Voice in the Wilderness

Frequent VitW commenter, Jan Brauner, has earned the honor of first ever Voice in the Wilderness guest blogger with her recent school finance smack down, reproduced in its entirety below.

[guest blogging on]
Harvard economists, Carolyn Hoxby and Ilyana Kuziemko, published a detailed study of the obscenity called 'Robin Hood', in Texas. While Robin Hood successfully reduced the spending gap between students $500 per student, it destroyed $27,000 per student in property wealth. The reasons for this are somewhat complex, though penetrable. Basically, because the creators of school finance generally lack expertise in this complex field, they do not foresee capitalization, which is the response of property prices to the burdens and rewards of the formulas they impose. What makes this scenario even more pathetic, is that the rhetoric overwhelmingly resounds with the absolute imperative of closing the spending gap, because.... don’t you know, disparities are evil things! And, yet, all the research available, nationally and internationally, indicates that there is merely a RANDOM relationship between spending and student outcome.

If we truly wanted to help students, we would examine systems that have done so successfully, and emulate their models. We would return to teacher-centered education, content filled instruction, and standards of discipline and excellence. Reinforcing self-esteem at the expense of education would not be an option. Teaching colleges would have their curriculum overhauled, with far less emphasis on pedagogy, and far more on content. Admission standards would be raised, and certification tests would reflect a far higher level of achievement, rather than embracing the lowest common denominator. The teacher's union stranglehold reinforcing failure at every level would have to be broken. Lastly, parents would have to take responsibility for their part in such abysmal failure, and their part in rectifying it. Parents would have to impose discipline themselves, and reinforce the teacher in this effort, not their child. They would have to actually show up at parent teacher conferences, and collaborate on achieving good outcomes for their child. Parents would have to put forth effort to demand completion of homework assignments from their children. In other words, parents would have to function as parents. Schools cannot do that for them, and all of the money in the world cannot fix a system, which receives no positive parental involvement.

But, it's a lot more fun to scapegoat the taxpayer and burn five dollars for every one recaptured, than it is to actually help children. It feels so compassionate when one chants the everlasting mantra of disparity, equalization, and 'allow all kids to be a success'. The reality is far less simplistic.Helping children would require real thought and painful recognition of failure on many levels. The solutions are not politically correct. They do not wallow in a meaningless parroting of disparities as reasons for failure. They do not seek to throw ever more money at problems that money hasn't been able to fix for decades. The liberal approach has been tried. It has FAILED, and the cost has been OBSCENE!!!!!!!!!

Let's do something we have never done....help our children succeed in school!

[guest blogging off]

Star Wars and the Senate Filibuster Compromise Mark a Week of Unholy Alliances

Wishing to avoid the Storm Trooper and Wookie clad geeks of the movie's opening days, I took in a more sedate showing of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith this past week. After three years of anticipation and marketing hype to which the Second Coming could scarcely live up, Star Wars: RotS has accomplished something the first two prequels did not: an intelligent storyline and characters you care about.

I was cynical about this movie, given the superficiality and silliness sometimes seen in The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. Moreover, there are not very many dots left to connect. I already know Padme' dies, Anakin becomes Darth Vader, the Jedi are hunted down and murdered, yadda yadda yadda. But the path from point A to point B turned out to be much more exciting, melancholy, triumphant and tragic than I imagined.

Of course, to enjoy this wheat, one has to sift through the tares of eastern mysticism and moral relativism. Right off the bat, the trademark galactic scroll reveals

"There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere."

So, are both sides evil? If so, how can there be any heroes? As Obi Wan Kenobi might say, "It depends on your point of view."

From my point of view, the movie seems to be fighting an intergalactic battle against itself, at times. The evil Chancellor Palpatine, sounding like your average humanities professor, lectures impressionable, young Anakin:

"...if one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force."

Young man, do not be a narrow-minded bigot as your family raised you. Come, taste and see that the Dark Side is good. Yet, the virtuous Jedi ply their own moral relativism. Prior to the climatic showdown, Obi Wan forlornly admonishes Anakin:

"Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes."

Is it absolutely true the only the Sith deal in absolutes? Apparently, the Dark Side blinded Obi Wan to the fact that this statement is also a proclamation of absolute truth.

Furthermore, the Force offers little in the way true healing. When Anakin shares with Yoda his pains and doubts, the best the Jedi master can come up with is "Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose". Use self discipline and let go, but in favor of what? The Force, for all the marvelous ways it can be used to manipulate others, cannot deal with real pain. Alas, if only there were a loving Savior upon whom they could cast their anxieties. But the metaphysical construct of the Star Wars universe only allows for clammy bromides as a comfort and guide. Indeed, evil is everywhere.

However, good fight scenes cover a multitude of screenplay sins. The pitched battles, breathless chases, generally grievous villains, and light saber swordplay, like the first two prequels, are harrowing. Unlike the prequels, however, these scenes seem more purposeful and more in-tune with the film's objective. They serve the purpose instead of being the purpose themselves.

The taut, final contest between Obi Wan and Anakin/Darth is stunning. The special effects, the plot up to that point, the knowledge of all that follows, and raw swashbuckling adventure in which the actors revel create a setting worthy of the titanic and pivotal clash

Furthermore, there is one spiritual theme RotS accurately captures in variegated detail: the nature of temptation and sin. In tempting Anakin, the aging and power-mad Emperor Palpatine consistently

• Brings up past failings
• Appeals to pride
• Plays upon fears and vulnerabilities
• Plant seeds of dissension among friends
• Makes promises that aren't quite true
• Twists words in ways that push and pull truth beyond recognition

If I were a pastor, I would use the parleys between Palpatine and Anakin as object models of satanic seduction and human falleness.

Lucas faithfully pays homage to Star Wars: A New Hope as the film reaches its denouement. The bright interior of Senator Organa's shuttle, the evolution of Imperial Battle Cruisers isosceles shape, and the triple sunset on Tatooine to the same compelling score from John Williams (Uncle Owen even strikes the same pose as Luke Skywalker in ANH) help transition the faithful viewers from the old world to the new. The stage is now set for the conflicts to come.

And that is not the only prelude to a climactic battle encountered last week.

To break the Senate filibuster of judicial nominees, Seven Democratic (led by the aging and power mad Senator Robert Byrd) and seven Republican Senators crafted a compromise to allow some of President Bush's judicial nominees to get an up-or-down vote. (Read the exact language here and commentary here.) Whether this is a victory or defeat, as our Jedi friends might say, depend upon your point of view. Pundits right, left, and center have pilloried, whined, or grumblingly accepted the deal.

Key provisions of the deal include:

• Limited in scope to the 109^th Congress
• Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor will get up or down votes
• "Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit)." In other words, these nominees are toast this session.
• "Future Nominations should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances". The slippery term "extraordinary circumstances" will probably be defined by whatever leftist, pressure group is smooth talking the Democratic Senators at the moment.
• "We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word 'Advice' speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations." Consultation regarding the use of the President's nomination power? It seems pretty clear from the Constitution that the President initiates the nomination, then the Senate give its opinion: "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court...". Yet, the 14 signatories expect the President to come to them with his hat in hand and meekly pre-clear nominees behind closed doors before the official nomination. Who do they think is in charge here?

Left unsaid is the fate of other current nominees or future nominees, especially those to the Supreme Court, as well as consequences for breaches of the agreement on either side.

Personally, I think the Dems got more about of this deal the Republicans. For the price of three up-or-down votes, they can now filibuster with impunity. When that happens, particularly on a Supreme Court nominee, the Republicans will be bound by their ill-advised compromise. Getting the three nominees on the bench is nice, but it has bought the Democrats time.

The Democrats are gambling that they can stall until the 2006 midterm election when they have a chance to narrow the Republican majority in the Senate. If that happens, changing the cloture rules will be much harder for Majority Leader Bill Frist to pull off. The Republicans should have played the Constitutional option now, when the numbers were in their favor. Who knows what the odds and omens of outrageous political fortune will portend in the future? The apparent cave to the minority party is not playing well with Republican primary voters. Furthermore, opting for the rule change now would put the Dems in the position of orchestrating their threatened retaliation: a shut down of the government during a time of overseas conflict. Talk radio and the blogosphere would cut the Dems to pieces in the meantime, reminding voters of the unfortunate facts all the way up to election day 2006.

Maybe the Democrats were bluffing? We will not know in the near term, because of the scope of the agreement is limited to the end of this session of Congress at the latest. However, this agreement only postpones the inevitable. There will be future filibusters on judicial nominees because the Left cannot afford to lose its last redoubt of political power: the courts. When that day comes, the Manichean duel to the death will be nigh.

Last week's compromise in the US Senate on judicial nominees features an eerie resemblance to the temptation and fall of Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith.

As sly emperor smooth talked and manipulated confused Anakin into darkness and servitude, so the wily Democrats, led by the Palpatinesque Senator Byrd, offered media adulation and fleeting glory for the wavering Republicans. But their path may now lead to a dark political destiny.

Furthermore, this compromise creates a union that will ultimately prove fleeting and only postpones the inevitable. In the Star Wars saga, the Palpatine/Anakin partnership only prolongs a war until the decisive showdowns that come later, climaxing in Anakin/Vader finally striking down his baleful oppressor. The filibuster compromise only prolongs the war for judicial appointees. When the moment of decision comes, will the 7 Republican Senators cast their erstwhile mentors down the shaft? Or will they remain enslaved by their own pride?