I haven't watched it yet but I will shortly. I would like to comment on the Obama's not sending thier daughters to public school. From what I gather when they were in Chicago they didn't attend them there either. I don't think it's fair to single them out on this. Democratic politicians as a rule support public schools. However, many of them don't send their children to them. There is also a propensity amongst teachers of all stripes to send their kids to private schools. It's too easy to call them hypocrits and I will not do that. However, I wish they would say why they choose private over public. On a personal basis my daughter went to public schools thru the 8th grade. My ex, a lifelong Catholic, sent her to a parochial school for her senior years. She blossomed at the Catholic high school. My family as well as all of my direct relatives attended the Los Angleles Unified School District. Of course, they aren't what they used to be. The problems in many of the public schools are enormous and I for one am clueless on what to do to solve them. I have a feeling

John's new book looks interesting. I'd enjoy seeing him pair up with another linguist some time, maybe for a Science Saturday, just to chat about linguistics (esp. the history of English, since that's what he's been into.) (I, for one, usually find John's linguistic ideas more agreeable than his social/polical dabbling.)

I wonder how much input the Secret Service had into the choice of schools for the Obama children. I'm not sure we can pass judgment on the choice without knowing all the factors that went into it.

I always find it amusing when economists like Loury rush to the defense of the super-rich when the subject of "compensation" arises. Forget for a moment the figure of $500,000 and whether or not the typical banker or executive could live in the style to which he is accustomed on such a paltry sum in Washington DC or Manhattan (in a country where the average salary is around $50,000). The fact remains that in the United States the discrepancy between what the richest 5% earn and own (property, stocks, etc.) and what the remaining 95% earn and own is the WIDEST in the western world. I would sincerely like to believe that all these people, with their prestigious law and business school degrees, truly deserve their rewards and are among the lords of humankind, but having attended prestigious schools in the United States, I have my doubts.

Here's the deal. How much money you make is not only dertermined by how important or talented you are. It is also determined by how much money your employer can afford to pay you. When the organization that employs you is broke you might have to take a pay cut no matter how good you are at your job. You might even have to take a pay cut that changes your life style in very significant ways. (I mean if we are going to criticize the President of the US for not being willing to send his kids to public schools in d.c., surely we would expect executives at failed investment institutions to be willing to send their kids to second tier private schools in NYC.) And when a friendly investor comes in and helps a company survive, that investor may set the terms. And when that investor is the US government you now essentially work for the government. And everyone knows government jobs don't pay as well as the private sector.
Of course this problem only persists for as long as the US government

The stimulous package at 800 or 900 billion dollars may not be so bad when compared to what the Fed, Treasury, and FDIC have done in the last 2 years. They have lent or spent 3 trillion and plan another 5 if needed. The tv show, "The Millionaire," I watched as a kid would be antiquated in 2008. It is such a small sum compared to today's money. John

Glenn is being a little disingenuous, I feel, when he states there is no such thing as a 'black group', which he goes on to explain in terms of collective action. Of course, all groups or communities are "imagined" (a la Benedict Anderson) beyond the face-to-face, day-to-day interactions. However I think it's "silly", "infantile", and "whimsical" to deny black communal identity at a local level. Moreover, the statement simply belies Glenn's own concern with the incarceration rates of black men. If blacks don't comprise a group, then who does?

Yeah, I was appalled to hear Glenn lauding Brooks' article. What a disgusting article! Who cares about parties? Who gives the best parties will sort itself out somehow. It just so does not matter on the national scale or in conversations about governance. What does Glenn teach anyway, and how in the world can he have such a seeming lack of ethics? Jesus Christ, $500,000 is a lot of money! Is he trying to be macho or what?

That part of the conversation I thought he was using the no black group thing as a conversational device, and that it reflected less a true belief he held. I could be wrong...

When I heard him saying a good lawyer or surgeon in Topeka will make much more than $500K, I laughed out loud. He's out of touch!

And yet, most people are making far below that.

Quoting willmybasilgrow: That part of the conversation I thought he was using the no black group thing as a conversational device, and that it reflected less a true belief he held. I could be wrong...

As I see it, his statement reflects one of the occupational hazards of contrarian thinking.

Barack Obama is a poorly educated and shallow human being. He is not even close to being ready to handle the most important job in the United States. Obama merely knows how to take full advantage of white guilt and minority sense of entitlement. Isn't this affirmative action nonsense gone a bit too far? We now have the most incompetent national leader since Jimmy Carter. It's going to be tough sledding for the next four years.

Granddaddy? They said you were dead!

Incisive post, as usual, ohcomeon. Two points that really resonated:

(I mean if we are going to criticize the President of the US for not being willing to send his kids to public schools in d.c., surely we would expect executives at failed investment institutions to be willing to send their kids to second tier private schools in NYC.)

One question I have is since all these people have been making millions and millions of dollars for most of their careers, why does 1-2 years of only making $500,000 cause them such pain? Certainly they have substaintial wealth since creating wealth is their job. There lifetime earnings aren't being capped, only how much they can make while their company is on welfare.

Quoting ogieogie: I wonder how much input the Secret Service had into the choice of schools for the Obama children. I'm not sure we can pass judgment on the choice without knowing all the factors that went into it.

That same thought has occurred to me, too, and also from the perspective of every other kid in the school. I have the feeling Sidwell Friends is much more used to, and better equipped to deal with, the security requirements of children of VIPs and minimizing the impact these requirements have on the rest of the students.

Quoting David Thomson: Barack Obama is a poorly educated and shallow human being. He is not even close to being ready to handle the most important job in the United States. Obama merely knows how to take full advantage of white guilt and minority sense of entitlement. Isn't this affirmative action nonsense gone a bit too far? We now have the most incompetent national leader since Jimmy Carter. It's going to be tough sledding for the next four years.

You sir, need to visit the
"Sandbox." :http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2586

I have to say, I continue to find Glenn excessively tiresome. He's really bitter. Which is fine- Hillary lost, he's entitled to his anger and pain. But it's also forcing him to make really specious arguments, and arguments he wouldn't normally make, in order to deny any positive statement about Obama or any understanding of why some folk are happy to see him become president. African Americans aren't a people? Really? Does Glenn really believe this? I thought he had pledged to leave the sour grapes behind or some such? Are we really going to have to watch him do these logical dances for 4 or eight years?

well,with charity for all, and malice towards none, in an european/african context, is having a half-breed(creole) as the front-man for the anglo-american hegemony such a great thing(or a bad thing for that matter)!! i have lived long enough to have known people who would have killed you(literally), if you called them black, become blacker than black, after lyndon johnson made it profitable to be "BLACK". the descendants of half-breeds are, just the bright side of a very dark situation, who want to play the U.S black/white game anyway that benefits them! Obama is a distraction, and the shell-game goes on!!

It's always somethin, isn't it?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/176...9:25&out=09:39

Quoting Uhurusasa: well,with charity for all, and malice towards none, in an european/african context, is having a half-breed(creole) as the front-man for the anglo-american hegemony such a great thing(or a bad thing for that matter)!! i have lived long enough to have known people who would have killed you(literally), if you called them black, become blacker than black, after lyndon johnson made it profitable to be "BLACK".

the descendants half-breeds are, just the bright side of a very dark situation, who want to play the U.S black/white game anyway that benefits them!

Obama is a distraction, and the shell-game goes on!!

Notwithstanding my earlier objections, Glenn's posture is, ironically, the one most sympathetic to your point, which I tend to agree with, by and large.

Quoting ohcomeon: One question I have is since all these people have been making millions and millions of dollars for most of their careers, why does 1-2 years of only making $500,000 cause them such pain?

Have you ever heard of greed? Are you really so naive as to think that the rich will accept limits to their dreams of avarice?

Quoting ohcomeon: Certainly they have substaintial wealth since creating wealth is their job.There lifetime earnings aren't being capped, only how much they can make while their company is on welfare.

Wouldn't it be great to get a job where the promise was you will only make $500,000 a year for the next couple of years, but if you do your job well, in a few years you can make 20 million or more?.

Dear me, in what dark, dim little corner of the universe do you dwell? Do you know anything about economics? The "wealth creation" of the past ten years has been nothing but a shameless sham, a ponzi scheme built on leverage and the gullible fools who inhabit that blessed land of idiots, the United States of America.

Quoting David Thomson: Barack Obama is a poorly educated and shallow human being.

Damn!! i hope that he is at least as well educated and/or deep as you are!!!

Doesn't 'creole' mean French-African-Native American ancestry? I think 'mulatto' meant half white and half black, although neither term (along with 'half-breed') are very well received nowadays. I usually like Loury's contrariety but the blackness thing did get old. Some people are excited about him being the first black president. Others (not to name names) are fixated on his name being Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I'm happy we're done with the baby boomer presidents. It's just part of the US President's dual role: head of government, and grist for the celebrity gossip mill.

Quoting pampl: Doesn't 'creole' mean French-African-Native American ancestry? I think 'mulatto' meant half white and half black, although neither term (along with 'half-breed') are very well received nowadays.

creole has many meanings! if you take my meaning, choose whatever word you like. i chose 'half-breed'(pejoratively) for the emotional impact, not to be pc. what term conveying my meaning is very well received nowadays, and why??? this is closer to the heart of my issue about this racial stuff. blackness(or whiteness) as a monolith, is a paralysis of the mind(and maybe of the nation)!

Quoting David Thomson: Barack Obama is a poorly educated and shallow human being. He is not even close to being ready to handle the most important job in the United States. Obama merely knows how to take full advantage of white guilt and minority sense of entitlement. Isn't this affirmative action nonsense gone a bit too far? We now have the most incompetent national leader since Jimmy Carter. It's going to be tough sledding for the next four years.

David, it's been awhile. Well, at least you are not referring to Barack as Barry now. John

Quoting bkjazfan: I would like to comment on the Obama's not sending thier daughters to public school. From what I gather when they were in Chicago they didn't attend them there either.

I don't think it's fair to single them out on this. Democratic politicians as a rule support public schools. However, many of them don't send their children to them. There is also a propensity amongst teachers of all stripes to send their kids to private schools. It's too easy to call them hypocrits and I will not do that. However, I wish they would say why they choose private over public.

I also don't have any problem with the Obamas sending their kids to private school per se. But it does smack of just a little hypocrisy for the first lady to hail the virtues of a public school education while sending their own kids to a private school, and not just any old private school. The only point Glenn made was that if people, like John, want to imbue Obama's victory with so much racial significance and symbolism then they should take note of the message he and his wife

Quoting miceelf: I have to say, I continue to find Glenn excessively tiresome. He's really bitter. Which is fine- Hillary lost, he's entitled to his anger and pain. But it's also forcing him to make really specious arguments, and arguments he wouldn't normally make, in order to deny any positive statement about Obama or any understanding of why some folk are happy to see him become president.

African Americans aren't a people? Really? Does Glenn really believe this?

I thought he had pledged to leave the sour grapes behind or some such? Are we really going to have to watch him do these logical dances for 4 or eight years?

I didn't take his points as bitterness or discredit to Obama. Glenn fairly makes the point that our President's pigmentation is nearly irrelevant to the tasks at hand for the CEO of the USA.
This point was best elaborated by the comparison of MLK's role as sacred and the job of a politician as profane. This in no way detracts from the acknowledged color of either man's skin.

Glenn, John: I don't care how metropolitan the area is, it's a little galling to hear you say that 500,000 a year isn't much. It's a lot in New York, it's a lot in Chicago, and it's a lot in LA. Otherwise, great vlog. But the last 5 minutes were silly.

Can't contain my excitement -- I have to post this even before seeing the vlog. McWhorter and Loury are two of my favorites. They're the reason I started watching Bloggingheads in the first place. I'm downloading the vlog now so I can listen to it on my I-Pod in the park. I've been waiting a long time for their return. I am soooooo going to enjoy this!

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I also don't have any problem with the Obamas sending their kids to private school per se. But it does smack of just a little hypocrisy for the first lady to hail the virtues of a public school education while sending their own kids to a private school, and not just any old private school. The only point Glenn made was that if people, like John, want to imbue Obama's victory with so much racial significance and symbolism then they should take note of the message he and his wife are sending when they choose an exclusive private school for their children over a public school or even home schooling for that matter.

As President, Obama can shape public school policy. As parents they have an obligation to the safety and well being of their children. Why would you assume that they didn't "take note" of the symbolism. In my estimation they are exercising a private realm choice, even if it's in public purview. The trade-off of loss of privacy shouldn't preclude a wise choice to avoid shitty D.C. schools.

Quoting DoctorMoney: Glenn, John:

I don't care how metropolitan the area is, it's a little galling to hear you say that 500,000 a year isn't much. It's a lot in New York, it's a lot in Chicago, and it's a lot in LA.

Otherwise, great vlog. But the last 5 minutes were silly.

On the money Doctor. What I have a hard time accepting is that the so called skill of a brain or heart surgeon, is on equal footing with a skilled legislator (Daschle).
As Francoamerican said: 500 grand isn't about cost cutting in major metro areas as much as greed and expectations (historical trends). Glenn's use of Yankee stadium and strikeouts, etc. as a logical foundation were whacked.

I'm baffled as to why our erstwhile co-founder, Mickey Kaus, is constantly accused of acting in bad faith and not being a "true liberal" while Glenn Loury, who is far more vituperative towards Obama and his supporters is constantly lauded here. Black supporters of Obama are "infantile?" Really? That's just mean-spirited and wrong. It seems to be that it's Glenn that craves acting the part of the "contrarian," not Mickey. Glenn has been remarkably inconsistent in his views of Obama: in one diavlog he pledges his full support, in the next he heaps unjustified abuse on him. And really, what of import did Glenn give us in this diavlog? He repeatedly made the unbelievably banal point that "Obama is President" as if he had hit on something profound. Pathetic.

Glenn, a couple baseball notes. Derek Jeter is actually one of the worst defensive short-stops in MLB (though a good hitter and leader.) Also, the Yankees losing games doesn't have quite the impact on the economy that banks/big auto companies failing does. In one case thousand of jobs are at stake. Your analogy is silly. As you know the federal bailouts are aimed at preventing the collapse of companies that would lead to a depression. It's just not a very good analogy. And government restrictions on $ offered through social programs is pretty standard procedure. I can send you a copy of one of my unemployment checks if you need further evidence that $500K is in fact quite a bit of dough. Your reasoning for that statement about $500K is about as useful as pointing out that "to Bill Gates $50M isn't that much." $500K/year is more than 98.5% of the rest of us make.

Why is that people who readily profess to not having bothered to listen to the particular segment they're responding to believe they should proceed to post whatever random opinion that just happens to spring to the top of their heads at the trigger of a headline? Nowhere in the diavlog was there any contention over whether the Obamas should be criticized for sending their children to private school. In fact Glenn preface his commentary by stating that is what he is not going to do. Shesh. Glenn is out of the loop about political symbolism, namely that it's never supposed to be a rational allocation of passions because politics is not run on a currency of rationality. If he is so worried that excess sentimentalism would blunt incisive critique, he could do his part for the remedy by not bringing it up again and again. How about turning the focus of his considerable analytical tenacles on some issue like the economy? I think, like pretty much everyone else did the day before and the day after the inauguration.

Quoting nikkibong: Glenn has been remarkably inconsistent in his views of Obama: in one diavlog he pledges his full support, in the next he heaps unjustified abuse on him.

He's a complicated man. And he was clearly in the conservative camp in his formative years. Maybe stripes are hard to change. Evidence of this is offered by James Q. Wilson.
Excerpt:
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_dna.html
h/t Sullivan

Cut Glenn some slack. He tends to think out loud in his talks with John, and he often says things he probably wouldn't want to carve in stone. That's a good thing. You get to hear these guys talk not only about their certainties and political stances, but also about the things they're wondering about and are unsure of.

Have to disagree with John about his argument that public schools are bad because they don't teaching reading properly. Public schools suck because they are overcrowded and underfunded. The Obama kids, I'm betting, will be in a class of about 12-15 students per faculty member. All the kids will be gifted and not high maintenance for conduct or learning disabilities. They will have enrichment activities which include music, art, ecological outings, field trips of every kind and sports. The teachers won't be overworked or burnt out. Violence will be close to zero. There are other problems in public schools besides teacher-student ratio and lack of funding, and I won't dismiss out-of-hand the entrenched interests of administrators and unions. But overwhelmingly, the issue is too many kids per class and not enough money for educational services. Don't get me started on the idiotic No Child Left Behind law.

Good post and points. I think Mr. Loury got a bit excited and used hyperbole with the salary numbers of lawyers and doctors. I think his point is that there are a lot of people in the United State who have a lot of personal wealth for whatever reason. Most of them are probably business owners or commercial property owners, or the most successful lawyers or doctors. Your average doctor or lawyer, of course, doesn't make 500k a year, but some do. I think he meant to describe these guys.

Yes, but in some places Creole also means light-skinned black person. Some times it is used as a perjorative as well. Technically, at least in Louisina, it means anyone of French, Spanish, African, and maybe native-american ancestry, and that were from the Caribbean or had come to Louisiana from the Caribbean.

I'm getting tired of Glenn's Kantian strictures re Obama. I thought he was just dabbling in an ongoing ritual of petty resentments, but I guess given he's a Brown Professor it's a higher order of nonsense.

The wage gap doesn't matter, however, when the middle class in America is so well off. If a middle class family can afford to fly to Paris and visit the Louvre just like the wealthy banker, what does it matter that some other person could fly over and visit umpteen more times than the middle class family could? New York is also New York and it's an expensive place because so many people from both the U.S. and the world want to live there. So you have to be able to afford your place there, if you want to live there. The rest of America is nothing like New York though.

Quoting graz: As President, Obama can shape public school policy. As parents they have an obligation to the safety and well being of their children. Why would you assume that they didn't "take note" of the symbolism. In my estimation they are exercising a private realm choice, even if it's in public purview. The trade-off of loss of privacy shouldn't preclude a wise choice to avoid shitty D.C. schools.

I haven't assumed anything. Just go back and listen to John's rambling response to Glenn's commentary on BHO/MLK comparisons. He obviously doesn't take note of the symbolism in Obama sending his kids to elite prep schools and how that contradicts the symbolism of equal opportunity in Obama's rise to the presidency. Furthermore, why do you (and John for that matter) assume that the only public school choice available to Sasha and Malia is "shitty D.C. schools"?

There is nothing hypocritical about the Obamas sending their children to a private school. If the Obamas had taken the position that every child should be forced into public schools, you would have a point. But of course, they never took that position, so they aren't hypocrites. The Obamas, like the vast majority of Americans, simply support a public education system that provides a baseline of quality schools available free to every American. No suggestion has been made by the Obamas or anyone else that public schools be the only option. Parents who have a preference for alternatives are free to pursue them. Many do. So what, exactly, is your point? I'm sure it's not that the government should subsidize the cost of private school education for every American. I doubt you favor the abolition of public schools. And I doubt you believe the Obamas should be forced to send their own children to public schools merely because they support public education. It's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of Republicans support public education. How come no one ever calls Republican politicians hypocritical for sending their own children to private school. Besides

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I haven't assumed anything. Just go back and listen to John's rambling response to Glenn's commentary on BHO/MLK comparisons. He obviously doesn't take note of the symbolism in Obama sending his kids to elite prep schools and how that contradicts the symbolism of equal opportunity in Obama's rise to the presidency.

Furthermore, why do you (and John for that matter) assume that the only public school choice available to Sasha and Malia is "shitty D.C. schools"?

Because it furthers my premise. I consider the choice to be outside of the legitimate concerns for my assessment of our President. I would speculate, as others did, that security issues were paramount in the choice.
As misinformed as we might be about the quality of D.C. schools. I am under the impression or prejudice that those schools are overpopulated, violent and dysfunctional. Sorry, no studies to cite - just based on reading and listening. I also don't believe that John's point about reading methodology is the complete basis for his criticism. To echo Glenn's point. Obama isn't as important a symbol now, as he was when. He would choose the girl's school based on personal and practical needs - not for symbolism.

Quoting Wonderment: Have to disagree with John about his argument that public schools are bad because they don't teaching reading properly.

Public schools suck because they are overcrowded and underfunded.

The Obama kids, I'm betting, will be in a class of about 12-15 students per faculty member.

All the kids will be gifted and not high maintenance for conduct or learning disabilities.

They will have enrichment activities which include music, art, ecological outings, field trips of every kind and sports.

The teachers won't be overworked or burnt out. Violence will be close to zero.

There are other problems in public schools besides teacher-student ratio and lack of funding, and I won't dismiss out-of-hand the entrenched interests of administrators and unions. But overwhelmingly, the issue is too many kids per class and not enough money for educational services.

Don't get me started on the idiotic No Child Left Behind law.

It's amazing that there are still people out there (I mean, outside the NEA or teachers unions) who think the main problem with public education is that we aren't throwing enough money at it. What has been shown to be the greatest asset in getting kids to

Quoting bkjazfan: Democratic politicians as a rule support public schools. However, many of them don't send their children to them.

Republican politicians as a rule support public education, too. And likewise, many don't send their own children to them. The fact is, and I'm surprised you aren't aware of this, that private schools are more expensive and are not an option for most Americans. The purpose of public school is to provide free education to every child in America — a notion supported by the overwhelming majority of our population. It's perfectly reasonable for a poltician to support a public education system available to all while simultaneously supporting the existence of better schools that cost more money and are available only to people of above average incomes. In fact, Republicans wouldn't have it any other way. Unless you are arguing that public schools should be abolished, I fail to see the substance of your complaint.

Quoting bkjazfan: There is also a propensity amongst teachers of all stripes to send their kids to private schools.

Where's your evidence for this suggestion? I know many, many teachers, including many in my own family, and many friends and neighbors, and not a

Another thing: I love John McWhorther, but do we really need to hear him punditizing on the stimulus bill? McWhorther is a linguist and a (sorry Glenn) race commentator! What expertise or insight could he possibly bring to this subject? We don't have Bob Kagan talking about physics or Ann Althouse reviewing movies (oh wait . . .) I usually like Glenn and John's diavlogs but this was a dud.

a million here, a million there, and soon you're talking about real money: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/176...5:55&out=35:59

Quoting Wonderment: Public schools suck because they are overcrowded and underfunded.

There is absolutely no meaningful empirical evidence to support your statement. It is sort of embarrassing that in the year 2009 we still have to highlight these facts in response to the simpleton notion that the only thing lacking in public schools is money.

Quoting TwinSwords: There is nothing hypocritical about the Obamas sending their children to a private school. If the Obamas had taken the position that every child should be forced into public schools, you would have a point. But of course, they never took that position, so they aren't hypocrites.

Twin, I don't think they're hypocrites. But if Michelle Obama is going to use herself as a poster child for what a quality public school education can produce, why dilute the force of her message by sending her kids to an elite prep school? I mean, if I lobbied you about the great taste of Dr. Pepper yet drank Pepsi instead most people might raise an eyebrow at that at the very least. The point Glenn was making is that it is superficial to dwell on the racial symbolism of Obama presidency without at the same time questioning the symbolism of some of his decisions.

Quoting willmybasilgrow: It's always somethin, isn't it?

If it ain't one thing, it's something else.

Professor Loury, If I had you during my college days I know I would have had a major crush and polishing apples for you, so I feel bad saying this, but you’re being kind of a jerk and a dummy. What is so contemptible about feeling sense of pride and history? Or getting emotional about it? Is the racial aspect so off-putting to you that you cannot let people have their very human moment of pride and sense of accomplishment? Because that’s what you’re doing. Here, I’m going to go for conjecture based on projections of my own feelings and experiences as an Asian woman: I think you are very put off by the racial aspect always taking the center stage on just about everything in American culture and politics, when especially, as you’ve and John McWhorter have said, you (and people as a whole) are so much more than that. I thus think you have gone way overboard on the other side and have decided that anything that centers around race when talking about achievements is unnecessary and annoying, if not demeaning. Actually, scratch demeaning, I think you are more annoyed than anything. I somewhat get what

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Twin,

1-I don't think they're hypocrites. But if Michelle Obama is going to use herself as a poster child for what a quality public school education can produce, why dilute the force of her message by sending her kids to an elite prep school?

2-The point Glenn was making is that it is superficial to dwell on the racial symbolism of Obama presidency without at the same time questioning the symbolism of some of his decisions.

1-That was obviously for the purpose of campaigning... Imagine John McCain running for office without mentioning his P.O.W. experience. Mission accomplished - what more proof do you need of her bona fides regarding the value of public education? 2-No, Glenn made clear that he believes it is always a mistake to dwell on the surfaces of race as opposed to character and results.

But if Michelle Obama is going to use herself as a poster child for what a quality public school education can produce, why dilute the force of her message by sending her kids to an elite prep school?

Because the situations are totally different. Michelle's dad was not the President of the United States. Just from a security standpoint I would guess that private schools are far more approrpiate for children who are likely to attract all kinds of (often negative or threatening attention.) Choosing to put their children in a private school, doesn't distill the achievement of Michelle Obama via public schooling in the least. Any more so than President Obama using a limousine distills his belief in public transit. It's just the reality of their options. Schooling doesn't have to always fall into black and white private/public dichotomy. The truth of the matter is that both are important. Wanting to make public schools better doesn't mean outlawing private schools. Incidentally, I'm far more concerned about this:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar..._education.php as it would pertain to public schooling.

It occurred to me after reading a Clarence Page article, Obama's private school shopping goes public?, that the charge of hypocrisy might be in order if the government is picking up the tab for Sasha and Malia at Sidwell. How can Obama or any politician oppose tax-supported school choice for the masses yet receive public support to send his/her kids to private school? Does anyone know if 'we the people' are paying for Sasha and Malia's education at Sidwell?

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Twin,

I don't think they're hypocrites. But if Michelle Obama is going to use herself as a poster child for what a quality public school education can produce, why dilute the force of her message by sending her kids to an elite prep school?

Grits, my understanding on the feelings of proponents of public eduction is thus: American public eduction system is awesome, but we've let it decline and we've got to get it back. Meanwhile, I cannot send my own child to this declined institution but we've got to work actively right now to set it right again. Is there an inherent hypocrisy there? Maybe there is, I don't know, but I don't see it.

Quoting graz: 1-That was obviously for the purpose of campaigning... Imagine John McCain running for office without mentioning his P.O.W. experience. Mission accomplished - what more proof do you need of her bona fides regarding the value of public education?

The election is over but the campaigning continues . . . You must have noticed her high profile appearances at some public schools recently? What about her appearances in support of Dept. of Ed. designee?

2-No, Glenn made clear that he believes it is always a mistake to dwell on the surfaces of race as opposed to character and results.

That part wasn't clear to me. But you're entitled to your opinion.

While John is right that the current issues with the economy are very complex with many competing visions as to how to proceed, does John REALLY think Obama is behaving properly as if it is a complex issue requiring much deliberation? First off, he's still demagoging the "failed policies" taht got us into this mess without saying those policies actually were and while demagoging general principles as opposed to particular fact. And then he pushes even older Keynesian principles that have proven to not work as if they are new policies.
Furhter, rather than saying we should study the issue and not rush into a plan that may not work (for example listten to the CBO who say this stimulus will actually hurt our economy and that regardless of the stimulus the recession should end this year or listen to Peter Shiff (one of the guys who predicted our housing collapse) saying that the stimulus is the absolute worse thing to do and will push us into a depression) he engages in scare tactics and counsels rushing headlong into the abyss

what i call the first phase of the civil-rights movement, helped the boule and kullud overcome the barriers to mobility in U.S. society, leaving the rest of the african-americans behind. the descendants of U.S. freedmen, and slaves once again have a clear and separate destiny! the seeds of "the movement" have been sown around the world, in the hearts and minds of "the people", but watered sparingly! it was the koolaid the last time, it is the opium-honey this time, as we march off to the temple of darkness singing, "yes we can"!! the struggle for freedom is a war, not a battle!!! it is ego centered(not centric), yet global in scope!!

McWhorter. My favorite. Loury: Bullshit. Obama is THE symbol. Just because you don't think so, doesn't mean it's not true for millions of others.

Public schools suck because they don't know how to educate lower-middle- and working-class children for life in the 21st century. Upper-middle-class public schools (in the suburbs of D.C. for example) are some of the best schools in the country, public or private. Come to think of it, our upper-middle-class meritocratic elites (in Ward 3 for example) not only have no idea how to educate their under-achieving social inferiors, they can't imagine how they are even supposed to live in our society, be they white, black, hispanic: the democratic vision is completely lost to them. That's the real tragedy of our society and it only promises to get worse in the current economic crisis. If Obama can solve that problem he will be a giant. Otherwise he looks pretty small.

I agree with Mr. Loury completely about the school issue. At the end of the day, of course its the Obamas' choice and of course there may be other concerns we're not thinking of (security, etc.). Still, symbolically (and symbols matter) it's pretty disappointing and I actually have been very surprised it has not gotten more discussion in general. I also think Mr. McWhorter's points about reading and phonics were a bit strange. I agree that the problems with big city public schools are complex and I don't think they are mainly about funding, but it seems odd to me that there would be an entrenched ideological interest in teaching sight words rather than phonics. By the way, my daughter who has gone to a Muslim private school for a couple of years and now goes to a suburban public school, has always been taught both phonics and sight words...I'm no education expert but I don't really see this as the titanic conflict of civilization today. Maybe I'm missing something. Finally, the comments by both Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter about 500,000 a year not being real money were bizarrely out of touch with most people's experience

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: Grits, my understanding on the feelings of proponents of public eduction is thus: American public eduction system is awesome, but we've let it decline and we've got to get it back. Meanwhile, I cannot send my own child to this declined institution but we've got to work actively right now to set it right again.

Is there an inherent hypocrisy there? Maybe there is, I don't know, but I don't see it.

The public school system in this country varies in quality from state to state, county to county, district to district, and school to school. The decline is by no means uniform. It may not be inherent hypocrisy for the Obamas to send their children to an elite, private school but neither is it leading by example.

The problem is that public education has never been better than private school education, and good private schools tend to remain good over the long-run, like all the ivy league schools and all the private primary education schools around the country. It may be harsh to call the Obamas hypocrites, but it's a bit odd to be in favor of public education, while you send your children to the best private schools. It does undermine your message that public schools are worth fighting for cause clearly private education tends to be more successful than public education and is the reason most successful Washingtonians send their kids to private school. I'm one who thinks public education can work, but it can really only work where the entire community participates in it, i.e., there are no seriously good private institutions competing with the public schools. Unfortunately in many places the private schools were there first and they've cornered the market for the kids of the affluent. However, maybe Obama supports vouchers or some kind of market reform of public education. If so, sending his kids to private schools matters less.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: The public school system in this country varies in quality from state to state, county to county, district to district, and school to school. The decline is by no means uniform. It may not be inherent hypocrisy for the Obamas to send their children to an elite, private school but neither is it leading by example.

I get what you're saying, so by extension I get what Glenn Loury is saying. I agree that it was not hypocrisy but, yes, that would have been SOMETHING, had they decided on a public school.

Ok, I'm back from my walk and the McWhorter-Loury dialogue was as mentally stimulating as ever. One of the things I like most about Bloggingheads is that the participants demonstrate what I am trying to teach my students, namely, to make sure you are clear on exactly what the other side means and is saying before you respond. A good example of that was when McWhorter sought clarification from Loury on what he meant by "infantile politics" before responding to him. I see both McWhorter and Loury's point on this: Loury is right that political maturity requires a discussion about the real mechanisms of politics, of politicians and of public policy; one cannot do this if one remains stuck in the mode of seeing the politician as occupying iconic space (or holding iconic status). And yet McWhorter has a point in the sense some politicians (think FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, RFK, and Ronald Reagan) become political icons whose symbolic presence is every bit as socially and culturally significant as the nuts and bolts of their politics and public policy. Obama is now a cultural icon, as street artist Shepherd Fairey's poster gives testimony

So that must have been a cats tail in those earlier videos.
mystery solved. I am far less disturbed now that I know the "item" I saw in earlier videos is not as... strange as I thought it was.

Quoting JonIrenicus: So that must have been a cats tail in those earlier videos.

mystery solved. I am far less disturbed now that I know the "item" I saw in earlier videos is not as... strange as I thought it was.

I'm happy your . . uh hmm . . . nightmare is over. LOL!

After Louisa's cat made a stealth appearance on Science Saturday, now John McWhorter's cat has gotten in on the on-screen action. This is in addition to many other people in the past, such as Ana Marie Cox, who have had their cats onscreen. Can we get some more representation from Bob's Frazier or some other dogs, please?

I agree that 500,000 dollars isn't as much as it sounds like, especially someplace like New York. But this is a case where the sentiment is right, but the aim is bad. I don't recall what the numbers are for the average CEO pay divided by the average employee under them vs. decade, but it does seem like the compensation of the highest of the high is out of control. Of course, 500,000 is not the right number to pick to get that point across, because the target should be people who run a company into the ground but make 50 million due to favors from their friends on the board of directors. So the person who picked 500,000: a) a stupid mistake, or b) some kind of lowball to make a point and plant an idea in the collective mind. I can't decide. PS - John and Glenn, I love you guys. Even when I'm not watching much bloggingheads, Bob, Mickey, and you guys are the ones I never miss.

Glenn Loury is an economist. And it's apparent that he doesn't like the Obama administration's new cap on executive pay in the financial industry. He thinks it's a cheap political ploy. He thinks it's crude populism. And unlike all those pandering pols, he's not afraid to say that $500,000 doesn't go too far in New York City. Fine. But remember -- Loury is an economist. So, what does he think of a system that pays huge annual bonuses, regardless of the firm's long-term performance? Can't he see that Wall Street's pay structure encourages short-term thinking and discourages stewardship? Is it lost on him that executive compensation is actually at the heart of the current crisis?!? This is not to defend the specifics of the Obama proposal. It's a first stab at addressing the problem, and I'm sure it can and will be improved. But how can an economist go on an extended rant against this proposal and not even address the perverse economic incentives that it's meant to address?

Quoting graz: On the money Doctor. What I have a hard time accepting is that the so called skill of a brain or heart surgeon, is on equal footing with a skilled legislator (Daschle).
As Francoamerican said: 500 grand isn't about cost cutting in major metro areas as much as greed and expectations (historical trends). Glenn's use of Yankee stadium and strikeouts, etc. as a logical foundation were whacked.

Yes, the public funds aren't an issue when someone strikes out or has a hitting slump. But when the organization itself becomes unable to put on ball games and lays off concession workers, perhaps the public has a right to feel they're being taken advantage of?

It's very unfair and I proceed with trepidation, but why isn't Glenn Loury teaching at a community college with "majority" minority enrollment rather than Brown University ? Otherwise the black intelligentsia is not going to live up to our creed, their highest ideals - and the symbolism reeks of "meritocracy" and failure to "cast one's lot with the least of these." And the imprimatur of black struggle is lent to institutions that do not reflect what one would want to see affirmed.

I'm pretty far left, but I find Glenn's equation of the CEO of Exxon-Mobil with the democratically-elected President of the United States offensive.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: The public school system in this country varies in quality from state to state, county to county, district to district, and school to school. The decline is by no means uniform. It may not be inherent hypocrisy for the Obamas to send their children to an elite, private school but neither is it leading by example.

Are they advocating that more people should send their kids to public schools? Or are they advocating for better public schools. The only way for them to lead by example would be to vote for people who want to improve the school system and increase funding. Which I'm assuming they do, rather aggressively.

Quoting DoctorMoney: Yes, the public funds aren't an issue when someone strikes out or has a hitting slump. But when the organization itself becomes unable to put on ball games and lays off concession workers, perhaps the public has a right to feel they're being taken advantage of?

Your first sentence highlights the only point I was attempting to make regarding Glenn's illogic vis a vis capping executive pay. His analogy fails. Beyond that, the public funds in this case relate to tax breaks which only benefit the Yankees. As to your second sentence, which is unrelated to his point, I wouldn't argue.
It does suggest the need for a partnership of sorts. While the failed and under-performing banks are accepting bailout funds, why not cap comp or bonuses?

Quoting DoctorMoney: Are they advocating that more people should send their kids to public schools?

Or are they advocating for better public schools.

It's not an either or proposition. Since Obama is on record as opposing vouchers, one might conclude that they are advocating more people should keep their kids in public schools. He's also on record as supporting public funded charter schools so you can say they advocate better public schools. Take your pick.

The only way for them to lead by example would be to vote for people who want to improve the school system and increase funding. Which I'm assuming they do, rather aggressively.

No, that's not the only way, nor is it the most effective way. The most effective way would be to enroll your kids in a first rate public school and use the bully pulpit to advocate better public schools. Having said that, the most effective way is not always the most feasible and realistic way.

I sense that everybody is wondering what I think about school reform. :P If you have an hour, listen to a great, great episode of This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radi...px?episode=275 Related, an example of excellence in medicine: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200...urrentPage=all There are so silver bullets. Yet success is possible. You just need people to give a shit. Maybe the solution is more pubic radio and more New Yorker articles. Or blogs or something.

Quoting Francoamerican: I always find it amusing when economists like Loury rush to the defense of the super-rich when the subject of "compensation" arises. Forget for a moment the figure of $500,000 and whether or not the typical banker or executive could live in the style to which he is accustomed on such a paltry sum in Washington DC or Manhattan (in a country where the average salary is around $50,000). The fact remains that in the United States the discrepancy between what the richest 5% earn and own (property, stocks, etc.) and what the remaining 95% earn and own is the WIDEST in the western world.

I would sincerely like to believe that all these people, with their prestigious law and business school degrees, truly deserve their rewards and are among the lords of humankind, but having attended prestigious schools in the United States, I have my doubts.

I believe in the free-market, so I'm against price controls. Now, people will counter by saying that these super-rich are taking advantage of monopoly privileges, rents, or in this case direct cash bail-outs from the government. So they are not really super-rich because of supply-and-demand: the market is already distorted, what's another

The only democrat to send his daughter to public school, that I know of is Jiimmy Carter and look at what a bag of sewage she turned to be- shacking up with Abbie Hoffman- the biggest scumbag of the 60's. And there is no decade that produced more skumbags than the 60's. so being the bigest one required him to sink to unbelievable levels of scummyness. I wonder if the Obamas allow thier children to hanf around turds like Ayers and Wright.

Silverlining in the bailout? Because all those dynamic MBAs, financiers and corporate lawyers will be driven to greener pastures where there are no caps on what they can earn? Good luck to them! But where exactly are those greener pastures anyway? I wish I could accept your equation of the private sector and economic virtue, but surely the last decade of financial wizardry and flimflammery has shown us that rent-seeking behavior isn't confined to the public sector. The gap between the super-rich and the rest (let's say the upper 3% of the population) is enormous, and it has little to do with their talents and much to do with their ability to leverage themselves into the stratosphere. First the dotcom bubble, then the housing and stock market bubbles, and now what? Let us hope the stimulus package stimulates the real economy instead of filling with more hot air the Wallstreet shysters who brought about the present crisis.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: Grits, my understanding on the feelings of proponents of public eduction is thus: American public eduction system is awesome, but we've let it decline and we've got to get it back. Meanwhile, I cannot send my own child to this declined institution but we've got to work actively right now to set it right again.

No, that's wrong. Public education continues to provide excellent educations in many school districts. Republican talking points and the Republican war on education may have succeeded in convincing many people that public education sucks across the board -- but those talking points will only persuade people with no direct experience with good public schools. If I lived in an urban center, I might be one of those people. But I've lived in middle class suburbs all my life and the schools everywhere I've lived have always been excellent. And teachers in those districts have had no hesitancy about sending their own children to the public schools in those districts. Again, if you are going to make a blanket assertion that teachers don't send their children to public schools, it would be nice if you could

Quoting grits-n-gravy: The public school system in this country varies in quality from state to state, county to county, district to district, and school to school. The decline is by no means uniform. It may not be inherent hypocrisy for the Obamas to send their children to an elite, private school but neither is it leading by example.

On this issue, I don't see the importance of leading by example. What would be the point of that? Why should the Obamas be concerned with persauding people to choose public education? It's as if the Obama's came out in favor of clean tap water availble to the communities of America, and were called hypocrits because they drink bottled water. Who cares if they drink bottled water? What the Obamas personally consume is irrelevant. The far more important consideration is the principle that our nation's water supplies should be free of contamination. WRT public schools, what matters is that the Obamas support robust, healthy public education that is available to every American child. That's the promise of public education, and it comes with no requirement that any given family choose to take advantage of it. It has

Quoting TwinSwords: On this issue, I don't see the importance of leading by example. What would be the point of that?

And further, why should those little girls' lives be used that way? The first thing the Obamas need to consider here is the welfare of their kids, not how the choice of venue for their education will affect public debate. A decision to subordinate the needs of their children to symbolic niceties would be clearly wrong, I think. That's regardless of whether they choose public or private institutions.

Quoting Francoamerican: Silverlining in the bailout? Because all those dynamic MBAs, financiers and corporate lawyers will be driven to greener pastures where there are no caps on what they can earn? Good luck to them! But where exactly are those greener pastures anyway?

I wish I could accept your equation of the private sector and economic virtue, but surely the last decade of financial wizardry and flimflammery has shown us that rent-seeking behavior isn't confined to the public sector. The gap between the super-rich and the rest (let's say the upper 3% of the population) is enormous, and it has little to do with their talents and much to do with their ability to leverage themselves into the stratosphere. First the dotcom bubble, then the housing and stock market bubbles, and now what?

Let us hope the stimulus package stimulates the real economy instead of filling with more hot air the Wallstreet shysters who brought about the present crisis.

No. Silverlining in "the strings attached to the bailout". My view is somewhat different: the bubble was driven directly by government regulations and the Treasury monopoly on money. The current bailouts and stimulii are more of the same. So I don't have any hope whatsoever.

Quoting TwinSwords: Why should the Obamas be concerned with persuading people to choose public education?

You're right. They shouldn't--and the reason why makes me think either I'm missing something here or a whole lot of other people are: public school is for people who don't have the choice to send their kids to private school. Public school is for people who can't afford to pay private school tuition, but can afford to pay their taxes (and maybe not even that). The leadership by example argument makes no sense. Most people don't have the ability to follow the Obama's example. The argument should be that Obama's sending his daughters to private school indicates that he doesn't give a fuck about the condition of the American public school system. But, then, that's kind of a dumb point, too.

Quoting harkin: 1) A two-parent family that is present in the child's after school time, engaged in the student's progress and provides an environment that fosters good study skills.

2) Teachers and schools that do the same during school hours with accountability for administration, teachers and students.

1) Outlaw single parents. 2) Conscript people into working for schools.

Damn, Glenn is cranky. Cranky is boring. Anybody can do cranky. I could do cranky. I stopped at about 13 minutes.

Quoting sharkdog: The only democrat to send his daughter to public school, that I know of is Jiimmy Carter and look at what a bag of sewage she turned to be- shacking up with Abbie Hoffman- the biggest scumbag of the 60's. And there is no decade that produced more skumbags than the 60's. so being the bigest one required him to sink to unbelievable levels of scummyness. I wonder if the Obamas allow thier children to hanf around turds like Ayers and Wright.

wow, thanks for posting - proof that a complete moron can learn how to type. was that from private or public education? because if public schools can teach a scummy turd like you - they are just flat out amazing. have a nice day.

Quoting graz: I didn't take his points as bitterness or discredit to Obama. Glenn fairly makes the point that our President's pigmentation is nearly irrelevant to the tasks at hand for the CEO of the USA.
This point was best elaborated by the comparison of MLK's role as sacred and the job of a politician as profane. This in no way detracts from the acknowledged color of either man's skin.

i have to agree. Obama is a Politician. he will disappoint you. he will make compromises (some of us will see this as "selling out"), and there is no need to set yourself up for even greater disappointment by thinking he is anything like MLK. Yes, its very cool to see that America is moving past its racist past. Obama is not the reason. and there is no need to set him up as a symbol when he has no chance of fulfilling that role. Also, maybe it is time to stop pretending that "Black" issues are truly about being "Black". starting to disentangle the class issues from the race issues (many of which overlap) should allow progressives to finally make

Twins, I'm not sure Republicans are against public education per se, especially since they're the ones in control of many of the suburbs that do have excellent public education. They're usually on the other side against teachers' unions and they see the value in vouchers to try to improve school choice for the underprivileged, but that doesn't mean they're for private schools over public schools. Obama's actual views on public education probably fall in with a number of Republicans' views on it.

Quoting BeachFrontView: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/176...9:25&out=09:39

This from a man who wrote a book called The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. Clearly, Glenn simply craves being a controversialist, and will take whatever position that opposes his interlocuter. Real mature.

Five star post, lemon sorbet.

Quoting TwinSwords: No, that's wrong. Public education continues to provide excellent educations in many school districts. Republican talking points and the Republican war on education may have succeeded in convincing many people that public education sucks across the board -- but those talking points will only persuade people with no direct experience with good public schools. If I lived in an urban center, I might be one of those people. But I've lived in middle class suburbs all my life and the schools everywhere I've lived have always been excellent. And teachers in those districts have had no hesitancy about sending their own children to the public schools in those districts.

Again, if you are going to make a blanket assertion that teachers don't send their children to public schools, it would be nice if you could provide data, because it certainly doesn't match my experience.[/QUOTE

Nationally 21% of public schools school teachers send their own children to private schools. This is double the country's average of 10%. You get into some low performing inner city schools like in Baltimore and D.C. and find the teachers are more reticent to participate with the this 21% jumping to 30 and 40%.

I think many politicans of all stripes give lip service to supporting public education. It could be extrapolated that some of them do so since they send their children to private schools and don't have a stake in them.

I am for improving the public schools not abolishing them. Practically my entire family comprising at least 2 generations are products of the country's second largest school system: Los Angeles Unified School District.

John

Quoting Ray: 1) Outlaw single parents.

2) Conscript people into working for schools.

Seriously. If kids want to learn, they will be willing to learn in a slum. It doesn't matter how much you upgrade their stuff. The problem is the culture of anti-intellectualism that pervades through each successive generation. If you can get the parents to care about education, the problem would be over instantly.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Because the situations are totally different. Michelle's dad was not the President of the United States.

True. However, Sasha & Malia's dad wasn't the president 3 or 4 years ago when they were enrolled in a Chicago private school. I'm not knocking their decision to opt for private school; I went to Catholic school for grades 9-12. (BTW, my parents paid about $900/yr tuition plus books in the late 70s; now that same school I attended cost about 25-30k!) But given where the Obama's have chosen to school their kids, shouldn't they (the Obamas) be strong supporters of vouchers, at least in principle, so that socio-economically disadvantaged parents can have more choices? Correction I rechecked the tuition at my high school and discovered my number is way off. I must of have been thinking of another Catholic school in the area that actually costs around 25k. The tuition cost today at my old high school is roughly $9,000/yr plus books, uniforms, and transportation.

Quoting AemJeff: And further, why should those little girls' lives be used that way?

This makes me think about, in light of the subject matter of this vlog, the parents of those kids who went through the gaunlet of violence to be the first blacks kids in the newly integrated schools of the South. Who would wish that upon their child? Everytime I see that footage I think most about the fortitude of the parents that made them in essence sacrifice their child for the cause. I cannot imagine the searing sorrow and pain that they must have gone through in making that decision and watching it unfold, and the paralyzing fear of those poor kids. How do you explain to a 15 year old what's going to happen to you tomorrow and why you have to do it? Once again, I cannot believe that Glenn Loury is decrying the sentimentality.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: True. However, Sasha & Malia's dad wasn't the president 3 or 4 years ago when they were enrolled in a Chicago private school.

I'm not knocking their decision to opt for private school; I went to Catholic school for grades 9-12. (BTW, my parents paid about $900/yr tuition plus books in the late 70s; now that same school I attended cost about 25-30k!) But given where the Obama's have chosen to school their kids, shouldn't they (the Obamas) be strong supporters of vouchers, at least in principle, so that socio-economically disadvantaged parents can have more choices?

He worked for the U of Chicago and it was their lab school so he got a good deal. Who doesn't like a bargain shopper?

Yes! finally McWhorter and Loury are back. Just my opinion here but I'd very much like to hear much more of these skilled deconstructionists on social topics that extend beyond race...like general politics for instance or whatever strikes their fancy.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: This makes me think about, in light of the subject matter of this vlog, the parents of those kids who went through the gaunlet of violence to be the first blacks kids in the newly integrated schools of the South. Who would wish that upon their child? Everytime I see that footage I think most about the fortitude of the parents that made them in essence sacrifice their child for the cause. I cannot imagine the searing sorrow and pain that they must have gone through in making that decision and watching it unfold, and the paralyzing fear of those poor kids. How do you explain to a 15 year old what's going to happen to you tomorrow and why you have to do it?

Once again, I cannot believe that Glenn Loury is decrying the sentimentality.

I hear what you're saying. I don't fully subscribe to the analogy, though. If schools were ever going to integrated, then somebody had to be first, it was unavoidable. And the huge potential benefit to the pioneers in the form of attendance at what was often going to be a much higher quality institution was an

Quoting TwinSwords: On this issue, I don't see the importance of leading by example. What would be the point of that? Why should the Obamas be concerned with persauding people to choose public education

I think it's more about persuading people that they are big supporters of public education. By their actions, they're also big supporters of private education. Nothing wrong with supporting either, but the political rhetoric at times belies the reality.

It's as if the Obama's came out in favor of clean tap water availble to the communities of America, and were called hypocrits because they drink bottled water. Who cares if they drink bottled water? What the Obamas personally consume is irrelevant. The far more important consideration is the principle that our nation's water supplies should be free of contamination

Good analogy. But I disagree with the conclusion. As public servants, the relevance of what they drink depends on what others are forced to drink. If Obama can afford to drink clean bottled water while his constituents have to drink polluted tap water until its sufficiently purified, shouldn't his public health policy be geared toward making bottled water more

Quoting AemJeff: I don't fully subscribe to the analogy, though.

Oh I agree. It was more of a comment on Glenn's tirade against what I think he thinks is a prevailing culture of condescending sentimentality. There is a reason why people evoke MLK, history, and get teary eyed. That is not taking anything away from the reality of the presidency faced by Obama.

Love to hear Glenn and love it best to hear him with McWhorter. And I share Glenn's weariness with the sentimentality. The good news is that it is wearing off. Yes, it is nice to see a brown face in the highest office but it's fast becoming old news. News is what he does in office, not his ethnic make up.

I wonder if one of these days Glenn can comment on the thesis that most of FDR's New Deal was essentially anti-black legislation. Is there a kernel of truth in that proposition? After all unionization was very effective at keeping blacks out of the labor market.