Love it.
Archives for May 2011
public goods are shared goods
Spend any time exploring the world of ed reform, and the concept that gets sold to you again and again is choice. “School choice” is the term of art, within the ed reform movement, for private school vouchers.
Choice has to do a lot of work, because the evidence doesn’t. More study is absolutely necessary to evaluate the value of private school vouchers, just as more study is necessary when it comes to charter schools. But the extant evidence is not good. In fact, if you’re a champion of vouchers, it’s downright bad. Here’s recent bad news from Ohio. Here’s bad news from Milwaukee. The news from DC is, thus far, howlingly controversial; here’s some data (PDF). When it comes to DC, I personally am disturbed by the lack of quantifiable gains that aren’t educator dependent– that is, the fact that graduation rates are significantly higher but testable knowledge is not at least raises fair questions about the pressures for schools receiving vouchers to graduate students even if they have underperformed. (One of the consistent problems with school vouchers is the fact that they directly incentivize schools putting their fingers on the scale, and often with no accountability beyond the honor system.) These are just recent cases, but you can survey the available data and say with little doubt that a compelling empirical case for school vouchers doesn’t exist.
(A bit out of date but good overview on the flagging voucher movement from the Washington Monthly is here.)
Voucher proponents, in the face of this failure, have to sell hard on the idea of choice. Ross Douthat, in a typically goofy response to the repeated and public failure of school vouchers to produce better results, changed his mind doubled down, echoing Charles Murray in saying that producing results was never the point. (Hey, who says that advocating something is the same as claiming it’s effective public policy?) It’s all about freedom, giving people choices and making them happier, even if those choices don’t actually accomplish anything. But is choice in this individualistic sense even a virtue in this case? I would submit that it’s not, and in fact that it’s directly opposed to the essential social compact that modern governance relies on.
Shit Magnetry
James Joyner thinks Michelle Bachmann’s almost-certain entry into the race will make the David Brooks approved candidates rubber because she’s glue:
But having her in the race might well be helpful to Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, and other comparatively mainstream Republicans. If they can resist the lure of moving right to compete for her base, which would backfire, she’ll serve as a lightning rod and make them more appealing to general election voters.
First, I’m skeptical that “her base” isn’t “the base”. It may be true that there’s a huge silent majority of Republican primary voters energized to vote for a wimp, Mormon or Arab, but so far they’re far under the radar. Current polling shows Romney at the top, but the number two and three are Palin and Gingrich, and those two combined beat Mitt by 10 points. Bachmann and Palin combined also beat Obamacare Mitt. So, when Palin inevitably bows out, Bachmann will be there to pick up her followers and give the others a good run for the money.
Second, even if she’s merely a lighting rod or shit magnet, James really misunderstands the press if he thinks there won’t be any collateral damage from her presence. As we’re seeing with Newt’s flailing walkback of his Ryan critique — his latest is that quoting anything he said on Sunday is a lie — once a crazy candidate utters something stupid, it gives the media a giant opportunity to ask a “do you agree” question.
Do you agree with Newt Gingrich that the Republican budget is radical social engineering?
Do you agree with Michele Bachmann that regulating potatoes in schools is unconstitutional?
This is the favorite kind of media question, because they can’t be accused of bias when they ask a Republican to comment on what another Republican said, and because it makes candidates squirm.
So, instead of telling us how they’re going to cut taxes on the rich, fuck the poor out of Medicaid, and protect us from brown people, the serious candidates will be responding to all the dumb shit that Bachmann and Gingrich bring to the table. I don’t see how that helps the other candidates, especially if she wins Iowa, which is a real possibility since her supporters are the kind who show up at caucuses.
Open Thread
Was brewing my tea this morning, looked into the dining room and found Tunch surveying his kingdom from the dinner table:
Because Rosie LOVES cat food, I’ve actually turned the dinner table into his feeding area, because he can jump up there and the dogs can’t. I can do this because I am single and don’t give a shit.
Speaking of not giving a shit, I am going on vacation. Well, a staycation, really. My garden needs to be put in, my landscaping is a mess, the fence is going up soon, my car needs to be inspected, I have several rooms that need their carpets cleaned still, I want to organize my basement and rubberize the garage floor, etc. So don’t expect to see much of me around here for the next few days.
Today in President Nelson
Ben’s not going to support any tax increase, ever:
Sen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday that he will not support tax increases in any budget proposal — a stance that could make Senate Democrats’ chances for reaching agreement on the issue even more difficult.
And he supports oil company subsidies:
Technically, last night’s vote was on the motion to proceed on the bill. Supporters outnumbered opponents, 52 to 48, but with Republicans filibustering the measure, Dems needed a 60-vote supermajority just to initiate a debate on the proposal. They fell eight votes short.
Two oil-friendly Democrats, Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Begich (Alaska), voted with the GOP, as did Nebraska’s Ben Nelson who had previously said he opposes filibusters on motion to proceed.
Ben is infuriating, but he’s just the pus-filled chancre, not the underlying disease. With rural states getting progressively redder, there’s just no way Democrats will ever have a reliable 60 vote majority in the Senate. As long as the filibuster is painless, Republicans will be able to strangle progressive legislation there. It’s tedious and dull to repeat that fact, but it does bear mentioning on occasion.
The Truth Dribbles Out
When the Fukushima incident was happening, one of the stories we were told was that the venting systems in US boiling water reactors are better. Not so:
American officials had said early on that reactors in the United States would be safe from such disasters because they were equipped with new, stronger venting systems. But Tokyo Electric Power Company, which runs the plant, now says that Fukushima Daiichi had installed the same vents years ago.
That whole article is worth reading because it also shows that TEPCO was in a state of utter disarray after the quake and tsunami.
Another story that was told is that the plants’ cooling systems survived the earthquake and were operating until loss of power and depletion of batteries caused them to fail. Also not true at Unit 1:
The emergency cooling system was automatically activated but stopped about 10 minutes later and remained off for about 3 hours until after the tsunami arrived.
TEPCO says plant workers may have manually shut down the cooling system because pressure inside the reactor had dropped sharply from 70 to 45 atmospheres.
I’m no nuclear engineer, but if an earthquake happens and a pressure vessel can’t hold pressure, I have to assume it was damaged. Not that it really matters, because the antiquated cooling system in Unit 1, which was of an older design than the other units, would have failed anyway.
But, kids, don’t worry — the NRC just decreed that US plants are all safe, and there’s just no way that they can suffer the same fate as those sloppy, careless Japanese.