Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Not Again
My Congressman is crazy. Reinstituting the draft is a ridiculous idea. Iraq is right or wrong on its merits and that has nothing to do with whether or not there is a draft.
Politics of the New Majority
There are two news stories that have begun to errode the excitement I had over the new Democratic majority. First, Pelosi might try again to put someone more favorable in a strong position. If this fails, I think it might be time to find a new Speaker of the House.
Also, it looks like Obama has finally let me down. And I thought it wasn't going to happen until his 2008 run for the Democratic nomination. Anyone who looks at the situation in Iraq has to see that pulling out American troops will lead to civil war. So why is he calling for troop withdrawals? He is relying on a common Democratic misconception that Iraq has the capacity to defend itself, they just aren't utilizing it right now (note: I borrowed this wording from an article I read - I can't find the link though). I admit that he seems genuine and speaks the truth. But if he can't see what will happen to Iraq, than I seriously doubt his abilities to correctly analyze a situation.
In good news though, I do like how the Demcocrats plan to deal with ethics reform: lots of individual bills, which hopefully means lots of votes. The flip side is that it might also mean very little (if any) change. We'll see.
Also, it looks like Obama has finally let me down. And I thought it wasn't going to happen until his 2008 run for the Democratic nomination. Anyone who looks at the situation in Iraq has to see that pulling out American troops will lead to civil war. So why is he calling for troop withdrawals? He is relying on a common Democratic misconception that Iraq has the capacity to defend itself, they just aren't utilizing it right now (note: I borrowed this wording from an article I read - I can't find the link though). I admit that he seems genuine and speaks the truth. But if he can't see what will happen to Iraq, than I seriously doubt his abilities to correctly analyze a situation.
In good news though, I do like how the Demcocrats plan to deal with ethics reform: lots of individual bills, which hopefully means lots of votes. The flip side is that it might also mean very little (if any) change. We'll see.
More on the Cluster Bombs
I posted about this earlier, and I am relieved to see that it isn't going to be completely ignored:
The chief of staff of the Israeli military, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, ordered an inquiry today to determine whether the military followed his orders in its use of large numbers of cluster bombs in Lebanon during the month-long war with Hezbollah there over the summer.It is interesting that we had a secret deal with Israel about their use. Apparently our criticism is secret also.
Several human rights groups have criticized Israel’s use of cluster bombs in the fighting, saying they were dropped in or near populated areas.
Cluster bombs are not prohibited in warfare, but much controversy surrounds them. The munitions spray out many small bomblets that explode over a wide area and may strike unintended targets. In addition, some of the bomblets do not explode when they first hit the ground, and effectively become land mines that can be unwittingly detonated by civilians long after the fighting has stopped.
[Edit]
Israel has received cluster munitions from the United States for many years, and also makes its own. The New York Times reported in August that the State Department was investigating whether Israel used cluster bombs in Lebanon in violation of secret agreements with Washington that restrict their use.
Tazer at UCLA
If you haven't seen the video of the student being tazered on YouTube, here it is. There isn't a lot to see actually, but you still get the idea that the police abused their authority. Tazers should be used only against people who are out of control and represent a risk to the safety of cops or bystanders. This clearly was neither. From what the LA Times is reporting, the police officer that discharged the tazer has some very contraversial incidents in his past.
Autism
From the NYTimes:
The research emphasis of the act is appropriate, given how little is still known about the causes and the physiology of autism spectrum disorders, as well as the means by which medical treatments can reduce autism’s severity if applied early enough. Basic questions like whether the frequency of childhood vaccines today contributes to autism are still unresolved.This Opinion piece explains briefly how expensive quality intervention can be (more than $50,000 a year for preschool children), but also how the chances for improvement are increased dramatically with it.
As parents of a child facing these challenges, we applaud those lawmakers and fellow parents who have done so much to promote this and other initiatives. But research is not enough. We as a nation must also begin to focus seriously on treating those children who are already afflicted. At present, we are failing miserably to do so.
Studies now show that 40 percent to 50 percent of toddlers undergoing intensive Applied Behavior Analysis, one of the best-known methods, can be mainstreamed in regular classrooms without personal aides by the time they reach school age. (The figure is close to zero for children not given special care.) Most of the other 50 percent to 60 percent make notable progress too.What makes this even more of a no-brainer is that it isn't just the humane thing to do, it also seems to be the efficient thing to do. By investing money up front to help improve the lives of these children, you decrease the long term costs associated with their care for the rest of their life. The authors are right, more funding for research is good, but not enough. Here are our options:
Our options range from mandating that insurance companies cover therapies documented to work, to trumpeting the example of places that do provide coverage in the hope others will follow, to expanding autism Medicaid waivers.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Trade Deficit
In case you wanted an objective analysis of the trade deficit and how we need to respond to it, the NYTimes has it.
Friday, November 10, 2006
My Education Policy
A while ago I wrote what was a lengthy piece on my foreign policy – or at least the military side of it. I never did get around to the non-military side, but I do plan to get back to that sometime soon. In this post I will cover education policy. I don't pretend that any of this is original.
Now is an exciting time to debate education policy. There are a lot of exciting options that are being explored and given a chance to prove their worth. Consider that across the country, different governments are exploring charter schools (including single sex charter schools), standardized testing, and the broad issue of administrator / teacher / political accountability. New York City is probably the best test case for all of these issues. Mayor Bloomberg has taken control of the school district (as has the Mayor of Los Angeles). Now, if things don’t improve, the mayor can no longer blame the school district, who would in turn blame the Superintendent, who would then probably blame the mayor. New York City is also filled with charter schools in some of the best and worst neighborhoods. And or course New York is participating in No Child Left Behind and is therefore using standardized testing.
Before I dive into all of those issues though, there are some less controversial ones that get very little attention but are as important if not more so. Let’s start with early education. There has been a lot of talk for a while now about the merits of universal pre-K / Head Start. The problem with Head Start as a universal solution is that it does nothing to deal with the kids who even with preschool fall behind. What is necessary instead is a universal early intervention program. A program of this kind would use diagnostic standardized testing to measure if children in grades K-3 (at least) are at grade level in math and reading at the end of the grade. If not, these children will participate in extended school year (over the summer) and extended school day programs (during the school year) to get them caught up. From the statistics I saw in Montgomery County Maryland, this type of program worked wonders, especially in the lower income areas of the county.
One of the reasons this worked of course was that Montgomery County had the resources to devote to all the children who needed them – although federal funding also played a major part. As a rich suburb of Washington, DC, Montgomery County could spread its resources to cover all areas of the county. It also shows the benefits from a county-wide school district, where resources can be redistributed when necessary. For counties that don’t have any money to spread, state funding should be made to compensate (rural poverty is not often given the attention it deserves, and they should be considered as much as urban areas).
Another not so controversial education policy that doesn’t get enough attention is rigor in high schools. It has become quietly accepted that programs like Advanced Placement (all courses finish with standardized tests, but no one complains about “teaching to the test”) and International Baccalaureate significantly improve high school education and achievement. In what can be called the “Stand and Deliver” philosophy (a great movie staring Edward James Olmos), you get the best results when you challenge students and set high expectations. These courses also prepare students for college while setting the expectation that it is within their reach. Having as many of these courses available as meets the demand of the students should be the focus for every high school, and the federal and state governments should help out where necessary.
I will admit that I have skipped over middle school. As I left Montgomery County, they were in the process of doing for middle school what they did for elementary and high school. I don’t know of a great model yet, but my bet is that it involves a combination of the two approaches; continued availability of extended day and school year programs, as well as rigorous courses.
So that gets us through some uncontroversial but necessary policies. Now I need to dive into the hard stuff. First of all, I feel that the charter school movement has proven that vouchers were a flawed idea. While adding some market pressures is a good idea, vouchers operated under the assumption that good schools cannot exist if funded publicly. Charter schools try to use the same methods as private schools to attract students, while retaining their public funding and open availability. The benefits of charter schools are their flexibility. They can specialize in arts, technology, the humanities, or anything else, and are also free to offer longer school hours and school years when necessary. They can change the curriculum without the bureaucratic hassle typical of school districts. The bottom line is that they can experiment.
This shouldn’t be thought of as a free pass though. In some of the research I have seen, charter schools, while often serving more minorities than the average public school, are not always better than their public school counterparts. The fact is that charter schools still need to be monitored to ensure that they are providing a quality education. In my mind, the best methods for this are accountability and standardized testing.
Let me start with accountability before moving onto the elephant in the room. I believe accountability is a great thing. I am glad that the voters in New York have someone to blame if the schools don’t improve or someone to praise if they do. The fact is that it wasn’t working when everyone could blame everyone else for bad results. It also didn’t help that you had sometimes three groups working on fixing the schools that each might have their own idea of what is best.
On top of that, principals and teachers need to be held accountable. In New York City, Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein started a pilot program where principals signed up for greater control over their budgets and operations while agreeing that if they didn’t perform they could be terminated. This type of policy needs to spread. Granted, new administration will not solve any problem alone (which is a weakness of NCLB, where failing schools are closed down and the students are sent elsewhere – this does nothing to address some of the environmental problems those students might be facing). But it is a step in the right direction and will be positive as part of a broad approach to education.
I also strongly believe that teachers need to be held accountable. I attended public schools all my life and can think of too many bad teachers that no parents wanted their child to get. Unfortunately, every year 25 or more students were unlucky enough to get that teacher. There is no reason that this should be the case. If a teacher is not performing, they should not have a job and children should not be subjected to them. The problem with this is that I don’t know when teacher tenure will ever be eliminated. The teachers’ unions’ lone goal is not to improve education, but to protect teachers, and this truth becomes clearer to me everyday. If you look at the policies they advocate for, they all benefit teachers first and they will never advocate anything that is bad for teachers (my view on teacher’s unions is the same as my views on unions in general – they often work very hard to protect their worst employees). In my mind, it would take a huge amount of public pressure to convince unions to give up tenure, and I hope one day people realize how bad it is to subject their kids to ineffectual teachers.
The last issue, standardized testing goes along with the previous paragraph on teacher accountability. While I don’t think standardized tests should be a major component of teacher reviews (because it encourages teachers to cheat), I also don’t think testing is a bad thing. I firmly believe it is necessary to have a benchmark to compare all kids to, so that we know if they are getting the basic education they deserve. We need to know if they are learning basic math and reading skills, along with language and history / social studies. As importantly, we need to stop the practice of social promotion.
As I see it, there are a couple serious objections to standardized testing. One is the fear of teachers “teaching to the test”. As a student of the Regents exams in New York State, that never concerned me. In the classes where the teacher was very strong, he or she found ways to go above and beyond the state mandated material. The teachers that weren’t strong at least gave us the basics of what the state thought was necessary. Therefore I don’t see this as infringing on some right to creativity for teachers. I am sure it sounds like I am bashing on teachers in this post. The fact is that I have great respect for teachers, and I think the proposals I have outlined will protect the good ones while protecting the children from the bad ones.
The one objection I do find to be compelling has to do with age appropriateness. My brilliant girlfriend has made this point to me a few times and it has definitely stuck with me. While I mentioned at the beginning that there needs to be testing / diagnostics at early ages so that interventions can be made available to students who need them, I do think we need to be conscious of how we do this. At young ages, it might not be good to force children to sit through long tests (I say might only because I don’t know this independently from what my girlfriend has told me). Since this post isn’t about curriculum but is about education policy broadly, the only thing I can say about this is that we need to be conscious of using appropriate tests and measures for children depending on their age.
As I bring this to a close, I realize I have forgotten one final thing – NCLB’s requirement that there be a quality teacher in every classroom. Since I have already posted about this, let me just say that I think the goals of making every teacher go through teacher training are right, the enforcement is sometimes too strict and doesn’t allow for mid-career people to come back to public schools nor does it give credit to private school teachers who have plenty of experience. These requirements should be more flexible.
As I do not have the energy to talk about special education or English Language Learners, I will cover that much more briefly in another post. This one should give people plenty to debate with me about since you now know where I stand.
Now is an exciting time to debate education policy. There are a lot of exciting options that are being explored and given a chance to prove their worth. Consider that across the country, different governments are exploring charter schools (including single sex charter schools), standardized testing, and the broad issue of administrator / teacher / political accountability. New York City is probably the best test case for all of these issues. Mayor Bloomberg has taken control of the school district (as has the Mayor of Los Angeles). Now, if things don’t improve, the mayor can no longer blame the school district, who would in turn blame the Superintendent, who would then probably blame the mayor. New York City is also filled with charter schools in some of the best and worst neighborhoods. And or course New York is participating in No Child Left Behind and is therefore using standardized testing.
Before I dive into all of those issues though, there are some less controversial ones that get very little attention but are as important if not more so. Let’s start with early education. There has been a lot of talk for a while now about the merits of universal pre-K / Head Start. The problem with Head Start as a universal solution is that it does nothing to deal with the kids who even with preschool fall behind. What is necessary instead is a universal early intervention program. A program of this kind would use diagnostic standardized testing to measure if children in grades K-3 (at least) are at grade level in math and reading at the end of the grade. If not, these children will participate in extended school year (over the summer) and extended school day programs (during the school year) to get them caught up. From the statistics I saw in Montgomery County Maryland, this type of program worked wonders, especially in the lower income areas of the county.
One of the reasons this worked of course was that Montgomery County had the resources to devote to all the children who needed them – although federal funding also played a major part. As a rich suburb of Washington, DC, Montgomery County could spread its resources to cover all areas of the county. It also shows the benefits from a county-wide school district, where resources can be redistributed when necessary. For counties that don’t have any money to spread, state funding should be made to compensate (rural poverty is not often given the attention it deserves, and they should be considered as much as urban areas).
Another not so controversial education policy that doesn’t get enough attention is rigor in high schools. It has become quietly accepted that programs like Advanced Placement (all courses finish with standardized tests, but no one complains about “teaching to the test”) and International Baccalaureate significantly improve high school education and achievement. In what can be called the “Stand and Deliver” philosophy (a great movie staring Edward James Olmos), you get the best results when you challenge students and set high expectations. These courses also prepare students for college while setting the expectation that it is within their reach. Having as many of these courses available as meets the demand of the students should be the focus for every high school, and the federal and state governments should help out where necessary.
I will admit that I have skipped over middle school. As I left Montgomery County, they were in the process of doing for middle school what they did for elementary and high school. I don’t know of a great model yet, but my bet is that it involves a combination of the two approaches; continued availability of extended day and school year programs, as well as rigorous courses.
So that gets us through some uncontroversial but necessary policies. Now I need to dive into the hard stuff. First of all, I feel that the charter school movement has proven that vouchers were a flawed idea. While adding some market pressures is a good idea, vouchers operated under the assumption that good schools cannot exist if funded publicly. Charter schools try to use the same methods as private schools to attract students, while retaining their public funding and open availability. The benefits of charter schools are their flexibility. They can specialize in arts, technology, the humanities, or anything else, and are also free to offer longer school hours and school years when necessary. They can change the curriculum without the bureaucratic hassle typical of school districts. The bottom line is that they can experiment.
This shouldn’t be thought of as a free pass though. In some of the research I have seen, charter schools, while often serving more minorities than the average public school, are not always better than their public school counterparts. The fact is that charter schools still need to be monitored to ensure that they are providing a quality education. In my mind, the best methods for this are accountability and standardized testing.
Let me start with accountability before moving onto the elephant in the room. I believe accountability is a great thing. I am glad that the voters in New York have someone to blame if the schools don’t improve or someone to praise if they do. The fact is that it wasn’t working when everyone could blame everyone else for bad results. It also didn’t help that you had sometimes three groups working on fixing the schools that each might have their own idea of what is best.
On top of that, principals and teachers need to be held accountable. In New York City, Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein started a pilot program where principals signed up for greater control over their budgets and operations while agreeing that if they didn’t perform they could be terminated. This type of policy needs to spread. Granted, new administration will not solve any problem alone (which is a weakness of NCLB, where failing schools are closed down and the students are sent elsewhere – this does nothing to address some of the environmental problems those students might be facing). But it is a step in the right direction and will be positive as part of a broad approach to education.
I also strongly believe that teachers need to be held accountable. I attended public schools all my life and can think of too many bad teachers that no parents wanted their child to get. Unfortunately, every year 25 or more students were unlucky enough to get that teacher. There is no reason that this should be the case. If a teacher is not performing, they should not have a job and children should not be subjected to them. The problem with this is that I don’t know when teacher tenure will ever be eliminated. The teachers’ unions’ lone goal is not to improve education, but to protect teachers, and this truth becomes clearer to me everyday. If you look at the policies they advocate for, they all benefit teachers first and they will never advocate anything that is bad for teachers (my view on teacher’s unions is the same as my views on unions in general – they often work very hard to protect their worst employees). In my mind, it would take a huge amount of public pressure to convince unions to give up tenure, and I hope one day people realize how bad it is to subject their kids to ineffectual teachers.
The last issue, standardized testing goes along with the previous paragraph on teacher accountability. While I don’t think standardized tests should be a major component of teacher reviews (because it encourages teachers to cheat), I also don’t think testing is a bad thing. I firmly believe it is necessary to have a benchmark to compare all kids to, so that we know if they are getting the basic education they deserve. We need to know if they are learning basic math and reading skills, along with language and history / social studies. As importantly, we need to stop the practice of social promotion.
As I see it, there are a couple serious objections to standardized testing. One is the fear of teachers “teaching to the test”. As a student of the Regents exams in New York State, that never concerned me. In the classes where the teacher was very strong, he or she found ways to go above and beyond the state mandated material. The teachers that weren’t strong at least gave us the basics of what the state thought was necessary. Therefore I don’t see this as infringing on some right to creativity for teachers. I am sure it sounds like I am bashing on teachers in this post. The fact is that I have great respect for teachers, and I think the proposals I have outlined will protect the good ones while protecting the children from the bad ones.
The one objection I do find to be compelling has to do with age appropriateness. My brilliant girlfriend has made this point to me a few times and it has definitely stuck with me. While I mentioned at the beginning that there needs to be testing / diagnostics at early ages so that interventions can be made available to students who need them, I do think we need to be conscious of how we do this. At young ages, it might not be good to force children to sit through long tests (I say might only because I don’t know this independently from what my girlfriend has told me). Since this post isn’t about curriculum but is about education policy broadly, the only thing I can say about this is that we need to be conscious of using appropriate tests and measures for children depending on their age.
As I bring this to a close, I realize I have forgotten one final thing – NCLB’s requirement that there be a quality teacher in every classroom. Since I have already posted about this, let me just say that I think the goals of making every teacher go through teacher training are right, the enforcement is sometimes too strict and doesn’t allow for mid-career people to come back to public schools nor does it give credit to private school teachers who have plenty of experience. These requirements should be more flexible.
As I do not have the energy to talk about special education or English Language Learners, I will cover that much more briefly in another post. This one should give people plenty to debate with me about since you now know where I stand.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Election 2006
I will be honest – I didn’t think I cared if the Democrats took back the majority in Congress. I was extremely upset at their inability to articulate (by they, I mean the leadership) any coherent vision. Instead, they spouted off vague but popular remarks about the need to change course without ever going into detail.
I realized today though that I am thrilled at today’s election results. I am still not a huge fan of Pelosi, but I am willing to keep an open mind and see whether she can run the House in a way that is productive for our country. I was also really excited to see how New York State shaped up, although none of that was really a surprise. I didn’t hate Pataki, but it will be nice to have a Democratic governor, and I have a lot of hope for Spitzer. With such a broad mandate, he will likely feel empowered to make some big changes.
More than the overall results, it was the individual elections that really got me excited. Rick Santorum lost his seat in the Senate, which is great despite evidence that he does fight for the poor. And things look positive, although nothing is certain yet, in Virginia. In fact, if the source the Times has is accurate, Allen might not even call for a recount. It is great seeing two obnoxious Senators learn a lesson in humility. We all need it from time to time. Also, I think it will be a nice change for Massachusetts to have a Democrat governor again, and now that I know a little about the governor-elect, I am interested to see how he does.
The Lieberman / Lamont race turned out the way I wanted, although I have to admit that I am less excited about Lieberman now that I know more about his domestic politics. I also have to admit that even though I didn’t think Lamont was a great candidate, it might have been better had Connecticut gotten a new Senator. I realize it sounds like I am playing both sides here. The point I am trying to make is that I think kicking out some old blood is good now and then (but your options for turnover might not be so good), which is another reason this election was so thrilling. The Republicans were getting greedy and were ignoring the policies that got them elected. Because of that, they deserved to go. I also think the Democrats were behaving in a similar way in 1994 and were long overdue to be kicked out. An optimal situation in my mind would be a change in party control of Congress every couple decades (or less if necessary).
All of this was great, but the real treat was the news I got after lunch today – that Donald Rumsfeld had been fired. I never expected this to happen so soon. I thought Bush would hold on to Rummy like grim death. I couldn’t be more happy. Rumsfeld’s decisions have created some of the biggest problems we face today (along with Cheney, of course). We invaded Iraq with too few troops and no plan to provide security after we defeated Saddam’s military. Both of those are on Rumsfeld’s shoulders. When we look back many years from now, I expect everyone will realize how bad we managed Iraq, and who was at fault. Starting very soon, we will be able to set a new course, and hopefully make some progress (although Friedman thinks our only options there are ($)"tolerable" and "awful").
I realized today though that I am thrilled at today’s election results. I am still not a huge fan of Pelosi, but I am willing to keep an open mind and see whether she can run the House in a way that is productive for our country. I was also really excited to see how New York State shaped up, although none of that was really a surprise. I didn’t hate Pataki, but it will be nice to have a Democratic governor, and I have a lot of hope for Spitzer. With such a broad mandate, he will likely feel empowered to make some big changes.
More than the overall results, it was the individual elections that really got me excited. Rick Santorum lost his seat in the Senate, which is great despite evidence that he does fight for the poor. And things look positive, although nothing is certain yet, in Virginia. In fact, if the source the Times has is accurate, Allen might not even call for a recount. It is great seeing two obnoxious Senators learn a lesson in humility. We all need it from time to time. Also, I think it will be a nice change for Massachusetts to have a Democrat governor again, and now that I know a little about the governor-elect, I am interested to see how he does.
The Lieberman / Lamont race turned out the way I wanted, although I have to admit that I am less excited about Lieberman now that I know more about his domestic politics. I also have to admit that even though I didn’t think Lamont was a great candidate, it might have been better had Connecticut gotten a new Senator. I realize it sounds like I am playing both sides here. The point I am trying to make is that I think kicking out some old blood is good now and then (but your options for turnover might not be so good), which is another reason this election was so thrilling. The Republicans were getting greedy and were ignoring the policies that got them elected. Because of that, they deserved to go. I also think the Democrats were behaving in a similar way in 1994 and were long overdue to be kicked out. An optimal situation in my mind would be a change in party control of Congress every couple decades (or less if necessary).
All of this was great, but the real treat was the news I got after lunch today – that Donald Rumsfeld had been fired. I never expected this to happen so soon. I thought Bush would hold on to Rummy like grim death. I couldn’t be more happy. Rumsfeld’s decisions have created some of the biggest problems we face today (along with Cheney, of course). We invaded Iraq with too few troops and no plan to provide security after we defeated Saddam’s military. Both of those are on Rumsfeld’s shoulders. When we look back many years from now, I expect everyone will realize how bad we managed Iraq, and who was at fault. Starting very soon, we will be able to set a new course, and hopefully make some progress (although Friedman thinks our only options there are ($)"tolerable" and "awful").
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
A Political Roundup
I think my nightmare scenerio for the 2008 Presidential election would be John Kerry versus George Allen. Why does a Kerry candidacy scare me so much? Because of this. His first comment was just stupid. But his reaction was even worse. Instead of realizing how absurd his comment was and appologizing for it, he turns it around and asks Bush to appologize for "a Katrina foreign policy." It becomes more clear to me everyday that Kerry has nothing interesting to say except unsubstantive political talking points.
I have long hated politicians who favor popular rhetoric over substantive debate and genuine action. In a recent column, David Brooks shows ($) that a politician can both be guilty of over-the-top language while also being a productive and positive legislator. The best part is that Brooks demonstrates this using Rick Santorum. Apparently, Santorum is a tireless fighter for the poor and an effective legislator; qualities that never make it to light because of his choice to use divisive language. Brooks chooses to blame the press for only covering that one aspect of Santorum. And while I agree that the press often chooses to cover only what is controversial and exciting, I think the blame also rests on Santorum who could choose to soften him image and show this side of himself. Either way, it is an interesting read if you have Times Select. It actually made me hate Santorum a little less.
I have long hated politicians who favor popular rhetoric over substantive debate and genuine action. In a recent column, David Brooks shows ($) that a politician can both be guilty of over-the-top language while also being a productive and positive legislator. The best part is that Brooks demonstrates this using Rick Santorum. Apparently, Santorum is a tireless fighter for the poor and an effective legislator; qualities that never make it to light because of his choice to use divisive language. Brooks chooses to blame the press for only covering that one aspect of Santorum. And while I agree that the press often chooses to cover only what is controversial and exciting, I think the blame also rests on Santorum who could choose to soften him image and show this side of himself. Either way, it is an interesting read if you have Times Select. It actually made me hate Santorum a little less.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
On Sudan
How are we not in Darfur yet? The actions of the Sudanese government are criminal and yet we have yet to do a thing about it. If Clinton were in office, something tells me he would have launched a strategic missle stirke or two already. Read the latest news and maybe you can tell me why we are turning a blind eye to this government.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
More Good Fighting
Just so you don't think I am a complete mark for Peter Beinart, I will link to, and admit that I don't disagree with, an article by Frank Rich in the NY Review of Books that criticizes Beinart's book.
Rich has some really good things to say about The Good Fight. First of all, he doesn't want to let Beinart, and other Iraq War supporters in the Democratic party, off the hook so easily for supporting the invasion of Iraq. Even though Beinart actually admits that he was wrong without trying to suggest that Bush lied to him, his admission can seem a bit disingenuous in how he explains it. The fact is that there isn't a good reason why any Democrats should have supported the war, and any attempt to explain it away doesn't ring true. There was all the evidence at the time that containment would have worked, that Saddam wasn't stupid enough to use any WMDs that he might have had, and that this war would make us less safe in the war on terrorism.
Rich also takes issue with Beinart's focus on the far left, anti-war wing of the Democratic party. According to Rich, the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans are a small fraction of the party and therefore Beinart need not worry that they will dominate liberal foreign policy. The Good Fight does take aim at the far left, especially the bloggers, that spend more time thinking about how to attack Republicans than how to fix foreign policy. I see where Beinart is coming from; I would like to see more people in both parties focus on the war on terrorism and other international threats than battling each other. I share Beinart's fear that the partisan far left will dictate foreign policy, but I hope Rich is right that I need not worry.
Overall, Beinart's book doesn't really break much new ground. But its benefit is that it puts this intelligent liberal foreign policy proposal in the context of past popular Democratic platforms, and does it in a way to encourage Democrats to take this and run with it. His book is accessible, which means there is a hope that it will reach people who don't know this policy is out there. So even though it in't original, if it reaches more people, than it needed to be written.
Rich has some really good things to say about The Good Fight. First of all, he doesn't want to let Beinart, and other Iraq War supporters in the Democratic party, off the hook so easily for supporting the invasion of Iraq. Even though Beinart actually admits that he was wrong without trying to suggest that Bush lied to him, his admission can seem a bit disingenuous in how he explains it. The fact is that there isn't a good reason why any Democrats should have supported the war, and any attempt to explain it away doesn't ring true. There was all the evidence at the time that containment would have worked, that Saddam wasn't stupid enough to use any WMDs that he might have had, and that this war would make us less safe in the war on terrorism.
Rich also takes issue with Beinart's focus on the far left, anti-war wing of the Democratic party. According to Rich, the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans are a small fraction of the party and therefore Beinart need not worry that they will dominate liberal foreign policy. The Good Fight does take aim at the far left, especially the bloggers, that spend more time thinking about how to attack Republicans than how to fix foreign policy. I see where Beinart is coming from; I would like to see more people in both parties focus on the war on terrorism and other international threats than battling each other. I share Beinart's fear that the partisan far left will dictate foreign policy, but I hope Rich is right that I need not worry.
Overall, Beinart's book doesn't really break much new ground. But its benefit is that it puts this intelligent liberal foreign policy proposal in the context of past popular Democratic platforms, and does it in a way to encourage Democrats to take this and run with it. His book is accessible, which means there is a hope that it will reach people who don't know this policy is out there. So even though it in't original, if it reaches more people, than it needed to be written.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Fright Night: Part 2
I don't think my expectations are too high here; I don't expect everyone in the US to know the difference between Shiite and Sunni. But I do expect FBI officials and members of Congressional intelligence committees to know this. When I say that I think they should know the difference, I am not even talking about their specific beliefs and how that came about. All I really think they should know is that Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite, Saddam and Al Qaeda are Sunni. The fact that some don't know this simple fact is just beyond words.
Love is Blind
I can't for the life of me figure out why Israel gets away with everything that it does. At some point, the fact that they too are dealing with terrorists has to stop being enough to defend all of their actions. I am a little late posting about this NY Times article ($) (maybe I can find it somewhere else for free) but it talks about how at the end of the recent war with Lebanon, Israel flooded southern Lebanon with cluster bombs. Cluster bombs are noteworthy for two reasons, one is their reputation for being difficult to aim (and illegal unless used specifically on military installations) and unpredictable; the bombs fail to explode 15 percent of the time. It is estimated that there are now one million unexploded bombs in the Lebanon countryside.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an article on Sept. 12 anonymously quoting the head of a rocket unit in Lebanon who was critical of the decision to use cluster bombs. "What we did was insane and monstrous; we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," Haaretz quoted the commander as saying.It certainly was monstrous, but maybe the Bush administration or Congressional Democrats should be willing to speak up too.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Debating NCLB
There is a really good article in the NY Times about NCLB and teacher certification. It shows a significant flaw in the NCLB legislation that requires all public school teachers to be certified as "highly qualified" through education classes and training. While I don't disagree with the push to require teachers, especially new teachers, to get training and certification, the way it is being implemented is a mistake.
One of the biggest problems facing public school systems in a lack of flexibility and ability to change. This restriction on teachers only adds to a lack of flexibility. We should be doing all that we can to encourage the best teachers to work in public schools. We also have to realize that sometimes, the best teachers are people with PhD's or real world experience who late in life want to go into education. I saw this first-hand in Montgomery County, Maryland where the schools had trouble finding "highly qualified" teachers for such focused classes like nursing, engineering, and business. They had no problem though finding professionals that didn't have the certification but wanted to teach. Requiring them to go through a long certification process, that can also be a humbling (or even humiliating) process will only discourage these teachers.
This doesn't mean that I am opposed to all training requirements. One of the people interviewed for the article said that she thinks it is important that all teachers know how to work with students whose primary language is not English, or students who are being mainstreamed from special ed classes. I agree with that. But maybe there can be exceptions granted to teachers who have a background in instruction (college or private school) to skip the very basic classes on teaching that are a part of this long certification process. Someone who has taught in college might not know everything necessary to teach in high school, but they certainly have enough experience that they don't need instruction in classroom management or drawing up a lesson plan.
Conservatives are often trying to replicate the private sector in public institutions. While I certainly support that goal, I often think what we choose to replicate is not what makes the private sector strong. Private schools work so well because they have good teachers. But they have good teachers not because they have a cumbersome certification process; it is because they are flexible. That is what we need to replicate in our public schools.
One of the biggest problems facing public school systems in a lack of flexibility and ability to change. This restriction on teachers only adds to a lack of flexibility. We should be doing all that we can to encourage the best teachers to work in public schools. We also have to realize that sometimes, the best teachers are people with PhD's or real world experience who late in life want to go into education. I saw this first-hand in Montgomery County, Maryland where the schools had trouble finding "highly qualified" teachers for such focused classes like nursing, engineering, and business. They had no problem though finding professionals that didn't have the certification but wanted to teach. Requiring them to go through a long certification process, that can also be a humbling (or even humiliating) process will only discourage these teachers.
This doesn't mean that I am opposed to all training requirements. One of the people interviewed for the article said that she thinks it is important that all teachers know how to work with students whose primary language is not English, or students who are being mainstreamed from special ed classes. I agree with that. But maybe there can be exceptions granted to teachers who have a background in instruction (college or private school) to skip the very basic classes on teaching that are a part of this long certification process. Someone who has taught in college might not know everything necessary to teach in high school, but they certainly have enough experience that they don't need instruction in classroom management or drawing up a lesson plan.
Conservatives are often trying to replicate the private sector in public institutions. While I certainly support that goal, I often think what we choose to replicate is not what makes the private sector strong. Private schools work so well because they have good teachers. But they have good teachers not because they have a cumbersome certification process; it is because they are flexible. That is what we need to replicate in our public schools.
North Korea
I have to say, the situation in North Korea has me very scared, especially after reading last month's Atlantic Monthly article. The article laid out the premise that N. Korea will only attack if it feels it is losing its hold on power, or if Bush launches an attack (even a small one targeting weapons facilities). The fact is, N. Korea might be on a path to losing control as its people are starving and even the military is poor. Also, listening to some Republicans, a missile strike isn't out of the realm of possibility (although I do admit that I don't think Bush would actually do it).
The article talks about the very scary prospect of a hard landing if the country collapses. That scenario could involve an attack on Seoul using all types of conventional and WMDs (N. Korea has a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons - and now maybe nuclear as well) and a ground invasion of South Korea.
What I didn't realize was the role China plays in North Korea. Apparently, it provides the most aide to the N. Korean government, and probably also has plans for it if the government falls. The article actually seemed to suggest that China is slowly trying to push for a soft landing North Korea collapse, which would then allow China to take over key parts of the country. I am not sure how I feel about that. While it would be nice to see N. Korea's transition managed by someone other than us, and therefore not have American resources tied up there, China is growing at an incredible rate, and giving them strategic ports and resources of N. Korea would only allow them to get even stronger.
To bring this back to the current situation though, I am having trouble reconciling how I think the administration should handle this. N. Korea wants direct talks with us for many reasons, one of which is to make it feel like it is a world power and justify it's military policies. I don't think we should encourage their behavior by giving them what they want. At the same time though, the government has made some very scary threats recently, and direct talks might be our best option if it results in having control over their nuclear technology. While it is clear that China can have a huge impact on North Korean policy because of the aide they provide, what is not clear is whether they fear China and would therefore become more combative with pressure, or if they respect China and would in fact respond.
What is frustrating about all of this is that neither the Clinton / Jimmy Carter plan of direct talks and US aide, nor the Bush policy of multilateral talks, seemed to have worked. The fact is that this regime will do whatever it takes to stay in power, and the hard line to walk is to prevent a collapse with a hard landing, while also not letting them win minor victories that helps them consolidate power in their country. I don't envy the Bush administration in this task, and I have to admit that they haven't been doing a terrible job on this so far.
The article talks about the very scary prospect of a hard landing if the country collapses. That scenario could involve an attack on Seoul using all types of conventional and WMDs (N. Korea has a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons - and now maybe nuclear as well) and a ground invasion of South Korea.
What I didn't realize was the role China plays in North Korea. Apparently, it provides the most aide to the N. Korean government, and probably also has plans for it if the government falls. The article actually seemed to suggest that China is slowly trying to push for a soft landing North Korea collapse, which would then allow China to take over key parts of the country. I am not sure how I feel about that. While it would be nice to see N. Korea's transition managed by someone other than us, and therefore not have American resources tied up there, China is growing at an incredible rate, and giving them strategic ports and resources of N. Korea would only allow them to get even stronger.
To bring this back to the current situation though, I am having trouble reconciling how I think the administration should handle this. N. Korea wants direct talks with us for many reasons, one of which is to make it feel like it is a world power and justify it's military policies. I don't think we should encourage their behavior by giving them what they want. At the same time though, the government has made some very scary threats recently, and direct talks might be our best option if it results in having control over their nuclear technology. While it is clear that China can have a huge impact on North Korean policy because of the aide they provide, what is not clear is whether they fear China and would therefore become more combative with pressure, or if they respect China and would in fact respond.
What is frustrating about all of this is that neither the Clinton / Jimmy Carter plan of direct talks and US aide, nor the Bush policy of multilateral talks, seemed to have worked. The fact is that this regime will do whatever it takes to stay in power, and the hard line to walk is to prevent a collapse with a hard landing, while also not letting them win minor victories that helps them consolidate power in their country. I don't envy the Bush administration in this task, and I have to admit that they haven't been doing a terrible job on this so far.
A Rose
Although recent anti-immigrant legislation had gotten me down, fearing that our country was reverting back to xenophobia, news like this is very reassuring. It is nice to know that people feel more comfortable going by their traditional names and feel less compelled to anglicize them.
What Contradiction?
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - LOWER GAS PRICES
Free America from dependence on foreign oil and create a cleaner environment with initiatives for energy-efficient technologies and domestic alternatives such as biofuels. End tax giveaways to Big Oil companies and enact tough laws to stop price gouging.
I saw the above on the HouseDemocrats.gov site under their "Six for '06" plan. I have to say that the above paragraph is the stupidest thing I have ever read and it makes me want to slap someone. Seriously, if there are two things that don't go together at all, it is energy independence and lower gas prices. Basically, what the Democrats tried to do with this was say two very popular things without thinking through how those two interact.
The only thing that will force us to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is if prices stay high. I am sick and tired of political parties that are incapable of saying what voters don't want to hear. We need high prices because we need to change our habits. This is the same unfortunate mentality that Bush tried to use after September 11, 2001 when he told Americans to go about their business - only the military would have to sacrifice. Voters need to realize that they will have to sacrifice in some situations to make progress possible. But neither Democrats nor Republicans are capable of saying that.
I can't wait for the next Democratic talking points:
"Increase government spending - Cut Taxes"
"Smoke, drink, eat unhealthy foods - Live much longer"
Now Who?
So families have claimed one more potential Presidential candidate: Mark Warner. Before him, it was Colin Powell. Why can't families claim people who shouldn't be running in the first place - like John Kerry, George Allen, or George W. Bush? And where was Ralph Nader's family when he was scratching and clawing for 2% of the vote that probably belonged to Gore?
I don't know a whole lot about Warner, but what I do know suggests I would have liked hearing him make his case for 2008. Now it looks like we are left with Hillary and maybe a Gore and / or Kerry retread. Perfect. Granted, there are bound to be others; like Harry Reid who might grace us with his vague but poll-tested policies, or Joe Biden who would be a great candidate as long as he writes his own speeches. Is it too much to hope that Bill Nelson will rise above the crowded field?
By the way - with all the talk about Hillary, I think it says something about our political system and how big name recognition is when there is every possibility that four presidents in a row could be from only two families.
I don't know a whole lot about Warner, but what I do know suggests I would have liked hearing him make his case for 2008. Now it looks like we are left with Hillary and maybe a Gore and / or Kerry retread. Perfect. Granted, there are bound to be others; like Harry Reid who might grace us with his vague but poll-tested policies, or Joe Biden who would be a great candidate as long as he writes his own speeches. Is it too much to hope that Bill Nelson will rise above the crowded field?
By the way - with all the talk about Hillary, I think it says something about our political system and how big name recognition is when there is every possibility that four presidents in a row could be from only two families.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Last Action Hero
I keep finding more reasons to support the Governator. And this recent law might even make a fan out of my animal-loving friend in DC. It is clear that California is the state to look to for progressive policies on a very large scale. From solar panels and emissions standards, to laws protecting animals, Arnold has shown that he is willing to work with Democrats to make big changes for his state. I only wish there were more Republicans like him.
Thoughts on Containment
Peter Beinart's book obviously got me thinking. His main conclusions were solid, and I have found that I agree with them. Basically, we need to return to the liberal tradition of supporting containment while remaining strongly anti-terrorist. He backs this up by comparing it to the liberal tradition of anti-communism. What Beinart does acknowledge, but I don't know that he fully develops the thought, is that anti-communism didn't always make for clear policy decisions. His explanation for why Vietnam was such a failure was that the communist movement there was also a nationalist one. He also didn't spend enough time talking about the other communist or socialist movements that we surpressed during that time that also might have been nationalist in nature.
The reason I bring this up is that we are facing similar situations today when we look at Islamist (defined as groups desiring to spread extremist forms of Islam) governments, militias, or even political parties. In those situations, when do we decide to oppose them and when do we tolerate and possibly work with them. Free elections in Palestine, Iraq, and Egypt have shown that Islamist movements have some popular appeal. We have a history of interfering in free elections because we didn't like the outcome, and I wonder if that is truly wise.
But the spirit of Beinart's message is that containment works because in the long run, democracy will win out over repressive forms of government. This suggests that we need to tolerate these popular Islamist movements in some situations, although pressure to make them collpase or change (as we are trying to do Hamas) shouldn't be ruled out. But this also means that socialist governments like the ones springing forward in South America also should be tolerated because we are confident that in time, they will become more moderate and democracy will prevail. As an added benefit, toleration will take some of the wind from their sails, as people like Chavez from Venezuela get a lot of political points by attacking Bush.
The reason I bring this up is that we are facing similar situations today when we look at Islamist (defined as groups desiring to spread extremist forms of Islam) governments, militias, or even political parties. In those situations, when do we decide to oppose them and when do we tolerate and possibly work with them. Free elections in Palestine, Iraq, and Egypt have shown that Islamist movements have some popular appeal. We have a history of interfering in free elections because we didn't like the outcome, and I wonder if that is truly wise.
But the spirit of Beinart's message is that containment works because in the long run, democracy will win out over repressive forms of government. This suggests that we need to tolerate these popular Islamist movements in some situations, although pressure to make them collpase or change (as we are trying to do Hamas) shouldn't be ruled out. But this also means that socialist governments like the ones springing forward in South America also should be tolerated because we are confident that in time, they will become more moderate and democracy will prevail. As an added benefit, toleration will take some of the wind from their sails, as people like Chavez from Venezuela get a lot of political points by attacking Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)