Guess who's guilty of 'Dowdification.'

Mike Piscal, who founded a charter school in South L.A. (a neighborhood where 258 out of 3,590 9th graders go on to graduate from college) opens a promising stall in the Huffosphere. Today's nut graf:

There are four special interests that have blocked, clogged, and undermined reform for decades. It is all about money, control, and power. It is diseased value system that leaves our kids uneducated, exposed to violence and drugs, and with too few or zero opportunities to pursue the American Dream. Who are the four? Emphatically, I name names: the teacher's unions, the University Schools of Education, the bureaucracies, and (unbelievably) the PTA's. [Emph. added]

Thanks to Eduwonk, who also posts a zippy, informative read (It's a list! Of 10!) from Boston charter founder Michael Goldstein. Highlight:

More recently you've heard charges -- especially from teachers union officials who despise union-free charters -- that charters schools aren't doing well. There are 29 open-admissions high schools in Boston. Charters were ranked #1, #2, #3, #4, and #9 out of 29 on MCAS proficiency

It seems there is some problem with the teacher's unions! ... Who knew? They're such good Democrats. ... 4:47 P.M.

But at least the autoworkers' union is a big success. ... Oh, wait ...  The troubles at GM and Ford have gotten a lot of attention, but Peter DeLorenzo of AutoExtremist thinks Chrysler's not in good shape either, despite the success of the rear-drive 300. [See his point 4] ... 4:32 P.M.

Friday, May 13, 2005

Sorry, Rush! The  Minute Man's blog tipped me off to a Kenneth Starr appearance on Nightline last month, in which Starr seems to say flat out he opposes changing Senate Rule 22 on filibusters--the so called "nuclear option." Here's the video. This is the relevant transcript:

TED KOPPEL

 ... What are you views on the filibuster, as it relates specifically to judicial appointments?

KENNETH STARR

Well, the Senate has the raw power and has, in fact, used it once famously, in the process of considering the proposed elevation of Abe Fortas to the Chief Justice-ship. But I think it's imprudent and unwise for senators to invoke this important device. I think it is more apt, more appropriate for legislation but not for, for judging, I think, or for ruling on judges and voting on judges. I think that does trench on the independence of the judiciary. But even more so, I think that in our system of separated powers, the President does deserve a vote on his nominees, up or down. And especially when we're talking about the courts of appeals. We're not even talking about the United States Supreme Court.

TED KOPPEL

(Off Camera) -Expect, I think we are talking here about the US Supreme Court, aren't we? I mean, it, it is everybody's expectation that everything that is going on right now is just sort of a dry run for what is assumed will happen sometime, if not in the next few months, then certainly in the next year or two. And that is that President Bush will have one, two, possibly three appointments to the Supreme Court. So, what happens in the US Senate now is exceedingly important. Would you go so far as to do away with the filibuster?...

KENNETH STARR

I would not do away with the filibuster, in terms of Rule 22. But I would say, be judicious in its application. And I don't think that that's been happening. And I regret that.

TED KOPPEL

(Off Camera) So, you're, you're opposed to the invocation of the filibuster, in this case. But you wouldn't go so far as to get rid of it.

KENNETH STARR

I'd be very cautious about getting rid of it. I think that the filibuster rule's a part of our traditions. But I think it needs to be, like a lot of tools in the tool chest, very cautiously used. [Emphasis added]

Rush Limbaugh assured his listeners this week that Starr was "on the same page" as other Republicans. Doesn't look like it, Rush! (I don't have the exact Limbaugh quote because  the transcript has been moved behind Limbaugh's subscription wall.***) Instead it's looking more and more like CBS's Bob Schieffer was right to say Starr was "coming out on what looks like the opposite side of many [in] the conservative wing of the Republican party." Scheiffer's main mistake appears to have been the implication that Starr was "coming out" for the first time in Borger's report, when in fact he'd come out at least a couple of weeks earlier on Nightline.