The business of education...

Our public schools continue to flounder because they lack two things: competition and accountability. St. Louis has taken a unique approach to accountability (via Education Weak):

Faced with a financial crisis of enormous proportions and failing to deliver an adequate education to thousands of children, the St. Louis Public School System in 2003 made history, becoming the first known district to hire corporate restructuring consultants to implement a plan for reform that would save the system. As courageous as it was controversial, their decision has resulted in progress that once seemed unimaginable and serves as a beacon to school districts around the country still struggling to provide quality education to their children...

Last year, the St. Louis Public Schools were on the brink of bankruptcy, facing an astonishing $75 million year-end deficit and a near-term $99 million cash shortfall… In all, the district has succeeded in reducing expenses by an astounding $79 million. It has a balanced budget for FY 04-05 - the first in recent memory.

Financial savings, sure, but what about the effects on student achievement?

The district is now nine points closer to achieving full accreditation - something it has lacked for years. When this process began, a disturbing 41% of elementary school students and 36% of high school students were "at-risk" for reading proficiency - the lowest possible group in the Scholastic Reading Inventory. In just eight months, the numbers were reduced to 35% and 24%, respectively. At the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year, not one middle school student read at the SRI's advanced level. Now, 7% do.

Reporting for duty...

From John Kerry's interview with GQ:

GQ: You beat prostate cancer. Was that your first thought of mortality?

JK: Oh God! No. You kidding, man? I mean, Jesus, I saw my own death any number of times in Vietnam. There was this period where I was convinced I'd be killed. But I made it back with a sense that every day is extra. You know, we used to have a saying over there when we were screwing around and getting in trouble, breaking the rules. We'd look at each other and we'd say, "We're f---in' idiots, and this is Vietnam." I mean, that attitude is liberating. It's sort of been there, done that. And they can't—I'm gonna get in trouble for saying the F-word there—but people who come back from that are very lucky and know that, and it is very liberating. You know, there's not much that scares me. So I'm not worried about things—certainly not dying, because too many of my friends did. And so I think it empowers you to go out and tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Bush and Cheney don't understand that. That's one of the things I think is most lacking in their stewardship of our country.

GQ: Did you come back from Nam with any psychic damage?

JK: I was very lucky, Mike. I think I was able to take that pain and put it out there in my efforts to end the war. And so I very publicly laid out my depth of opposition to what was happening and my feelings about what had happened over there in a way that, you know, a lot of guys didn't have that opportunity, or couldn't or didn't, and they kind of held it in. And I think that's the harder thing; that's the problem for a lot of guys. So I never did have any of those issues. It doesn't slow me down; it motivates me.

GQ: You've never seen a therapist?

JK: No. I had some nightmares when I came home, which is not unusual.

GQ: Like what?

JK: I can't say. To me Vietnam is an old place, an old memory. It is old history, it's gone, it's past. The less I have to talk about it, frankly, the happier I am.

Uh. Huh.

More on the interview from Hugh Hewitt (via Betsy's Page).

Unwinnable war on terror...

Yesterday, on NBC’s “Today” show, President Bush was asked whether we can win the war on terror. His response:

I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.

Naturally, the Democrats pounced on this, claiming Bush flip-flopped and demonstrated weakness. Their attacks are disingenuous, of course--Bush has been strong and clear on the war, in both action and word. But the Dems are probably right to attack. Bush set himself up by saying the right thing in the wrong way, and he must now pay the price for his mental hiccup.

We saw John Kerry do the same thing when he uttered the now famous: “I actually did vote for the 87 billion before I voted against it.” It’s a defensible statement—if you ever get the chance to defend it. And so it’s also an exceedingly stupid thing to say.

The Democrats won’t get as much mileage out of Bush’s gaffe as the Republicans did out of Kerry’s, but don’t be surprised to see it featured in a 30-second ad before the convention winds down.

Now, onto what the president meant. I don’t think the Republicans are handling this quite right. White House spokesman Scott McClellan:

[Bush] was talking about winning it in the conventional sense ... about how this is a different kind of war and we face an unconventional enemy.

Mort Kondrake and Fred Barnes offered similar analysis last night on Fox News, as does David Limbaugh on his blog:

…because we are at war against a radical strain of Islam, which is not tied to or bound by nation states, and which therefore cannot be defeated by just defeating nation states, we are going to be fighting this war for a long time.

Maybe I’m quibbling, but I think this falls a bit short of explaining Bush's comment. Bush is known for saying what he means, and I suspect he meant it when he said we can’t win the war. In the same way we can’t eliminate murder from our society, we’ll never really win the war on terror. All it takes is one terrorist, somewhere, sometime, to keep it going.

Bush is a realist. He knows this is a war we can never stop fighting. But it is a war we can “win” in the sense that terrorists become an endangered species, deprived of aid and comfort. That, I think, is Bush’s vision, and what he was trying to convey.

Update: Neil Boortz doesn't think the president meant what he said either.

Update 2: Speaking at the American Legion national convention today, Bush said:

We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win…In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table. But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win. We will win by staying on the offensive, we will win by spreading liberty.

This closely parallels the expert commentary and belies my theory, but I’m still not convinced. It’s simply too detrimental politically to be on record as saying the war can never be won--in the same way we let the rhetoric of “no child left behind” mask the reality that, under the best of circumstances, some will be.

Update 3: Still more from TMLutas, who states my position more clearly than I did.

Different takes...

Andrew Sullivan describes this passage from John McCain's Republican convention speech as "an implicit rebuke to Bush's hubris after the fall of Baghdad."

We must not be complacent at moments of success, and we must not despair over setbacks. We must learn from our mistakes, improve on our successes, and vanquish this unpardonable enemy.

I disagree. I think. On first hearing, I was certain this was a solid endorsement of Bush. I equated "complacent" with the temptation to vote for Kerry now that Saddam has fallen. I took "despair over setbacks" as a reference to Kerry's unceasing attempts to cast Iraq as a botched mess. The message I came away with is that we must press on, that we can’t allow missteps and naysayers to derail us from our cause. It was a call to remain loyal to the president in the face of negativity.

Upon review, my opinion hasn’t changed. But now I’m not so sure. In isolation, Andrew’s interpretation certainly holds up—perhaps better than mine. I’d like to take a look at the surrounding passages to glean the context, but I haven’t yet found a transcript on the web.

Update: I've located the transcript, and in fuller context I stand by my interpretation. Maybe I'm just not nuanced enough, but I think Andrew is reaching here.

Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war. Like all wars, this one will have its ups and downs. But we must fight. We must.
(APPLAUSE)
The sacrifices borne in our defense are not shared equally by all Americans. But all Americans must share a resolve to see this war through to a just end. We must not be complacent at moments of success, and we must not despair over setbacks.
We must learn from our mistakes, improve on our successes, and vanquish this unpardonable enemy.
(APPLAUSE)
If we do less, we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed: to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit.

And so it begins...

So. After a good deal of hemming and hawing, I dip a hesitant toe into the blogosphere.

I don't speak blogese; I have no clue what a trackback is, and only a vague idea how any of this technoblog stuff works, but I guess that will sort itself out along the way. In the meantime, Blogger seems to be compensating for my ignorance quite nicely. Thanks to Simon for recommending it, along with his other helpful blogging hints.