Couldn’t Help But Notice (100507)
Hopefully moving a topic yours truly mentioned some time ago (final item at link) to the front burner, a blog called Center for College Affordability and Productivity addresses elite college endowment practices, particularly hoarding of funds (HT Instapundit) while financially strapped students and their parents pay through the nose.
If this isn’t an eye-popper, I don’t know what is (bold is mine):
I looked at three schools –Harvard, Yale, and the University of Virginia. At all three schools, less than four percent the average daily endowment base in the 2006-7 school year was spent. If Harvard and Yale had spent 5 percent and dedicated the increased spending to tuition reduction, they could have eliminated undergraduate tuition charges altogether — easily. If Virginia, which is a less well endowed public school, spent 5 percent and dedicated the added spending to tuition reduction for all students from families with less than $100,000 annual income, I would guesstimate that tuition could have been reduced well over $5,000 on average per student –an amount equal to about 60 percent of the in state tuition charges.
Seems like those who control these institutions, which generally lean quite a bit to the left, act like the worst of Scrooges when they control the purse strings — and routinely pass on tuition increases that are at least twice the rate of inflation year after year after year — while lecturing capitalist countries and others about their “greed.”
_________________________________________
“Elizabeth Edwards questions Limbaugh’s draft deferment” — There have been too many of these spousal attacks for all of them to have been spontaneous outbursts by Mrs. Edwards. So what is it about John Edwards that he uses his wife to the dirty jobs for him?
_________________________________________
Hugh Hewitt on The Left’s Great Snarl” over Rush:
Ten years ago the MSM might have been able to facilitate such an attack on Rush, but it is simply impossible today. Pushing a smear in the new media environment is a profoundly self-destructive bit of bad political theater that insults the audience’s intelligence while revealing the attackers’ character.
_________________________________________
More “Made in China” problems.
_________________________________________
Outrage of the morning I — Although I have known about each of these scams independently of each other, I first heard about the two being done in combination in a class I taught yesterday. The combination: “Mystery Shopper” and counterfeit checks.
_________________________________________
Outrage of the morning II — I had no idea that some gambling casinos are doing this, and I’m astonished that they’re allowed to:
Gambling has been recently labeled as the fastest growing addiction inside the United States. It has been a long known fact that some gamblers wager their car titles or even house mortgages.
Tom - I know you may not be around so you can get to this whenever, but have you ever thought that maybe Mrs. Edwards has opinions and ideas of her own? The suggestion that it’s corrdinated (her comments) by Edwards or his people is pretty insulting. Not that it might not be, but still. You write about it as though it’s not conceivable that she actually feels the way she says she does.
Comment by Jill — October 5, 2007 @ 7:35 am
#1 Jill, this isn’t at all about opinions or who has their own; this is about a political decision to attack.
In this case especially, it is highly doubtful that Mrs. Edwards independently did the oppo research to question Limbaugh’s draft deferment. If that is indeed the case, the oppo researcher would have brought the matter to the candidate first. Then the decision as to who should do the attacking was made. The choice was Mrs. Edwards. Why?
Comment by TBlumer — October 5, 2007 @ 8:01 am
Come on Jill. Wake up. That’s #2.
Comment by Joe C. — October 5, 2007 @ 9:12 am
#1, who is running for the Dem nomination for POTUS? Mr. or Mrs. Edwards? I suggest, Elizabeth tell John to sit quitely and let her run for POTUS instead since she clearly has more to say than John.
BTW- Would anyone actually care what Mrs. Edwards had to say anymore than you or me if Mr. Edwards wasn’t running for POTUS? I think not. We all have our opinions, however we all don’t get to have the MSM broadcast them.
Comment by dscott — October 5, 2007 @ 10:08 am
An observation regarding rising college tuition costs. Maybe it is obvious to some but I think this bears pointing out. Many high brow universities like NYU set rates at some high figure expecting to discount that rate based on income and ethnicity. If you come from a rich family that can pay $40k a year you get to pay full freight. Whereas, if you come from a family that can’t afford it, you get to pay $20k or less depending on other factors. The rich are paying for the poor. The bottom line, the cost of tuition is based on the socio-economic makeup of the student body where the lower income students must be subsidized by the wealthier students. This is the economics of Socialism. The rates must go higher to level the playing field. The perverse problem is, as long as government subsidized student loans make it seemly easy for any student to afford the full freight, the universities are only too happy to charge the top rate. This is as opposed to Capitalism where one lower rate is charged to all.
Don’t get me wrong, I support student loans, however, if the government is going to interfere with the supply and demand market clearing of price by creating a higher demand for education, then universities need to be placed under regulations much like utilities that prevent them from hiking tuition costs just so they can push their own social agenda at everyone’s expense.
Comment by dscott — October 5, 2007 @ 10:27 am
You know, I’m not sorry even though I feel as though I should open this with saying that I am, but I’m not.
You say here, “So what is it about John Edwards that he uses his wife to the dirty jobs for him?”
And I’m saying, you don’t believe she can decide to attack for herself? For goodness sakes, Tom.
First of all, I don’t want her to be invisible. Second of all, so what if she uses their researchers’ information? Is that any different than a candidate using their researchers’ information?
I’m not an Edwards groupie in the least. But the way this woman has conducted herself on the trail indicates that she makes her own decisions - you’re casting her as a tool being manipulated.
That’s insulting.
Good for her for making “a political decision to attack” - I can’t understand why you have to attribute that decision to someone else, like a researcher or her husband. They have advisors and strategists just like everyone else.
I don’t get your attack on her attacking. What bothers you about it? Seems very much like everyone else’s darts to me. What’s different to you about it?
Comment by Jill — October 5, 2007 @ 10:56 am
%4, point well taken.
$6 Jill —
First of all, I don’t want her to be invisible. Second of all, so what if she uses their researchers’ information? Is that any different than a candidate using their researchers’ information?
Well, the researchers work for him (John Edwards for President), not for her.
As noted, they both had to know of the information, and if they’re planning their campaign at all, they’re deciding together who’s going to comment on it.
I suppose I could concede that they really aren’t planning the campaign and their respective roles at all, which seems more “insulting” to both of them than any “insult” directed towards Mrs. Edwards you’re attempting to create out of whole cloth.
Comment by TBlumer — October 5, 2007 @ 11:27 am
I just love the false offense tactic of liberals and especially feminists to get people to walk on eggshells as not to offend. All this in an effort to say you are not entitled to an opinion if it is contrary to mine. I say stomp on the eggshells and let the libs scream.
Comment by dscott — October 5, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
You’re still not saying how this is significant, Tom. How is any different from what any other campaign does and why is that a problem for you?
Everyone else - we have different opinions on this. I’ve made mine clear. Thanks for writing up yours.
Comment by Jill — October 5, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
#5, you are exactly right, and the President of (I think) Tulane acknowledged as much about a decade ago, essentially saying that the college aid system is in effect, and in his opinion, a worthy income distribution scheme.
Comment by TBlumer — October 5, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
#9, Mrs. Edwards’ name is not on the ballot.
I have since learned that:
- she said this in a scheduled interview.
- the involved talk-show interviewer said that Rush’s deferment would be among the things her front people (i.e., Edwards campaign workers) said she wanted to be asked about (IOW, he was doing her bidding).
This shows almost beyond doubt that this was a planned Edwards campaign attack, and not something that she came up with on her own, which also means that they consciously decided to send her out to do the attacking instead of the person whose name is on the ballot.
If you’re still going to hold out and say, despite the above, that she was just saying what’s on her mind without any consideration of what effect it may have on the campaign, then you’re saying that the Edwards’ campaign does not have internal coordination.
If John Edward and his campaign want to attack Rush, John Edwards, or perhaps his chief of staff, should attack Rush. What’s really rich is that John will be the first one to whine “how dare you attack my wife” if Rush dares to say anything that has an inkling of being untoward.
Comment by TBlumer — October 5, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
I guess I don’t understand why she shouldn’t speak, regardless of whether she’s on the ballot. Others accuse me of feigning stuff but I don’t understand why, even if every single assertion about coordination is true, you are shocked or picking on it. Doesn’t that happen all the time? Isn’t that what candidates’ entourages do? Will you pick on all other candidates’ campaigns when there seems to be coordination between them and…their relatives? Say, Romney’s sons?
I just don’t see the issue.
Comment by Jill — October 5, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
On the final topic - betting the house - seriously, you’d never heard of people doing that? I’ve always found it hard to believe that you can, but yeah - this was not news to me, sadly (must been all the 57 reasons research).
Comment by Jill — October 5, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
I knew that people “bet the house” (or car), but I didn’t know the casinos themselves facilitated it.
The Edwards thing is about using a spouse to make an attack you don’t have the courage to make yourself, and that you should have made yourself. Admittedly my judgment, but I believe a valid one.
Comment by TBlumer — October 5, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
Giggling as I write - can’t both spouses make the same attack? Why do the husbands get to have all the fun? :)
Okay - THAT I can understand (re: why didn’t he just do it himself). I really did not get that that was what you were trying to say.
Maybe it’s a division of labor - he makes attacks on certain folks and certain topics and she does it on other topics and people? (joking partly)
I see them as one unit - I’m not saying that’s good or bad, I’m just saying, she’s been out there with him campaigning pretty much from the beginning, and it was the same when he ran as VP. It seems very normal to me to hear her speak out.
On the other hand, if all of a sudden Bill Richardson’s wife started up on stuff - does he even have a wife? I didn’t want to pick on Republicans - they have too many wives to choose from ;) - that would be odd to me.
Just the view from where I’m watching, on the fence (h/t to Joe).
Comment by Jill — October 6, 2007 @ 9:59 am