By Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr.
Why racial preferences in college admissions hurt minority students — and shroud the education system in dishonesty.
Affirmative action in university admissions started in the late 1960s as a noble effort to jump-start racial integration and foster equal opportunity. But somewhere along the decades, it has lost its way.
Over time, it has become a political lightning rod and one of our most divisive social policies. It has evolved into a regime of racial preferences at almost all selective schools — preferences so strikingly large and politically unpopular that administrators work hard to conceal them. The largest, most aggressive preferences are usually reserved for upper-middle-class minorities on whom they often inflict significant academic harm, whereas more modest policies that could help working-class and poor people of all races are given short shrift. Academic leaders often find themselves flouting the law and acting in ways that aggravate the worst consequences of large preferences. They have become prisoners of a system that many privately deplore for its often-perverse unintended effects but feel they cannot escape.
By Shaya Tayefe Mohajer
So what are the odds that former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden can win it? Two Norwegian politicians who penned his nomination tell The Guardian Snowden deserves it because his whistleblowing “contributed to a more stable and peaceful world order” by revealing a massive American surveillance apparatus that has peeped into the records of world leaders and peons alike
I was browsing facebook earlier and found a link to this “JEZEBEL” story, shared by an outraged female…
By Erin Gloria Ryan on Jezebel – Politics
Aging Brillo pad Rand Paul has a brilliant suggestion for a weapon in his ongoing war against the terrifying dragon of the unwed single mother who won’t stop living off the government: tell her that if she won’t stop having kids, she doesn’t get any more government benefits. Rand Paul also famously opposes giving low-income women any sort of aid in acquiring birth control, and is staunchly anti-abortion. Rand Paul should just come out and say it: he doesn’t think unmarried low income women should be having sex. Rand Paul Thinks Unmarried Poor Women Should Just Stop Having Sex
Related Article, from another Liberal Site @ Senator Floats Idea To Penalize Low-Income Women Who Have Children
So, Jezebel skews Paul’s words of “…“Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount…. I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with FOUR kids that she’s got a FIFTH kid we’re not going to give her any more money. But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer.” INTO “he doesn’t think unmarried low income women should be having sex.” What a load of liberal distortion this is, and its being spread all over facebook by people who dont even bother to look at what he actually said, let alone bother to analyze critically. PROPAGANDA. Now, for a favorite line of mine from the ThinkProgress story…
“The caps also get assumptions wrong about the people who rely on public programs. Overall, those who use public assistance have the same average family size as those who don’t. There’s little evidence that low-income women on welfare are having far more children than those who aren’t enrolled.”
…There’s one major difference between those two groups that THINKprogress ignores, one is subsidized by tax payers while the other is not.
Richard D Lamm was a democrat who served as Governor of Colorado for twelve years from 1975 to 1987. LINK
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, June 26, 2013, 11:03 AM
Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are polar opposites.
Ronald Reagan believed in the American people. Barack Obama believes in big government. Reagan believed that a robust private sector creates national wealth. Barack Obama believes a robust government apparatus creates national wealth. Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates and allowed the private sector to thrive. Barack Obama passed a failed trillion dollar stimulus.
Five years after Ronald Reagan entered the White House the GDP was 8.0%.
Five years after Barack Obama entered the White House the GDP is at 1.8%.
President Obama’s State of The Union speech had not yet taken place when we asked these people what they thought of it, but that didn’t stop them from weighing in.
(2009) Cato has just published a full-page ad in the New York Times with the names of some 200 economists, including some Nobel laureates and other highly respected scholars, who “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance” – contrary to widespread claims that “Economists from across the political spectrum agree” on a massive fiscal stimulus package. Of course, many economists don’t like to sign joint statements, so this is only a fraction of stimulus opponents in the profession. Greg Mankiw pointed to a few noted skeptics last week:
In a TV interview last month, Vice President Joe Biden said the following: “Every economist, as I’ve said, from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs”.
By Joel Gehrke
Brookings Institution scholars, inspired by baseball statistics, conducted an analysis of the 113th Congress that points rather directly at the Democrat-controlled Senate as a the locus of congressional gridlock.
The analysis opens with the observation that the House, contrary to expectation, passed twice as many bills as the Senate in 2013. Why? Because of the Senate committee process.
“When we look at this category, then, we begin to understand where the problem lies: even in the traditionally collegial Senate, 87 percent of bills die in committee,” Molly Jackman and Saul Jackman, of Brookings, and Brian Boessenecker write in Politico. “While the filibuster may grab all the headlines, committees are a far deadlier weapon.”
That observation undermines the conventional wisdom about Republican opposition to President Obama causing gridlock. (even taking into account the statement from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who said in 2009 that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”)
… One countervailing point against the idea that the committees account for the gridlock: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has the authority to bypass the committee process and bring legislation to the Senate floor for a vote — which he does on controversial issues, such as the unemployment insurance extension
Read the Rest @ Brookings study points to Harry Reid and Senate Democrats as source of gridlock | WashingtonExaminer.com.
Published: January 14, 1987
The Federal minimum wage has been frozen at $3.35 an hour for six years. In some states, it now compares unfavorably even with welfare benefits available without working. It’s no wonder then that Edward Kennedy, the new chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, is being pressed by organized labor to battle for an increase.
No wonder, but still a mistake. Anyone working in America surely deserves a better living standard than can be managed on $3.35 an hour. But there’s a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market. A far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages or – better yet – help them acquire the skills needed to earn more on their own.
By Linda Feldmann
The president (or his administration) has unilaterally changed elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional; lifted the threat of deportation for an entire class of undocumented immigrants; bypassed Senate confirmation of controversial nominees; waived compliance requirements in education law; and altered the work requirements under welfare reform. This month, the Obama administration took the highly unusual step of announcing that it will recognize gay marriages performed in Utah – even though Utah itself says it will not recognize them while the issue is pending in court.
Early in his presidency, Obama also expanded presidential warmaking powers, surveillance of the American public, and extrajudicial drone strikes on alleged terrorists outside the United States, including Americans – going beyond Mr. Bush’s own global war on terror following 9/11. But more recently, he has flexed his executive muscle more on domestic policy.
By Dan Mangan
Obamacare could require far too much expense and provide too few benefits for the percentage of healthy young-adult enrollees to rise, according to a new analysis.
Consumer price comparison site NerdWallet said its analysis suggests that healthy younger adults who go without insurance could on average spend up to five times less on health care than those who sign up in Affordable Care Act plans.
The site predicts that, despite a legal mandate to obtain coverage, many young adults will remain uninsured in 2014 because it is cheaper for them to pay their medical bills than to buy insurance. That’s true, the company said, even if they are eligible for tax credits to offset the cost of coverage.
“It isn’t just a ‘young and reckless; mentality keeping so-called young invincibles from signing up,” NerdWallet said.” Many young adults will follow a logical financial rationale for remaining uninsured in 2014.”
Read the Rest @ Obamacare math may not add up for ‘young invincibles’: Study.
By Cindy Cohn & Parker Higgins
Yesterday, President Obama announced a series of reforms to address abuses by the National Security Agency. We were heartened to see Obama recognized that the NSA has gone too far in trampling the privacy rights of people worldwide. In his speech, the President ensured that National Security Letters would not come with perpetual gag orders, brought new levels of transparency and fairness to the FISA court, and ended bulk collection of telephone records by the NSA. However, there is still much more to be done.
We’ve put together a scorecard showing how Obama’s announcements stack up against 12 common sense fixes that should be a minimum for reforming NSA surveillance. Each necessary reform was worth 1 point, and we were willing to award partial credit for steps in the right direction. On that scale, President Obama racked up 3.5 points out of a possible 12.
Read the Rest @ Rating Obama’s NSA Reform Plan: EFF Scorecard Explained.
By Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Friday took a swipe at Edward Snowden, the former U.S. spy contractor whose revelations about American surveillance practices tarnished relations with foreign allies and prompted reforms in Washington.
… “If any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy,” Obama said.
“Moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing methods to our adversaries that could impact our operations in ways that we may not fully understand for years to come.”