Once again, Fulham has fallen into its pattern, this time against Wigan. This pattern, of score early and then give up goals in the final minutes, has got to stop, if Fulham is to stay in the Premiership.
U.S. international Clint Dempsey puts another into the net for the Whites only to see a possible three points on the road wasted as Wigan puts one in the net in the final 10 minutes of the match, this time by giving up a penalty.
ARGGHHH!!!.
Clint Dempsey has three goals in six appearences for Fulham this year, leading the team.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Reid: 1 Million Iraqis Dead
Why can't Harry Reid just shut up. If I were on his staff, I would be really mad about some of the dumb comments he makes that they then have to backtrack on. Hugh Hewitt has already debunked the figure.
Teacher Needs to Rethink Approach to Teaching Declaration of Independence.
Bryan Preston has the story.
I wonder how many parents in this school district fret about all the time spent "teaching to the test." I am pretty darn sure that some of these items don't make it into the approved cirriculum for 8th grade history.
I wonder how many parents in this school district fret about all the time spent "teaching to the test." I am pretty darn sure that some of these items don't make it into the approved cirriculum for 8th grade history.
Hsu Paid Hillary Staffers' Bonus?
Apparently Norman Hsu paid a bonus to Hillary Clinton Campaign Staffers:
The more that comes out the more this is looking worse and worse for the Clintons.
Members of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign staff got a nice payoff last year for their work to get her re-elected - a trip to Las Vegas funded by her fugitive former fund-raiser.On this reading of the facts, yes, nothing illegal happened, but that doesn't mean something untoward didn't happen.
Among the Sin City guests of disgraced former fund-raiser Norman Hsu was Patti Solis Doyle, one of Clinton's most trusted advisers who now runs the senator's presidential campaign.
According to The Los Angeles Times, Hsu - who raised more than $850,000 for Clinton before being jailed last month on charges related to an investment scheme - treated the senator's campaign staff to several days at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, complete with free show tickets and dinners at posh restaurants.
Doyle was accompanied by two junior staffers and a New York-based fund-raiser, the report said.
In April 2006, Hsu provided a hotel stay in Las Vegas for two other campaign workers.
Doyle also received a coveted and pricey designer handbag from the disgraced moneyman, the newspaper said. But she returned it.
The red-faced Clinton camp insists there was nothing illegal about the trip, according to the article, and stressed that Hsu never received any legislative favors in return for his generosity.
The more that comes out the more this is looking worse and worse for the Clintons.
Schumer and Mukasey
It is all about political expediency for Chuck SchumerSister Toldjah has the story of how Chuck Schumer is of two minds about AG designate Mike Mukasey.
That Schumer is flip-flopping is not news, the fact that he can be called out about it is.
That Schumer is flip-flopping is not news, the fact that he can be called out about it is.
Hsu Donors Without A Clue
Yesterday, the questions regarding the Hsu fundraising scandal just seem to get bigger.
These campaigns live and die on funding. While most small donor contributors give based on a desire to see that candidate win, large money donors apparently give more out of a need to maintain a friendship or business relationship. While it is illegal to compel a donor to give to a specific candiate, the pressure for the people connected to the powerful is intense. Rosenberg is symptomatic of the fundraising pressure. The pressure is also felt by guys like Hsu (not to excuse his behavior), those closest to the candidates have intense pressure to find and recruit donors and fundraisers themselves. The more they raise, the more cachet they have with the candidate and ironically, the more pressure that is applied to raise money.
What is odd about Hsu is how quickly he became a top fundraiser. Within a span of four years, he went from a veritable unknown to a rainmaker. His connections to the Clinton camp are an ongoing source of embarassment, but one that has many more questions than answers. Leaving aside the apparent inability or unwillingness of the Clinton campaign to
do a background check, there is the question of why a convicted felon and one on the lam from the law, was permitted to come close to Hillary Clinton (who is under Secret Service Protection)? While the campaign can overrule the Secret Service on some matters related to protection, surely the Secret Service knew that Hsu was being sought on an outstanding warrant and that information was passed to the campaign. Of course, we are not likely to know since Secret Service policy is not to discuss or disclose matters related to personal security.
To say that some of the donations don't pass the smell test, although they may indeed be legal, is a minor understatment. But what is puzzling is the delay in the Clinton camp to release the names of individuals who will be receiving refunds. the longer they wait, the more time the press has to dig into this matter and the more damage it will do to the campaign. Will it derail the campaign, no--probably not. But it will make people question whether or not Hillary Clinton has the ethics to be president.
To raise $850,000 for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign in just eight months, Norman Hsu tapped an eclectic group of donors that included wealthy investors in his apparel ventures, hotel shopkeepers, a 96-year-old in a Florida retirement home and an auto-body worker who mistakenly thought he would get a tax break for his political generosity.The Hsu matter is shedding a light on some of the big time fundraising efforts behind modern campaigns.
The Clinton campaign has not yet released any information about the 260 donors whose contributions it is now refunding because they were credited to the prodigious fundraising of the former fugitive, but a detailed analysis of donors Hsu brought to Clinton shows that he tapped many Asian American donors in California and New York, including complete strangers as well as his relatives. He also raised political funds from people who had already invested large sums in his private business ventures.
Some donors among the nearly 100 identified this week said they never met Hsu and did not know that their donations had been credited to his fundraising. Others had trouble explaining why they gave the funds to Clinton or could not recall the circumstances in which they met Hsu.
"He called me and asked me if I'd give $1,000. . . . I don't know how you'd say we struck up a relationship. I just knew him," said Henry Rosenberg, a New York City lawyer. Asked if he wanted Clinton, New York's junior senator, to be the next president, Rosenberg said: "I don't know. He just asked me to do it, and I did."
These campaigns live and die on funding. While most small donor contributors give based on a desire to see that candidate win, large money donors apparently give more out of a need to maintain a friendship or business relationship. While it is illegal to compel a donor to give to a specific candiate, the pressure for the people connected to the powerful is intense. Rosenberg is symptomatic of the fundraising pressure. The pressure is also felt by guys like Hsu (not to excuse his behavior), those closest to the candidates have intense pressure to find and recruit donors and fundraisers themselves. The more they raise, the more cachet they have with the candidate and ironically, the more pressure that is applied to raise money.
What is odd about Hsu is how quickly he became a top fundraiser. Within a span of four years, he went from a veritable unknown to a rainmaker. His connections to the Clinton camp are an ongoing source of embarassment, but one that has many more questions than answers. Leaving aside the apparent inability or unwillingness of the Clinton campaign to
do a background check, there is the question of why a convicted felon and one on the lam from the law, was permitted to come close to Hillary Clinton (who is under Secret Service Protection)? While the campaign can overrule the Secret Service on some matters related to protection, surely the Secret Service knew that Hsu was being sought on an outstanding warrant and that information was passed to the campaign. Of course, we are not likely to know since Secret Service policy is not to discuss or disclose matters related to personal security.
To say that some of the donations don't pass the smell test, although they may indeed be legal, is a minor understatment. But what is puzzling is the delay in the Clinton camp to release the names of individuals who will be receiving refunds. the longer they wait, the more time the press has to dig into this matter and the more damage it will do to the campaign. Will it derail the campaign, no--probably not. But it will make people question whether or not Hillary Clinton has the ethics to be president.
Hillary Care, Redux
Clintoncare exposed.
Now that Hillary has announced her health care plan, comparisons to failed policy of 15 years ago are going to be commonplace.
Oh, yeah, and the new plan sucks too!!
Now that Hillary has announced her health care plan, comparisons to failed policy of 15 years ago are going to be commonplace.
Oh, yeah, and the new plan sucks too!!
Frederick Fair Day--Keep It or Dispose of All Days Off of School
Over the weekend, the 145th Great Frederick Fair kicked off for 8 days of celebration that is Frederick County. I am not a native of Frederick County, but my wife is and I have come to call Frederick my home. There is much to love about Frederick and there are three big public events that I believe help define Frederick, MD. First is 4th of July celebrations in Baker Park, which to me is the definition of a mid-sized city 4th Celebration. When friends or family are in town, we don't go down the road to Washington, DC, we go to Frederick's Baker Park. The next is In the Streets, a weekend in October where the downtown area of Frederick is closed to most car traffic and people walk around and enjoy the downtown of Frederick. Finally, there is the Great Frederick Fair. Having grown up in the Jacksonville, Florida area, we had similar events, but there is something different about the Great Frederick Fair.
Of course, anything great these days can't come without some controversy. Now it seems that a group of parents object to the tradition of Fair Day, the day of the week where all Frederick County public school students get the day off from school, obstensibly to attend the fair. Some parents object to the disruption of Fair day, claiming:
While lower Frederick county is not what most people would consider rural, the vast majority of the county is rural and 4-H and Future Farmers of America are still very large constituencies in the county. If Fair Day has lost its educational value (if it really ever had one), then why don't the schools assign some work to be completed as a result of the fair. Then the complaint of having no educational value is trumped.
In a time when some of the same people who decry Fair Day also bemoan the loss of American agriculture, its seems the height of hypocrisy to complain about a day when kids can go to the Fair. If disrpution to the school calendar is the issue, there is a solution. Have no holidays except for Federal or State government holidays--this includes no closure for Rosh Hashana or any other religious holiday of any kind. Have a winter break that extends from Christmas to New Year's Day, and a one week Spring Break. That is all. Of course, such a schedule disrupts parental desires for days off for religious reasons and impacts the union work rules for teachers and other staff--causing an expensive renegotiation.
Until and unless parents are will to support such a schedule, then Fair Day should remain intact--there are some traditions that in the end are harmless at worst. Fair Day used to puzzle me as well, but why do we have to trash every tradition just because some parents object to having to find day care for their kids.
Of course, anything great these days can't come without some controversy. Now it seems that a group of parents object to the tradition of Fair Day, the day of the week where all Frederick County public school students get the day off from school, obstensibly to attend the fair. Some parents object to the disruption of Fair day, claiming:
‘‘I’ve had children in this school system for 15 years and I could never see the point of Fair Day,” said Holcomb, parent of three Frederick County Public Schools students and one Urbana High School graduate. ‘‘I would rather my children be in school. I would understand if all Frederick County students went to the fair on Friday, but they don’t.”I see the objection to Fair Day as yet another disruption in the school calendar and yes, September does not have a single full week of instruction, but do you know what the other days are? Here are the days off as published by the Frederick County Public Schools for the first six weeks of school:
The decades-old Fair Day tradition is a topic that can divide Frederick County residents like no other.
Some, like Holcomb, say Fair Day no longer serves its original purpose. They see it as another disruption to the school schedule. September does not include a single uninterrupted week of classes.
Fair Day supporters say it teaches children about the agricultural tradition of Frederick County.
Becky Brashear, executive assistant at The Great Frederick Fair, said there is no way for fair officials to estimate the number of students who visit the fair on Fair Day every year. She expects thousands of students to show up this year.
- August 27--First Day of School
- September 3--Labor Day
- September 13--Schools Closed (although not mentioned this is Rosh Hashana)
- September 21--Fair Day
- September 28--Midterm ends--schools out two hours early for a Teacher Work Session.
While lower Frederick county is not what most people would consider rural, the vast majority of the county is rural and 4-H and Future Farmers of America are still very large constituencies in the county. If Fair Day has lost its educational value (if it really ever had one), then why don't the schools assign some work to be completed as a result of the fair. Then the complaint of having no educational value is trumped.
In a time when some of the same people who decry Fair Day also bemoan the loss of American agriculture, its seems the height of hypocrisy to complain about a day when kids can go to the Fair. If disrpution to the school calendar is the issue, there is a solution. Have no holidays except for Federal or State government holidays--this includes no closure for Rosh Hashana or any other religious holiday of any kind. Have a winter break that extends from Christmas to New Year's Day, and a one week Spring Break. That is all. Of course, such a schedule disrupts parental desires for days off for religious reasons and impacts the union work rules for teachers and other staff--causing an expensive renegotiation.
Until and unless parents are will to support such a schedule, then Fair Day should remain intact--there are some traditions that in the end are harmless at worst. Fair Day used to puzzle me as well, but why do we have to trash every tradition just because some parents object to having to find day care for their kids.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Saving Money by Making Tests Easier
Yesterday, the Washington Post carried a story where Maryland will dispose of written response to its high school assessment tests (required for graduation for the class of 2009 and beyond). Oh, the stated reason is not to save money, but that is the real reason.
Yes, hand grading takes more time, and given that the exams are usually administered late in the academic year, there is a rational concern about the fact that grades are delivered later, which does present a problem. But here is a thought, why not administer the tests a little earlier in the year?
The material in the HSAs is geared to a 10th grade level. Students can take the test multiple times in order to pass. According to this flyer regarding the HSA, the tests for each subject (English, government, biology and algebra) are given at the end of each class, not in the senior year. So why not given the exam earlier in the year, or I don't know, require biology, government and algebra of all ninth graders. English could be given at the end of 10th grade. Sounds like a smarter idea, then students have three years (or two in the case of English) to pass the exam. Schedule retests to occur in say October and February of each year and first time tests in the normal course of time.
Of course, retests cost money and that is the real problem here. Maryland wants its kids to graduate, of course, they just don't want to spend the necessary amount of money to make sure they actually know what they should and have the basic skills necessary to succeed later, whether in college or in the workplace. Written communications skills are just one such skill area that is necessary.
Maryland plans to eliminate written-response questions from its high school exit exams to address long-standing complaints about how slowly test results are processed, state education officials said yesterday.Written responses have to be graded by humans, which means you have to pay humans, which means more money.
Beginning in May 2009, the Maryland school system will phase out "brief constructed responses" and "extended constructed responses" -- questions requiring a short or long written answer -- from its four tests covering algebra, English, biology and government, said Ronald A. Peiffer, the state's deputy superintendent for academic policy.
Eliminating those questions will allow the state to process test results up to four weeks faster than before, Peiffer said....
The move to a pure multiple-choice format addresses complaints from school systems about how long the tests take to be processed.Written-response questions take much longer to grade than multiple-choice questions because they have to be evaluated by humans, not computers.Some jurisdictions did not find out how their students had done on the High School Assessments until after the school year had begun, making it difficult to home in on students who need extra help to pass the tests.
Yes, hand grading takes more time, and given that the exams are usually administered late in the academic year, there is a rational concern about the fact that grades are delivered later, which does present a problem. But here is a thought, why not administer the tests a little earlier in the year?
The material in the HSAs is geared to a 10th grade level. Students can take the test multiple times in order to pass. According to this flyer regarding the HSA, the tests for each subject (English, government, biology and algebra) are given at the end of each class, not in the senior year. So why not given the exam earlier in the year, or I don't know, require biology, government and algebra of all ninth graders. English could be given at the end of 10th grade. Sounds like a smarter idea, then students have three years (or two in the case of English) to pass the exam. Schedule retests to occur in say October and February of each year and first time tests in the normal course of time.
Of course, retests cost money and that is the real problem here. Maryland wants its kids to graduate, of course, they just don't want to spend the necessary amount of money to make sure they actually know what they should and have the basic skills necessary to succeed later, whether in college or in the workplace. Written communications skills are just one such skill area that is necessary.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
California Gets Free Speech Ruling Right
The California Supreme Court refused to hear a school district's challenge to a lower court ruling that upheld a high school student's right to pen a anti-illegal immigrant editorial.
The justices unanimously denied review of an appeal by the Novato Unified School District, which was told by a lower court that it had violated the student's rights by yanking copies of the school newspaper out of circulation and telling parents that the editorial shouldn't have been published.Free speech is not about political correctness, it is about ideas that challenge the common mindset.
The student, Andrew Smith, wrote an editorial in the Novato High School newspaper in November 2001 saying any Latino who couldn't speak English was probably an illegal immigrant and should be taken in for questioning.
After hearing complaints, the principal held an assembly for parents and students, then ordered the remaining issues removed from circulation and sent a letter to parents saying the editorial violated school standards and shouldn't have run.
Smith said he was physically attacked on campus soon afterward. He was not disciplined by the school for the editorial and continued writing for the newspaper. He now attends community college in Santa Rosa, his lawyer said.
His suit sought $1 in nominal damages and a declaration that the school district had violated his rights. A Marin County judge rejected Smith's claims but was overruled May 21 by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.
More Women in Colleges
USATODAY writes:
How long can this kind of a trend continue. From my experience, educated women are not particularly likely to want to date, let alone marrry men who lack a formal education. Among some segments of society, this is even more true than the general population. How will this effect us socially and economically. Furthermore, what can be done to arrest the slide?
Colleges and universities these days are seeing a surge in enrollment — and it's increasingly driven by young women, according to U.S. Census data out today.Not only are more women enrolling in college, far more are completing than their male counterparts.
The numbers confirm years of enrollment data showing that women have not only closed the college enrollment gap — they have far surpassed men on campuses. For every four men enrolled in graduate school in 2006, there were nearly six women.
The numbers are disturbing to Leonard Sax, a Maryland psychologist, family physician and author of Boys Adrift:The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men. He says the data present a picture of "more and more young men who don't seem to have the drive that their sisters have."...
Women in 2006 made up 56% of undergrads, up from 54.8% in 2000.
Sax says the enrollment numbers actually underplay the extent of the problem — and recent U.S. Education Department diploma data agree: Women last spring earned an estimated 58.5% of bachelor's degrees, up from 57.2% in 2000. They're expected to earn 60% of bachelor's degrees by 2012....
"We now have second-grade boys who will tell you they hate school," he says. After that, he says, they hit barriers that block the path to college: higher rates of doctor-prescribed attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder drugs, the lure of shoot-'em-up video games and a culture that, for many urban and minority boys, doesn't value education. "Doing well in school and caring about your grades has come to be seen as unmasculine," Sax says.
How long can this kind of a trend continue. From my experience, educated women are not particularly likely to want to date, let alone marrry men who lack a formal education. Among some segments of society, this is even more true than the general population. How will this effect us socially and economically. Furthermore, what can be done to arrest the slide?
A Fair Question
Jim Geraghty asks a good question:
Who Gets The Benefit of the Doubt?
So let me get this straight... to Hillary, Norman Hsu gets the benefit of the doubt*, but not General David Petraeus?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Politicalization of the Military
Owen West, in a special Wall Street Jounral op-ed, discusses the great national divide about the military in this nation. It is not a great secret that the gulf between the general population of America and the U.S. military has been widening for several decades. Whether you ascribe the cause to the implementation of the all-volunteer force, the a strengthening economy where military service loses its appeal as a means to get ahead, or the general blinders that many citizens wear, believing warfare to be a thing of the past, we as a nation have a problem and one that we need to address if we are to continue to field the greatest fighting force that has ever existed.
West's piece has a great deal worth reading and I hope you do, but a couple of statistics he pointed out should jump out at everyone:
While it cannot be said that 31 percent of Americans don't have any confidence at all in the military, that same 31 percent must feel there is some reason why they have less confidence in the military than say some other entity. At the same time, over 1 in 3 American believe that our commanding general in Iraq will not be truthful in his report to Congress.
The trouble I suppose I am having with this is that when a man or a woman joins the military, they must swear an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foriegn and domestic" and to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief and all others lawfully placed above them. In short, the oath does not permit a person to choose which class of Americans to defend, whether they be white or black, natural born citizens or naturalized citizens or immigrants, or more importantly Democrats or Republicans.
But more and more, as West points out, members of both parties are using the military to score political points and that process must stop. The military, more than any other institution in America, must be above petty partisan politics. The military exists to protect our rights to act like partisan hacks and jerks (and I include my own party in that group). The military must be entrusted with and trusted to provide a non-partisan defense of the United States national security interests and despite what personal ideologies a member of the military may have they shouldn't and cannot interfere with his or her obligation to do their duty. The fact that partisan hacks may ascribe political overtones to their reports and actions does not make it true and if the public believes such intimations, then shame on us.
West counsels us on two matters:
The Framers, in their wisdom, placed the control of the military in civilian hands. The nature of our political system means that parties fight and campaign to hold that ultimate top position; the Presidency, for better or worse, is a political office with political agendas. With a political office held by one party ultimate comes a, hopefully loyal, opposition. Such is our Constitutional system.
We ask of young military men and women, all of whom volunteer, to possibly make the greatest sacrifice possible in the defense of their nation. We should not and cannot impugne their honor simply because we don't like their civilian bosses.
West's piece has a great deal worth reading and I hope you do, but a couple of statistics he pointed out should jump out at everyone:
In July's Gallup Poll on America's most trusted institutions, the military ranked highest with a 69% confidence rating. Congress ranked last (below HMOs), with a 14% confidence rating.I highlight the two numbers because their relationship cannot simply be coincidental.
So it was surprising to see that, according to an August CNN poll, 68% of Americans said Gen. David Petraeus's congressional testimony on Iraq this week would not sway their personal view one way or the other. Worse, 53% of Americans do not trust him to report what's really going on in Iraq, according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll published Monday....
Monday's MoveOn.org advertisement, which depicted Gen. Petraeus as a traitor, has been dismissed by Sen. Reid as an inconsequential distraction. But according to the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan research group, the ad reflects the growing distrust of a Democratic Party that may be taking cues from its leadership. Last month 76% of Republicans expressed confidence in the military to give an "accurate picture of the war," while only 36% of Democrats did.
This explains the collective skepticism surrounding Gen. Petraeus's comments but does not excuse it. For while the country can thrive as a politically divided nation, its ability to defend itself diminishes alongside faith in the fidelity of the military. The unbalanced portrayal of the conduct of our soldiers has done damage enough. To impugn our warriors' motives as political is thoroughly corrosive and hurts all Americans. (emphasis added)
While it cannot be said that 31 percent of Americans don't have any confidence at all in the military, that same 31 percent must feel there is some reason why they have less confidence in the military than say some other entity. At the same time, over 1 in 3 American believe that our commanding general in Iraq will not be truthful in his report to Congress.
The trouble I suppose I am having with this is that when a man or a woman joins the military, they must swear an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foriegn and domestic" and to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief and all others lawfully placed above them. In short, the oath does not permit a person to choose which class of Americans to defend, whether they be white or black, natural born citizens or naturalized citizens or immigrants, or more importantly Democrats or Republicans.
But more and more, as West points out, members of both parties are using the military to score political points and that process must stop. The military, more than any other institution in America, must be above petty partisan politics. The military exists to protect our rights to act like partisan hacks and jerks (and I include my own party in that group). The military must be entrusted with and trusted to provide a non-partisan defense of the United States national security interests and despite what personal ideologies a member of the military may have they shouldn't and cannot interfere with his or her obligation to do their duty. The fact that partisan hacks may ascribe political overtones to their reports and actions does not make it true and if the public believes such intimations, then shame on us.
West counsels us on two matters:
Stepping back from the froth, this week will strengthen the country if our political leaders recognize two things. First they must resist the urge to engage in what traders call "backtrading" and prevent hindsight bias from clouding future decisions. Whether or not the decision to invade Iraq was correct, whether or not our presence created al Qaeda in Iraq or attracted them or emboldened other enemies, we now face the complex task of securing America while living up to some responsibility in Iraq.The latter piece of advice is particularly appropos in light of yesterday's anniversary. We cannot let our partisan bickering of the past influence our response in the future. We cannot let our current political bickering influence our treatment of the military.
Second, they must recognize that a bipartisan course of action must be chosen in the context of a much larger war on terror. If the politicians continue pulling the country apart, this game of chicken will end badly and imperil both Iraq and the U.S. If America were hit tomorrow there would be more finger-pointing than ranks closing. That must change.
The Framers, in their wisdom, placed the control of the military in civilian hands. The nature of our political system means that parties fight and campaign to hold that ultimate top position; the Presidency, for better or worse, is a political office with political agendas. With a political office held by one party ultimate comes a, hopefully loyal, opposition. Such is our Constitutional system.
We ask of young military men and women, all of whom volunteer, to possibly make the greatest sacrifice possible in the defense of their nation. We should not and cannot impugne their honor simply because we don't like their civilian bosses.
Trouble in Clintonland
Betsy Newmark asks, what did the Clinton camp know and when did they know it.
When the LA Times is trashing the campaigns so-called "vetting" of a massive fundraiser, the signs don't look good.
Here is my advice to the Clinton camp and I hope they don't take it.
When the LA Times is trashing the campaigns so-called "vetting" of a massive fundraiser, the signs don't look good.
Here is my advice to the Clinton camp and I hope they don't take it.
The 136th Education Carnival
The 136th Education Carnival is being hosted by History is Elementary this week.
The Carnival of Education has grown and there are so many articles that it generally takes me a week to get through them all.
The Carnival of Education has grown and there are so many articles that it generally takes me a week to get through them all.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Are Democrats Losing Their Nerve?
OIf course that assumes they had any nerve to do anything but bad mouth America and Americans like General Petraeus. But now it seems as though they are losing their nerve in the one realm where they excell-- Congressional investigations. Today, Democratic leaders announced that they are going to delay indefinitely a vote on cotempt citations for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Statff Joshua Bolten.
Trying to push for a vote on contempt of Congress at a time when most Americans have contempt for Congress is not going to win the Democrats any points. This is particularly true when considering that the issue underlying the contempt citations is the U.S. Attorney firing scandal and the Democrats have gotten their cherished hide in the resignation of Alberto Gonzalez. People have moved on from the firing "scandal" and now consider other things more important.
Additionally, the contempt citations are likely to go nowhere. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has been told by the White House to prosecute the contempt citations and Congress can do almost nothing, short of not funding the DC U.S. Attorney's office, about it. Congress is not likely to take such a petty action for a constitutional showdown that they are not likely to win.
Finally, if Congressional Democrats decide they want to go head to head with the President on this issue, they must realize that their track record on head to head match ups is not particularly stellar. On the Iraq fudning issues, Democrats lost. On the surge, Democrats are losing (and losing face). Since the contempt citations don't rise to the level of importance of Iraq, or entitlements, or education, or a dozen other issues facing this nation, moving forward on this sends a signal to America that Democrats are so ineffective that they can only get action on minor league issues.
Democrats may be losing their nerve, I certainly think so, but what other choices do they have.
House Democratic leaders have decided to postpone a vote on a criminal contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers for several weeks, and possibly longer, according to top lawmakers and aides.Pushing the contempt citation now does not serve any purposes, either politically or from a PR standpoint.
The decision delays any constitutional showdown, at least for the moment, between Congress and President Bush over the extent of executive privilege and the president’s ability to fend off congressional investigations.
But the slowdown, approved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her top lieutenants, is also stirring objections among Democrats.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said he is uncomfortable with the delay and worries the House will be seen as toothless unless it moves quickly to hold top officials in contempt for failing to provide documents and testimony in congressional probes.
Trying to push for a vote on contempt of Congress at a time when most Americans have contempt for Congress is not going to win the Democrats any points. This is particularly true when considering that the issue underlying the contempt citations is the U.S. Attorney firing scandal and the Democrats have gotten their cherished hide in the resignation of Alberto Gonzalez. People have moved on from the firing "scandal" and now consider other things more important.
Additionally, the contempt citations are likely to go nowhere. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has been told by the White House to prosecute the contempt citations and Congress can do almost nothing, short of not funding the DC U.S. Attorney's office, about it. Congress is not likely to take such a petty action for a constitutional showdown that they are not likely to win.
Finally, if Congressional Democrats decide they want to go head to head with the President on this issue, they must realize that their track record on head to head match ups is not particularly stellar. On the Iraq fudning issues, Democrats lost. On the surge, Democrats are losing (and losing face). Since the contempt citations don't rise to the level of importance of Iraq, or entitlements, or education, or a dozen other issues facing this nation, moving forward on this sends a signal to America that Democrats are so ineffective that they can only get action on minor league issues.
Democrats may be losing their nerve, I certainly think so, but what other choices do they have.
A Soldier's Take on Petraeus Testimony
David Bellavia seems exasperated at the numbers game that is being played in Washington when it comes to Iraq.
Fearlessly and confidently presenting graphics and supporting data that could motivate the most ardent detractor of the Administration's policy in Iraq, Petraeus played the role of gentleman and expert witness to perfection.While numbers and statistics mean a great deal to most people, most Democrats simply are not in the mood to learn that their opposition a few months ago to the war looks like a bad stance and may be an albatross around their neck next year.
Who better to enact the COIN strategy (counterinsurgency warfare) than the author of the military's counter insurgency doctrine?
Petraeus not only laid out how this war could work out, he showed us how it is working out. From 28,400 Sunnis applying for security positions to the over 80% reduction in violent attacks in Anbar.
The news is good and the proof is in the report. With over 140 battalions of Iraqi army units in the fight, Iraq is spending more money on Iraqi than security than the US is spending on Iraqi security.
Clinton's Bundled Contributors
The Instapundit among many others, has noted that many people are wondering who the Hsu bundled donors to Hillary Clinton were and how much they gave. The Clinton campaign has said that they will refund $850,000 to 260 donors with a connection to Hsu, but have failed to disclose the names of those donors.
Well, here is a couple of things that must be accounted for. First, if we wait until October 15, the date the next campaign finance reports are due, we will find out a couple of things. By law, any disbursement refunding a contribution to a candidate originally in excess of $200 must be itemized on the itemized disbursement schedule of the FEC report. The Commission's reports analyst staff has recently been getting tough on the refund sections of their reports and this will no doubt be enforced quite vigorously. Thus, the Clinton camp can do one of two things: refund the money to Hsu for him to refund to people--a public relations nightmnare of gargantuan proportions and a potential violation of FEC rules, or refund the money to individual contributors, in which case they will have to be itemized on the report.
Second, the Clinton camp would be well advised to publish the names now of those contributors who have given over $200 and will be receiving a refund. If they don't this story will resurface in a month and will probably hang around for a few weeks--a crucial time for the campaigns leading up to the primary madness. If they release the names now, the press will eat them alive for a few weeks as donors are picked apart, then it will likely go away. But if the Clinton campaign waits, the feeding frenzy will be bad, very very bad.
Well, here is a couple of things that must be accounted for. First, if we wait until October 15, the date the next campaign finance reports are due, we will find out a couple of things. By law, any disbursement refunding a contribution to a candidate originally in excess of $200 must be itemized on the itemized disbursement schedule of the FEC report. The Commission's reports analyst staff has recently been getting tough on the refund sections of their reports and this will no doubt be enforced quite vigorously. Thus, the Clinton camp can do one of two things: refund the money to Hsu for him to refund to people--a public relations nightmnare of gargantuan proportions and a potential violation of FEC rules, or refund the money to individual contributors, in which case they will have to be itemized on the report.
Second, the Clinton camp would be well advised to publish the names now of those contributors who have given over $200 and will be receiving a refund. If they don't this story will resurface in a month and will probably hang around for a few weeks--a crucial time for the campaigns leading up to the primary madness. If they release the names now, the press will eat them alive for a few weeks as donors are picked apart, then it will likely go away. But if the Clinton campaign waits, the feeding frenzy will be bad, very very bad.
California Teachers Oppose Draft NCLB Reauthorization
The California Teachers Association, the largest state teacher's union in America is undertaking a rare campaign opposing senior Members of Congress for their state, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chair of the House Education & Workforce Committee.
The CTA opposes the current draft of the reauthorization due to the inclusion of various items they claim will violate collective bargaining rights. According to NCLB: Act II:, the CTA is attempting to rally the netroots to oppose the reauthorization by taking a premium ad out on DailyKos.
Despite the fact that the the original NCLB is tied closely to liberal icons Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Miller, the law, at least in the minds of the netroots, is President Bush's bill. Getting them riled up about the law is not hard--mention George W. Bush and they begin salivating like Pavlov's pooches.
But the question to ask is what does the CTA get out of taking Pelosi and Miller and opposing the bill? What can Pelosi and Miller get out of the CTA's opposition? Finally, what will other state teachers' unions say?
The CTA opposes the current draft of the reauthorization due to the inclusion of various items they claim will violate collective bargaining rights. According to NCLB: Act II:, the CTA is attempting to rally the netroots to oppose the reauthorization by taking a premium ad out on DailyKos.
Despite the fact that the the original NCLB is tied closely to liberal icons Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Miller, the law, at least in the minds of the netroots, is President Bush's bill. Getting them riled up about the law is not hard--mention George W. Bush and they begin salivating like Pavlov's pooches.
But the question to ask is what does the CTA get out of taking Pelosi and Miller and opposing the bill? What can Pelosi and Miller get out of the CTA's opposition? Finally, what will other state teachers' unions say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)