckabee needed to win 83% of the remaining delegates to beat McCain, which was virtually impossible if not statistically impossible. 

There are lots of rumors going around, like Huckabee is wanting to push to be the VP candidate.  I don't think Huckabee has a chance at being McCain's VP.  So why is he still in the race?

I'd suggest that Huckabee is looking to the future.  He wants to position himself as performing well for the next time he runs for President.  If he finishes with more delegates than Romney, he can certainly make that argument.

What do folks think?  Any other theories on Huckabee's enduring stance?

After several recent wins, Obama is in great shape to win the nomination.  Clinton, however, has potential wins in Texas and Ohio that can save her.

What do folks think?  Will Obama make the inroads he needs in Ohio and Texas to shut down the Clinton campaign?  Is it all still too close to call?

A recent editorial published by the Bakersfield Californian suggested that drug sniffing dogs are effective.  Ok, it did more than suggest it, the letter downright asserted effectiveness, concluding that:

"The use of trained detection canines in schools works. Dogs are a deterrent. You should see a reduction in drug-related problems. Dogs are less intrusive and more effective than any other form of search. This is why government agencies, with all their resources, still are using them to protect our airports, dignitaries and other high level threat areas."

(Full letter can be found here: http://www.bakersfield.com/...)

Pretty strong words endorsing dogs, right?  I thought so.   Personally, I found the letter disappointing b/c it claimed effectiveness of dogs without actually providing any evidence.  The author is an owner of a drug sniffing dog agency which makes these unverified assertions look pretty fishy.   So I thought I'd do some research and try to find some evaluations of sniffer dogs.

Unfortunately for Trustee Mettler and the other supporters of sniffer dogs, the majority of evidence appears to be against the use of dogs.

For example, the government of New South Wales passed the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act in 2001.  This act allows the use of sniffer dogs in many public locations and was developed to help catch the users and suppliers of illegal drugs.  The NSW Ombudsman's Office evaluated the effectiveness of dogs in detecting drugs.  Highlights of the report found that:

Dogs are only 25%-30% effective in finding drugs.  The low number can be attributed to a large percentage of false positive sniffs.  The report explains that "No drugs were located in almost three-quarters of searches" after dogs had indicated the presence of drugs.   

The report further explained that the low success rate nullifed the usefulness of dogs in providing police with a reasonable justification to search for drugs.  “Given the low rate of detecting drug offences following a drug detection dog indication, it is our view, supported by Senior Counsel’s advice that it is not sufficient for a police officer to form a reasonable suspicion that a person is in possession or control of a prohibited drug solely on this basis.”

The majority of positive, true ID's involved cannabis, suggesting that dogs may not be effective in catching other, more serious types of drugs.

During the 2 year review, "only 1.38% of all indications led to a dog finding a ‘deemed supply’ quantity of a drug."

On the issue of deterence, the 2 year review yielded the following:

“ We were not able to identify any evidence that the use of drug detection dogs has had a deterrent effect on drug users, or led to a reduction in drug-related crime. Nor were we able to measure any appreciable increase in perceptions of public safety as a result of high visibility policing operations utilising drug detection dogs.”

The report also discussed how the threat of dogs could actually increase health risks associated with drugs by motivating students to make bad decisions to avoid detection.  Such risks would include injesting all of their drugs in possession in order to avoid a positive sniff, leading to overdose, consuming drugs at home and then going to school, increasing the risk of accidents, and switching to more dangerous drugs that are less likely to be detected by drugs, such as GHB (Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate).   

Two years of data collected by the government to evaluate a law demonstrate that sniffer dogs aren't effective.  Hmm, that is troubling.  You can read the report for yourself at:

http://www.nswombudsman.nsw...

Furthermore, a research study published by the independent thinktank the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, concluded that "It is a matter of concern that student drug-testing has been widely developed in the US and may conceivably be so in the UK on the basis of the slimmest available research evidence.” You can find an overview of their report here:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/press...

The journal Health Education published a study in 2005 that concluded "both theory and practice suggest that drug testing in schools will not prevent or delay drug use in the UK... The balance of the argument is against drug testing in schools and will remain so until evidence suggests otherwise" (p. 85).  The study was based upon an evaluation of studies conducted in the USA.

Putting aside the issue of student rights, which is a debate that I don't think the proponents of dogs get to have if they can't demonstrate effectiveness, there doesn't seem to be very compelling evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of dogs in schools.  I can't find any recent, structured studies that evaluate sniffer dogs positively.  Can you?