The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech.
– Justice Scalia, from his dissent in McConnell v. FEC (2003)
Archive for September, 2004
So, apparently, public nudity isn’t illegal in San Francisco.
And thus, apparently, neither is naked yoga.
The Progressive Policy Institute, home of the Eduwonk, has a study out on charter schools in New York. Data-wise, there’s not much here that the state’s own five-year evaluation didn’t come up with late last year. But there’s some solid analysis of how beneficial these schools are, not just for the kids lucky enough to go to them, but as a model and spur for reform in the rest of the state’s public education system.
Unfortunately, much of the state government couldn’t care less about whether charter schools are good or bad. The Legislature and the Board of Regents only care about what their teachers-union masters think.
Slate has a nice article here on how Ali G goes about duping his victims.
Suck-up letters seem to play a large role.
Some photographs, from an anonymous source that I won’t disclose and have no way of verifying.
Well, Roll Call finally got around to the story, reported first by M.O. on Friday, of a Hill intern busted with pot on her first day at work. (Tip, courtesy of M.O.perative Darcy)
If I were better at milking scandals, tonight I’d be posting pictures of me and Weedentonienne toking away at some hot D.C. nightclub (does such a thing exist?).
Next, Michelle Malkin would be writing columns calling me a “skanky stoner” and I’d be turning down offers to do a photo spread for High Times.
And let’s not forget about that book deal.
I hate myself.
So, I just went to see “Resident Evil: Apocalypse.”
Two hours of women running around in short skirts and shooting at zombies?
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
I know this is at least a month old, but since I had to prove to a friend that it was real tonight, I’ll direct attention to it again.
Virginia has undertaken a campaign to discourage men from having sex with underage girls. Now, this is a fine thing to do and all, but here’s the state’s slogan: “Isn’t she a little young? Sex with a minor. Don’t go there.”
I think Andy Watchorn, 28, interviewed by Fox News in a bar, said it best:
“Does this raise awareness?” he asked. “I think it’s more confusing than anything else. Confusing and awkward.”
Of course, where this is really needed is in congressional offices. And Chappaqua.
Today’s New York Post editorial page carries a sickening story about naked politics trumping the needs of kids up in Albany.
All of the public middle schools in Albany and Amsterdam — that’s every last one — are failing. This means that kids in these schools are supposed to have a right, under No Child Left Behind, to transfer to a better school.
Two proposed charter schools would have given kids in these districts somewhere to transfer to — but that’s just too much for New York’s Board of Regents, which rejected both applications last Friday because of the “fiscal impact” the new charter schools would have on the existing public schools.
This is ridiculous, for two reasons listed in the editorial:
First, the fiscal impact would be small. The Albany charter, for instance, would take a whopping one-half of 1 percent of the district’s budget.
In any event, if, in a competitive market, charter schools gain and public schools lose — what’s wrong with that? The traditional public schools had their chance, and they blew it — big time.
I’ve said it 1,000 times before, and I’ll say it another 10,000 before I die: It’s the kids not the system!
Our concern can’t be for public schools or districts “losing money” (as if it were theirs by right somehow) when kids opt out of the traditional public system to attend charter schools or use vouchers.
That money belongs to the parents, and it is theirs to use to educate their children.
Save the kids, not the bureaucrats.
The Regents should be embarrassed that they’re protecting failure at the expense of innovation and competition. But what else can you expect from a body controlled, ultimately, by the teachers unions?
Sickening.
I learned something this morning.
In my neighborhood, you can’t walk too far without running into DNC workers asking if you’d “like to help get John Kerry elected.” Now, even if I were voting for him, I wouldn’t really want to help him, per se.
So, this is what I learned. While you can always just decline politely (or pretend that they don’t exist, like a normal person), what they really hate is this:
“Sorry, I’m voting for Nader.”
I’ve been asked whether I was going to comment on the failure of one of the largest charter-school operators in the country, the California Charter Academy, which displaced about 6,000 students in 60 schools right before the start of school.
Eduwonk covered most of it, including The New York Times’ usual spin job, here.
Basically, it’s terrible that these schools failed and left so many kids in trouble, but the California Charter Schools Association placed most of the kids in other charter schools very quickly (something the Times neglects to explain).
And, once again, the fact that schools are closed is not a bug, it’s a feature of charters. Children could only be so lucky as to see failing public schools close — as opposed to fester on for decades.
Overall, what this case shows is that failures can be absorbed in a dynamic education market. Yes, schools will open and close. But as long as there are numerous options, everyone will be served. Add vouchers to the charters + public schools equation, and you have even more competition and redundancy. There’s a lot of unused private-school capacity in this country, after all.
Jimmy Breslin has, remarkably enough, an interesting column this week. He asks the question: Are telephone polls skewed because they don’t call cell phones?
OK, Breslin doesn’t so much ask the question as accuse the polling industry of a massive fraud. “Anybody who believes these national political polls are giving you facts is a gullible fool,” he writes. Man, can he turn an eloquent phrase.
Anyway, I haven’t heard back from my friends in the polling industry on this (any of you out there, please chime in), but my guess is that for this election, Breslin is overstating the case — but it will be a bigger problem every year.
Breslin points to the fact that people from 18-25 are likely to use their cell phones as their main phones. This strikes me as the rule, rather than the exception, especially in cities. Many young people don’t even have landlines. I haven’t had one since college, preferring the simplicity of having only one personal phone number and not wanting to spend $20-$40 a month just in base fees.
But, and it’s a big but, only about a third of people in this age group vote (thank God). So, I think any uncounted youth votes are relatively inconsequential.
Still, landlines are not likely to gain in popularity with my generation as we age (and cell service gets better and cheaper), and there is likely to come a day when phones with wires plugged into walls will be as anachronistic as smoke signals.
So, either pollsters will have to start including these phones (difficult for a number of logistical and legal reasons), or they’ll have to come up with an entirely new approach.
I’d be interested to hear what new approaches are in the works. There must be some, since this problem is large and inevitable…
…right? Guys?
Give this a second to load. You’ll see…
Don’t these people ever learn?
Wonkette confirms the office I was hearing from Darcy:
Phil English (Penn. - R)
Home, perhaps, to the Hill’s Pot Princess.
More from M.O.prative Darcy (an e-mail Darcy was forwarded):
this is a funny story I just got wind of….
Ok, so we had a new intern (”C”) start today and from the beginning she seemed bit weird - unprofessional, loud, told XXXX she had a “long night” the night fore. She also asked XXXX if he was an intern and said that XXXX was “her kind of guy” - whatever that means. So we have been cracking up about her all morning.
so then, our staff assistant took her over to the Capitol and her purse got searched as it goes when you enter that building. Well, they found a one-hitter in her bag and she got arrested!!!! Yep, she is a good egg!!
First and last day on the job!!!
Don’t know how credible any of this is. And I ain’t naming anyone, even if I’m sent a name. I don’t need the lawsuit.
Wasn’t it this first guy who used to say: “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it”?
Right, well, now this guy is using that line.
At least one of these guys admits that he made up the news.
Today, I received the following e-mail from M.O. correspondent Darcy:
an intern, on her first day in the office, got caught in the capitol
corridors with pot in her purse while on a tour.This will be on wonkette I’m sure
this is after, earlier, the dumb broad though the Legislative Director
was also another intern, and hit on her Chief of Staff.Started at 8 am, arrested by 10.
Need I say that this is unsubstantiated? I want a name — and a piece of the book deal.
On OpinionJournal.com, Robert Maranto gives a wonderful account of how parents are treated in the monopoly public school system:
LOWER MERION, Pa.–It’s back-to-school time. Unfortunately, despite school report cards and mandates like No Child Left Behind, many public schools still treat parents like mushrooms: feed them guano and keep them in the dark.
This occurred to me when, like any good parent, I called the principal’s office at my local public elementary school to check it out before sending my son. Alas, despite spending $20,000 per child, our school had trouble returning three phone messages left during normal business hours. On my fourth try I reached a live person, and had a brief conversation:
“Hi, I’m Bob Maranto. I’m a parent who lives in [your school’s] attendance zone. My son will be old enough for kindergarten next fall. He’s actually right on the edge, so he could go next fall or the following fall, and I was wondering if I could come visit the school sometime.”
“We don’t have any visiting this year,” the administrator replied. “We’re doing construction and a lot of things are going on.”
“Could I watch a class in session?”
“No, even when there’s no construction you could not watch a class.”
“Well, could I meet my son’s teacher?”
“No, the teachers are busy teaching all day and then they go home.”
As we used to say when I was in government, this is customer service worthy of the Internal Revenue Service. It also corresponds to playground gossip about this school, which has test scores lower than nearby schools.
A mere five months and 22 phone calls, faxes, and e-mails later–to the superintendent, school board, principal, and various other “public servants”–I was allowed to visit my son’s likely school. Someday, I hope to watch a class.
You don’t need to tell people much about your product when your seats will be full and your budget secure no matter what.
So, it seems Eduwonk thinks I’m an all or nothing kind of guy. Fair enough. A Democrat supporting vouchers at all is notable, especially one running for national office.
But when I talked to Colorado Senate candidate Ken Salazar in June, he was running away from vouchers as quickly as he could, and throwing his arms around the usual, failed BS: smaller class sizes, higher teacher pay, yadda yadda yadda.
I don’t think he’d be much use in the Senate on issues relating to school choice. If he thinks the D.C. voucher program is too expansive, what does he consider “limited” enough? Maybe he’d be good on charter schools, but I have no reason to assume so — at this point.
D.C.’s schools, along with those of so many other inner-city public school systems, are atrocious. I’m sorry, but saying that those kids should remain trapped is unacceptable. Democrats don’t deserve gold stars for not being total screw-ups on this issue anymore. We’re seeing that choice works where it’s tried. But too many kids are still trapped, and you’re either with the kids or with the unions.
I know what side I’m on. I know what side the parents are on. I know what side Salazar’s Republican opponent, Pete Coors, is on. What side is Ken Salazar on?
This isn’t to say that everyone has to support universal vouchers. But if a candidate or public official doesn’t have something specific to offer in terms of choice — vouchers, charter schools, tax credits or otherwise — then he’s got nothing serious to say about education.
The Democrats don’t get points for being “for education” any more. It’s time to put up — and confront the unions — or shut up.
From the desk of Daniel Okrent, ombuds… I mean, public editor of The New York Times. Re the charter-school hit piece:
Thank you for your comments. Everything sent to this mailbox is read by
either me or my associate, Arthur Bovino. If a further reply is appropriate,
you will be hearing from them shortly.Don’t forget, when referring to a specific article please include its date,
section and headline.If you do not wish your message to be relayed to other editors and
reporters, be sure to let us know.– Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
Though, it was suspicious how quickly this impersonal response arrived. Almost… instantaneously. Hmmm…
Eduwonk makes mention here of the Senate race between Ken Salazar and Pete Coors in Colorado. It’s an interesting race for education policy people because both candidates have supported school vouchers over the years.
Ken Salazar, in fact, became the first-ever voucher supporter endorsed by the rabidly anti-voucher National Education Association. In the past, when Democrats endorsed vouchers, they could expect to be spat upon by the union. In 2000, Sen. Joe Lieberman was essentially ignored by the NEA, though, of course, it endorsed Gore. The senator even had to denounce a voucher initiative going on that year — though that wasn’t enough to earn him any love.
Anyway, Salazar has gotten a lot of notice for his voucher support, because he’s a Democrat and because he’s Hispanic. However, as I mentioned in this column in June, Salazar is far from a voucher booster.
When I talked to the attorney general, he told me: “I oppose broad-based, universal vouchers.”
Salazar endorsed a very narrow voucher program, just in Denver, as attorney general. He went on to not support the broader voucher program that was eventually adopted in Colorado, which included an extra 11 districts. He defended that program in court, in his capacity as attorney general, but did not consider it wise policy.
Salazar told me that he opposes the Washington, D.C., voucher program, because it is too broad-based. He also told me he is “not planning to promote vouchers” generally.
To the contrary, he has mostly supported union-friendly junk like smaller class sizes and higher teacher pay.
The voucher issue in this race is still of interest politically, as to whether his record here helps or hurts (and in what way it helps or hurts). But as much as voucher supporters would like to claim Salazar, an appealing minority politician, as a voucher supporter — well, it’s just not so.
He could come around, though.
National Review was recently sued by a Muslim activist in California, affiliated with CAIR, in a blatant attempt to intimidate journalists reporting on the War on Terror. While an article published by the magazine contained a minor error, the editors quickly clarified.
The costs of this frivolous lawsuit, however, came to about $65,000.
The magazine explains the situation here and asks for readers’ help in paying off this debt, which it can ill afford.
The filer of the bogus lawsuit was ordered to pay National Review’s legal costs, but didn’t have the money.
You can click through here to donate.
Lookin’ for Search Results in All the Wrong Places
Published by September 16th, 2004 in Misc. Miscellany. 0 CommentsUnusual search engines. (via Geek Press)
I’ve been seeing more and more of the rumor that there’s a secret draft on its way in 2005 — if Bush gets reelected.
Occasionally it’s spouted by nuts like my congressman (unfortunately) Rep. Major Owens.
But, mostly, I see it in junk e-mail. Just one of those minor, dirty little things that happen during campaign season.
Here’s a lovely little ad put out by some anti-gun nuts, relating to the recent expiration of the assault-weapons ban.
It seems to be associated with the hysterical Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But the message reminds me of someone else…
I wonder if John Edwards thinks the Brady Campaign is “un-American”?
It looks like Jimmy Carter really pissed off Zell Miller.
Miller’s back in effect Monday (subscription required) on the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page, relating the following:
I was the first governor to try to remove the Confederate emblem from the Georgia flag. And by the way, when I called each of Georgia’s former governors to tell them what I was about to attempt, Jimmy Carter’s first question to me was, “What are you doing that for?”
Who am I to say if it’s true, but this guy’s on a tear.
Of course, he’s also back repeating his creepy line about Americans enjoying freedom of speech, “courtesy of the American soldier.”
Sorry, Sen. Miller, but that right is ours by natural law or as a gift from our creator — depending on your point of view. The American soldier bravely defends it, but the idea that any right is ours “courtesy” of the machinery of the state is deeply offensive to a free society.
The following is the text (with some hyperlinks added) of a letter I sent tonight to Daniel Okrent, public editor of The New York Times, regarding the recent Chartergate scandal:
Dear Mr. Okrent,
I hope you had a relaxing vacation, but while you were away in August, the paper of record got itself into a bit of mischief on the education beat. I’ve enjoyed your column so far (as, predictably, have so many Times-skeptics), and I realize that many issues are thrust in your face daily, but one lead story, “Charter Schools Trail in Results, U.S. Data Reveals” (Aug. 17), cries out to be addressed.
There are three reasons for this: 1) the biased way in which the story was played, 2) the prominent way in which the story was played and 3) the Times’ failure to acknowledge any problems with the story after they were uncovered in other venues.
And that’s not to mention the ways in which the Times is further failing to honestly report on the results from charter schools even today.
Let’s go point-by-point:
1) As is clear from reading the story itself (though not clear until the 10th paragraph, after the jump) this negative story about charter schools was given to the Times by one of the most prominent opponents of charter schools in America: the American Federation of Teachers. This, off the bat, should have provided the paper with ample reason for skepticism. Instead, the Times presented the story in much the way the union must have hoped: as a tremendous blow to the charter-school movement and the Bush administration.
Now, aside form the motives of the union, there were problems with the story itself. The union, as it happened, had taken a bunch of yet-to-be-released federal data on charter schools and conducted its own analysis. The union (big surprise) found that charter schools were not up to snuff. Specifically, the story said that students in charter schools were performing about a half a year behind the students in the nearest traditional public schools.
This, however, was not the scandal the Times wished it to be. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of charter schools understands the population these publicly funded, privately run schools serve: overwhelmingly poor, overwhelmingly minority and (logically) having a hard enough time in public schools to prompt them to seek alternatives. In other words, charter schools have worse scores because they’re trying to educate tougher kids. As the AFT report itself acknowledges — conveniently buried — when you correct for race, the supposed “gap” disappears.
The Times story did not even acknowledge this caveat in defense of charter schools — a caveat that even a hostile interest group had the integrity to note.
2) The placement of the story on page one, as the lead, speaks for itself. It should also be noted, however, that the story served as one engagement in a larger campaign the Times has undertaken against the No Child Left Behind act, often at the expense of the truth. I am not particularly a defender of President Bush or his law, but the series is quickly coming to rival the Times’ famed Augusta coverage under a previous regime.
3) The Times’ failure to acknowledge any error on its part is perhaps the most egregious aspect of this incident. The paper has yet to acknowledge the simple fact noted above, that the supposed gap between charter school students and other public school students disappears when accounting for race.
This flaw was pointed out in a number of venues, not least of which was in an editorial in the paper where I am employed, The New York Post.
Quite to the contrary, the Times took its own faulty story and ran with it, using it as the basis of an editorial, “Bad News on the Charter Front” (Aug. 18). Now, this was only a day later, but, I can assure you, the faults with the story were already being publicized widely on the Internet, at well-read sites including the moderate-liberal Eduwonk.com. The Times knew about the study’s flaws, and it willfully ignored them.
AND NOW…
The Times continues to fail to tell the real story on charter schools. On September 8, The New York Post reported the results of a new study by a professor at Harvard University, Caroline Hoxby.
Whereas the AFT study was based on a sample of about 3 percent of the 4th-grade charter-school students in the nation, Hoxby’s study is based on data about virtually all of the 4th-grade charter-school students in the nation. And her results were quite the opposite of the AFT’s. Hoxby found that: “Compared to students in the nearest regular public school, charter students are 4 percent more likely to be proficient in reading and 2 percent more likely to be proficient in math, on their state’s exams.”
This is good news for the charter school movement, and it’s news of which readers of the “paper of record” have yet to be informed as of this writing.
Hoxby’s study can be seen at:
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers.html
Someone at the Times might want to look into it.
I’ve gone on at some length here, but at the same time I’ve only scratched the surface of the many problems in the Times’ education coverage. You may be familiar already with the controversy surrounding this story. I — or, I’m sure, any supporter of education reform — would be happy to fill you in on further details.
I can be reached by e-mail or by telephone at 212-xxx-xxxx.
This correspondence has been published electronically, at http://www.rhsager.com, in the interest of open debate.
Thank you for your time.
Best,
Ryan Sager
A sequel of a movie based on a videogame is the No. 1 movie in America. And people say that American culture is a wasteland…
(A lot of people would mean that sarcastically. I, however, love it. Milla Jovovich? What a country.)
I just signed up for a continuing education course at NYU. But I can’t help thinking: I should have waited to see if Bush gets reelected.
I’d say I had about a 50-50 chance of the taxpayers having to pick up the tab, judging by W.’s convention speech.
Recent Comments