Nancy Pelosi: America’s Most Disliked Politician
Nate Silver compares favorable/unfavorable numbers and concludes that the soon-to-be-former Speaker of the House is the most unpopular politician in America:
Favorability ratings can sometimes differ quite a bit from polling firm to polling firm — but Ms. Pelosi’s poor numbers in the Quinnipiac poll were no anomaly. A CNN poll last week put her scores at 33 percent favorable against 52 percent unfavorable, and found that about half of Democrats would rather she be replaced. A poll for ABC News and the Washington Post conducted just before the election had Ms. Pelosi’s numbers at 29 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable.
In fact, Ms. Pelosi is among the least popular politicians in America today — perhaps the single least popular one that maintains an active political role.
(…)
The average score for Ms. Pelosi was 30 percent favorable and 55 percent unfavorable, giving her a net favorability rating of negative-25. This was the worst score of any politician in the study by some margin. Others with substantially net negative scores included Dick Cheney (-17), Harry Reid (-16), Sarah Palin (-14), Newt Gingrich (-10) and George W. Bush (-9; his numbers have improved some), but Ms. Pelosi’s scores were somewhat worse over all.
It’s no wonder that Republicans are so pleased that House Democrats have once again made her the face of the party.
H/T: Andrew Sulivan
Most Republicans Now Question Climate Change
A new Pew Research poll finds 53% of Republicans say there is no solid evidence the earth is warming. Among Tea Party Republicans, fully 70% say there is no evidence.
Key finding: “Disbelief in global warming in the GOP is a recent occurrence. Just a few years ago, in 2007, a 62%-majority of Republicans said there is solid evidence of global warming, while less than a third (31%) said there is no solid evidence. Currently, just 38% of Republicans say there is solid evidence the earth
is warming, and only 16% say that warming is caused by human activity.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire
Future Teachers Most Likely to Cheat in College?
By Andrew J. Coulson
The current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education features a story by a professional ghost-writer of college student papers. One passage in particular caught my eye:
it’s hard to determine which course of study is most infested with cheating. But I’d say education is the worst. I’ve written papers for students in elementary-education programs, special-education majors, and ESL-training courses. I’ve written lesson plans for aspiring high-school teachers, and I’ve synthesized reports from notes that customers have taken during classroom observations. I’ve written essays for those studying to become school administrators, and I’ve completed theses for those on course to become principals….
This is of course the weakest of anecdotal evidence and no one should take it as gospel (particularly the seminary students who apparently also contract out papers to the same ghost writer). But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it’s true—that ed school students are the most common consumers of fraudulent papers. How could we explain that?
There’s no reason to believe that future teachers are any more ethically deficient than their peers in other fields, so that’s an unlikely explanation. Could it be that ed school students are less well prepared for college? Certainly it’s an uncomfortable truth that the SAT scores of those applying to ed school (both undergraduate and graduate) consistently rank below those of applicants to most other college programs. But it is also widely acknowledged that the academic standards of ed schools are commensurately below those of other college disciplines, so future teachers shouldn’t have any more difficulty completing their assignments than students in other fields.
But there is one way in which education is fundamentally different from every other college discipline: it’s the only one whose students will go on to work in a government monopoly industry. Not only is the hiring process of public school systems less focused on identifying candidates’ academic excellence, there is evidence that it is actively hostile to excellence (e.g., that principles are less likely to hire top-scoring candidates from elite colleges than candidates from less rarefied institutions). What’s more, compensation for public school teachers is generally a function of time served (over which teachers have no control) and degrees conferred (over which they do). This has created demand on the part of teachers for graduate degrees—not necessarily for the acquisition of advanced skills, but for the diplomas themselves, which amount to valuable cash prizes.
Again, we can’t know from a single ghost-writer’s experience if ed school students systematically cheat more in college than their peers in other fields, but we certainly shouldn’t be surprised if they do. We’ve organized education in this country in a way that decouples skill and performance from compensation, and instead couples compensation to the mere trappings of higher learning (e.g., masters degrees). We’ve created a powerful financial incentive for existing and future teachers to cheat. Maybe not such a good idea.
Hat tip: Bill Evers.
Future Teachers Most Likely to Cheat in College? is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
Future Teachers Most Likely to Cheat in College?
By Andrew J. Coulson
The current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education features a story by a professional ghost-writer of college student papers. One passage in particular caught my eye:
it’s hard to determine which course of study is most infested with cheating. But I’d say education is the worst. I’ve written papers for students in elementary-education programs, special-education majors, and ESL-training courses. I’ve written lesson plans for aspiring high-school teachers, and I’ve synthesized reports from notes that customers have taken during classroom observations. I’ve written essays for those studying to become school administrators, and I’ve completed theses for those on course to become principals….
This is of course the weakest of anecdotal evidence and no one should take it as gospel (particularly the seminary students who apparently also contract out papers to the same ghost writer). But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it’s true—that ed school students are the most common consumers of fraudulent papers. How could we explain that?
There’s no reason to believe that future teachers are any more ethically deficient than their peers in other fields, so that’s an unlikely explanation. Could it be that ed school students are less well prepared for college? Certainly it’s an uncomfortable truth that the SAT scores of those applying to ed school (both undergraduate and graduate) consistently rank below those of applicants to most other college programs. But it is also widely acknowledged that the academic standards of ed schools are commensurately below those of other college disciplines, so future teachers shouldn’t have any more difficulty completing their assignments than students in other fields.
But there is one way in which education is fundamentally different from every other college discipline: it’s the only one whose students will go on to work in a government monopoly industry. Not only is the hiring process of public school systems less focused on identifying candidates’ academic excellence, there is evidence that it is actively hostile to excellence (e.g., that principles are less likely to hire top-scoring candidates from elite colleges than candidates from less rarefied institutions). What’s more, compensation for public school teachers is generally a function of time served (over which teachers have no control) and degrees conferred (over which they do). This has created demand on the part of teachers for graduate degrees—not necessarily for the acquisition of advanced skills, but for the diplomas themselves, which amount to valuable cash prizes.
Again, we can’t know from a single ghost-writer’s experience if ed school students systematically cheat more in college than their peers in other fields, but we certainly shouldn’t be surprised if they do. We’ve organized education in this country in a way that decouples skill and performance from compensation, and instead couples compensation to the mere trappings of higher learning (e.g., masters degrees). We’ve created a powerful financial incentive for existing and future teachers to cheat. Maybe not such a good idea.
Hat tip: Bill Evers.
Future Teachers Most Likely to Cheat in College? is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
Future Teachers Most Likely to Cheat in College?
By Andrew J. Coulson
The current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education features a story by a professional ghost-writer of college student papers. One passage in particular caught my eye:
it’s hard to determine which course of study is most infested with cheating. But I’d say education is the worst. I’ve written papers for students in elementary-education programs, special-education majors, and ESL-training courses. I’ve written lesson plans for aspiring high-school teachers, and I’ve synthesized reports from notes that customers have taken during classroom observations. I’ve written essays for those studying to become school administrators, and I’ve completed theses for those on course to become principals….
This is of course the weakest of anecdotal evidence and no one should take it as gospel (particularly the seminary students who apparently also contract out papers to the same ghost writer). But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it’s true—that ed school students are the most common consumers of fraudulent papers. How could we explain that?
There’s no reason to believe that future teachers are any more ethically deficient than their peers in other fields, so that’s an unlikely explanation. Could it be that ed school students are less well prepared for college? Certainly it’s an uncomfortable truth that the SAT scores of those applying to ed school (both undergraduate and graduate) consistently rank below those of applicants to most other college programs. But it is also widely acknowledged that the academic standards of ed schools are commensurately below those of other college disciplines, so future teachers shouldn’t have any more difficulty completing their assignments than students in other fields.
But there is one way in which education is fundamentally different from every other college discipline: it’s the only one whose students will go on to work in a government monopoly industry. Not only is the hiring process of public school systems less focused on identifying candidates’ academic excellence, there is evidence that it is actively hostile to excellence (e.g., that principles are less likely to hire top-scoring candidates from elite colleges than candidates from less rarefied institutions). What’s more, compensation for public school teachers is generally a function of time served (over which teachers have no control) and degrees conferred (over which they do). This has created demand on the part of teachers for graduate degrees—not necessarily for the acquisition of advanced skills, but for the diplomas themselves, which amount to valuable cash prizes.
Again, we can’t know from a single ghost-writer’s experience if ed school students systematically cheat more in college than their peers in other fields, but we certainly shouldn’t be surprised if they do. We’ve organized education in this country in a way that decouples skill and performance from compensation, and instead couples compensation to the mere trappings of higher learning (e.g., masters degrees). We’ve created a powerful financial incentive for existing and future teachers to cheat. Maybe not such a good idea.
Hat tip: Bill Evers.
Future Teachers Most Likely to Cheat in College? is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
Most Want START Treaty Ratified
A new CNN/Opinion Research survey finds 73% of Americans say lawmakers should ratify a nuclear treaty with Russia that’s stalled in the U.S. Senate, while just 23% think it should not be ratified.
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire
‘Top Ten Most Corrupt’: Rep. Jerry Lewis Not Fit for Appropriations Chair
Last Tuesday I sent a letter to Rep. Boehner regarding corruption in general and a specific call to reject Rep. Jerry Lewis’s (R-CA) reported bid to head once again the House Appropriations Committee.
You may recall that Rep. Jerry Lewis has the dubious distinction of appearing on Judicial Watch’s “Washington’s Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list for 2008.
Here is the letter in its entirety:
Dear Congressman Boehner:
Judicial Watch, Inc. is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational foundation that advocates for the rule of law and against government corruption. We are supported nationwide by hundreds of thousands of Americans and have a sixteen-year record of holding members of both major political parties accountable to the law. You have our congratulations as you take on the high constitutional office of Speaker of the House.
The American people are tired of corruption in Congress, and I urge you to take serious steps to address these concerns.
Accordingly, Judicial Watch urges you and your leadership team to reject Rep. Jerry Lewis’s reported bid to head once again the House Appropriations Committee.
Rep. Jerry Lewis has the dubious distinction of appearing on Judicial Watch’s annual “Washington’s Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2008. I quote his entry from our “Top Ten” list in full:
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA): Rep. Lewis may share a name with a world-renowned comedian, but there’s nothing funny about his addiction to influence peddling and earmarking. Lewis, the senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, is under investigation for approving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal projects to benefit clients of one of his best friends, lobbyist and former Congressman Bill Lowery. According to press reports, Lowery, partners in his company and their clients donated approximately 37% of the funds collected by Lewis’ campaign PAC over a six-year period (an estimated $ 480,000) in return. Lowery has benefited handsomely from his relationship to Lewis. His company more than tripled its income between 1998 and 2004 with help from Lewis, while increasing its client base from 21 clients to 101 over that same time period. Despite these allegations, Lewis maintains his high-ranking position on the House Appropriations Committee.
(It is unclear whether a reported DOJ criminal investigation into Rep. Lewis’s conduct is still open.)
We believe Rep. Jerry Lewis’s conduct does not meet the high standards for ethics and integrity that American voters demand from their elected officials, particularly an elected official seeking to lead the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Rep. Lewis’s unapologetic advocacy and abuse of earmarks have lent the taint of corruption to his office and the Appropriations Committee.
In the least, we urge you to use your position and influence to prevent corrupt and unethical politicians such as Rep. Lewis from being put in positions of leadership on your watch.
As Judicial Watch did with Speaker Pelosi when she took office, we look forward to the opportunity to work with you and other members to strengthen ethical standards and conduct in the House of Representatives.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas Fitton
To let Rep. Boehner know how you feel about someone like Lewis taking the lead on appropriations in the new Congress, you can contact his office directly at 202-225-6205. (You might also want to thank him for shutting down Air Pelosi.)
Rachel Maddow at Most Eel-Like Emerges During Interview With Jon Stewart
Think that liberals are slippery when disagreeing with a conservative? They're just as bad during an exchange with another liberal. One didn't have to wait long for examples of this during Rachel Maddow's interview with Jon Stewart on her MSNBC show Nov. 11.
Here's Maddow in the first segment of the interview attempting to draw a distinction between "direct-action activists" such as members of Code Pink and the tea party members who disrupted town hall meetings on health care in August 2009 (video below page break) –
NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias
Obamacare Waivers Prove Policy is a Jobs Killer, Unions Benefit Most
111 companies and organizations were granted waivers by Obama’s Dept. of Health and Human Services so that they could get out of having to comply with Obamacare and unions were particularly well rewarded by the HHS with these waivers.
Interestingly, there was no great announcement of these waivers issued to the press. The HHS buried the waiver announcement six layers deep on its webpage and posted them on Friday when they imagined no one would notice. It’s a typical Friday evening document dump so common when an administration wants to avoid the prying eyes of the people. So much for the “most transparent administration in history,” eh?
One thing is sure about these waivers. Obama rewarded his union pals quite well. Som 15 unions and union healthcare or financial fund and insurance providers fill the list of companies and groups that will not have to operate under Obamacare’s destructive rules.
- The Service Employees Benefit Fund
- United Food and Commercial Workers Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust Fund
- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union No. 195
- Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
- Employees Security Funds
- Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
- United Food and Commercial Workers Local 227
- United Food and Commercial Workers Maximus Local 455
- Service Employees International Union Local 25
- United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1262
- Musicians Health Fund Local 802
- Hospitality Benefit Fund Local 17
- Transport Workers Union
- United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund
- International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (AFL-CIO)
Interestingly enough, Obama has waived the onerous Obamacare rules for quite a few healthcare providers, too. One wonders how good Obamacare could be if the rules are waived for actual healthcare providers?
Most outrageous addition to the waiver list is the exemption that New England Health Care got. Is NEHC a healthcare provider or insurance company, you ask? Nope. It’s a policy group that, according to its website, is “dedicated to transforming health care for the benefit of patients and their families.”
As Jazz Shaw notes the irony is rich.
So an institute dedicated to finding ways to reform the health care system had to apply for an exemption from the administration’s reforms to the health care system? Keep your eyes on the news next week, as I’m fairly sure that the heads of some immigration reform lobbying groups will be deported.
In any case, this list shows that HHS realizes how bad Obamacare is for the healthcare plans on a wide range of industries, so bad that the new rules had to be waived. And remember. Once Obama waives all these businesses from having to put up with Obamacare, that just puts more burden on the rest of us that aren’t big campaign donors to Obama’s warchest.
Here is the full list of those that received waivers:
- Protocol Marketing Group
- Sasnak
- Star Tek
- Adventist Care Centers
- B.E.S.T of NY
- Boskovich Farms, Inc
- Gallegos Corp
- Jeffords Steel and Engineering
- O.K. Industries
- Service Employees Benefit Fund
- Sun Pacific Farming Coop
- UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust
- HCR Manor Care
- IBEW No.915
- Integra BMS for Culp, Inc.
- New England Health Care
- Aegis Insurance
- Alliance One Tobacco
- Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund
- Assurant Health (2nd Application)
- Captain Elliot’s Party Boats
- Carlson Restaurants
- CH Guenther & Son
- CKM Industries dba Miller Environmental
- CWVEBA
- Darden Restaurants
- Duarte Nursery
- Employees Security Fund
- Florida Trowel Trades
- Ingles Markets
- Meijer
- O’Reilly Auto Parts
- Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund
- Sun Belt
- UFCW Local 227
- Uncle Julio’s
- United Group
- US Imaging
- Vino Farms
- Advanta
- Agricare
- Alaska Seafood
- American Fidelity
- Convergys
- Darensberries
- Gowan Company
- Greystar
- Macayo Restaurants
- Periodical Services
- UniFirst
- Universal Forest Products
- UFCW Maximus Local 455
- AHS
- GuideStone Financial Resources
- Local 25 SEIU
- MAUSER Corp.
- Preferred Care, Inc.
- Ruby Tuesday
- The Dixie Group, Inc.
- UFCW Local 1262
- Whelan Security Company
- AMF Bowling Worldwide
- Assisted Living Concepts
- Case & Associates
- GPM Investments
- Grace Living Centers
- Mountaire
- Swift Spinning
- Belmont Village
- Caliber Services
- Cracker Barrel
- DISH Network
- Groendyke Transport, Inc
- Pocono Medical Center
- Regis Corporation
- The Pictsweet Co.
- Diversified Interiors
- Local 802 Musicians Health Fund
- Medical Card System
- The Buccaneer
- CIGNA
- Greater Metropolitan Hotel
- Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund
- GS-ILA
- Allied
- Harden Healthcare
- Health and Welfare Benefit System
- Health Connector
- I.U.P.A.T
- Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
- Transport Workers
- UFT Welfare Fund
- Aegis
- Aetna
- Allflex
- Baptist Retirement
- BCS Insurance
- Cryogenic
- Fowler Packing Co.
- Guy C. Lee Mfg.
- HealthPort
- Jack in the Box
- Maritime Association
- Maverick County
- Metro Paving Fund
- PMPS-ILA
- PS-ILA
- QK/DRD (Denny’s)
- Reliance Standard
- Tri-Pak
- UABT
D.C. Ranked 6th Most Unattractive City
They’re not talking about the buildings, but the people:
This hotbed of culture (No. 2) apparently doesn’t attract the hotties—unless you count lobbyists and policy wonks as hot. But hey, it has moved up from the bottom five of this list, where it sat last year. Our nation’s capital also ranks near the bottom for wild weekends and romantic getaways.
Frankly, I don’t know what they’re talking about. We’ve got Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Milkulski after all.
