We can hope. Actually I think he does care about the environment to some extent. It's the TR wannabe in him.

jerseyhoya wrote:We can hope.

That's purdy audacious.

Hey, you're all a bunch of whiners! Why talk about substance when we can parse Phil Gramm's latest gaff?


By the way, vouchers are politically a non-starter. People in affluent suburbs with top notch public schools (and like Congress, most people think the schools in their community are pretty good to excellent) don't want to pay even more money to help poor people escape failing public schools.

TenuredVulture wrote:Hey, you're all a bunch of whiners! Why talk about substance when we can parse Phil Gramm's latest gaff?


By the way, vouchers are politically a non-starter. People in affluent suburbs with top notch public schools (and like Congress, most people think the schools in their community are pretty good to excellent) don't want to pay even more money to help poor people escape failing public schools.

I can't speak for others in affluent suburbs, but I'm all for vouchers. My audacious hope is that the cost of schooling would not go up, but that competition would increase the quality and stop the waste of money in failing public schools.

It's much cheaper for my tax dollars to pay for effective schooling than for the social costs of bad schooling.

VoxOrion wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:I like to think that McCain and even a few Dems knows that it's bull, but they are smart enough to pay lip service until the national sentiment changes. Let Rush and Sean do the dirty work.

I don't believe McCain thinks it's bull or that he has any advanced thoughts on the matter - I believe McCain doesn't give a rats ass about the environmnet (as in, dealing with the excesses of the global warming religion) or most social issues, he's tacked them on because he has to but isn't interested at all.

From the many hours you've spent with him? If McCain didn't care, why is his long-time position counter to his party's on global warming, stem cell research, and several other social issues. He's had these stances for a long time and they aren't big ticket vote issues this year. So his stance won't win him votes. Actually these stances are big complaints from the right. McCain isn't moderate on all social issues. He's conservative on some, such as gay marriage and abortion. Not being consistently conservative or moderate hurts a candidate, because he has something to offend everyone. It's not good politics.

Weird crap. The Republicans may be almost writing off Arkansas. The state party, which thinks people like Jim Bob Duggar with his 18 children appeal to mainstream conservatives, is looking for money to establish some regional headquarters.

We need your help to pay for regional headquarters. By the end of the month, we will have offices open in Washington, White, Sebastian, Faulkner, and Pulaski Counties. We will aggressively reach supporters by walking door to door, making important voter identification calls, and sharing John McCain's message with voters.

Now, for those of you who aren't familiar with Arkansas political geography, this means that they're trying to put some "regional" offices in two parts of the state--central and NW Arkansas. And you can't win this state that way. Now, if McCain's people are smart, they'll blow off the state Republican party. Because you win this state with a strong statewide ground game.

TomatoPie wrote:What would Rush do as POTUS?

1. Open the continental shelf to drilling. Ditto the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

2. Establish a 17 percent flat tax.

3. Privatize Social Security.

4. Give parents school vouchers to break the monopoly of public education.

5. Revoke Jimmy Carter’s passport while he is out of the country.

6. Abandon all government policies based on the hoax of man-made global warming.

More magical thinking from the Tinkerbell right.

I'm actually fine with #1, coupled with big new investment in alternatives and higher fuel standards. The rest of this (well, other than #5 which I kind of like) has been shown to be nonsense. The "flat tax" would be teh awesum for Rush, with his nine-figure advance (that article was really good, btw); not so much for the maid who got him the painkillers. Also it would de-fund the government, though of course to the right this is a feature, not a bug.

"Privatization of Social Security" has some faint appeal as it might scare people into saving more, but presumably there are less traumatic ways to accomplish this--use a scalpel, not a nuke. And we're still waiting for anything that strongly suggests vouchers improve educational performance--though that isn't to say schools shouldn't be pushed much harder toward excellence. (As I mentioned months ago, I thought this could be a killer issue for McCain, but I don't think he's interested--see Vox's point about global warming. Like Nixon, McCain just couldn't really give a shit about domestic policy.) If the evidence were in for vouchers, I'd be open to it--but Limbaugh isn't interested in what works, he's interested in titty-twisting the teachers' unions and other big-gummit apologists.

As for global warming, it's great that so many climatologists are Phillies fans... this too seems to have become an article of faith on the right: say it's crap because the libs are so certain about it.

I kind of dislike teacher's unions. And I really dislike the whole degree in education as a qualification for teaching.

TenuredVulture wrote:I kind of dislike teacher's unions. And I really dislike the whole degree in education as a qualification for teaching.

I'd go along with both of those sentiments.

I think we're going to see a big revolution in under/over graduate education in the next few years. The cost of higher ed is only absurd and entirely unjustifiable at this point, and must be on the verge of breaking.

TomatoPie wrote:What would Rush do as POTUS?

2. Establish a 17 percent flat tax.

I'd like to believe that if this actually happened, the populace eventually would rise up - pitch forks on the Capitol Mall and all that.

Again, I'd like to believe that, but the last 7 years have me wonder what would engender true, widespread anger.

Why would all of the single people who make more than $32K a year riot over a tax cut (or married couples who bring in more than $65K)?

VoxOrion wrote:I think we're going to see a big revolution in under/over graduate education in the next few years. The cost of higher ed is only absurd and entirely unjustifiable at this point, and must be on the verge of breaking.

I couldn't justify going beyond undergrad at this point

i'm one of those single people over 32k and don't really see why I should get a tax cut. what'd i do?

VoxOrion wrote:I think we're going to see a big revolution in under/over graduate education in the next few years. The cost of higher ed is only absurd and entirely unjustifiable at this point, and must be on the verge of breaking.

Except that for a significant portion of the population, price is no object at for an education at a prestigious ivy or near ivy institution.

Otherwise, there are lots of affordable options available, especially if you're willing to forego multi-million dollar student centers and dorms and meal plans that compare favorably to four star hotels. Oh, and outside of a few places, you'll also have to dump big time sports, which generally are campus money losers.

I would also say that for almost anyone looking at a public institution (and in most cases, that's going to be your best value) you're better off at a smaller, regional university than the state flagship university. You'll save money and probably receive a lot more attention from real faculty members, rather than dismissive comments from snotty TAs. Also, stay away from places that are attempting to become more prestigious than they are--that will cost money, and that money comes from tuition dollars.

Also, look for scholarships--partial deals can be a lot easier to get than you may think. Our department, for instance, gives up to three tuition scholarships a year to our majors. This year, no one applied.

But prestige leads to future earning power. You're only saving money in the short term.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:But prestige leads to future earning power. You're only saving money in the short term.

No, prestige is fine. Assuming a private college is better than a public one because it costs more is silly.

I suspect that fewer than 100 private schools can justify their price tag on the basis of future earnings. Moreover, those schools tend to have tons of resources and can offer generous financial aid. Harvard, for instance, is tuition free for families that earn less than 250k. The trick with Harvard and Princeton and the like isn't paying for them, it's getting in.

Assuming public colleges are cheaper than private is also silly. I wasn't even thinking of Yale and Harvard; I think it's a given that they aren't for the budget-conscious. But large public schools are usually from 7-10 thousand a year in-state and more than 20 out of state. You can usually find a cheaper private school but it probably won't have a great rep.

Interesting article on education: Why are public schools so bad at hiring good teachers?

Anyone whom Randi Weingarten (head of the NYC teachers union) calls a "tyrant" is probably someone worth listening to. His idea is essentially to put starting teachers through an apprenticeship, rather than immediately giving them union membership (which makes them all but impossible to fire). My only reservation here is that already, NYC loses 50 percent of their new teachers--including a lot of the good ones, who strike out for easier assignments and better pay in the 'burbs--within three years. Maybe if you give them money and/or stronger support, that makes it easier for them to stick around--and maybe even if it doesn't, the accountability gain is worth the attrition.

We have to do something. Everyone knows that the population of the U.S., and cities like NYC, is becoming more non-white by the year. Less known is just how vast the attainment gap is between white and non-white students. There's nothing that scares me more long-term as far as our economic competitiveness. I've always believed there's a deal to be struck in which teachers get paid more and more is asked of them, but the unions are one big obstacle and right-wingers who don't believe in a federal role for education (despite harping on the global nature of economic competition in other spheres) are another.

dajafi wrote:Interesting article on education: Why are public schools so bad at hiring good teachers?

Anyone whom Randi Weingarten (head of the NYC teachers union) calls a "tyrant" is probably someone worth listening to. His idea is essentially to put starting teachers through an apprenticeship, rather than immediately giving them union membership (which makes them all but impossible to fire). My only reservation here is that already, NYC loses 50 percent of their new teachers--including a lot of the good ones, who strike out for easier assignments and better pay in the 'burbs--within three years. Maybe if you give them money and/or stronger support, that makes it easier for them to stick around--and maybe even if it doesn't, the accountability gain is worth the attrition.

We have to do something. Everyone knows that the population of the U.S., and cities like NYC, is becoming more non-white by the year. Less known is just how vast the attainment gap is between white and non-white students. There's nothing that scares me more long-term as far as our economic competitiveness. I've always believed there's a deal to be struck in which teachers get paid more and more is asked of them, but the unions are one big obstacle and right-wingers who don't believe in a federal role for education (despite harping on the global nature of economic competition in other spheres) are another.

Merit pay is such a no-brainer to me (and anyone who has a kid, or who was a kid can tell the difference between a good teacher, a mediocre teacher, a bad teacher, and a fucking insane teacher, and the resistance all teachers unions have to it is all I need to know to realize they are a part of the problem.

However, administrators, school boards, parents, and students all come in for their share of the blame.

And I don't think the solution needs to be as radical as an apprenticeship. I'd simply look at their transcripts and see how well they did in non-education classes.

By the way Dajafi, I just read that NYC (and LA) are becoming whiter, not more non-white. That may not be the case in the public school system.)

TenuredVulture wrote:By the way Dajafi, I just read that NYC (and LA) are becoming whiter, not more non-white. That may not be the case in the public school system.)

Huh. Maybe it's a short-term trend, because everything I've read is that by mid-century the mix is going to be far more non-white. Where did you read that?