- No Recommendations yet - go add some!
- The caller Chris doesn't make sense to me. What kind of 18-year-old would talk to his parents about his sex life, gay or heterosexual?
- I heard both the original TAL episode and the retraction, and I was pretty appalled at Mike Daisey's conduct. There were several points when TAL staff double-checked facts with him (including some that turned out to be false) and stressed to him that they needed to be sure that Daisey's monologue met the standards of journalism. Daisey was clear on what TAL expected of him and lied, time and time again. His conversation with Ira Glass was excruciating because he was unable to simply apologize for lying and betraying the TAL staff. Frankly, it seemed to me that Daisey might have been lying to himself. He claimed that the reason he didn't come clean before TAL aired the story was that he was afraid that his amazing work wouldn't reach as many people and make them "delve". I am skeptical of that claim and believe his actions were more about his ego and desire for fame and appreciation. But maybe I'm biased . . . I actually can't stand the sound of his voice and was not at all impressed with his monologue in the first place, despite being sympathetic to the issue of worker abuses in China.
- Coercion from the left on social issues? What about banning abortion? Banning same-sex marriage? Past laws banning "sodomy" and "contraception", and conservative opposition to striking them down? Mr. Bell is really just not being honest.
- Also, have they considered how awkward enforcement is going to be? Are parents whose kids drop out of school going to end up in family court on neglect charges? Will they be criminally prosecuted? This seems a very thorny problem, given how hard it is for parents to control their teens' behavior.
- I'm not familiar with this particular issue, but I don't think this guest is giving a very nuanced picture. There are some compelling reasons to limit statutes of limitation that have to do with the constitutional rights of the accused, and this professor is not addressing them at all.
- A few scattered thoughts. First, it seems to me that one of the important functions of school is to watch out for kids who may need interventions -- either to spot kids who may be experiencing abuse or neglect at home, or to pick up on a learning or other disability or psychological issue. Bigger classes will reduce teachers' knowledge of and time for each kid. I wouldn't be surprised if this has other harmful effects aside from a diminished educational experience.
Second, one of the previous commenters makes a really good point -- if NYC has a problem retaining great teachers, we need to look at why they are leaving. Is it lack of room for creativity in this era where public schools are becoming little more than test preparation centers? A demoralizing excess of "accountability" based on test results? Low salaries? Lack of respect? Whatever it is, let's address it.
Finally, it seems to me that we should both start and end public education younger, when all of the research shows it can make more of an impact. Start it at 2, and end it at 16 or 17 rather than 18. Not only would this help level the playing field for kids from rich and poor backgrounds, it would also give all parents a huge help in dealing with childcare.
- Bravo for the representative from Tunisia who left the UN after deciding the money to pay for her attendance would be better spent helping Tunisian women. If only more leaders around the world were less enamored of hearing themselves talk, patting each other on the back and being wined and dined and more concerned with actually helping their constituents.
- I'm puzzled by comments below demanding that Justice Breyer account for the Court's decision in Citizens United. Breyer dissented in that case. He has nothing to do with the majority opinion.
- Sorry, just one other point -- our regulatory process (at least at the federal and city levels; I can't speak to the state level) already allows for extensive input by industry, consumers and all other stakeholders. The implication that "bureaucrats" write and pass regulations in a vacuum is false.
- Many below make excellent points. I'm a former government lawyer and saw firsthand the process of writing and enforcing provisions regulating businesses. I am by no means a cheerleader for all regulations. However, I also find it frightening when people go in and look at regulations, lacking any industry expertise or context, and proclaim them "stupid." Many regs that might look stupid to the untrained eye may actually have excellent reasons for existing. I'm not saying we should always blindly accept existing regulations -- many may have been important when created but are now obsolete due to changed technologies or industry practices, or may be out of step with changed societal views -- but we do need to do our homework before jettisoning them. Look at the legislative history, talk to regulators who were around when the provisions were created, etc. -- get some context. It may be that the provision now appears "stupid" because it has done such a good job of eliminating a problem that no one is even aware the problem ever existed. That is to say, the apparent stupidity of a provision may actually demonstrate its efficacy!
I tuned in late to the segment and don't know if this was mentioned, but I quickly googled this guest and also see he's a big advocate of tort reform. Another terrible idea, particularly in combination with reducing regulation. What this guy really wants is a field day for businesses! Why not bring back child labor while we're at it? Having been on the inside, I've seen just how inadequate government regulation is, even in its current state, to keeping businesses honest. Government agencies do not have the resources to enforce the laws and regs on the books. Citizens need access to the courts to keep businesses accountable.
I say, if you're going to cut regs, then EXPAND the court system and make it easier for people to sue. OR, if you want to put up more barriers to civil justice, throw money at government agencies so they can step up enforcement. You cannot tie regulators' hands at the same time you limit access to the courts. A commenter below mentioned the Triangle Shirtwaist incident -- this guest is begging for more of those.
- More
