-
That's why I stopped watching TV "news" about 20 years ago. It's also why I rarelydiscuss politics: most people believe that "discussion" actually means "heated argument," complete with raised voices and ad hominem attacks.
Posted at December 29, 2005 1:46 PM in response to TV Troubles
-
The analogy between politics and the criminal justice system is also flawed in this respect: prosecutors are ethically bound to pursue only those cases where they actually believe the accused is guilty AND where they believe there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction using admissible evidence. Defense counsel's job is to advise his client as to his options, but ultimately to pursue any lawful course of action the defendant chooses-- regardless of its wisdom. As a prosecutor, I often have to dismiss a case because my witnesses have become unavailible-- perhaps at the behest of the accused. Similarly, I refrain from filing charges that perhaps could be proven because I'm not personally convinced of the suspect's guilt. There are also many cases where I believe the suspect committed a crime, but I don't file charges because I don't believe I could convince a jury of his guilt. These things happen on a daily basis. The prosecutor's job is "to see that justice is done," not merely to win.
In politics, on the other hand, honesty amounts to what you get away with saying-- even if it's not true. And politicians of all stripes also routinely advocate positions they don't personally believe in, for the good of the party. My point is that in the criminal justice system Goldberg analogizes to the political arena, the prosecution is not supposed to and never (lawfully, anyway) does take such a no-holds-barred attitude toward the dispensation of justice. There is no such restraint by either side in politics, not on the national level, anyway.
Posted at December 29, 2005 1:37 PM in response to In Praise of Partisanship
-
I would like to throw out another related problem that is not addressed by No Child Left Untested, any private school I've ever heard of (and certainly none that is financially or physically within my reach) or the "mainstreaming" model of public education: the "twice gifted" student. This is the child who is academically or otherwise gifted, but who also has a learning disability. Trust me, such children do exist, even though few professional educators seem to know that. My son is one of them. A sharp second grade teacher (with gifted children of her own) recognised that my son is bright but couldn't seem to get his thoughts down on paper, not even at a level that would be "normal" for a child that age. Thank God she recommended testing by the school psychologist (thank God, too, that his school had one!) That testing revealed a composit IQ of 152. Subsequent testing by a psychiatrist revealed my son has a learning disability, a form of Attention Deficit Disorder. Among other things, this form of ADD makes it very difficult for him to do certain tasks that are a normal part of any standardized test such as looking at answer options in a test booklet, but writing the answers down on a separate answer sheet. He also has supreme difficulty copying down what he's written on one page to another, as one might do in re-writing a rough draft.
Believe me, we have been through dozens of meetings with principals, teachers, school psychologists, school district administrators and others, nearly all of whom are well-meaning and really want to come up with a plan to teach my son to his fullest capacity, but we keep running into essentially the same problem: the system is designed to teach the middle 67% of the kids. The kids at the bottom 17%, "ED kids," get special funding to address their needs because we have Federal and State laws in place that require it, and the gifted kids are presumed to be able to muddle through somehow, essentially on their own.
I don't believe that there can possibly be one education policy answer that can fit all students and all school districts. There must be room for flexibility. I also believe that those who formulate education policy are generally only thinking about the two-thirds of the kids in the middle, the "average," and that as a whole our citizenry does not place a very high value on a good education. If they did, starting pay for a public school teacher would exceed that of a Wal-Mart greeter, which it does not.
Posted at December 28, 2005 12:11 PM in response to Gifted Children Left Behind?
-
Victoria, you're right. I was joking.
Posted at December 16, 2005 1:14 PM in response to Spying on Americans and John Bolton
-
Is this really more serious than lying about cheating on your wife?
Posted at December 16, 2005 12:34 PM in response to Spying on Americans and John Bolton
