Aszilvasy

In the previous post, I noted that the emergency manager in Detroit was instructed to “blow up” the district.

In the other districts controlled by emergency managers–Muskegon Heights and Highland Park–the emergency managers closed down public education and handed the buildings and students over to for-profit operators.

This article in Education Week brings out important facts.

1. “African-Americans make up 88 percent of the students in the Muskegon Heights system, and 98 percent of the Highland Park system’s enrollment.”

2. The emergency managers picked two for-profit operators whose record is unimpressive:

“And critics of the strategy say that neither Mosaica Education nor the Leona Group has an impressive record of turning around low-performing schools.

“We think that there’s a huge opportunity closed when the state steps in and decides to intervene in a place like Highland Park and Muskegon Heights,” said Amber Arellano, the executive director of the Education Trust-Midwest, an education policy and advocacy group in Royal Oak, Mich.

“Our concern is that, based on what we know about those operators,” she continued, “it would appear as if [this] opportunity may be wasted … because those are two of the lowest-performing charter operators in Michigan.”

Read that last line again: “…those are two of the lowest-performing charter operators in Michigan.”

3. “Some experts point out that Mosaica students nationally do not show as much academic growth as students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds in regular public schools.”

What more do you need to know?

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- Sgt. 1st Class Naida Hosan is not a Muslim -- she's a Catholic. But her name sounded Islamic to fellow U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and they would taunt her, calling her "Sgt. Hussein" and asking what God she prayed to.

So before deploying to Afghanistan last year for her second war tour, she legally changed her name -- to Nadia Christian Nova.

This did not solve her problems.

Instead, matters escalated. Nova complained to her superiors about constant anti-Muslim slurs and jokes. She says they responded with a series of reprisals intended to drive her out of the Army, leading her to consider suicide.

"My complaints fell on deaf ears every time," said Nova, 41, a member of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg, N.C. "Any time I would say something about it I was treated like I didn't know what I was talking about or that I'm an idiot or that I was a Muslim sympathizer. It was just a very lonely feeling."

Determined to remain in the service for at least eight years, until she is eligible for retirement, Nova recently re-enlisted. But she agreed to tell her story to The Associated Press because "I don't want this to happen to anyone else if I can help it. It's a horrible to feel like people are against you when you are supposed to be on the same team."

Fort Bragg spokeswoman Sheri L. Crowe said the Army would not comment on the case, and referred questions to the U.S. Department of Justice. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina, assigned to defend the Army, also declined comment.

But her account is supported by an affidavit filed by an old friend, Sharon Deborah Sheetz, who said that Nova had confided in her about the harassment she had suffered, telling Sheetz that she was so unhappy that she no longer wanted to live.

A Farsi linguist who works in military intelligence, Nova's multicultural background exemplifies the kind of soldier Army recruiters prize -- U.S. citizens with ethnic ties to a part of the world many Americans can't find on a map.

Nova's father, Roy Hosein, was born into a Muslim family on the Caribbean island of Trinadad, where his parents had emigrated from India. He converted to Christianity after meeting Nova's mother, a Catholic from the Philippines, and became a U.S. citizen shortly after his daughter was born in New York. He changed the spelling of his family name to Hosan in the hope his children would avoid discrimination.

"He Americanized it," his daughter explained. "He got Hosan from Hosanna. He kept hearing it in church."

She reported for basic training two months after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Before 9-11, my last name never raised an eyebrow," she said. "But after 9-11, I felt compelled to tell people I am a Christian and felt I had to prove I was loyal to the United States."

Her first deployment was to Iraq in 2005. She said other soldiers, including her supervisors, mocked her family name and made crude jokes.

"I was called Sgt. Hussein, as in Saddam Hussein," she said. "Even when I would correct them on the pronunciation of my name, I was still called Sgt. Hussein. I was asked what God I pray to. And there were a lot of references to hajjis, used as a derogatory term."

Hajiis, in fact, are Muslims who have made the pilgrimage to the Saudi Arabian birthplace of the prophet Muhammad. But Nova said she regularly heard U.S. troops use the word as racist slang for enemy, terrorist or suicide bomber.

"My uncle is a hajji, because he made the pilgrimage to Mecca in 2005," Nova said. "I would stand up for what I thought was right and say, 'Not all terrorists are Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists.' That just opened the door for more harassment."

Mikey Weinstein, a former U.S. Air Force officer who founded Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said Nova's experience is not uncommon. Military personnel who are Muslim or perceived to be of Middle Eastern descent are often targets for discrimination, he said.

"When a Muslim soldier, sailor or airman stands up for themselves, they are the subject of vicious reprisal and retribution," said Weinstein, who is Jewish. "What (Sgt. Nova) has gone through is horrible, but it is typical."

In 2007, while serving in Harrogate, England, Nova said co-worker told her and others a racist joke about Muslims. When she objected, Nova said, a supervisor warned her to stop making trouble. Instead, she filed a formal complaint with the Army's Equal Opportunity Branch, the program charged with ensuring the military provides an environment "free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior."

Within days, Nova said she was removed from her job and ordered to take a "command directed" mental health evaluation.

"In writing, the referral said my values were not in line with mission," she said. "The considered me a 'Muslim sympathizer,' that I was too loyal to Muslims."

Rather than address her complaint, Nova said, the Army transferred her to the 82nd Airborne at Fort Bragg. Though she hoped to make a fresh start with her new unit, word of her complaint followed her to North Carolina.

That treatment worsened after November 2009, when a Muslim Army officer shot and killed 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas. His name, Nidal Hasan, sounded a lot like hers.

Nova changed her name shortly before deploying to Afghanistan last year. She arrived just after worn copies of the Quran were found to have been burned with trash from a U.S.-run prison outside the capital of Kabul, a widely reported incident that triggered violent protests.

The Army responded by initiating a new training program on the proper handling and disposal of Islamic materials. But Nova said she discovered that her unit trashed and burned documents collected through intelligence gathering that contained what could be considered sacred writings.

Nova conferred with an on-base military chaplain, and suggested designating a special box for Islamic materials so they could be disposed of in a more appropriate manner.

"When I brought this up, I was told 'Sgt. Nova, you can't bring your religion to work ...,'" she recalled. "I changed my name, but that didn't change other people's ignorance."

After just two months in Afghanistan, she said her commanders removed her from her job and ordered her back to Fort Bragg.

With the help of a Fayetteville lawyer, Mark Waple, she filed a formal complaint with the Army's Inspector General in October seeking a voluntary discharge due to being subjected to "adverse treatment and negative, prejudicial remarks ... concerning the Muslim faith."

Nova said she grew so depressed that she considered suicide. She checked herself into an on-base hospital for treatment, staying for about a week before returning to duty.

After learning of her IG complaint and hospitalization, Nova's commanders at Fort Bragg responded by filing paperwork to involuntarily end her military career and bar her from reenlistment for "ineffective leadership."

Nova's Army performance review from a few months earlier, a copy of which she provided to AP, shows her as meeting expectations in all categories, with her senior commander rating her potential for promotion and increased responsibility as "superior."

The forced discharge could have imperiled Nova's ability to get a civilian job, denied her Veterans Affairs medical care and educational benefits.

After exhausting her administrative options for fighting her case, Waple helped Nova filed a complaint in federal court alleging discriminatory treatment and asking a judge to prevent her discharge.

Rather than fight the case in court, the Army retreated. Shortly before a key hearing before the judge, Waple says he got a call from Army lawyers informing him that the disciplinary action against Nova was "completely off the table." She, in turn, agreed to drop the lawsuit.

Nova re-enlisted in the Army on April 8. She recently married, and is preparing to ship out next month to attend a senior leadership course and then report to a new assignment in Germany.

"I want to put all this behind me. I want to move on to my next duty assignment ...," said Nova. "My beliefs aren't any different from what the Army states as its beliefs and values. I would like to be treated fairly."

___

Follow Associated Press writer Michael Biesecker at twitter.com/mbieseck

Welcome to the TV Roundtable, where some of TV Club’s writers tackle episodes that deal with a central theme. The next seven installments focus on episodes featuring “interlopers.”

“Homer’s Enemy” (The Simpsons, season eight, episode 23; originally aired 5/4/1997)

In which the most beloved man in Springfield meets the only man who could hate him…

Erik Adams: No Simpsons character has ever made as much impact with as little screen time as Frank Grimes. Not Lyle Lanley, not Hank Scorpio, not the long line of schoolyard crushes and babysitters who’ve earned Bart’s affection as no female has ever done before. (Look, a series with this kind of longevity requires the occasional bout of selective amnesia.) Frank Grimes—or, let’s get this out of the way now, “Grimey,” as he liked to be called—was tasked with the impossible: Make Homer Simpson, one of ...

Read more

This is an astonishing story.

In 2002, Arne Duncan began his infamous policy of shutting down schools in Chicago with low test scores.

Among the schools he closed was Dodge.

Dodge parents were outraged that their school was handed over to a private turnaround operator, but Duncan assured them it was for the best.

Fast forward to 2008, when President-elect Obama announced that he had picked Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education.

The event was held at Dodge Renaissance Academy, which the President praised as a “perfect example” of a turnaround school, an exemplar of Duncan’s great success.

Sadly, Chicago Public Schools is now closing Dodge Renaissance Academy as a failing school, along with Williams, another of Duncan’s “turnaround” schools.

What do you think this does to the children, the parents, and the community?

When is it okay to say that it is better to help struggling schools than to close them?

The guys from Animation Domination High Def imagine a not-so-mutant version of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.


FOXADHD

Noah Berlatsky thinks through the interest many men have for books by and about women:

Part of the answer is simple enough—men and women aren’t, or don’t have to be, all that different. Lots of women enjoy shooting the bad guys with James Bond; I can identify quite easily with Bella’s feelings of isolation, depression, and romantic angst. Men aren’t from Mars and women aren’t from Venus; we’re both from Earth, and as such it’s not all that hard to talk to each other.

But if similarity can be engaging, so can difference. For me, and I’d guess for a lot of men, part of the appeal of reading women writers is precisely the chance to know, or to be, someone else. Just as women are often fascinated by men, men—of whatever sexual orientation—are often quite interested in women. I know women read and enjoy Pride and Prejudice, too. But as far as I’m concerned, Jane Austen wrote [it] so guys like me can fall in love not just with Elizabeth’s eyes or even with her wit, but with her whole self there on the page. Same with Dorothea in Middlemarch, or Dana in Kindred. If you’re interested in how women think and feel—and what guy isn’t interested in that?—then the best place to go is to books by women.

Books by female writers aren’t just the best place to go to learn about women, though. They’re also often the best place to go to learn about men.

Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute just posted his first blog exchange with Deborah Meier. Mike argues that the key to closing the opportunity gap between rich and poor children is to close the vocabulary gap. He cites the work of E.D. Hirsch to support his contention.

In his article, he refers to me as one of the people who say that nothing can be done until we fix poverty. To be sure I don’t misquote him, as he misquotes me, here is the relevant paragraph:

“Still, the message that comes through in Professors Reardon’s and Carter’s work—and from others on the left, including Diane Ravitch and Richard Rothstein—is that there’s not much schools can do about these gaps. They are visible before kids even enter kindergarten; they don’t grow much, if at all, while children are in the K-12 system; and they are fundamentally related to our country’s economic and political system. We’ll never make much progress until we get serious about redistributing income, or reviving labor unions, or raising the minimum wage, etc.”

Actually, I have never said that. I do believe that the dramatic income inequality in this country burdens children, nearly a quarter of whom live in poverty. I do think it is a national scandal that our nation has a higher proportion of children in poverty (about 23%) than any other advanced nation.

But I have never said that schools can do nothing to improve the education of poor children until we redistribute income or raise the minimum wage, etc. I have said and written on many occasions that we must improve schools and improve the lives of children at the same time.

There are many things that schools can do to help poor kids succeed in school. Start with reducing class size. If we were serious about helping poor kids, they would be in classes no larger than 12-15, just like the classes at Exeter and Deerfield Academy and Spence. Why do the richest kids get what the poorest kids need, while the neediest kids get stuffed into classes of 35-40 and do not get the individual attention they need? Would Petrilli agree?

Poor kids need schools that have a rich program in the arts and physical education, as well as other essential subjects, like foreign languages, history, and the sciences. They need beautiful facilities and playing fields, laboratories and libraries. Instead, they are invariably crammed into worn buildings that have few of those facilities, buildings that rich parents would never permit their children to attend.

Poor kids need teachers who have excellent and deep preparation to teach, with the training to help children with disabilities and English language learners. Instead they get the newest teachers, who have little or no preparation for the work they are expected to do. This cheats poor kids.

To suggest that poverty doesn’t matter is simply wishful thinking. Poor children miss more days of school because they are likelier than their advantaged peers to get sick, and likelier not to get the medical care they need. They are less likely to see a dentist or have their vision tested. They are subject to many burdens imposed by poverty, and those burdens affect their school performance. Being sick and hungry interferes with one’s school work. Being homeless interferes with one’s school work.

Yes, schools matter a lot. They can change lives. Yes, teachers make a difference. They change the lives of children every day.

But poverty matters too. Anyone who is serious about changing the lives of children in this nation will insist that poor kids have equality of educational opportunity. Not harsh discipline; not threats and punishments tied to test scores. Not a Race to the Top.

Just equality of educational opportunity.

That is a good starting point.

When Paul Kevin Curtis was arrested by the FBI and accused of sending letters laced with the poison ricin to President Obama, he wasn't wearing a special uniform that identified him as a terrorist.

But not because terrorists don't wear uniforms. "What looked at first like classic terrorism -- poisoned letters sent to the president and other public officials -- now seems more likely to be the product of a local feud," USA Today reports. "In the past week, the FBI has arrested Kevin Curtis, released him, and then, on Saturday, arrested his online sparring partner, Everett Dutschke."

Dutschke is charged with "knowingly developing, producing, stockpiling, transferring, acquiring, retaining and possessing a biological agent, toxin and delivery system, for use as a weapon, to wit: ricin." The FBI now says Dutschke framed Curtis, the man that they originally arrested.

Do they finally have it right? Time will tell. (Dutschke denies any wrongdoing.) Meanwhile, alarming details have emerged about the FBI's treatment of their first suspect:

After keeping Elvis impersonator Paul Kevin Curtis in jail for a week, interrogating him while he was chained to a chair and turning his house upside down, federal authorities had no confession or physical evidence tying him to the ricin-laced letters sent to President Obama and other public officials. Investigators already had another man in their sights and, according to an FBI affidavit, were collecting physical evidence against this second suspect. But instead of setting Curtis free, court records show, federal officials sought to keep him in custody. First, three days after the arrest, prosecutors asked for a psychiatric evaluation -- a request usually made by defense lawyers. That could have extended his stay in federal prison by several months and allowed investigators to continue to question him.

Then, after a judge denied the request, federal prosecutors filed a motion seeking to postpone a court hearing at which they would be required to reveal the evidence they had against Curtis. That motion was also turned down. "They wanted to keep Mr. Curtis in custody while they built a case," said Hal Neilson, a former FBI agent who is Curtis's attorney. "They knew early on he wasn't the right guy, but they fought to hold on to him anyway."

For years now, War on Terrorism hawks have been arguing that terrorists -- by which they mean people accused of terrorism -- don't identify themselves like traditional enemies; and that it's foolish to read them their rights, to bring them before a judge, to require that evidence be presented to justify holding them, or to interfere with the judgment calls the executive branch makes in war time. Insofar as I know, the folks who make those arguments didn't call for Paul Kevin Curtis in particular to get the enemy-combatant treatment. That's to their credit. But would things have been different if his name was Abbas Hussein Mohammed? Or if a federal official had actually been hospitalized or killed by one of the ricin laced letters? Or if the frame-up had included the threat of more ricin imminently targeting unspecified officials in the U.S. government?

This case is a reminder that being accused of a heinous act, like sending a poison-laced letter to the president, does not mean that the accused is guilty. It is an eye-opening look at an FBI apparently willing to continue holding a man it had good reason to believe innocent. And it is a demonstration of why our system requires appearing before a judge, with evidence, to hold a suspect: to protect innocents from being imprisoned, and to ensure that the real bad guys are found.

HOUSTON (AP) -- The incoming leader of the National Rifle Association has a long history with the powerful gun rights lobby and a penchant for bold statements that are sure to enflame an already explosive national debate over gun control.

James Porter, an Alabama attorney and first vice president of the NRA, assumes the presidency on Monday after the group's national convention wraps up in Houston. He didn't wait until then to ignite a new furor over gun control, telling the NRA grass-roots organizers on Friday they are the front line of a "culture war" that goes beyond gun rights.

"(You) here in this room are the fighters for freedom. We are the protectors," Porter said.

Porter, 64, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1961, is part of the small, Birmingham, Ala., law firm of Porter, Porter & Hassinger. The firm's website notes its expertise in defending gun manufacturers in lawsuits.

Porter takes over the organization as the NRA finds itself in a national fight over gun control in Washington, D.C., and state capitols around the country. The NRA had a major victory regarding gun control with the defeat in the U.S. Senate of a bill that would have expanded background checks for gun sales. But it lost ground in some places as several states passed laws expanding background checks and banning large ammunition magazines after December's mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.

Glen Caroline, director of the NRA's grass-roots division, noted the coming fight over gun control in the 2014 elections. "Our senators are on record. They cannot hide from those votes," Caroline said.

As shown by his "culture war" comment Friday and others in his past, Porter's style is likely to be one that fans the flames of an emotionally combustible debate.

Porter has called President Barack Obama a "fake president," Attorney General Eric Holder "rabidly un-American" and the U.S. Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression." On Friday, he repeated his call for training every U.S. citizen in the use of standard military firearms, to allow them to defend themselves against tyranny.

Gun control advocates say Porter makes outgoing NRA President David Keene look like a moderate on gun issues, even though Keene had said the NRA would try to punish lawmakers who voted in favor of expanded background checks and other gun control measures.

Keene had worked to offer a softer, if equally staunch voice for the gun lobby's ideas when compared with Wayne LaPierre, the fiery executive vice president who remains the NRA's most prominent voice on the public stage.

Porter as president, "pulls (the NRA) more into the extremist camp," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "With Jim Porter, they've gone full crazy."

But Porter was greeted with rousing applause at the grass-roots organizing meeting, and several in attendance called out, "Hey Big Jim!," as he walked through the crowd.

NRA officials did not respond to a request for comment about Porter taking over the organization. In an interview this week with the Washington Times, Keene called Porter "the perfect match for president" and noted his legal expertise.

Porter has served as a head of the NRA's legal affairs committee. His legal experience will be counted on to help the organization challenge some of the gun control laws passed in several states around the country in court, Keene told the Washington Times.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

Suppose you were mayor of Chicago and had complete control of the public schools.

Suppose one of your high schools had an outstanding record by any measure.

Suppose it had an excellent IB program.

Would it occur to you to make the entire school an IB school?

Would it occur to you to get rid of some of the veteran teachers, just to shake things up?

Probably not.

But it did occur to Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and today there was a mass student walkout to protest the mayor’s autocratic effort to break what was working.

Thanks to Ben Joravsky for a great article, and to Fred Klonsky for blogging Ben’s article, and to Chaya R for bringing it to my attention.

Ben J. proves that great journalism is alive and well.

A fresh excavation at Jamestown uncovered a body that reveals that life in the settlement was even grimmer than previously thought:

[Anthropologist Douglas] Owsley speculates that this particular Jamestown body belonged to a child who likely arrived in the colony during 1609 on one of the resupply ships.

She was either a maidservant or the child of a gentleman, and due to the high-protein diet indicated by his team’s isotope analysis of her bones, he suspects the latter. The identity of whoever consumed her is entirely unknown, and Owsley guesses there might have been multiple cannibals involved, because the cut marks on her shin indicate a more skilled butcher than whoever dismembered her head.

It appears that her brain, tongue, cheeks and leg muscles were eaten, with the brain likely eaten first, because it decomposes so quickly after death. There’s no evidence of murder, and Owsley suspects that this was a case in which hungry colonists simply ate the one remaining food available to them, despite cultural taboos. “I don’t think that they killed her, by any stretch,” he says. “It’s just that they were so desperate, and so hard-pressed, that out of necessity this is what they resorted to.”

Dana Goodyear explains why the Donner party’s cannibalism is well-known but Jamestown’s isn’t:

The difference between the tale of the Jamestown colonists and that of the Donner Party is transmission: in 1847, a noisy newspaper culture reported on every available detail; two hundred and thirty-seven years earlier, there was no domestic press. There was only word of mouth.

Crazy Crawfish explains why the Louisiana legislature decided not to repeal its “Science Education Act,” which permits the teaching of New Earth Creationism in public school science classes. It seems that a member of the legislature was healed by a witch doctor so he blocked efforts to repeal the law.

As Crazy Crawfish points out, it’s not all bad:

“Well, on the plus side, at least now Louisiana can start teaching kids how to be certified witch doctors early on in their public school careers. Since none of ouy kids will understand real biology that might be the best we can get for a while. Now all I need to do is corner the “magic bones” market and I bet I could make a killing selling those as school supplies at Walmart next Fall. . .”

Crazy Crawfish reblogged the story from another great Louisiana blogger called CenLamar. I swear these brilliant Louisiana bloggers will bring bring down the Jindal era of meanness and foolishness. They are so doggone good at exposing the official scams, hoaxes, and deceptions, and doing it Louisiana-style. The phonies don’t have a chance.

The corporate reform movement has been bashing teachers and public education without let-up for the past several years. The bashing became super-charged after the introduction of Race to the Top in 2009, because it explicitly blames teachers for low test scores despite evidence to the contrary.

The “reformers” claim they want “great teachers” in every classroom, and the way to do it is to fire teachers whose students get low scores, to close schools with low scores, and to deny teachers the right to due process. This is their formula, and they are sticking to it even though no other nation in the world has launched a vendetta against the teaching profession and public schools.

Now the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing reports a sharp decline in the number of people who want to teach.

Teresa Watanabe writes that:

” Interest in teaching is steadily dropping in California, with the number of educators earning a teaching credential dipping by 12% last year — marking the eighth straight annual decline.

“The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing reported this month that 16,450 educators earned their credential in 2011-12, compared with 23,320 in 2007-08.

“The number of students enrolling in teacher preparation programs has also decreased, to 34,838 in 2010-11 from 51,744 in 2006-07.”

This fraudulent reform movement is not going to achieve any of its stated goals. It will not lead to a great teacher in every classroom. Left unchecked, it will turn teaching into a temp job and dismantle public education. This will benefit the haves, not the have-nots. And that may explain why the haves are dumping millions of dollars into state and local school board races, to elect candidates who share their contempt for career educators and democratic control of public education.

from Diane Ravitch’s blog – The scandals at charter schools keep happening, and no one seems to care. Here is the latest: officials at a Cleveland charter accused of stealing $1.8 million. It happens because charters are deregulated and unsupervised. Deregulation invites plunder and fraud. Isn’t that what we learned when Wall Street nearly collapsed the economy ...read more

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs no academic study.

The scandals at charter schools keep happening, and no one seems to care.

Here is the latest: officials at a Cleveland charter accused of stealing $1.8 million.

It happens because charters are deregulated and unsupervised. Deregulation invites plunder and fraud.

Isn’t that what we learned when Wall Street nearly collapsed the economy in 2008? Isn’t that what we learned from the Madoff scandal?

Charter defenders will send an article about a principal who pocketed $2,000 in loose change.

But I defy them to find an example of a public school where the people in charge wrote themselves checks for nearly $2 million.

Derek Thompson charts “the five companies with the highest CEO/worker pay ratio compared with the S&P average and the 1965 average among the 350 largest companies”:

Why the ratio is growing:

First, it’s important to see how the ratio is being stretched on both ends. At the bottom, you have the slowing growth in market wages for middle- and lower-class work (like JC Penney salesperson or Starbucks barista). At the top, you have the acceleration of stock returns for public companies the 1990s and 2000s, which has fattened up executive compensation.

Second, a famous 2005 paper “The Growth of Executive Pay” suggests other reasons to explain why boards of directors are paying CEOs so much. (“Pay has grown much beyond the increase that could be explained by changes in firm size, performance, and industry classification,” they write.) Their most compelling idea is that bull markets don’t merely encourage more equity-based compensation; they also make shareholders less likely to kick and shout when executives pull down one-year pay packages many hundreds of times more than their average workers. In other words, bull markets make CEOs fabulously wealthy, and they make shareholders indifferent to their fabulous wealth.

       Surely it should already be punishment enough for any translator to have to work with Dan Brown's prose, but his publishers have -- appropriately enough, I suppose -- found new circles of hell for them: love german books has the story and the links in reporting on Dan Brown's Translators in Berlusconi's Bunker.
       Yes, there's apparently a new Dan Brown novel coming out, Inferno -- pre-order your copy at Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk -- and they want it to come out in a lot of languages simultaneously, so eleven translators have frantically been rendering it into a variety of languages. What's ... impressive ? is that they have been working in a bunker, the manuscripts kept in safes there when they're not working on them. They aren't allowed to even bring cellphones in -- and can't even admit what they're working on to anyone else in the building (yes, they all have cover stories for why they're there -- though presumably it's for their own safety, since otherwise they'd presumably be laughed and shamed out of the building). Never mind the rush to finish the translation so quickly .....
       TV Sorrisi e Canzoni has the (Italian) story, as well as Q & As with several of the translators; one of them amsuingly responds to their situation:

Qual è la prima cosa che farai quando tornerai a casa ?

E chi ne è mai uscito ?

       The German buchreport has a German overview, too.

Folks — As you know, this site believes in safety for children. That includes safety from predators as well as safety from hysteria ABOUT predators. Unfortunately, fear for our children has mestastasized into an ever-expanding Sex Offender Registry that now includes even pre-pubescent children, some of them on the list for LIFE, for crimes ranging from actual rape to consensual sex between children to nudity.

This might make sense if these young people represented a threat to other kids as they got older, but the evidence shows they do not. The registration laws “are based on the assumption that children and adolescents who commit sex offenses are at high risk to commit more. But that isn’t true,” says Elizabeth Letourneau. As director of the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse, her whole job is to — well, prevent child abuse. And she believes that keeping minors on the registry isn’t doing that.

So what IS it doing?

The Registry is ruining the lives of the young people on it. That’s what this Human Rights Watch study, “More Harm than Good,” painfully details. The organization interviewed 281 youth sex offenders whose median age at offense was 15. Here are some quotes from them and their families:

“Once while attempting to register my address, a police officer refused to give me the paperwork and instead stated, ‘We’re just taking your kind out back and shooting them.’” – Maya R., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 10. Howell, Michigan.

“I have to look at a map before I walk anywhere. I can be arrested if I am walking anywhere near a school or park.” 

–

Blake G., a registrant for an offense committed at age 15. Citrus, Florida.

“One time a man from one of those cars yelled ‘child molester’ at me.” A week later several bullets were fired from a car driving by. “The bullets went through the living room window as my family and me watched T.V.” – Camilo F., registrant since age 14. Gainesville, Florida.

“Because of sex offender restrictions my family had to be divided up. I could not live with children. My father stayed in our house with my younger brother. My mother and me moved in with my grandparents two hours away.” – Sebastian S., youth sex offender who started registering at age 10. Laredo, Texas.

“Everyone in the community knew he was on the sex offender registry, it didn’t matter to them that he was removed…. [T]he damage was already done. You can’t un-ring the bell.” – Mother of Noah M., who was convicted of a sex offense at 12 and committed suicide at 17, after being removed from the registry in Flint, Michigan. 

MIA CULPA

And here’s a remark by Ray Allen, a former Texas legislator and former chairman of the Texas House Corrections Committee– who once helped push tougher sex offender registration bills into law – admitting that he and his colleagues went too far:

 “We cast the net widely to make sure we got all the sex offenders … it turns out that really only a small percentage of people convicted of sex offenses pose a true danger to the public.”

The registry sounds like it keeps children safe — that’s why politicians keep expanding it. But until it is reformed it is indeed doing more harm than good. – L

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Scientists say they have found the first solid archaeological evidence that some of the earliest American colonists survived harsh conditions by resorting to cannibalism.

On Wednesday, the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and archaeologists from Jamestown announced the discovery of the bones of a 14-year-old girl with clear signs that she was cannibalized.

The human remains date back to the deadly winter of 1609-1610, known as the "starving time" in Jamestown, when hundreds of colonists died. Scientists have said the settlers arrived from England during the worst drought in 800 years.

For years, there had been unconfirmed tales of starving early colonists resorting to eating dogs, mice, snakes, shoe leather and even their own dead.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
spirit of america / Shutterstock.com

Here’s a fascinating story about digital media, and the use of Search Engine Optimization, from Digiday. Take the humor site, Funny Or Die:

On its surface, the site would have little to do with adult content. Some of its videos might be a bit tawdry, but that’s all. Then, start to do some risque searches. “Sex”: Funny or Die shows up as the first Google result. “Tits”: the site is top of the pile again. Even “rape videos” returns Funny or Die. The listings are auto-generated topic pages Funny or Die produces as part of an aggressive SEO strategy. It’s not exactly a shocker to the publisher, however. After all, ComScore reports that six of its 10 top search-term referrals for March were sex-related, including “sex,” “XXX,” “boobs,” “tits,” “sexy” and “rape videos.” In fact, “sex” searches drove more traffic to the site than “Funny or Die” queries.

Because of the SEO techniques used by Funny Or Die, landing pages are automatically generated for thousands of terms, including “rape videos” and even “gang rape.” Searches for some of those terms drives significant traffic to the site.

And Velveeta gets to advertize itself next to a bunch of “gang rape” material. What’s striking to me is how completely shameless the site’s “editorial” remains about this. Funny Or Die’s COO Mitch Galbraith is quoted thus:

“The content itself is clean content; it’s just a function of the fundamental SEO our site does.”

The site “just does” this. And no one is responsible? No one decided to do this? No one actively set up a system so that searches for “tits” gets Funny or Die a click and a pageview and a little bit of moolah from an ad impression? Yeah, right. Look: these are editorial choices, driven by desperate need for ad revenue; they are not automatic. But increasingly, the act of editing is entirely being out-sourced to algorithms and search engines. Which means there is no editing at all. Just “tits” and “rape videos”.

In honor of May 1, Brad DeLong reposted a very interesting 2009 talk he delivered on "Understanding Karl Marx" that offers a number of criticisms of Marx that I would have enthusiastically endorsed in 2009 but which look weaker four years later. In particular, DeLong says that Marx the political activist was too pessimistic about the idea that the ruling class would agree to make economic growth pareto optimal within the context of a market economy:

[T]hat even though the ruling class could appease the working class by using the state to redistribute and share the fruits of economic growth it would never do so. They would be trapped by their own ideological legitimations--they really do believe that it is in some sense “unjust” for a factor of production to earn more than its marginal product. Hence social democracy would inevitably collapse before an ideologically-based right-wing assault, income inequality would rise, and the system would collapse or be overthrown. The Wall Street Journal editorial page works day and night 365 days a year to make Marx’s prediction come true. But I think this, too, is wrong.

To me that unquestionably looked wrong as of 2009. But in the interim, those Wall Street Journal editorial page tendencies have grown much stronger. You see a rising tide of Rand-inflected moralism about market outcomes and a reduced emphasis on Friedman-style pragmatism. You also see a sharply reduced emphasis on belief in any kind of macroeconomic stabilization policy, in favor of a "let them eat cake slash move to North Dakota" moralism about unemployment. Last but by no means least, it really has become the conventional wisdom among American elites that the appropriate policy response to fiscal imbalance in a time of high and rising income inequality is to restore balance by reducing the scope and generosity of social insurance programs.

Second:

Marx believed that capital is not a complement to but a substitute for labor. Thus technological progress and capital accumulation that raise average labor productivity also lower the working-class wage. Hence the market system simply could not deliver a good or half-good society but only a combination of obscene luxury and mass poverty. This is an empirical question. Marx's belief seems to me to be simply wrong.

This is an empirical question and I continue to believe that Marx's belief is wrong. But the fact is that profit margins are high and rising while wages are at best stagnating. My view is that this is a cyclical phenomenon that represents a failure of the technocratic apparatus of macroeconomic stabilization. But to me the striking political fact is that I hear more and more people disagreeing with me about this not only on the left but on the right. Marx's thought has its origins in the classic economics of Smith and Ricardo, and the growing popularity of neo-Ricardian ideas—ideas that take the form, no this isn't a massive policy failure it just reflects the inevitable forces of technology/globalization—on the political right ties in to the first point about the apparatus of ideological legitimation.

In summary, I'm not a Marxist. But I worry that political conservatives are going to turn me into one. My view is that full employment and robust systems of redistribution from the more fortunate to the less fortunate are possible. I see real evidence for this in the world. The Obama administration has actually enacted a lot of redistribution programs, and the government of Australia has maintained consistent full employment policies for a long time now. But the collapse of the Soviet Union, a good thing on its own terms, has had the bad consequence of breeding massive complacency among the upper classes in the West. It used to seem important to people in the rich countries to prove that market economies not only could but in fact would lead to broadly rising living standards. But today we're living in a 401(k) world.

A poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind finds that 29 percent of Americans believe an armed revolt will be necessary in the next few years, and 25 percent believe we're not being told the truth about Sandy Hook.

I like the metaphor in Tom Friedman's latest column, arguing that we now live in a 401(k) world. But I wish he'd spelled it out in greater detail, because the problem with living in a 401(k) world is that Planet 401(k) is a pretty sucky planet. Here's the essential shape of 401(k) as a backbone of the retirement system:

— Poor people get absolutely nothing.

— Wealthy people who would have had large savings anyway get a nice tax cut that offers no meaningful incentive effect.

— For people in the middle, the quantity of subsidy you receive is linked to the marginal tax rate you pay—in other words, it's inverse to need.

— A small minority of middle-class people manage to file the paperwork to save an adequate amount and then select a prudent low-fee, broadly diversified fund as their savings vehicle.

— Most middle-class savers end up either undersaving, overtrading, investing in excessively high-fee vehicles or some combination of the three.

— A small number of highly compensated folks now have lucrative careers offering bad investment products to a middle-class mass market based on their ability to swindle people.

Congratulations, America! Across a very wide range of products there's a strong case for a large dose of consumer sovereignty. People should buy the shoes and sandwiches and shirts they want. They should watch the shows they want to watch. Get the furniture and appliances they like, and pick their own hairstylists and their own favorite grocery stores. Tastes differ, so even though competition and choice will rarely lead to a perfect outcome it's going to lead to a much better outcome than trying to have a Shoe Commission tell everyone how many shoes they need and what they should cost and look like.

Middle class retirement savings isn't like that. We know roughly how much people need to put away in order to retire with a standard of living they'll be comfortable with. And we definitely know what kind of investment vehicles are most appropriate for middle class savers. And we have abundant evidence that, left to their own devices, a very large share of middle class savers will make the wrong choices. What's more, because of the nature of the right choices it's obvious that the dominant business strategy for vendors of middle class investment products is to dedicate your time and energy to developing and marketing inferior products, since the essence of superior products in this field is that they're less remunerative.

In other words: A disaster. What's needed is a much more forceful, much more statist approach to forced savings, whether that's quasi-savings in the form of higher taxes and more Social Security benefits or something like a Singapore-style system where "private" savings are pooled into a state-run investment fund.

Now since we are in fact living in a 401(k) world, here's some advice. You've got to save a lot of money for retirement. More than you think. More than you want to. And you need to put that money in a broadly diversified, low-fee fund. And you have to keep it there. Don't panic when the market plunged and sell. In fact, unless you're planning on retiring in the next decade, don't even check how it's doing. Just buy and hold and shift into something less volatile when you're near retirement. Vanguard has these good Target 20XX funds that automatically shift you into less volatile products as you get closer to your target retirement date, allowing you to do even more ignoring of the state of your investments. Which is good. The only way for anyone to make any money managing your savings is to try and trick you into making trades you shouldn't make, or buying products you shouldn't buy.

A lot of people are upset about the size of the budget these days. But people can't seem to decide what exactly is the "discretional spending" that can be excised without much trouble or fervour.

This man, Representative Lamar Smith...



...who, judging by this picture, barely realizes where he is, thinks that we spend WAY TOO MUCH on National Science Foundation, mainly on research that doesn't supposedly "meet national priorities."

It's called the High Quality Research Act, and it's currently in it's draft stage.

Here are some of it's most egregious bits:


- Does away with the Peer Review Process

Because don't YOU hate it when others try to make sure your research isn't bullshit?


- Discounts the importance of research duplication

Really?


- Scientists cannot independently verify experimental results from other laboratories

So, it's "one and done," huh? No need to check to make sure the results aren't COMPLETELY WRONG I guess.

But don't worry. This Rep is COMPLETELY on the level.  After all, he's on the SCIENCE comitee:


Not only that... HE'S THE CHAIRMAN!

Also, for those who are unaware, this is also the main guy behind CISPA.

THAT ended up being REAL popular.


But how much money would we be saving making sure things meet this criteria?  Hell, how much do we SPEND on the National Science Foundation?  A whopping 0.2%.

That's right.  Gut the entire scientific method out of research, and make these 'conclusions' unverifiable, and save pennies off the already pitiful amount we spend on science.

Unless it's military science.  Then it's a blank check.

I’m going to make a few top 10 lists over the coming weeks since I know from reading other people’s blogs that I don’t often go back and read old posts.  But some of the older posts from me and others are not ‘stale’ in any way.  So in addition to this list, which will be the 10 most viewed posts, I’ll also make some other ones like the 10 that I like the best, or the 10 that generated the most comments, or others.

Top 10 Most Popular Posts On This Blog:

1.  10/31/2011 Why I did TFA, and why you shouldn’t

2.  1/9/2013 The 50 million dollar lie

3. 2/28/2012 Analyzing Released NYC Value-Added Data Part 2

4. 2/26/2012 Analyzing Released NYC Value-Added Data Part 1

5. 2/10/2012 New York State Tests:  7th Grade Math 2010

6. 12/31/2012 Open Letters To Reformers I Know.  Part 8:  Wendy Kopp

7. 6/12/2012 It Takes A Village

8. 3/6/2011 Same Kids, Same Building, Same Lies

9.  12/29/2012 The Silence Of The (Sacrificial) Lambs

10.  11/14/2012 My Visit To KIPP

On Friday night’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher interviewed Brian Levin of the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. As you might expect, the discussion began with a mention of the religious beliefs (Islam) of the Boston bombers. (There’s no evidence yet, of course, linking their religious beliefs to their actions.)

Levin argued that religious extremism, if that’s what this was, isn’t limited to Islam. There are extremists in just about every faith.

Maher called that “liberal bullshit” and the argument began:

Maher: I mean there’s only one faith, for example, that kills you, or wants to kill you, if you draw a bad cartoon of the Prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you, or wants to kill you, if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So, you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.

I have to agree with that — let’s keep it all in perspective. Sure, there are fringe radicals everywhere — we’ve seen abortion doctors killed by Christian extremists — but when even “moderate” Muslims in America get wildly offended by mere drawings of their prophet, when honor killings occur to young women in Muslim families in westernized nations, when criticism of the faith is quickly labeled as “Islamophobia,” there’s a serious problem with the religious. Christians may be as wrong as Muslims, but they wouldn’t dream of killing you for leaving the faith or retaliating with violence at an offensive depiction of Jesus. They’ll get offended and say crazy things, but that’s usually as bad as it gets.

When I went to see “The Book of Mormon” musical — something Maher later refers to — the Playbill included cleverly-placed ads encouraging people to visit the (real) Mormon Church. Nice move on their part. Would that happen in the case of a musical that poked fun at Islam? Would such a production even be allowed to go on? Of course not. The fear that prevents that from happening is very real. And Maher was simply saying that there are more than just a few Muslim extremists who take extraordinary measures to respond to mild offenses.

The problem with Islam is not that most Muslims are bad people — that’s obviously not true. The problem is that even many of the moderates tend to view apostates and critics of their faith in the worst possible light. It’s hard to envision a “Muslim Left,” though there’s a very vocal Christians Left. It’s hard to find moderate Muslim groups that will defend freedom of speech on Everybody Draw Muhammad Day and not flip out over anyone who left the faith and now speaks out against it. People like Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have had their lives threatened (and seen friends die) because they left Islam. Meanwhile, ex-Christians probably make up half the Internet.

The fact that Maher defended other religious groups just to prove his point shows you how easy this idea is to refute. All religions are not the same when it comes to their extremists. They differ in numbers and beliefs about how to handle opposition to their faith.

And let’s not forget that Maher himself is often billed as a “militant atheist” even though the most “militant” he’ll ever get is everything you just saw in that clip.

The mystery has been solved.

A few days ago, I posted images of a fourth grade science test that was circulating online:

The story was that a Reddit user had gotten the images from his friend, whose daughter attended the unnamed school. Neither of them wanted to verify the name of the school… but the material was out there, so it wouldn’t have been long before we found out. Even the stellar Snopes website was on the hunt, saying they had contacted a school that could plausibly have given the test and were awaiting confirmation.

So the search continued… until today.

Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham was happy to reveal the name of the school as he criticized atheists for “lashing out” against the school, the test, the teacher, and everyone else involved in the embarrassment:

… take a look at the following quotes to give you an idea of some of the things that have been said by secularists who are undertaking this attack on Blue Ridge Christian Academy. The school received some vicious emails from atheists.

The “vicious” emails, as Ham quotes, are mostly from people who can’t fathom that any school would actually teach this bullshit:

This science test was originally posted on r/atheism. Snopes.com picked it up thinking it was a hoax. Surely, no one with their wits about them would teach a child these things. Sadly, this is an actual test. This is what passes for “science” in at least one Christian school.

…

I truly fear for humanity.

…

Science is not trivial. If the school fails at science THIS dramatically (giving wrong information is worse than giving no information), how good they are with other subjects hardly makes up for it . . . I won’t get into a religious debate here but religion is not science and does not help us know about the natural world. The Bible is a [word removed] textbook on nature. Belief is not scientific and does not belong in a science class.

Ham added:

These atheists have willfully suppressed the truth that there is a Creator and that His Word is true. We need to sincerely pray that these people will come to repentance and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ before it’s too late.

Science: A conspiracy run by atheists hell-bent on discovering reality.

In the article accompanying Ham’s blog post, Ham and colleague Mark Looy explain what happened in this class:

In South Carolina recently, a fourth-grade teacher at Blue Ridge Christian Academy (a nondenominational K–12 Christian school) showed students a DVD of a children’s program, in which AiG song-writer and dinosaur sculptor Buddy Davis and I are featured. In this DVD, we teach children the history of the universe from the Bible, with a special emphasis on teaching dinosaurs from a biblical perspective (as we do inside our Creation Museum). The teacher handed out a question sheet to the children to test what they learned from the DVD…

A friend of one of the parents who has a child enrolled in the fourth grade class posted the quiz sheets on the internet. The parent, like all parents who have children enrolled at this academy, had signed a statement, which acknowledged an understanding that sending their child to this Christian school would mean they would be taught biblical Christianity. The parent expressed dismay that his daughter was taught a biblical approach to dinosaurs. The quiz’s posting to the internet resulted in a number of atheist websites reposting the questions and answers, and many of them responded in rage and vehement attacks on the school.

The school administrator, relatively new as the head of the academy, was shocked to find her school becoming the target of atheist attacks and even some threats. Articles on mainstream websites (like a Seattle TV station over 2,500 miles away), a UK website, and other places on the internet made the controversy grow even larger.

Now, this Christian academy is not a large school. Yet the atheists went after it with incredible fervor. The school administrator informed us she knew that the school would be involved in a spiritual battle after the quiz went public, but she was not expecting such ferocity. She told us she was shocked at the level of hate that the atheists poured down upon her, the teacher, and the school in general.

Obviously, no one is condoning hate against the school’s administrators or teachers. But criticism against a perversion of science? Absolutely. Keep it coming. And that’s what I saw across the Internet — jaws dropping everywhere over the fact that this is what passed for science in an American school (albeit a private Christian one), that kids were being brainwashed by Christian educators who have no respect for evidence or the scientific method, that this student was being led to believe she’s a good science student when in fact she’s probably learning very little about it.

Blue Ridge’s curriculum doesn’t hide what it teaches young children, either:

Science lessons are creation-based, student-centered and hands-on. Topics covered in the elementary grades lay the foundation for the sciences taught in middle and high school. Students are exposed to the natural resources surrounding us as well as the best of other resources and publications.

History is no better:

Our students are taught history in light of Christ’s supremacy.

Incidentally, I had contacted Blue Ridge’s administrators last week when trying to figure out which school was responsible for this test. Neither Administrator Diana Baker nor Board President Joy Hartsell responded to my inquiry.

However, one of the other school I contacted did respond to me. The administrator there said the test wasn’t theirs, but it might as well have been:

Dear Sir,

This particular student is NOT from our school… I would have to say that we completely agree with Mr. Ken Ham and his stand on a young earth. Like the school in the article, we firmly stand behind our beliefs. As the parents, knowing our stands, choose to send their students to our school, we do not apologize for our beliefs, nor what we teach to each student.

As an institution, we applaud the courage of this particle school to stand up for the cause of Christ.

So, yes, Blue Ridge Christian Academy lies to children about science and history and who knows what else. But they’re not alone.

I get why Christian parents would want to send their children to a school like this — it keeps them in a bubble and withholds the truth about the world that other students are exposed to from a young age. But for parents like the friend of the Redditor who posted the quiz online, this was a surprise. Ken Ham was right about one thing: None of this should have been news to the parents. It’s their responsibility to send their children to quality schools instead of ones like this, that use Ken Ham’s curriculum.

I’ll continue to stay in touch with the Redditor and his friend to see if there’s any pushback from the school over this. But really, the damage is done. I hope he pulls his daughter out of that horrible school next fall.

The political consultant, pollster, and Republican Party strategist Frank Luntz spoke last week to a college class at the University of Pennsylvania, his alma mater. Asked a question about political polarization, "he replied that he had something important to say on this matter but was apprehensive about speaking openly," according to David Corn of Mother Jones, who heard a recording of his remarks. When students groaned in answer, he agreed to proceed if he could do so off-the-record, and instructed a reporter from the college newspaper to turn off his digital recorder.

Another student, Aakash Abbi, used his iPhone to start recording, and captured Luntz's thoughts on talk radio and its polarizing effect on American politics. Here's what Luntz told the students:

They get great ratings, and they drive the message, and it's really problematic. And this is not on the Democratic side. It's only on the Republican side. Democrats have every other source of news on their side. And so that is a lot of what's driving it. If you take -- Marco Rubio's getting his ass kicked*. Who's my Rubio fan here? We talked about it. He's getting destroyed! By Mark Levin, by Rush Limbaugh, and a few others. He's trying to find a legitimate, long-term effective solution to immigration that isn't the traditional Republican approach, and talk radio is killing him. That's what's causing this thing underneath. And too many politicians in Washington are playing coy.

After his words leaked, Luntz expressed anger, predicted the betrayal would have a chilling affect on future speakers, and withdrew a scholarship named for his father that funds trips to D.C. for Penn students.

Others can discuss the student's behavior and Luntz's reaction. What's noteworthy here is the fact that a 51-year-old man who has authored at least two best-selling books wouldn't make a point about Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin that he himself regarded as very important unless he thought it wouldn't spread beyond a small room of college students. If he regards the point as very important, shouldn't he be willing to put his name behind it and restate it for larger audiences? But no. He is unwilling to air relatively mild criticism of two prominent talk-radio hosts, even though the criticism in question is so banal that I've read it before at least a hundred times. It is sad that this would plausibly cost him work, and problematic that he would let that stop him.

I've written variations on the "conservative talk radio is problematic" theme more times than I can recall. Do you want to know a secret? Some prominent conservatives agree with me. I know because of the "not for attribution!" emails I've gotten -- which I will always, always honor. But I still think they're bizarre. They always come from people who'd definitely be fine financially if their remarks were made public. So what's the problem? We're not talking about the sort of courage it took to sign one's name to the Declaration of Independence. Or the kind it takes to be a whistleblower in the Obama Administration. These are just critiques of entertainers. 

Many conservatives think Rush and friends are best ignored, or that criticizing them is counterproductive. That's fine. They should hold their tongues. But if you're someone who thinks criticizing them is important, for God's sake, just speak up. What's the worst that could happen? Does anyone think that Luntz will now be a pariah who is unable to make a living and winds up begging for change outside a Daily Grill in Bethesda? As someone who thinks that criticism is important in general, and that criticizing the wrongheaded statements and behavior of certain talk radio hosts is important too, the silence of so many people who agree vexes and confounds me.

Said the student who recorded Luntz:

Frank Luntz has made a very successful career out of advising Republicans on the content of their message. He was asked one of the most important questions of the day in terms of American politics ("what is causing extreme polarization between the parties?"), and refused to speak freely. Why? Because doing so may harm his commercial interest. And this attitude is at the root of the problem. If influential GOP figures like Frank Luntz truly believe that the party's media kingmakers harm the national interest but refuse to say so for fear of backlash, they knowingly work against the spirit of open and honest debate.

The Penn environment should be one in which people are encouraged and expected to speak unencumbered by self-interest. These discussions are of vital importance, and students should be able to expect members of the political community to speak freely. If those speakers cannot do so, it should be only for the most pressing of reasons.

In a previous item, I noted that, while Jonah Goldberg believes the right has an unhealthy share of hucksters who pretend to care deeply about principles but are actually motivated by money, and while John Podhoretz thinks essentially the same thing, neither will tell us who the hucksters are. Their assessment would carry weight among conservatives, warning some of them away from men whose professional work Goldberg and Podhoretz themselves find pernicious.

Isn't informing them the point? Shouldn't it be considered a victory for any opinion journalist? If not Goldberg and Podhoretz, whose responsibility is it to call out the conservative hucksters by name?

Or should they just be left to fool people indefinitely?

I don't know the political-consulting business very well. But I still think Luntz should've spoken his mind openly, both as a citizen and as a sometimes-paid political pundit. There are a lot of political pundits. Most believe all sorts of things with which I disagree. That's fine, but if you're in political punditry, and you strongly believe in the importance of something well within the range of issues on which you comment, aren't you compelled to be forthright about that? Or to find a new gig?