Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Cruising the Web

Historical ignorance at the Chicago Tribune newsroom: apparently, few journalists there can identify what battle was being depicted when shown a the iconic picture of the Marines raising the flag on Mt. Suribachi at Iwo Jima. Amazing.

Doug Ross illustrates the past year's history of the Democrats' efforts to impose government-controlled health care on the nation. The people keep rejecting the offer and the Democrats keep playing the evil Energizer Bunny and trying to stick it to us.

John Hawkins wonders how Obama and the Democrats propose to deal with the coming doctor shortages that will result from expanding health care and dividing people from the costs of their care even more while limiting medical reimbursements. Well, Obama will start paying for students to go to medical school.

Will the fact that Kentucky Republican Senate candidate is a graduate of Duke Medical School and called himself a Blue Devil in front of a camera be enough to sink his lead in the primary polls? His opponent is hoping that Kentucky voters will take out on Paul their residual hatred of Christian Laettner. And since it's always worth a look - here's another look at The Shot.

Paul Peterson, a Harvard professor, writes
about how the charter school movement is helping to improve education by introducing competition.

The WSJ explains why Arne Duncan's proposals to use a disparate impact approach to judge whether college-prep education programs are discriminating against minorities are so pernicious.

Abigail Thernstrom and Tim Fay want to know why, if Duncan is so interested in fighting racism in our nation's schools, the Obama administration not doing anything to respond to complaints by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund about serious black-on-Asian violence at South Philadelphia High School. Read the rest of the truly upsetting story of what has been going on this school to see why they wonder if only some minorities are worth worrying about?

More Constitutional experts have questions
about the "deem and pass" proposals by the Democrats in their so-called Slaughter Solution. They point to two cases my classes discuss and study INS v. Chadha and Clinton v. the City of New York. Do the Democrats really want to risk having an injunction issued while this is thrashed out in the courts just so they can evade responsibility for the votes that they're making?