If we can't take out Somali pirates how are we going to meet threats from Iran, China and others? Reviewing the international "dithering," Cliff May writes, "Maj. Gen. Tom Wilkerson, USMC (ret.), is CEO of the U.S. Naval Institute. He...
Morning Bits
by
If we can't see much improvement in K-12 education is it time to stop spending so much money? Glenn Reynolds writes, "In the past, when problems with education were raised, the solution was always to spend more money. But as economist Herbert Stein once noted, something that can't go on forever, won't. Steady increases in per-pupil spending without any commensurate increase in learning can't go on forever. So they won't. And as state after state faces near-bankruptcy (or, in some cases, actual bankruptcy), we've pretty much hit that point now. . . .Getting rid of teachers unions and overgenerous, underfunded public pensions is something states will have to do to remain solvent. But that's just the short term. Over the longer term -- which means, really, the next three to five years at most -- straightened circumstances and the need for better education will require more significant change."
If we can't tell if a cover story is from March 2009 or from March 2011 is there anything all that new about Newsweek?
If we can't set up a no-fly zone over Libya, are we consigned to sit idly by while the massacre continues? Sen. John McCain on "This Week" was obviously frustrated: "McCain was asked about Defense Secretary Robert Gates's assertion that the no-fly zone calls on Capitol Hill were 'loose talk' and that such an operation would have to begin with a military assault on Libya's air defenses. 'We can't risk allowing Gadhafi to massacre people from the air,' the senator said. But McCain stressed that while ground intervention 'would not be appropriate,' there are other things the U.S. could do to support the rebels including intelligence, training and humanitarian assistance."
If we can't spot any sign that the president will lead, is there any hope for entitlement reform? On "Meet the Press," Sen. Mitch McConnell didn't sound optimistic: "I have now had a number of private conversations with the president and the vice president. I was hopeful that we would step up to the plate here, if you will, and use this divided government opportunity to do something big about our long-term problems. I don't have any more complaints about the conversations with them; I've had plenty of conversations with them. What I don't see now is any willingness to do anything that's difficult. Look, this is the perfect time to do it. We control part of the government. They control part of the government. It could be done in a very, very effective way. And for those who are concerned about the 2012 elections, survived politically because both sides will have embraced it. I haven't given up hope but frankly I'm not optimistic."
If we can't even hold hearings on Islamic radicalization, are we surrendering to the forces of political correctness? Rep. Peter King (R- N.Y.) explains why his hearings are needed: "The Department of Homeland Security was set up after September 11th. The Committee on Homeland Security was set up after September 11th. And we're talking about a radicalization in this country which is linked to an overseas enemy. This is al-Qaeda internationally; it's attempting to recruit within the United States. People in this country are being self- radicalized, whether it's Major Hasan or whether it's Shahzad or whether it was Zazi in New York. These were all people who were identifying, in one way or another, with al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. So it's an international movement with elements here in the United States. And to me, that is a real distinction. There's always going to be isolated incidents, isolated fanatics, isolated terrorists, even. But an organized terrorist effort, to me, is different, which requires an investigation unto itself." It shocking that certain "leaders" in the American Muslim community would object to that.