His wisdom again courtesy of the NY Times!

I like the Letters to the Editor section of the newspaper for the contest of opinions between readers, especially a joust of ideas!

I am constantly amazed at the pit bulls out there arguing for the status quo in education, when most know that reform is required. I’ve commented before on this. I’m very fortunate that my kids go to a great public school in a state that prides itself on giving kids an education. The professionals at our local elementary school are teachers by vocation, as well as profession.

But that doesn’t mean the local district and the archly politicized union - and that is partisan Democratic Party politics by the way; but that is a given - that governs relations between the local board and parents is just a paragon of virtue.

So keep posted here for more on the need to reform schools to give control back to parents, why we should leash the teachers union’s political activism, merit only pay hikes for teachers, the advocation of vouchers for tough situation etc.

I hope you like the letters below [poached from behind the firewall at the WSJ.]

Give Parents Control — ‘For the Children’

Feb. 23,.2007

National Education Association President Reg Weaver, in his Feb. 6 Letter to the Editor, claims that vouchers divert public funds from public schools, subsidizing students in “elite” private schools and leaving public schools with dwindling resources. Really? He didn’t mention that vouchers are for less than half the amount that would be given to a public school per student and that public schools pocket the difference.

Mr. Weaver claims the public has rejected the voucher concept at the ballot box. He didn’t mention the large amount of union money and member time expended to defeat those measures, nor did he invite close scrutiny of those oppositional tactics.

The blunt fact is that the NEA is a union and acts to get as much pay and benefits for its members, in return for as little work as possible. It’s not “for the children.” The way to end this pernicious monopoly is to give parents control of the money by giving them a voucher for the full amount per student that a public school would receive, to be spent at a school — public, private or parochial — of their choice. Competition improves the breed and current public schools would be free to compete. There will be just as many teaching jobs, they just won’t all be under union control. Count on the NEA and its subsidiaries to fight this to the death.

Stanton R. Brown
Lakewood, Wash.

Vouchers Divert Funds From Public Schools

Feb., 16, 2007

Your Jan. 30 editorial “Voucher Comeback” endorses the use of public funds for private school tuition as a way to give parents “more education choices.” The real choice is whether every child deserves an opportunity to attend a good school, or not. That’s an easy choice for most parents and voters, which is why vouchers have been rejected at the ballot box by a cumulative margin of two to one in 13 states and the District of Columbia.

Experimental voucher projects have been tried in some places, including Milwaukee, Cleveland and Washington. In none of those cities have vouchers led to any sustained improvement in the academic performance of the students who participated.

By diverting much-needed public funds from our public schools, the widespread use of vouchers would actually reduce attractive choices for most parents. Since most elite private schools charge higher fees than vouchers would provide, they would only serve as a subsidy for students already attending private schools as the Cleveland experiment has proven. Everyone else would be left in public schools with dwindling resources.

The way to give parents more positive choices is to improve our public schools. The NEA agrees with President Bush that the No Child Left Behind Act should be reauthorized; meantime, we have a positive agenda to improve the law.

Reg Weaver
President
National Education Association
Washington

Dhimmi

Today, Kate at SDA linked to a brilliant essay from French philosopher, Pascal Bruckner, concerning the the attack on Hirsi Ali by reviewers of her recent book.

Sociologists analyze the negative barriers in a society to state the case to try and break them down and move on to something better. Now thats progress and modernity.

But when sociologist turn political to move forward against traditions that actually keep a culture together, such as multiculti activism has done, society doesn’t benefit at all.

Pascal Bruckner is skewering the tolerance of intolerance [that comment does not in any way do justice to this piece.] It isn’t progressive to blindly accept or demolish a culture to welcome another, that’s just crude identity politics trumped up in something called progress.

Trackback:SDA

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Inc., hit his stride today with some interesting comments about the unions that control education.

The usual drive by smear job viewpoint on the cbc.ca’s website [Canada’s public broadcaster] from one of Canada’s former ambassadors.

Mr. Ambassador Kinsmen missed an important article in The Chronicle of Higher Education penned by Andrei S. Markovits, Professor of Comparative Politics and German Study at the University of Michigan titled “Why Europe Dislikes America,” adapted from his soon to be published book, “Uncouth Nation.” [ht:sda]

Mr. Markovits opines that the anti-american bias is so deep and pervasive across Europe, particularly its elites, and that it lacks no logical or rational basis.

So, too, does Mr. Kinsmen short essay lack any real insight or explanation of the non-American’s paradoxical love for the American people yet dislike for the current unpopular foreign policies of the Republican administrations.

But the European nationalism did not extend affection to the former neo-liberal administration of President Bill Clinton, who also was ridiculed by the most of Europe even while he intervened somewhat decisively in the Balkan civil wars when Europe failed to act.

Closer to Canada, a rump of Canadians are anti-american in a most illogical fashion. Yet this piece does nothing but illuminate the smugness of Canadian attitudes to America.

At face value, most Canadians know America from what they catch on television or a short trip. I’ve lived in the USA as an ex-pat Canadian for 3 years and am only beginning to comprehend the complex, varied and deeply individualistic culture.

If America is less than a benign super power then it is because it pursues its own interests which is exactly what diplomacy is and it need not apologize for the tender sensibilities of the easily offended anywhere in the world.

Update: 2/20/2007

Please see this recent article excerpted from behind the subscription wall at the Wall Street Journal. Edmund Phelps argues the individualistic nature of US style capitalism militates against the top down state sponsored economies of Europe.

Update: 2/22/2007

Fellow Academic, Jeff Weintraub, reviews Mr. Markovits’  book, “Uncouth Nation” and  raised an interesting  thing or two about  bias and prejudice.

Here it comes; climate change - circa 1975!

I guess Al Gore was to busy inventing the internet to realize the perils of this inconvenient truth.

Update: A serious discussion on Climate Change. The more discussion the better. We may not be scientists but we must be wary of the unintended consequences of not testing the environmentalist community. They are often activists with agenda [often to raise funds for something completely opposite.]

ht: sda 

Dr. Timothy Ball’s recent article, once again disputed the global warming consensus. Here is a brief background on him and an initiative he participates in: Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

Of course, he is pissing into the wind.

But still, while some try to end the debate, in truth, it has really only begun.

Just reference the manbearpig controversy.

ht: State 29

Here is an “interesting post” at the DNC’s favorite blog. This from a self described vegan anarchist.

Talk about your “white man’s burden” dominating the part of your brain where reason is supposed to work.

The following quote is a shameful statement:

“I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.”

Please check out this post at The National Review.

Lets hope Karl Rove makes an exit soon. Unless he prefers to be kicked out of town.
ht:hotair