The Daily Top Five: February 26, 2007

1. Much was made of the use of video segments on candidate websites and I admit that I thought it a fairly good idea. But the wonders of video editing can make the tool a little hazardous. Air Congress has a good example using Hillary Clinton and Michelle Malkin.

2. The Washington Post carried a story today about teenagers multi-tasking, wondering if it damages their ability to think deeper about any given topic. Joanne Jacobs notes:

Some neuroscientists "fear that the penchant for flitting from task to task could have serious consequences on young people’s ability to focus and develop analytical skills." Developing young brains may get stuck in fast ‘n shallow mode, they fear.

There’s no research. For all we know, multitasking builds fast ‘n flexible thinking.

I tend to agree. What I wonder about is whether or not all those stories about "too much homework" takes account for all the distractions adding into the time it takes to do the homework. If you spend 25 minutes of every hour of homework on non-homework tasks, sure it will take you twice as long to do the work. Joanne also points to this post by Tony Woodlief, who writes:

It's not the technology that I'm suggesting might deserve blame, mind you, but the stupid things that our ignorant children, under our incompetent tutelage, choose to do with it. Consider that the average teen in the Pew study reported spending about 18 hours a week in some form of social activity with other teens, either in person or online. Another Pew study found, for example, that the majority of American teens are active on one or more social networking sites. Add to this the reality that nearly half of U.S. high-school seniors work 20 or more hours per week during the school year (very likely with other unskilled people), and the picture becomes clearer: a large portion of high-school seniors spend nearly 40 hours a week interacting primarily with other ignorant individuals. It's almost as if we've made the study of stupidity a full-time job for them.

Then, to remedy this, we stick our kids for six hours a day in front of teachers who largely lack a coherent pedagogy, and many of whom can't meet the very standards we expect them to help our children achieve. And we wonder why children don't have the basic skills to write — or even comprehend — an essay. Clearly, the government isn't spending enough on education, right?

I think Woodlief goes a little far, but he may be on the right track. Now I didn't spend a lot of time with adults as a teenager, but I certainly spent as much time with my head in a book as I did on the soccer field.

3. Ryan Boots at Edspresso rebuts the charge that Charters are a backdoor attack on public education." Leaving aside the fact taht charters are by definition public schools in that they are publicly funded, the battle may be one of semantics.

Opponents of school choice have also set up a very unfair and misleading dichotomy in the school choice debate in which they have the "public" moniker all to themselves. It goes something like this: we (school choice opponents) support public schools, meaning the school choice crowd is clearly against public schools. Yes, I'm well aware that the use of the word refers to the funding of the schools through tax dollars. But consider other interpretations. Private schools can easily be called public institutions in the sense that they're open to anybody who wants to enroll. No, they aren't free of charge, but no school is free, least of all the tax-supported variety. Besides, nearly all private schools routinely do some pretty heavy fundraising to help keep tuition as low as possible, even offering full scholarships to students whose families can't afford the expense. Private schools might not be taxpayer-supported, but that doesn't mean they aren't public in a different sense.

"Public school" advocates are labeled anti-choice by school choice advocates and vice versa. This may seem like a side issue, but remember the Federalist Papers had opponents who wrote "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and look how that turned out.

4. Gov. Tom Vilsak dropped out of the Presidential race, citing money as a leading factor for his early departure. Terry Michael calls "hogwash."

5. Speaking of campaign finance: On Saturday, the Washington Post noted that Democratic campaign committees are offering up the Chairmen of various committees for fundraising. The Post notes

Critics deride the aggressive fundraising push as the kind of business as usual that voters rejected at the ballot box last November -- particularly the practice of giving interest groups access to committee chairmen in exchange for sizable donations -- but Democrats are unapologetic.

"Financial services companies are inclined to give to me because I'm chairman of the committee important to their interests," said Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, who will headline a breakfast Wednesday at a D.C. hotel, for which donations range from $1,000 to $15,000 for the Democratic National Committee. "I'm fundraising to give to others so I can help stay in the majority and do the public policy things I want."

Asked whether banking interests feel obligated to give to Democrats when he asks them for contributions, Frank answered: "Obligated? No. Incentivized? Yes." Frank said, however, that those donating "understand, and others do, too, that there are no guarantees of my doing what they want, or even my being pleasant."

"I'm getting a lot of fundraising invitations," said Robert E. Juliano, a Democratic lobbyist. "It's no different than any other year."

Juliano is right, the GOP did this when they were in control and the Democrats did it before them. It may be "business as usual" but it is also how business is done in Washington and there is nothing illegal or unethical about the practice.