This looks as if it has great potential. The NY Times has the background story on the project.
Arnold Kling provides this interesting TCS Daily op-ed on the innovative George Mason University Economics Department, whose members have done a remarkable job over the past several years promoting the understanding of economics issues through the blogosphere. As Kling noted earlier here:
I like to put it his way: at [the University of] Chicago, they say “Markets work well. Let’s use markets.” At MIT, they say “Markets fail. Let’s use government.” At GMU, they say “Markets fail. Let’s use markets.”
On the announcement of his retirement next year as president of the American Enterprise Institute, Chistopher DeMuth provides a large dose of common sense in this OpinionJournal op-ed:
Think tanks are identified in the public mind as agents of a particular political viewpoint. It is sometimes suggested that this compromises the integrity of their work. Yet their real secret is not that they take orders from, or give orders to, the Bush administration or anyone else. Rather, they have discovered new methods for organizing intellectual activity–superior in many respects (by no means all) to those of traditional research universities.
To be sure, think tanks–at least those on the right–do not attempt to disguise their political affinities in the manner of the (invariably left-leaning) universities. We are “schools” in the old sense of the term: groups of scholars who share a set of philosophical premises and take them as far as we can in empirical research, persuasive writing, and arguments among ourselves and with those of other schools.
This has proven highly productive. It is a great advantage, when working on practical problems, not to be constantly doubling back to first principles. We know our foundations and concentrate on the specifics of the problem at hand. We like to work on hard problems, and there are many fertile disagreements in our halls over bioethics, school reform, the rise of China, constitutional interpretation and what to do about Korea and Iran.
Think tanks aim to produce good research not only for its own sake but to improve the world. We are organized in ways that depart sharply from university organization. Think-tank scholars do not have tenure, make faculty appointments, allocate budgets or offices or sit on administrative committees. These matters are consigned to management, leaving the scholars free to focus on what they do best. Management promotes the scholars’ output with an alacrity that would make many university administrators uncomfortable.
And we pay careful attention to the craft of good speaking and writing. Many AEI scholars do technical research for academic journals, but all write for a wider audience as well. When new arrivals from academia ask me whom they should write for, I tell them: for your Mom. That is, for an interested, sympathetic reader who may not know beans about the technical aspects of your work but wants to know what you’ve discovered and why it makes a difference.
Read the entire piece.
Don’t look for Warren Meyer to be a spokesman for Microsoft Vista any time soon:
The laptop I bought my kids 6 months ago is rapidly becoming the worst purchase I have ever made. Not because the laptop is bad, but because of a momentary lack of diligence I bought one with Vista installed. It has been a never-ending disaster trying to get this computer to work. [. . .]
Vista is rapidly becoming the New Coke of operating systems. I have had every version of windows on my computer at one time or another, including Windows 1.0 and the egregious Windows ME, and I can say with confidence Vista is the worst of them all by far.
Read Meyer’s entire post, which he backs up quite well. Meanwhile, sales of Vista continue to lag badly behind those of XP.
The seemingly insatiable desire of American prosecutors to criminalize as many ordinary and law-abiding citizens as possible has now reached the Dean’s office:
A pair of schools officials, including the dean of students, and three students from Rider University have the campus community stunned after being charged with ìaggravated hazingî in the death of a freshman student that died following a night of binge drinking at a fraternity house late last March, authorities said Friday. [. . .]
“The ramifications of this for colleges and universities in New Jersey, and across the country, is that it will send some kind of message that the standards of college life, when it relates to alcohol, need to be policed carefully,” Mercer County Prosecutor Joseph Bocchini Jr. told the Associated Press.
Bocchini didn’t mention that he could have also obtained the indictment of a ham sandwich if he had asked the grand jury for one. I’m looking forward to hearing about the “evidence” that the Dean had anything to do whatsoever with the alleged hazing incident that led to this young man’s unfortunate death. If, as I suspect, there isn’t any, then what exactly is the message that Bocchini is sending?
The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s dubious regulation of intercollegiate athletics has been a frequent topic on this blog, but I must admit that this absurd example of overwrought regulatory control from last weekend’s NCAA Super-Regional baseball series surprised even me:
Everybody can watch a game on TV and put their musings online. But don’t try blogging from a press box at an NCAA championship.
After the NCAA tossed Louisville Courier-Journal reporter Brian Bennett for doing just that at an NCAA baseball tournament game Sunday ó actually revoking his media credential during a Louisville-Oklahoma State super regional game ó it said Monday that it was just protecting its rights.
Like rights to live game radio or TV coverage, suggests NCAA spokesman Erik Christianson, live coverage online is a longstanding “protected right” that is bought and sold. Blogging reporters can report about things such as game “atmosphere,” he says in an e-mail, but “any reference to game action” could cost them their credentials.
Christianson says those online “rights” were packaged into media deals with CBS and ESPN ó which aired the game. Monday, ESPN spokesman Dave Nagle said “our rights are the live TV rights. We didn’t ask them (to take the reporter’s credential.) And they didn’t ask us.”
A similar incident occurred at the Rice-Texas A&M Super-Regional in Houston.
Howard Wasserman analyzes the speech restriction issues, while Rich Karcher reviews it from an intellectual property standpoint. And the NY Times is reporting today that the Courier-Journal is weighing whether to mount a legal challenge to the NCAA’s action on First Amendment grounds.
What on earth are these NCAA-types thinking?
By the way, not everyone is pleased with the way in which Rice won the Houston Super-Regional.
As bad as Texas Southern University’s chronic problems are, they can be resolved through a combination of forceful leadership and common sense. However, intractable local and state political forces prevent TSU’s problems from being addressed effectively. Consequently, it is somehow appropriate that the first act of the new board of trustees of TSU to address TSU’s financial problems is taken against the folks least capable of resolving those problems — i.e., the students:
Texas Southern University’s regents approved a new round of tuition increases Wednesday, with students paying 8 percent more at the historically black institution this fall. [. . .]
The tuition hike follows a 22 percent increase last year. The university had tried in previous years to hold off increases because of the potential hardship for students, many of whom are working adults or recent high school graduates from low-income families.
Regents said they voted reluctantly for the tuition increase, but the university’s financial problems required the additional revenue.
TSU’s tuition is now higher than Houston’s other open-admissions university, the University of Houston Downtown Campus, which does a better job of educating its students than TSU.
I put the over/under for the next scandal at TSU at three years.
The lead in to this Ft. Worth Star Telegram article is a dead giveaway that Texas legislators are in a “throw the money around” mood as they near the end of the legislative session:
Many Texas students are too fat, experts say, and face future health problems because of their poor fitness. This week, the Legislature may weigh whether a new annual fitness test can help whip them into better shape. Fitness guru Dr. Kenneth Cooper of Dallas teamed up with Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, to author legislation that would require schools to monitor students’ health to prevent childhood obesity . . .
According to the bill, students in kindergarten through fifth grade must have ìmoderate or vigorous” activity for 30 minutes each day. Students in grades six, seven and eight must have physical activity 30 minutes a day for four semesters. Additionally, schools must annually assess the physical fitness of students in grades three through eight. Under the legislation, the Texas Education Agency would be asked to adopt a testing tool that measures aerobic capacity, body composition, muscular strength, endurance and flexibility.
According to the bill, the TEA must also analyze the data for a correlation between physical fitness and academic achievement, attendance, disciplinary problems and obesity . . .
The wording in the bill that describes the required testing tool mirrors language on the Web site for Cooper’s FitnessGram, developed in 1982 to measure health and fitness levels of children . . . The FitnessGram would cost about $230 for each child when purchased from its distributor, Human Kinetics. The nonprofit Cooper Institute receives $30 from each sale.
Sandy Szwarc nicely sums up the skimpy clinical evidence upon which the above-described legislation is based:
The bottom line was that [Harvard School of Public Health] researchers were not able to clearly establish a direction between fitness and overweight. Meaning, the slightly lower levels of athleticism among heavier children didnít necessarily point to that as being the cause for their size, nor that trying to turn them into better athletes will make them slimmer.
There is no credible evidence that the levels of physical activity and fitness among fat children are less than thinner kids to explain their diversity in sizes. There is no credible evidence that school or after-school physical activity programs reduce obesity among children. The medical evidence long ago demonstrated that heredity and genes account for aerobic capacity, upper body strength and athletic prowess. Researchers have also found that different children have different physical aptitudes, just like academic and artistic abilities. Research, for example, in the journal of the North Association for the Study of Obesity, Obesity Research, found that ìobeseî and nonobese school kids had similar levels of physical activity, while nonobese boys engaged in more sports. The fat children did poorer on propulsion tasks, but showed greater grip strength and similar scores with the other kids on overall fitness.
