David Brooks reflects on college admissions. Or, more specifically, he addresses high school students who are worried about which college will take them. He has some thoughtful points about the relationship (or lack of) between good grades and being a good student. Or, even better, having the character necessary to become a good student. He also considers what a good education has to do with getting into a so-called top college (not much, most of the time, it turns out). Needless to say, these are questions close to my heart. The students I take into the Ashbrook program are not only very good students, but also--somehow--show me that they are (at least pontentially) very serious people. I don’t have a formula for this. It is based on a personal interview lasting--normally--well over one hour. I have also learned that such an interview is better when at least one of the parents is present. When I explain how different, how difficult, how important, this higher education is going to be than what they may have expected, I like to see the reactions of all the parties, not just the student alone. It turns into a much more revealing conversation both for the the student and me (and, of course, the parents). Although I can say more on this subject, let me only say for now that I try to talk about what they are going to study, how they will study, and what virtues it takes to study these important things. I focus on the difficult. Because they are used to a reverse focus (talk about how many pools we have on campus and how good the food is, etc.), they are a bit surprised by such discourse, but are (almost) universally pleased when someone--often for the first time--talks to them as if they were adults, rather than children just being told what to do, again. I explain to them that they are on the verge of real leisure (skole in Greek, hence, school), how that differs from the necessary (as in laboring in the fields else you don’t eat) and that they should take advantage of it. As a rule, they take to it like duck to water. And they most certainly don’t have to go to Princeton to drink from the best well.

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments  |  3/30/2004  11:01 AM

David Brooks has a really nice piece in the New York Times today on going to the "right" university. His last several paragraphs confirm what a number of Ashbrook Scholars have told me about what they discover when they meet students from other schools at conferences or internships. It’s a fine reminder that education is a long, patient labor of love over hard questions, and it can be done by anyone, anywhere.

Posted by Jeff Sikkenga  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [642]  |  3/30/2004  11:00 AM

Christopher Hitchens has some thoughts on the al Qaeda-Iraq connections and what that has to do with Dick Clarke’s work and testimony. John O’Sullivan also considers Clarke’s testimony and the larger political purposes of each side and he guesses that the voters will trust Bush. Morton Kondracke argues that although it has to be admitted that neither Clinton nor Bush waged a war on terror pre-9/11, voters know that Bush is conducted one now.

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments  |  3/30/2004  10:47 AM

Kirsanow quoting Kerry: "During his 1971 congressional testimony about the Vietnam War, a man who would one day seek the Democratic party’s nomination in the 2004 presidential race was asked by a senator to assess the threat of Communism, not just to Indochina, but to world peace in general. The witness responded, ’I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands.’" Like I say, this isn’t all that shocking, is it? After all, even Jimmy Carter held a view similar to this and, if I recall correctly, he said he changed his mind only the Soviet monster bit in Afghanistan (1979).

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [1]  |  3/30/2004  10:34 AM

It was just announced that Condi Rice will testify under oath in front of the 9/11 Commission. A deal has been struck, whereby (somehow) this will not set a precedent. I actually thought that she shouldn’t testify publicly and under oath for three reasons: One, it will set a precedent for any future NSC chief to testify on policy issues, a very bad idea that may affect future conversations and advice given to a president. Two, there is a danger that this will turn into a shouting match between Rice and Clarke--he said, she said--that the Demos will try to use for ordinary partisan advantage in the campaign. While this attack on the Bush team hasn’t worked so far, it may open up other avenues of attack and she will be the one at a disadvantage. If she doesn’t say everything she knows about anything asked of her--even if the silence is due to sound reasons of national security--she will be the one who will be the accused of stonewalling or lying by the Democrats. Three, the public conversations will continue to move away from what Clinton did not do regarding terrorism, which is the intent of the Democrats. Oddly, even though they have already been successful in doing that, they still have not gained any political points. This is proof that the people overwhelmingly (still) trust Bush and his administration on the conduct of the war on terror over any Democrat, including Kerry.

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [1]  |  3/30/2004  8:31 AM

USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll shows that "For the first time since mid-February, Bush leads Democrat John Kerry, 51%-47%. With independent Ralph Nader in the race, Bush leads 49%-45%, and Nader receives 4%." And then: "When the poll asked who would be more trustworthy in making a decision about sending U.S. troops to war, Bush beat Kerry, 52%-41%. That’s a considerable shift from Feb. 1, when Kerry led 50%-45%." There is more. And then there is this Pew Research poll: "A week’s worth of criticism of his pre-Sept. 11 record on terrorism has had little impact on President Bush’s support among voters. He is now running even with Sen. John Kerry in a head-to-head match-up among registered voters (47% Kerry- 46% Bush) after trailing Kerry by 52%-43% in mid-March. Voter opinions have been fluid in this early stage of the presidential contest, but Bush has held his own against Kerry with regard to personal qualities, while the Massachusetts senator has lost support on key issues like health care and jobs. And on the central question of which candidate would do the best job of defending the country against future terrorist attacks, Bush continues to lead Kerry by a wide margin (53%-29%)."

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments  |  3/30/2004  8:22 AM

I interviewed a number of law students after the event, and they were very enthusiastic when they learned that I had studied Hammurabi (the ancient giver of laws), and that I taught constitutional law in the United States. It may be the first time in my life that I have had groupies, surrounding me asking for my autograph, and asking numerous questions about opinion in the United States. They were very pro-American, exclaiming "we love America," and they denounced Saddam as a "monster." The funny thing is that these positions would place them out of the mainstream at most elite law schools in the United States.

Posted by Robert Alt  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [1]  |  3/30/2004  8:16 AM

The New Atlantis is a new journal,devoted to clarifying "the nation’s moral and political understanding of all areas of technology—from stem cells to hydrogen cells to weapons of mass destruction. We hope to make sense of the larger questions surrounding technology and human nature, and the practical questions of governing and regulating science—especially where the moral stakes are high and the political divides are deep." There is an article by Diana Schaub on ageless bodies, by Paul Cantor on poetry and science, and one by Peter Lawler on happy souls. There is more, and it all looks good.

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [1]  |  3/29/2004  2:27 PM

As promised, here is my NRO article on the transfer of the Ministry of Health from Coalition to Iraqi control.

Posted by Robert Alt  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [1]  |  3/29/2004  11:44 AM

Tom Ricks writes a long article for the Washington Post on a recent poll conducted by the Post, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. This is the first non-governmental survey of military spouses (95% are women) conducted since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Here is the poll (PDF file). Even though long, it’s worth reading, and is far more optomistic than the title implies: Most of the spouses are coping well, and, unlike in past wars, they are not going home for the duration of their spouses’ deployments, but are staying at or near bases, and are supporting one another. Note the effect technology (e-mail, especially) has had on the separation of husbands and wives. About half say they expect their spouses to reinlist, and about a third say they will get out. If these percentages prove true, that will be good news for the army. The reinlistment of senior sergeants will be watched with special care, since they are thought to be the backbone of the military.

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [1]  |  3/28/2004  7:56 PM

Time magazine has a piece on "Kerry’s faith" (he’s a Catholic). Although the article seems to indicate that the Catholic Church has problems with Kerry’s positions, it ends by, in effect, arguing that Kerry has problems with the Church’s positions. All this (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) was not an issue when Kennedy ran and won. Will Kerry be helped in those states with a large plurality of Catholic voters (for example, in some Midwestern and Southwestern swing states)? He ran strong among Catholics in the primaries. He voted with abortion rights advocates last week on the Unborn Victims of Violance Act (it passed the Senate, 61-38). I expect this to become an issue.

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [241]  |  3/28/2004  7:42 PM

Mitch Potter, of The Toronto Star, writes on what Iraqis think about Saddam now. Where is he? Will he be tried? What is he saying? Rumors abound, and, as one Iraqi is reported to have said: "Saddam taught us how to feed on rumour." And the BBC claims that after eight months on the run, the hiding place of the ousted Iraqi leader was given away by an aide known as "the fat man". The BBC says Mohammed Ibrahim Omar al-Musslit gave away the secret after being arrested and interrogated.

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments  |  3/28/2004  7:22 PM

Although what Fouad Ajami argues has been said before, yet the style and grace of the piece makes it better than the norm. The title, "The Moor’s Last Laugh" (to be compared to the "last sigh" of the last Muslim king of Granada as he looked back from one of the hills at his lost dominion) is a give away. What the Moors lost in 1492, demography may be giving them back: there are 15 million Muslims in Europe and, claims Ajami, they are not assimilated. In the end, they agree with Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual godfather of radical Islamism, that "A Muslim has no nationality, except his beliefs." The faith has become portable, and the radicals find it more convenient to work out of London and Hamburg, than to press on their own rulers. Satellite TV is of great assistance in this effort. For Europe, nemesis is near.   

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [14]  |  3/28/2004  7:12 PM

Of course, as the story mentions, there are two problems with the attempts to draw parallels between Hoover and Bush. The first is that unemployment in 1932 stood at nearly thirty percent, while today it is less than six percent. The second is that in 1932 Democrats hammered Hoover for raising taxes and jacking up tariffs--both of which Democrats support today.

Posted by John Moser  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [249]  |  3/28/2004  2:04 PM

"Over the past 2.5 million years, human brains have grown enormous compared to those of other primates. Human brains are now roughly three times the size of those of chimps or gorillas. One possible reason is that changes in the environment forced early humans to invent tools, and those with the biggest brains had greatest manual dexterity, which led to yet more sophisticated tool use. Alternatively, selection may have favoured larger brains because they permitted more complex cultures. But why did this process occur in humans and not in other primates? According to Hansell Stedman, an expert on muscle disorders at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, it was a simple mutation in a gene found in our jaw muscles." Isn’t this fun?

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments  |  3/28/2004  10:46 AM

Iain Murray argues most Brits remain of the opinion that the war and the American alliance were and are in Britain’s interests. "Overall, the poll shows that the Anglo-American alliance is in good shape, and broadly supportive of its geopolitical thrust over the past year. The issue is complicated by the low personal esteem in which the British hold both Tony Blair and George Bush, but when it comes to policy, the current Anglo-American direction is clearly preferred to any other."

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [1]  |  3/28/2004  10:22 AM

Syria is appealing to Australia to put in a good word on their behalf to the U.S. It wants to shake off its reputation as a terrorist haven. I remind you of this Neil MacFarquhar story in the New York Times a few days back. And see below for more. IEAE officials are back in Iran, but it is being reported that senior Iranian officials are overseeing efforts to conceal key elements of the country’s nuclear program from international inspectors, according to Western diplomats and an intelligence report (not from the U.S.).

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments  |  3/28/2004  9:56 AM

The test of an exotic type of engine called a supersonic-combustion ramjet, or Scramjet was a success. NASA’s X-43A travelled about seven times the speed of sound, or Mach 7. Unlike a rocket, the scramjet doesn’t need to carry its own oxygen to combust the fuel they carry aboard; scramjets can scoop it out of the atmosphere. In the meantime, at a conference on low intensity conflict, Israel has unvelied a tiny drone plane, small enough to fit into a soldier’s backpack. The smallest weighs less than a can of soda.

Posted by Peter Schramm  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments  |  3/28/2004  9:38 AM

Also tomorrow, I will be attending a ceremony marking the turning over of the Ministry of Health from Coalition authority to Iraqi control. This is the first ministry to revert to Iraqi control. I’ll give you an update after the event.

Posted by Robert Alt  |  Link to this Entry  |  Comments [253]  |  3/27/2004  12:22 PM