Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

What’s wrong?

Monday, December 10th, 2007

What’s wrong with education in South Carolina? This article in The State sheds a little light on the subject:

A woman who teaches her children at home could be nominated to lead the state Education Board.

Kristin Maguire of Clemson said she has several commitments from other board members.

While the article makes it clear that it’s not likely that Maguire will actually be elected chair, you might be wondering:

  1. Why would you want to make someone who’s given up on South Carolina schools to head a board that’s supposed to oversee those schools?
  2. Who put such a person on this board in the first place?

I don’t have an answer for #1. It seems like sheer lunacy to me.

As for #2, Maguire is a gift to the educators of South Carolina from…

Maguire is Gov. Mark Sanford’s representative on the board and her term expires in December 2008.

… our governor – who’s not exactly what you’d call a friend of education.

So who’s Maguire? She’s involved with SC PIE, which I’ve mentioned on this blog before. In short, they’re a group that pushes for abstinence-only sex ed, creationism in the classroom, and vouchers. Such people should never be allowed anywhere near the management offices of a public education system.

Posted in Politics | 3 Comments »

When you take “education” out of “sex education”, what you have left is …

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

While my students are taking their final exams, I’ve been catching up with the news online. Here’s an opinion piece from the Greenville News talking up abstinence-only sex “education”:

A 2007 Zogby International poll showed parents prefer abstinence education over comprehensive sex education by a 2 to 1 margin. In addition, a 2007 survey by the S.C. Palmetto Family Council and the University of South Carolina found that 83 percent of white parents and 72 percent of black parents believe schools should emphasize abstinence as the first and best option for youth.

Of course, just because something sounds good to people doesn’t necessarily mean that it actually works or is realistic. But if you’re wanting to know how well abstinence-only works, you don’t have to look hard to find out. The current administration has very heavily favored abstinence-only for a number of years now. The New York Times reports on how well that’s been working out for us.

But a landmark study recently failed to demonstrate that [abstinence-only programs] have any effect on delaying sexual activity among teenagers, and some studies suggest that they may actually increase pregnancy rates.

Teen pregnancy rates are going up … for the first time in fifteen years. Guess that taking the “education” out of “sex education” didn’t work out too well, did it?

Posted in Politics, The culture wars | 1 Comment »

Health care and the “culture of life”

Wednesday, November 14th, 2007

As I understand it, one of the arguments that folks who are against the availability of legal abortion is that they value a “culture of life” – the idea that what they consider to be “human” life is sacred and should be protected by society. For example, here’s South Carolina Representative Gresham Barrett (emphasis mine):

Culture of life: Representative Barrett is a firm believer that life begins at conception, and that any attempt to harm or endanger the life of an innocent child, born or unborn, is wrong. He is a co-sponsor of several pieces of legislation supporting life and helped push for the passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban signed into law by President Bush.

Here’s a similar statement by one of South Carolina’s Senators – Jim DeMint: (Again, emphasis mine)

The role of government is to ensure that each life, whether young or old, born or unborn, independent or vulnerable, is valued and protected.

The right to life is not something that begins or ends at our time of choosing. Rather, this unalienable right begins at conception and ends at natural death.

You would expect senators and representatives who express the belief that it is the government’s job to ensure that life, as they define it, is valued and protected to vote their conscience. That would mean voting against legal access to abortion and some other birth control techniques.

You would also expect that these same senators and representatives would work very hard to ensure that children, once born, would have access to medical care. Supporting legislation like the expansion of SCHIP, a program to increase the availability of health care to lower-income children, would be a no-brainer for principled people who believes that human life is precious and must be protected. Such people, you would assume, would find it intolerable that our system allows even one child to go without medical care. Right?

Except that both Representative Barrett and Senator DeMint both voted against the SCHIP bill.

Can someone who is more acquainted with the “culture of life” than I am explain why the unborn must be protected, while children who are out of the womb should be allowed to go without health care? It doesn’t make much sense to me

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Health care and the “culture of life”

A first!

Tuesday, October 16th, 2007

Living where I do in South Carolina – between the suburbs and the sticks – I don’t get many political canvassers. The ones that do show up at my door are almost always from the more rabid side of the Republican party. Since I’m usually not home when they come by, I just get a packet of scary literature left at my door.

A little while ago, I had a visit from a canvasser that surprised me. He was representing a Democratic candidate. For president, even. This in spite of the fact that South Carolina going Democratic in 2008 is about as likely as a collision with a giant Earth-obliterating asteroid. Maybe I exaggerate, but I remember how … depressing the Democratic booth at the State Fair was during the last presidential election cycle.

So, what Democrat is getting the word out to the “sticks” here in South Carolina?

[Barack Obama!]

Obama!

I like Obama. He realizes that the Iraq war was a bad idea, and he realizes that we’ve got a serious problem with our heathcare delivery system here in the USA. I don’t think he goes far enough to address our healthcare problems (his proposal isn’t a single-payer system and doesn’t get rid of bloodsucking for-profit insurance companies), but it’s a start. And a start is all we’re likely to be able to get in the short term.

[Faith, faith, faith!]

About the only thing that bothers me about Obama is, well, “faith, faith, faith“! I realize that here in the Deep South, politicians have to pander to the pious, but … sheesh! Look at the Obama events in the link above. How about a “environment forum” or a “healthcare forum” instead of an endless stream of “faith forum”s?

Unlike some voters, I’m not really interested in what god Obama worships – as long as he understands the concept of separation of church and state. I do care about the policies he plans to put into action if elected. More works, less faith, please!

Posted in Politics, The culture wars | 1 Comment »

A lesson in accountability

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

Here’s a hypothetical situation.

Let’s say you’re a Republican-controlled Congress. You start a school voucher program in the capital of the United States. You decide to funnel federal tax dollars into private schools. Since you believe in the magical power of the free market, you don’t bother to worry much about what actually happens to the money. You simply take the word of people who claim to be running private schools that they’re doing what they are supposed to be doing – providing quality education to kids in acceptable facilities.

What could possibly go wrong?

Steve Benen fills us in:

Republican lawmakers crafted a policy whereby federal funds would flow to private schools with no checks to certify whether all of the participating schools had the required operating permits. The results put kids at risk.

What’s he talking about? The Washington Post reports that

A voucher program designed to send low-income children in the District to better-performing private schools has allowed some students to take classes in unsuitable learning environments and from teachers without bachelor’s degrees, according to a government report.

So, we’re spending tax dollars to send kids to schools that aren’t even hiring minimally-knowledgeable teachers? How’s that possible?  Part of the problem is that nobody bothered to check to see that the free money was even being sent to, well, actual schools.

In a random sample of 18 schools reviewed by the GAO, two lacked occupancy permits, and four lacked permits needed for buildings used for educational purposes. At least seven of the 18 schools were certified as child development centers but not as private schools. In one case, a school was operating in a space designed for a retail store, the report says.

“Child development centers”. In other words, day-care providers. Not schools. While I don’t think vouchers are a good idea, would it kill voucher proponents to recognize the need for some oversight on where taxpayer money actually goes? Ensuring the money actually goes to schools might be a good first step on the long road to accountability.

Posted in Education, Politics | Comments Off on A lesson in accountability

Good news for public schools and … Catholics?

Wednesday, October 10th, 2007

Kellie sent me a link today to a news story describing a new study comparing public and private schools.

Students at independent private schools and most parochial schools scored the same on 12th-grade achievement tests in core academic subjects as those in traditional public high schools when income and other family characteristics were taken into account, according to the study by the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy.

That’s probably not what the South Carolina voucher lobby wants to hear, but anyone with any education experience at all knows that there are simply lots of factors that go into student success.  Trashing schools because they’re “public” (and have a different mix of students than the top-tier private schools) isn’t useful.

Oddly enough, there actually was one kind of private school that outperformed others:

[…] the only kind of private schools that had a positive impact on student achievement were Catholic schools run by holy orders such as the Jesuits. Such schools have more autonomy from the church than most Catholic schools, which are typically run by a diocese and are overseen by a superintendent in the local bishop’s office.

Score one for the Jesuits?

Posted in Education, Politics | Comments Off on Good news for public schools and … Catholics?

Dumbest thing I’ve read all day

Monday, October 1st, 2007

Rant up ahead. You were warned. 🙂

I regularly read the Internet, which means that I’m constantly bombarded by stupidity. So, sometimes it’s hard to determine what the silliest or stupidest thing I’ve come across actually is. But sometimes, something jumps out as so … dumb … that it just begs for comments.

Remember when the Iranian president came to speak at Columbia University – where he didn’t exactly receive a warm reception? In fact, he was introduced as “a petty and cruel dictator” and “astonishingly uneducated”. He then proceeded to make himself look quite foolish with his ideas about the Holocaust and homosexuals. It’s very doubtful that he made any friends among the faculty or students of Columbia University that day.

Despite this, the very fact that Iran’s president was invited to a university to be heard at all has made one second-tier Republican presidential candidate – Duncan Hunter, a representative from California – wet himself all over the Congress. He’s introduced HR 3675 – the “Restore Patriotism to University Campuses Act”. See for yourself:

(more…)

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Dumbest thing I’ve read all day

Looks pretty innocent, doesn’t it?

Tuesday, July 31st, 2007

Here’s something South Carolina’s legislature recently passed: S484.

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 59-113-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING FOR PURPOSES OF PROVIDING TUITION GRANTS, SO AS TO INCLUDE IN THE DEFINITION AN INDEPENDENT BACHELOR’S LEVEL INSTITUTION CHARTERED BEFORE 1962 WHOSE MAJOR CAMPUS AND HEADQUARTERS ARE LOCATED WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

Definition revised

SECTION 1. Section 59-113-50 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

“Section 59-113-50. For the purposes of this chapter, an independent institution of higher learning means an:

(1) independent eleemosynary junior or senior college in South Carolina whose major campus and headquarters are located within South Carolina and which is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools; or

(2) independent bachelor’s level institution chartered before 1962 whose major campus and headquarters are located within South Carolina.”

Nothing much to see here, right? But this legislation was sponsored by Mike Fair, who is not known to be much of a friend to quality education. With that in mind, what does this legislation actually do? It …

approved $2.5 million to help low-income students attend Bob Jones University, a private school in Greenville.

… according to the Charleston Post and Courier. (It does this by adding the unaccredited-by-any-reputable-accreditation-board Bob Jones to the list of private schools eligible to receive grant money for students with financial need. Bob Jones is the only new school to qualify under this legislation!)

Rev. BigDumbChimp has more details on why you should be irritated at this legislation, especially if you prefer your tax dollars to be kept away from anti-science nutjobs.

Disclaimer: I teach science at a public college. Just so y’all know my bias.

Posted in Politics, The culture wars | Comments Off on Looks pretty innocent, doesn’t it?

Moore money, Moore money!

Monday, July 9th, 2007

Longtime readers of this little blog are probably aware that I don’t really have a lot of respect for South Carolina’s current governor – given what he’s tried to do to public education in this state. I felt that he won the last election “by default” – simply because it seems impossible to elect anyone with a (D) behind their name to a statewide office.****

Sanford might have been helped by the Democratic choice of candidate. They chose longtime state senator Tommy Moore to oppose Sanford in the last election. I never thought Moore was a particularly exciting or memorable candidate, but I think that I might have something to remember him by now. He’s resigning from the state legislature to take a new job. Here’s a statement from Moore, as reported by The State [Link may be busted soon – this seems to happen a lot with links to The State]:

“At this point in my career, I saw an exciting opportunity to take on a new challenge that builds on my long history of supporting and protecting consumers,”[emphasis mine]

At this point, you might be thinking “So what? People take new jobs all the time!”

(more…)

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Moore money, Moore money!

A Sanford veto … succeeds?

Friday, June 29th, 2007

On the subject of Republican Ted Pitts’ attempt to get rid of South Carolina’s antiquated “blue laws”, Eric (in the comments on my earlier post) had this to say

just add it to the list of sanford vetoes … and general assembly overides.

Have I got a surprise for you! Sanford vetoed the measure, but the legislature upheld the veto. So, we’re stuck with the blue laws.

Presumably, this veto and the support of it allows both the governor and members of the legislature to pick up some cheap fundie support at the expense of only the smaller counties in the state – since the richest counties can already ignore the blue laws. FromThe State:

“I don’t think it had to do with religion, but my mom raised me to go to church on Sunday,” said Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Richland. He said he voted against the Pitt’s proviso because, “There’s certain things we don’t need to be messing with.”

That’s an interesting statement from a legislator from a county whose stores can ignore the blue laws thanks to the accommodations tax exception. But I’m inclined to agree with what Bellentine is saying here. His vote probably had very little to do with his religion. It likely had more to do with his benefactors not wanting competition in neighboring counties opening up on Sunday morning!

Posted in Politics, The culture wars | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »