You Can't Do That, Say Educrats

The provost of King’s College in New York City just couldn’t take it any more. So the provost, Peter Wood writing in NRO, decided to close the college’s undergraduate school of education.

Why bother with a bachelor’s degree in education, Wood decided? If you want to teach in New York state, you have to get a Master’s degree eventually. Meanwhile the state has mandated “that we offer dozens of intellectually vapid courses far below the College’s standards for the rest of the curriculum” for those students majoring in education.

Education majors would just have to take the same silly courses all over again in grad school. So Wood encouraged would-be teachers to major in the college’s “interdisciplinary politics, philosophy, and economics (PPE) program” and take a “concentration” in education instead of a full major.

Oh no you don’t, retorted the New York state educrats. The college

can adopt the five-course sequence with courses such as “The History of American Education,” “Philosophy of Education,” and “Educational Policy,” but we absolutely cannot call the sequence a “concentration in education.” That would be misleading.

Wood thought about it and then agreed with the educrats. To call his intellectually rigorous course by the same name as “New York applies to its approved pablum would indeed be misleading.” So he called it something else!

Anyone listening? Anyone paying attention? Does any of this bureaucratic pettifogging have anything to do with education? Don’t forget, we are paying the education establishment about $500 billion a year to come up with this nonsense.

Playing the Impeachment Card

Republicans learned an important lesson in 1998. Americans don’t want their president impeached. They figure that they voted for the guy. Now let him do his stuff.

Back then the MSM, or plain media as it was then, was delighted to tell the Republicans what Clinton-hating Puritans they were. And so, in accordance with the constitution, two Republicans had to resign to pay for Democrat Bill Clinton’s lie: “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky.”

That was then, this is now. Back then, the sense of annoyance that Republicans felt towards Bill Clinton was considered rather shabby and unattractive by the media. Today the spluttering rage of Democrats over President Bush is shared by the MSM. They hate the guy, just as Al Gore taught them to hate back in November 2000 when he decided to contest the Florida election.

Their boiling hatred is the energy that Senator Russ Feingold wants to exploit in his motion to censure the president. He hopes his motion will energize the left-wing netroots as he cranks up his run for the presidency in 2008. Elect Democrats to Congress, he seems to say, and we will impeach the president.

As The Wall Street Journal writes in an editorial, Feingold is doing us all a favor, and especially Republicans, by pushing his censure motion. He is telling us what a Democratic Congress would want to do if the voters elected one this Fall.

He's doing voters a favor by telling them before November's election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.


Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies.

Even The New York Times can see that there is a problem. Reporter David D. Kirkpatrick notes that the censure talk could work to the Republicans’ advantage. But don’t worry about impeachment:

Few lawmakers in either party think there is much chance of impeachment even if the Democrats do take the House. Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, called the idea "not realistic" but nonetheless useful. "It shows people how extreme the leaders of the Democrat Party actually are," Mr. Forti said.

Nobody here but us chickens, eh?

Back in 1960 Richard Nixon decided not to contest the close election that was probably stolen in the Democratic machine bastions of Illinois (Dick Daley, prop.) and Texas (Lyndon Johnson, prop.). He thought it would be too divisive.

In 2000 Al Gore elected to contest the close election in Florida, and ginned up his supporters up with divisive partisan rhetoric. When his effort was put down by the U.S. Supreme Court he conceded only grudgingly, and his supporters understood that the attacks on the president could continue.

Ever since the Democrats have been paying for his bad faith. Because when you divide America into conservatives and liberals it turns out that that the conservatives win.

The Problem of Incapacitated Heads of State

What do we do if the President is incapacitated? Or a drunk, or a depressive?

That’s the topic of an interesting essay by David Owen in QJ Med. Lord Owen was British Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government from 1977 to 1979.

We all know that President Wilson was completely incapacitated by a stroke in 1919. But did you know that President Mitterand of France was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1981 and became almost incapacitated later on in his second term as president? No, you probably don’t because they kept it pretty secret.

And Prime Minister Anthony Eden of Great Britain was fueled with amphetamines throughout the Suez Crisis of 1956.

What should we do about presidential incapacitation, and how much secrecy is acceptable?

Winston Churchill, of course, was a depressive and endured many attacks of the “black dog.” He had a heart attack in the White House in 1941. And what about his drinking?

In May 1953, Churchill as Prime Minister was standing in for Eden as Foreign Secretary weeks before he had a very serious stroke. A diplomat from the Foreign Office records lunching with him and his Private Secretary, ‘The lunch lasted for three and a quarter hours. A varied and noble procession of wines with which I could not keep pace — champagne, port, brandy, cointreau; Winston drank a great deal of all and ended with two glasses of whisky and soda’. It is hard to imagine functioning on such an input, but he had been used to it for over fifty years.

What should be the rules regarding the health of the head of government, and when should we step in and replace them?

A View of the War on Terror

How well do we understand the war on terror? How well are we doing? What is it we are fighting against? You could read A View from the Eye of the Storm by Haim Harari in FrontPage Magazine to get a broad strategic sweep.

The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel had joined the Arab league and an independent Palestine had existed for 100 years.

And this great region with 300 million people has

a combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of California alone.

...

Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers.

There are four main pillars of the conflict: the suicide murder, lies, money, and the “total breaking of all laws.”

And this conflict is power by three “concentric spheres supporting death and murder.”

The first sphere is the terrorists themselves. “They are surrounded by a second wider circle of direct supporters, planners, commanders, preachers.” Then there is the outer sphere,

the third circle of so-called religious, educational and welfare organizations, which actually do some good, feed the hungry and provide some schooling, but brainwash a new generation with hatred, lies and ignorance.

We’ll win, of course. But meanwhile how are we doing?

Now that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are out, two and a half terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria and Lebanon.. [Both] Iran and Syria are now totally surrounded by territories unfriendly to them... This is a significant strategic change and it applies strong pressure on the terrorist countries...
I do not know if the American plan was actually to encircle both Iran and Syria, but that is the resulting situation.

Read the whole thing.

Health Care is a Right, as They Say

We know how goverment monopoly health care works in Canada, because we got a look with the Canadian movie The Barbarian Invasions. The way to get things done and actually get health care, it appeared, was a bit of bribery.

OK. We know those Canadians are wusses. But what about in the home of government health care in the Anglosphere, the United Kingdom with its beloved National Health Service?

Things are not too good, according to Dr. John Crippen an NHS doctor and blogger.

Here’s how things are going in his NHS hospital:

Third patient in is Mary, one of the local speech therapists. She is approaching retirement. I sent her husband into hospital three weeks ago in rip-roaring heart failure... The nursing care is appalling. He has developed pressures sores on his sacrum and heels.

Wanna see what a Grade IV pressure sore on the sacrum looks like? Try here. On second thoughts, you probably don’t. Meanwhile you’ll be glad to know that the nurses are eating dinner.

The nurses were all eating take-away Pizza. Deep Pan pizza from Pizza Hut... Mary thinks her husband is dying... The nurses over the weekend do not speak English. She tried to tell them that her husband is partially sighted but they do not understand. They show here the nursing assessment. Under “visual problems” it says "none".

Yep. Read the whole thing.

Handicapping Election 2006

It will take a gain of 15 seats for the Democrats to take control of the House of Representatives this fall. Can they do it?

Long time elections expert Michael Barone says maybe. It would seem that gaining 15 seats should not be that hard, given that the Republicans gained 52 seats in 1994 to take the House. But this isn’t 1994. At least not yet.

Democrats' chances of taking those 15 seats are not very good — if the voting patterns and political contours that have held steady since the 1995-96 budget showdown continue to prevail.

And that’s the point. Voting patterns have stayed steady for about the last ten years. The Republicans gains came from three sources, says Barone. First was the Democratic Class of 1974 that had won in fairly Republican districts. Twenty years later, as those incumbents moved on, their seats reverted back to the Republicans. Then Republicans benefited from an improvement in candidate quality, the movement of the conservative South into the Republican camp, a remarkable anti-incumbent feeling, and finally an anti-Clinton feeling among voters who in 1992 thought they were voting for a moderate and instead got tax increases and national health care.

How do those factors work this time around? Not too much. It doesn’t seem likely that Republicans are in for a perfect storm like Democrats were in 1994.

In his analysis, Jay Case writes in RealClearPolitics.com that we should not underestimate the difficulty of unseating an incumbent congressman. There are only about 17 Republican open seats and most of them are districts that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Then he goes through the conventional wisdom that points to a Democratic pickup in November. Democrats could win if they could unify around a set of issues. Republicans are in trouble because they are not united. Right track/wrong track polls indicate trouble for the Republicans, and so on.

All wrong, says Case. The fact is that 95 percent of Republican congressmen are running for reelection. And the open seats are mostly in districts that voted for Bush. That makes it almost impossible to retake the House unless the sentiments of the voters change significantly before November.

So it ain’t over yet.

A Look Inside Iran

Here’s an interesting look inside Iran. The Iranian establishment is increasingly worried by the actions of the president of Iran, according to John R. Bradley in the Washington Times.

Iran's clerical and business establishments, deeply concerned by what they see as reckless spending and needlessly aggressive foreign policies, are increasingly turning against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad was elected on a populist platform to root out corruption and to give priority to the needs of the poor. Is he ever!

Iran's long-term planning calls for vigorous efforts to reduce the size of government and to curb subsidies to state-owned entities, which account for an estimated 75 percent of the economy. But the Ahmadinejad budget boosts spending by 25 percent and envisions a 31 percent increase in spending on state enterprises.

We’ve seen this before. This sort of reckless expansion of the government sector to throw subsidies at the poor always ends in tears. The economic strength of a nation comes from its productive sector. And that means business enterprise not government enterprise. This isn’t too difficult to figure out, is it.

The clerical establishment has close ties with the capitalist class and is said to be appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Mr. Ahmadinejad's inauguration. The clerics are also thought to be deeply apprehensive about the president's aggressive foreign policy.

The Iranian establishment wants the West to ease off on the confrontation with Ahmadinejad. “Let the Iranians deal with him,” they say. Then he’ll be a failure and out of power within a year.