Saturday, April 09, 2005
A LITTLE OVERSIGHT VERSUS LOTS OF NEW GOVERNMENT
In response to my recent criticism of New York Times propaganda, actus asked “are you really upset that people are asking for oversight over how the government spends its money?”
There are two ways to respond to that question, the first which you can see if you follow the comment thread.
The second is if by oversight we mean lots of new government regulation and bureaucracy, then, yes, I am a bit irked. None of that is really needed and would simply waste taxpayer money.
Providing oversight for tutoring services should be quite simple. First, since NCLB requires testing, the school can simply compare test scores of students that took the tutoring to those that didn’t to see if the tutoring made a difference. They could also compare them with the test scores from other schools that use a different tutoring service to see which tutoring service is providing the best value.
The principals could also send a note home to parents telling them to register any complaints about the tutoring service with the school secretary. That way the school would have another way of deciding whether to switch tutoring services.
Not much more than that should be needed. And the reason is simple: The livelihood of tutoring services are dependent on providing a good service. If they don’t, a school can simply pull the plug and take its business elsewhere.
And that’s exactly how the public schools work. If you are unhappy with the public school your child is in, you can pull him out and put him in another school. When that happens the public school loses its funding. That’s what keeps public schools running at optimum levels.
Oh. Wait a minute! Silly me….
. . .
SOMETIMES YOU JUST GOTTA WONDER
I don’t regularly read Paul Krugman much anymore because I only have limited amounts of pity. But I wandered over to the PK Archive today after going through Don Luskin’s blog, and read his tortured explanation of why there are more liberals on college conservatives. If you don’t feel like reading it, here’s a synopsis: Liberals are more open to science, data, logic, and reason than conservatives are. (Okay, you can stop laughing and pick yourself up off the floor now.)
One passage stood out. Here’s the first sentence:
Conservatives should be worried by the alienation of the universities; they should at least wonder if some of the fault lies not in the professors, but in themselves. After seeing what is happening to Larry Summers up at Harvard, I have to wonder how Krugman can write stuff like that and sleep well at night. Perhaps he thinks long and hard about Social Security reform and then faints, much like professor Nancy Hopkins almost did. Guess they teach you how to do that at MIT.
Then there was this bit of typical Krugman meanness:
Instead, they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would have politics determine courses' content.
If you missed the reference, it’s because it is a bit obscure. It refers to Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, a Russian peasant who posed as a geneticist. He favored a theory of evolution at odds with Mendelian genetics, and because of his efforts during the Stalin regime, many scientists who disagreed with him either disappeared or were sent to the gulag.
I didn’t realize that Republican’s complaints about academia were tantamount to professors being sent to a prison camp. Yep, Krugman is a mean, nasty little man. Not to mention paranoid.
. . .
Friday, April 08, 2005
VIOLATE THE LAW…
…but keep your nonprofit status.
. . .
Monday, April 04, 2005
NY TIMES FLAKS FOR MORE GOVERNMENT
Analysis over at Oh, That Liberal Media.
. . .
OUR PARENTS OF THEIR CHILDREN…ER…THE CHILDREN OF OUR PUBLIC…ER…
…oh, let Marsha Louise explain the brilliance of the folks who are charged with teaching kids.
. . .
WHAT IS ‘TEA BAGGING’?
Read here. And for what the authorities are doing about it (or rather not doing), see State 29.
. . .
JUVENILE, BUT…
…I could see myself having fun with this.
. . .
SOCIAL SECURITY OSTRICHES: SENATORS REID AND BAUCUS
Congratulations to Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Max Baucus (D-Montana), the first Senators to win our Social Security Ostrich Award. Last Wednesday the Hill reported that Reid and Baucus are crafting a Democratic Social Security plan “that does not call for any change to the entitlement system.”
That strongly suggests that Reid and Baucus are acting as though there is no crisis—i.e., sticking their heads in the sand. Indeed, the plan is exactly what you would expect from the political left, more mandates for the private sector plus new entitlements:
The document, obtained by The Hill, details several legislative possibilities, including a mandate on employers to provide payroll-deduction savings options for all employees.
It also tackles low-income incentives for saving by setting up accounts at birth in which the government would deposit $500 for each newborn and $1,000 for families with below-average incomes. The accounts would allow parents to contribute more money until the child turns 18, “with agovernment match for contributions from lower-income parents.”
So, not only do Reid and Baucus act like there is no crisis, they’re going to add on lots of new spending for low-income kids. These ostriches have buried their heads really deep in the sand!
. . .
|
. . .
|
