Comments by
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on October 30 at 12:43 p.m.Suggest removal
This is an extremely important letter, which makes points that all informed citizens should ponder. Kudos to the author.
Posted on October 30 at 12:41 p.m.Suggest removal
What seems puzzling about this editorial is the apparent lack of awareness that the educational quality of a university is directly related to the level of ability of the students it attracts. This has always seemed generally true and actually quite obvious. Why does Harvard provide a better education than West Georgia College? Why does Yale provide a better education than Panhandle State? There are many reasons, of course, but a central one is the average ability-level of the students: it translates into attracting and retaining a faculty of higher achievement and ability.
In its odd demand for "quantitative" evidence, perhaps the DAILY could compute the average ACT score of OU's student body after deducting the highest scoring 700 to 800 undergraduates; a reasonable guess is that the highly touted increase in the ability level of OU's student body would be substantially diminished or disappear altogether.
Another data set might be tracking the career and professional success of OU alumni, divided into National Merit Scholars and others. Successful alumni increase the value of an OU degree for everyone who earns one, and probably produce increased alumni giving.
The context for this discussion, of course, is the declining state funding for public higher education and the attempt by state universities to compensate for that by raising tuition excessively. In an era of budget cuts, jobs, departments, majors, priorities are all in jeopardy, and people whose programs or priorities are losing funding will always look to areas where other funding may be questioned. Thus setting priorities in an era of budget cuts will always be contentious. In the short run, the priorities of OU are set by the central administration and the OU Board of Regents. In the long run, they will be set by the State Regents and the state legislature, and perhaps by the taxpayers of Oklahoma. Should quality undergraduate education be a higher or lower priority than research done by faculty? How many state resources should be devoted to research in the humanities and social sciences? Can anyone demonstrate that such research (in contrast with research in the sciences and engineering) is useful and serves the interests of the taxpayers of any particular state? Do undergraduate majors that do not add knowledge or skills that make graduating seniors more employable serve any purpose but that of the faculty and administrators involved?
In terms of "quantitative data," perhaps the DAILY should try to make the case for why the benefits of its existence are worth the costs paid by student fees and the university? What would a survey of the student body or faculty show about the value provided by the DAILY versus lower fees or using university money for a different purpose?
Posted on April 28 at 11:21 p.m.Suggest removal
What an utterly unnecessary, mean-spirited article. What is the point of reporting this? What possible purpose is served?
On the whole, the DAILY has been worse this year than its usual disappointing norm, and even worse than its dismal performance last year. But even by this year's abysmal standard, this article sets a new low.
Cal Hobson performed many years of distinguished service in the state legislature, and ably represented and advanced the interests of his district and of OU.
As you painfully and pointlessly make him acknowledge in your sensationalist and trivial interview, it is no secret whatsoever that he has struggled with alcoholism, and has sometimes not succeeded in that struggle.
That OU officials refrained from comment is of course the decent and correct behavior for this sad turn of events as an intelligent, decent, skillful man at the end of his career continues to struggle with his demons. This is a tragic story, and deserves respect and discretion. Your running this story is sleazy, immature, thoughtless, and shameful.
Of course the story is as badly written and poorly edited as your usual fare. The article states that the DAILY made Hobson respond "to the blogger’s suggestions" about alcoholism. This is the very first and only mention of "the blogger," so even the reader with a strong stomach has no idea of what your reporter is talking about.
This article makes me want to simply stop expecting the DAILY to be tolerable. Or at least to handle it with tongs. After reading this unnecessary and cruel article, I have three emotions: (a) I feel deeply sorry for Senator Hobson, (b) I feel angry that you put his family through this pain, and (c) I feel a strong need to wash my hands after holding your pathetic little newspaper.
Posted on April 18 at 3 p.m.Suggest removal
TheJeff's assertions about actual taxes paid are factually false, and very simple research will demonstrate this.
First, he's talking about individual income taxes only, not "taxes" in general, when the individual income tax has never been even half of total federal revenues.
Second, he's citing the marginal tax rate on paper as the rate that wealthy Americans actually pay, when of course the truth is they actually pay much, much less than the maximum rate on paper. Their "effective tax rate" (what they actually pa)y is much lower. For example, 5 minutes on Google will show you that "the richest Americans, those earning an average of $345 million in 2007, paid about 16.5 percent in federal income taxes."
SOURCE (of this and much else which TheJeff would find of interest if he cares about the actual truth):
Posted on March 27 at 11:49 a.m.Suggest removal
Thinking about the invitation to Norman Finkelstein to speak on our campus is very much like trying to find your way across a minefield.
His views are extremely controversial but they are nonetheless serious and substantive, and surely a university is precisely the one place where such ideas should be heard.
If his ideas are flawed, illogical, or unsupported by evidence, then there is no reason to fear them; exposing them to scrutiny will reveal their weaknesses.
It is striking that rather then engage his ideas, Finelstein's opponents have preferred to try to silence him and to prevent the expression of his ideas. Alan Dershowitz for example intervened aggressively with the University of California Press to try to prevent the publication of Finkelstein's books, an intervention which UC Press properly rejected out of hand.
I'm not sure if this columnist understands that she has become a part of an effort to prevent the expression of these controversial views, but she certainly misstates the reasons behind the DePaul tenure decision, a decision which itself was highly controversial and disreputable.
To oppose the policies of the the current Likud government building settlements in the Occupied Territories (land that was NOT part of pre-1967 Israel and that has been taken by force and is held by force) is NOT being anti-Israel. Opposing those settlements is actually official US policy and also the view of the Israeli peace movement itself.
Here are two links which are directly relevant (unlike the bizarre and utterly irrelevant links to Dawkins and the scurrilous David Horowitz' jihad-watch website which Arafat has posted:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/arti...
and also
Posted on February 23 at 1:15 p.m.Suggest removal
chas036 needs to use the internet (or the library) to actually research the issues for which he makes such sweeping (and most of the time flatly false) assertions. Looking for evidence on important questions should be a habit one acquires and nurtures at any university.
There are numerous studies on the question of satisfaction with health care comparing Canada, the US, and Europe. They are not hard to find. For example, chas might check "U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction," reported by FOX News at this link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1...
The findings in this study are widely confirmed, although there are a few studies going in the opposite direction, and one of course needs to look at the questions asked, how they were worded, who was sampled etc. This is also a skill we should all be acquiring in our education.
Please understand, chas, that your observation of license plates as you stroll through a parking lot in Buffalo, is very, very weak evidence -- anecdotal and impressionistic to say the least.
My own sense is that wealthy people and physicians in Canada prefer health care in the US and everyone else in Canada prefers health care, in both categories for obvious reasons.
And, chas, some Americans have been reported to go to Canada for health care, and MANY Americans go to Canada for prescription drugs.
Consider this quote: "As the price of prescription drugs continues to climb, both policy-makers and U.S. residents are turning to Canada, where drugs can cost less than half the price of their American counterparts. Traveling to Canada for prescription drugs is not a new phenomenon, but with strapped state budgets, skyrocketing health care costs and the convenience of online shopping, America's northern neighbor is providing a viable option for some."
Posted on February 22 at 3:42 p.m.Suggest removal
I challenge chas036 to document his absurd statement that 75 percent of government services go to the "welfare class." Should he actually try to look at facts, he will be astonished and should be humbled to demonstrate how little he knows. He should also probably define welfare class." It sounds like he may not know that there is NO entitlement to cash assistance for low-income families since the welfare "reform" of 1996. "These welfare people"... and the CEOs of Wall Street investment banks "work their butts off..." sheesh.. does chas have a clue about who brought about the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, and the subsequent recession?
Chas, please tell us you are not a student at our university.
IN ANY CASE, DOCUMENT YOUR FLATLY FALSE ASSERTION.
OR ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE THINGS UP. IT'S A UNIVERSITY NOT FOX.
Posted on February 22 at 12:53 p.m.Suggest removal
Barney Grumble says: "The only thing socialized medicine does . . . is lengthen waiting times and prevent people without the proper credentials to get immediate emergency care."
The only thing?
It does provide 100 percent of the population health insurance.
It does so at MUCH lower cost as percent of GDP (in ALL the OECD countries) -- actually MUCH lower.
It produces on average BETTER health outcomes in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality.
As eightbitgirl recognizes none of this means anything to Barney because he doesn't care about people without health insurance or exorbitant spending being passed onto future taxpayers (on this last point, he's making a self-injuring error, but irony abounds).
Barney illustrates some of the major ways people divide in terms of their position on the left/right ideological spectrum.
Which is more important, property or people?
RIGHT: property, LEFT: people.
Who is more important: myself or others?
RIGHT: Me
LEFT: Others
One wonders if Barney would be consistent in his views if he were gravely ill and unable to afford adequate health care (the current situation of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans). The few conservative Republicans I have known who were tragically unfortunate enough to find themselves in that position did indeed begin to see the world in an opposite light. Of course one hopes that Barney never has to find out what he would do in that situation, thus he had better hope that there's nothing to the concept of karma....
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on March 30 at 7:32 p.m.Suggest removal
This is the strangest policy demand, advanced with the least attention to political realism that I have seen in many years. I would ask those who advocate for this policy so aggressively, to tell us what is their hypothesis about how the Oklahoma legislature would respond if OU adopted this policy. Really. How much thought have you given to what the arch-conservative, Republican legislature would do? Please tell us. You do understand that can exercise the final authority over this matter and every other matter affecting OU, right? So this would provoke the abstinence/personhood firebrands at precisely the time public higher education is under heavy assault and state funds for OU are being cut again and again? What is the goal here, really? One of the many reasons 60's far-left political efforts collapsed and failed is the confrontation-junkies who just want to challenge power, whatever the result, even if it makes their own goals, causes, and values worse off. I respect Elizabeth Rucker but when she wrote that in 1969 political activism in the US almost brought down the government or led to a revolutionary upheaval, she is historically completely wrong. France in 1968, yes, maybe. But the US in 1968? That's when the far-left produced the back-lash that elected Nixon, splintered the Democratic party and led to the rise of Reaganism and the catastrophic 40 years that have followed.
And just an aside, how is gender-neutral housing going to help gays and lesbians? If you mean bully-free housing, yes definitely. But why would people interested in same-sex relationships want to permit males and females to room together. And, a second aside, if that's the goal, you're selling it all wrong: sell the policy that males and females can room together in university housing, and I'm guessing the Greek scene, or at least the males might do a 180 and strongly support this demand.
On