Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Cruising the Web

Eric Grunden, a colleague at my school and a good friend, has started blogging about education issues and he has some thoughts about Fran Tarkenton's column yesterday in the WSJ wondering what would happen if the NFL were run like education. Eric turns it around to wonder if schools were run like the NFL. Here's a sample:
3. Bad schools in one part of the country would be subsidized by excellent schools in another. This wouldn’t depend on whether or not the bad schools ever improved (Cleveland).

4. Only the best students would take the big tests, so the results would be better. How about being forced to play the practice squad against Tom Brady? And then being evaluated on the basis of their poor performance?

5. A student who chose not to study or skipped school could be fined, or even benched for a big exam.
Timothy Carney peels back Washington-speak by pointing out that what the media likes to portray as "elder statesmen" are really lobbyists. They just don't like to reveal the conflicts of interest behind some of these supposed elder statesmen's positions.

Andrew Ferguson reminds us of how the Washington establishment used to think that Dick Cheney was their kind of Republican.

Another department of Energy loan to Nevada Geothermal Power now looks like it won't be able to stay in business - think of it as "Solyndra Lite."

Karl at Patterico's blog looks at another liberal, Jeffrey Sachs, who is fed up with democracy. That whole Constitution is just such a drag because representative democracy makes it harder for liberals to impose their policies that they're so sure are better for us.

John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor look back at the history of short-term stimulus policies from Carter's time to today. These temporary proposals all have something in common - they don't work.

Bret Stephens catalogs how Obama expresses contempt for Americans. From his comments about bitter gun-and religion-clinging Mid-westerners to his recent characterization of Americans becoming soft, Obama has let us know how we're falling short of his
When a good history of anti-Americanism is someday written, it will note that it's mainly a story of disenchantment—of the obdurate and sometimes vulgar reality of the country falling short of the lover's ideal. Listening to Mr. Obama, especially now as the country turns against him, one senses in him a similar disenchantment: America is lovable exactly in proportion to the love it gives him in return.

Hence his increasingly ill-concealed expressions of contempt. Hence the increasingly widespread counter-contempt.
Things are so bad nowadays that, even in liberal states and congressional districts, conservatism is gaining in its appeal.

The Hill reports on the tense relations between Harry Reid and President Obama.

Jonah Goldberg puts his finger on the essential inconsistency in the administration's approach to fighting terrorists.
Meanwhile, President Obama keeps ordering that the more famous terrorists be killed on sight. That's fine with me. But as far as I can tell, he's never disagreed with Holder's view about the need for civilian trials for terrorists we don't kill, like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Hence my confusion. If you believe that even non-American terrorists should be treated like American criminals, with all of the 5th Amendment rights we grant to our own accused, how can you sanction killing an American without so much as a hearing?
Goldberg concludes that Obama would prefer to kill these people outright including the risk of any collateral damage than capture them alive and have the whole controversy of what to do with them and where to put them.

Here's a clip-and-keep infographic of "the Obama Presidency by the Numbers" comparing Obama's own statements and the numbers today.

So Eric Holder's only excuse about how he didn't know about Fast and Furious is that he just didn't read the memos prepared for him. Soon he'll be telling us that he lied in his own diary.