(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
The twitter thread that just over a week ago may have saved Americans from shortages and hyper-inflation. From Don’t Worry About the Vase, followed by the Al-worthy thread:

They went to five shortly thereafter.

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Whether you love, hate or feel a disgusted indifference to Donald Trump should, logically have no bearing on what you think of Anthony Fauci. I personally land somewhere between category 2 and category 3, but nevertheless that doesn’t mean that everyone else somewhere on that spectrum is somehow automatically worthy. Shallow nitwits thinking otherwise must live with the fact that they gave Andrew Cuomo and Emmy Award for the rest of their shallow nitwit days.
A great many people have earned Higgy nominations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but many of them are anonymous bureaucrats. I’m not sure what the Center for Disease Control has been doing with their annual multi-billion budget for the last three decades, but preparing to control a disease seemed strangely absent from the list. The CDC put out bad tests during the critical early period, and then Food and Drug Administration hamstrung more effective and more easily scaled tests. Unfortunately there is no clear individual in my mind to nominate to personify a deeply less than useless CDC/FDA combo. I always viewed their follies as indicative of a deep systemic cultural problem in the agencies and our broader political culture. If, for instance, the 2016 election had swung the other way it always struck me as profoundly unlikely that the CDC and FDA would have been much less of a goat-rodeo than what we watched. After all it would have been largely the same group of people running the agencies.
Speaking of the same group of people running things into the ground regardless of elections, Antony Fauci has earned a Higgy.
Fauci became a hero in the minds of many Americans because he publicly disagreed with Donald Trump on occasion. Donald Trump is not my cup of tea, and I voted for other candidates at every opportunity. Feuding with Trump however ought not to constitute a general pass for mendacity and/or incompetence. Sadly, Fauci has exhibited both of these repeatedly.
On January 21st 2020, with the COVID-19 virus spreading in China, Anthony Fauci first came to our attention in context of the pandemic. Not however in a positive way. Fauci, who had been serving at the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infection Diseases since (gasp) 1984 stated that COVID-19 “is not a major threat for the people of the United States and this is not something the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.” Needless to say, that statement didn’t age well.
A few days later the Trump administration began holding a vigorous internal debate regarding banning travel from China to the United States. Fauci strongly opposed the measure, but the administration decided to impose such a ban on January 31st. The Trump administration certainly bears some blame for the fact that the decision to cut travel from China was xenophobic due to previous xenophobic grandstanding, and the virus was already in the United States by January 31st, but Fauci himself later stated that the decision saved lives.
This brings us to l’affaire de masque.
In March Fauci told 60 Minutes “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.” Months later, Fauci performed a U-Turn on masks. “Masks work . . . to prevent you from infecting someone else . . . but also, it can protect you to a certain degree.”
At this point I concluded that Fauci was either a complete incompetent or was a liar. As it turns out, he demonstrated himself to be both of these things, but on masks he later claimed to have been lying. “We were told . . . we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for health providers…we really need to save the masks for the people who need them most.”
Whether he was actually just too incompetent or shoveling out what he imagined to be a noble lie doesn’t ultimately matter. This was a catastrophic mistake in either case. No American had any reason whatsoever to have any confidence made by federal health authorities. You were on your own to figure out whether masks were likely to help slow the spread of a **cough** upper respiratory disease or not. Our alleged federal Olympians had been on both sides of the issue.
How should this have been handled “We absolutely need to get as many PPEs as possible for our medical personnel, and we don’t yet have conclusive evidence on cloth masks, but COVID-19 is an upper-respiratory disease and wearing cloth masks can’t hurt anything. We are therefore recommending their use pending further study.”
Later on the subject of herd immunity, Fauci told the New York Times “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
Why should anyone care the least little bit about anything Fauci thinks or says? First what he thinks doesn’t seem to have much of a track record, second he obviously doesn’t always say what he thinks. Moreover the fantasy that somehow Americans are sitting around the dinner table hanging on every word of Fauci in making their decision on whether or not to get a vaccine shows a cosmic lack of self-awareness. Perhaps I can provide a bit of clarity: your fan club was always going to get vaccinated and no one else cares what you think.
In the same way that Trump’s general xenophobic actions and rhetoric did not mean that shutting down flights from China was a bad idea, Fauci’s follies also do not mean it’s a bad idea to get a vaccine. I received mine about a week ago, I have no reason to believe they are unsafe, and the broad reduction in cases and deaths underway represent very positive trends that you’d be hard pressed to credibly attribute to anything else. In other words go get vaccinated.
Finally however comes a Wall Street Journal article detailing how Great Britain has managed to get the COVID-19 death rate down substantially faster than the United States. In examining the data, British authorities (correctly) decided that it did not make much sense to spend effort giving people a booster shot when the same shot could provide a high rate of immunity, whereas the booster shot can only add on to an already high rate of immunity.
Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a member of President Biden’s COVID task force, asked federal health officials to re-examine COVID-19 vaccine data with an eye toward delaying the second dose so more people can quickly receive first shots- the British strategy.
Osterholm told the Star Tribune:
“We could get more of our over-65 age group vaccinated,” said Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “I think the data will support that actually is a very effective way to go.”
Sure enough the data did support the British strategy. The American COVID-19 death rate has dropped an impressive 74% since the peak in January. In Britain however the rate has dropped by 96% and that is without access to the single shot Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
I’ll give you one guess only who opposed pursuing the British strategy. For his consistent level of mendacity and incompetence and imagining it possible to “nudge” people to get vaccinated after doing a great deal to undermine public confidence, I nominate Anthony Fauci for the 2021 Higgy.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Nick Steinsberger was a subordinate of previous “Al” winner George Mitchell, but after having read Gregory Zuckerman’s excellent book The Frackers it is clear that Steinsberger is worthy of an Al of his own. Mitchell was a driving force behind America’s energy revolution, but the lesser known Steinsberger actually made it happen.Although you may be hearing of Nick Steinsberger for the first time, he fundamentally changed the course of the world. As a young petroleum engineer working for Mitchell Energy in the 1990s, Steinsberger drew what was regarded as the dead-end assignment of working on George Mitchell’s obsession of drilling shale formations. The project had gone nowhere for years, the company was in deep financial trouble and it wasn’t a great time for the oil and gas industry generally. Mitchell considered selling the energy side of the business, but didn’t find much of a market for the company. Mitchell’s chosen successor and the board of the company were restless, and Steinsberger found himself in charge of the least profitable division of a not terribly profitable company in a not currently profitable industry nursing a decades long obsession of an aging and increasingly cantankereous founder. From this grim spot, Nick Steinsberger made the discovery that changed the world.
The technique being used combined horizontal drilling and fracking- blast liquid and sand into a formation in the hopes of releasing hydrocarbons. Mitchell’s obsession was to combine these techniques in order to get at the vast amounts of oil/gas contained in shale formations. Rather than giant collected resevoirs, shale formations contain small amounts of hydrocarbons spread throughout a large underground rock formation. The oil industry had knows about shale oil and gas for years but had large since written it off because it could not be extracted economically. The techniques being overseen by Steinsberger were extracting gas in the Barnett shale- just not nearly enough for Mitchell Energy to remain solvent.
One Steinsberger noticed that a fracking well he was supervising didn’t mix the fluid properly. The normal mix of fluids was thicker than Jell-O, but in this faulty mix the fluid was more like liquid. Strangely enough, the well with the faulty mix produced a surprising amount of gas. Some of Steinsberger’s colleagues thought it was a fluke, but Steinsberger began to suspect that maybe water and sand minus all those expensive chemicals might work just as well.
A few weeks later over beer and bbq at a Texas Rangers baseball game, Steinsberger learned from a friend of a technique used in Kansas called a “river frac.” Almost entirely water and sand, this technique had been used to break up dense rock. Given that Mitchell Energy was in deep financial trouble and that Steinsberger was running what was viewed as a quixotic vanity project, Nick decided to trim chemical expenses on more wells. What did he have to lose?
Many of his coworkers thought Nick was out of his mind. By their understanding of the geology of shale, this technique which had worked on Kansas sand-stone had no chance working in shale. Shale clay would absorb the water, swell up and jam up the fractures. That’s what the chemicals were for after all. One superior allegedly promised to eat his diploma if the technique worked. “It’s a stupid idea,” he was told. “It’s not going to work.”
Despite a great deal of opposition, Steinsberger got the chance to experiment, if only because the company couldn’t afford the chemicals. Steinsberger was acting on a hunch- he thought a mix with few chemicals and less sand would create multiple micro-fissures rather than a single large passageway to the surface.
“The idea was crazy at the time. He had guts, no one else would have thought of doing it,” a company executive later recalled. “If the oil business had a gonads on the anvil award, he’d win.”
In August of 1997, with an anxious wife with two young children making contingency plans regarding a possibly soon to be unemployed husband, Steinsberger anxiously monitored the performance of Barnett wells, three of which had used his new mixture. The initial production from the three wells was nothing special, but then Steinsberger’s luck changed. Fracked wells involve a quick spurt of product followed by a sharp decline. The three Steinsberger wells trailed off at a slower rate.
This was just promising enough to save Nick’s hide and to allow him to experiment further. He altered the sand flow, put more horsepower on the pumps, made adjustments. By the summer of 1998, a Mitchell Energy started producing one and a half million feet of gas per day with the revised techniques, and instead of tailing off, it just kept going, and going. Other wells began to do the same. The slick water frack wasn’t just cheaper, it was also better.
Mitchell, a patron of the arts and many charities, was rewarded for his obsession and saved from personal financial ruin was hardly a moment to spare. The global implications of this innovation however were far more significant. Natural gas became abundant and cheap in the United States, abundant and cheap enough to greatly diminish the use of coal, reducing carbon emissions. Companies converted massive gas import facilities being built in American ports into export facilities. The technique worked on oil, and the United States reversed decades of decline in production and then, incredibly, began to export millions of barrels per day. The economic and political ramifications of this change have yet to fully play out, but they are already profound.
Nick did not become incredibly wealthy as a result of his innovation. Today he is still working as the COO of an energy firm. His influence on the global century however will remain long after the wealth of lesser figures has faded away. Nick’s example contains important lessons about innovation- human progress vitally depends on allowing people to follow hunches, to take gambles and to try new things. The urge require and deny permission, to standardize practice and to avoid risk has a largely hidden but staggeringly large potential cost- you likely never know what you missed out on. A world in which Nick was required to seek permission for each new technique he tried would be both poorer and dirtier. Red tape has been strangling American educators from the local, state and federal levels for decades. We could use more gonads on the anvil wildcatters like Nick Steinsberger.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
I have a post over at RedefinED making the case that as horizontal drilling was to hydraulic fracturing, and Rick Astley was to Nirvana, so too is distance learning to project-based micro-schooling. A full commitment to innovation is what I’m thinking of, you know wouldn’t get this from any other wonk.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
A few years ago a friend of mine asked one of the Arizona Republic’s reporters why they were engaging in so much of what many former/potential Republic subscribers regard advocacy journalism. He reported to me that she shrugged her shoulders and said “it wins you awards.”
So it’s bad when newspapers go into full advocacy mode, worse still when folks at an Ivy League University can’t see through their tricks and hand them what perhaps used to be prestigious awards. Recently the Harvard Kennedy School gave the Arizona Republic, USA Today and the Center for Public Integrity an award for Copy, Paste, Legislate. The story made clever use of plagiarism detection software to selectively document the use of model bills by state lawmakers. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) serves as the bete noire in their story. “This fantastic reporting sheds light for the public and local media on the origins of legislation that gets passed in statehouses across the country” the above video proclaims from the judges of the Goldsmith Prize with what sounds like a string quartet playing somber music in the background.
Okay so what should the Harvard folks have been able to see through with this story? Well, not long after the publication of the piece Harvard Kennedy School graduate Pat Wolf noted on twitter:
@USATODAY spreads the deception that copycat legislation is an epidemic. Source of the problem is that @azcentral hid the fact that 99% of the bills they examined were NOT copycats. 1% is a rounding error, not a crisis.
That’s just the beginning of the problems with this story- but it’s a big problem. A few others: Trent England from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs helpfully noted that model legislation has been around since 1892, and all kinds of groups create model bills. The story authors airbrushed the largest center-left source of model legislation (the National Council of State Legislatures) out of their analysis, comparing the right of center ALEC to a couple of very young and very small progressive model bill groups. TA-DA! Most of the model bills become right wing! If you are keeping score at home, so long as you are willing to ignore the 99% of bills that don’t come from models and also a large majority of groups who do model legislation, this looks scary to a left of center reader.
Unless…unless you pause to think for a moment and realize that model bills go through exactly the same legislative process that any other bill goes through. Either it passes through committees and chambers and receives the assent of the governor, or it doesn’t. Since anyone and everyone can and often do write model bills and they go through the normal democratic process so:

There are other problems, including factual errors which remain uncorrected, which you can read about here. I’ve simply had to accept that much of journalism has gone down the road of overt advocacy. It’s unfortunate, but as the Arizona Republic’s readership has continued to decline they seem to be attempting to play to the predispositions of their remaining subscriber base. It doesn’t seem to be working as a sustainability strategy: Arizona’s population continues to grow, the Republic’s subscriber base continues to shrink and the handwriting is on the wall. As a long time Republic subscriber who admires the work of multiple people at the paper, this is very sad. It feels more than a bit like watching Nick Cage drink himself to death in Leaving Las Vegas.
Which brings us back to the Higgy. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game,” the expression goes. I guess I can’t be too upset with USA Today and the Arizona Republic if they fall prey to the temptation to engage in sensationalism when they get rewarded for it. It would not have been past the analytical powers of a mildly skeptical Harvard sophomore to have spotted the flaws in this reporting, given a study of pluralism and policy diffusion. You know-the kind of things you ought to study at the Harvard Kennedy School as a sophomore. Figuring this out alas seems well beyond the power of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy and their judges. I don’t know a thing about Nancy Gibbs other than what is in the above youtube video, but if newspapers are going to go they should die as they once lived- as something reasonably close to a neutral community institutions. The newspapers have more than enough problems without grandees tempting them to do slanted work with prizes.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Ok so you need distraction from this global pandemic business, so I’ll share some stuff I’ve been up to at the Arizona Charter Schools Association. Pop quiz hot-shot! Based on the Stanford Opportunity Project data who has the higher quality education system-Arizona or Massachusetts? Sean F. Reardon linked state tests across the country and gave proficiency and growth scores for most of the public schools in the country. Each dot in the above chart is an individual public school.
On paper this is no contest- Massachusetts lead the nation in NAEP scores for many years, AZ has below average 4th grade scores and kind of average 8th grade NAEP scores. This is reflected on the horizontal axis- the vast majority of MA schools land on the right side of the zero line meaning they are above average grade level proficiency. Keep in mind however that proficiency is highly correlated with student demographics, and Massachusetts is a socio-economically advantaged state. Growth on the other hand is much less correlated with student demographics and Arizona students show more of it than any other state during this period (2008-2016). And by the way, you don’t need to squint to see blue in what Keith Jackson called “hallelujah-land” (Keith of course referred to the end zone, where as I am referencing the upper right quadrant- high growth and high proficiency) and that disappointing quadrant below it (high proficiency low growth) is looking pretty bright orange. Those two super high growth schools at the top of the chart are charter schools in South Phoenix and Nogales-Ruiz Leadership Academy and Mexicayotl Academy, respectively.
Massachusetts is the highest proficiency state and Arizona the highest growth state, so beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Second pop quiz hot shot!
Which state does the best on a productivity basis? Here’s a hint:


(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
The critics liked Last Jedi more than the audience on Rotten Tomatoes. Currently the critics are lukewarm on Rise of Skywalker but the audience is at 88%. I usually trust aggregated audience more than critics, but in this case I’m with the critics. “A victorious army wins and then seeks victory. A defeated army seeks battle and then seeks victory” said the warrior-sage. If Disney had a plan going into this trilogy it sure looked like “making stuff up on the fly” in this film.
Oh well, back to the Mandolorian and Baby Yoda, which is good fun thus far.

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Over at Redefined I decided it would be a good idea to get the history of Education Savings Accounts written before any of us involved get hit by a bus. In the first post Dan Lips returns from walking the earth like Kung Fu (aka working on stuff other than K-12) to recount the school choice debates which helped inspire him to develop an account based choice proposal. In a sequel post I explain the circumstances by which we on the ground in Arizona put the ESA theory to practice.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Over at RedefinED I dip a toe into podcasting with my old nemesis Sherman Dorn (wait…that makes one of us the bad guy right? Not it!) Dr. Dorn and I used to argue about Florida NAEP scores, but now we both live in the Cactus Patch. Anyway Dorn very kindly hosted me at Arizona State to record the podcast, which is in two parts, and (I think) we basically agree that public schools are over-regulated and seem to reach a consensus on a lighter footprint testing system. Along the way we discuss the 20th anniversary of Jeb Bush’s reforms and other stuff. Jayblog fans should take a listen: part I and part II.

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Herodotus called Egypt “the gift of the Nile” and Arizona is the gift of the Colorado (and a canal). Both Egypt and Arizona have alas been afflicted by an edifice complex- giant mountain sized stone tombs in the case of Egypt, very pricey new construction for districts in the case of Arizona, as I detail in a Chamber Business News column. Any chance $330 per square foot schools will attract tourists thousands of years from now? Warning: reading this piece will expose you to earworm Egyptian themed songs.