1) If the students say it works and the teachers say it works, and they keep coming back for more ... then I say something is working. And they do keep coming back, taking millions of lessons per month. By any objective standard, some of the lessons are terrible. OTOH the students say that even so, it's better than what they are accustomed to ... which tells you something right there. Something scary. 2) The Khan guys give quizzes and keep records ... millions of records. They do statistical analyses. If one approach is working better than another, they know. As always, a quiz tends to measure low-level stuff rather than high-level stuff, but it's better than nothing. It's better than guessing. It's more data and better data than any classroom teacher has ever had. It is more focused and more detailed than any NCLB-type test data.

Let us thank David Safier for his excellent satire --- 871 words in praise of low standards and low expectations. This is definitely the best explanation of why Dr. Sánchez is being considered for the job.

That's an interesting point. A lot of people have been talking about the following scenarios as if they were equivalent, even though they are not. Really, really not: A) Talking filibuster with 60 votes required for cloture, versus B) Talking filibuster with 41 votes required to continue debate. In scenario (A), the majority needs to keep 50 senators on or near the floor, so they can muster a quorum at any time. Otherwise the filibusterer would just force an adjournment (due to absence of quorum), get some rest, and get recognized sooner or later the next day. The minority needs only one person to do the filibustering. That's a 50:1 ratio in favor of the minority. In scenario (B), the majority still needs to keep 50 senators on or near the floor, but now the minority needs to keep 41 senators on or near the floor for the duration of the filibuster. That's a 50:41 ratio. The burden on the filibustering /person/ is roughly the same as in the previous scenario. You might think the burden on the filibustering /party/ has gone up by a factor of 41, but that would be an overestimate, because only one of the 41 would is required to stand and speak. The other 40 can nap, go to the restroom, et cetera. Still, they are (mostly) not free to go home, and this will make them pretty cranky pretty fast. It is hard to know what's really going on, but I have not seen any credible evidence that anybody on Capital Hill is currently giving option (B) any serious consideration. It would be fine with me, but I don't have much say in the matter. ========== Note that scenarios (A) and (B), along with all other reasonable versions of the talking filibuster, are *finite* ... limited by human endurance. A talking filibuster can delay a bill, but cannot kill it. This is categorically different from the way things have been done in recent years, where a single senator could effectively kill any bill by "pseudo-filibustering" i.e. objecting forever without needing to stand and talk. Also note that there are lots of obstructionist tactics that do not fall within the category of filibustering, strictly speaking. That is to say, the topic of "fixing the senate" is distinctly broader than "reforming the filibuster". You could do away with the filibuster altogether and still have a dysfunctional senate.

According to Jonathan Bernstein: "It’s hard to tell right now what’s up with Senate reform..... The Senate is still out this week; they’ll return to Washington next week. If Democratic senators come back and tell Harry Reid that they’ve been hearing an earful from key constituencies about filibuster reform, Reid will probably move forward with the toughest possible package. If, however, they haven’t been hearing about filibuster reform — maybe they’re hearing guns, or debt limit, or nothing in particular — then Reid is going to be very reluctant to push hard on this one." Rest of Bernstein article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/01/16/the-key-remaining-question-on-senate-reform/ Background information: http://fixthesenatenow.org/pages/us-senate-rules-reform-why-it-matters Sign online petition http://fixthesenatenow.org/page/s/signthepetition/ Another online petition http://www.reformthefilibuster.com/ Contact Carl Levin https://www.levin.senate.gov/contact/email/ Contact Harry Reid http://www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm Contact Jeff Merkley http://www.merkley.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

As for the claim that "bribery is still far too narrow a statute" ... I'm not convinced. As the law stands now: *) it already speaks of giving "directly or indirectly" ... what could be broader than that? *) it already speaks of giving "anything of value" ... what could be broader than that? *) it already speaks of "intent to influence any official act" ... what could be broader than that? Lobbyists are violating the existing law with impunity, on a vast scale. Now suppose you made the law broader; why would they not simply proceed with business as usual, violating the broader law with impunity? As I see it, if the laws are not going to be enforced (because of political pressure on the prosecutors or whatever), re-wording the laws is pointless. By way of analogy: If somebody can openly boast of committing war crimes including torture, and not be prosecuted (for political reasons), re-wording the anti-torture statute is not going to help. Corrupt lobbying is a well-organized crime. All organized crime prosecutions are difficult ... but that does not mean we should give up and let organized criminals do whatever they want. There are tried-and-true ways of penetrating the layers of concealment that such criminals have set up: wiretaps, stings, moles, et cetera. None of this is easy, but it can be done. None of this requires changing the law, let alone changing the constitution. The magnitude of the crime makes it *more* worth prosecuting, not less. If anybody can think of a specific way to re-word the laws to make corruption easier to prosecute, please explain. However... I'm not sure that we should be framing this as a legal question. Maybe it is primarily a political question. If prosecutors are under political pressure to ignore large-scale corruption, then the solution is to apply political pressure in the other direction. If this takes people marching in the streets, so be it. Given the choice, I would prefer to have people in the streets demanding that the laws be faithfully executed ... rather than have them demanding the overthrow of the entire government, which seems to be the leading alternative.

Cynics used to say that "the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Anatole France, 1894.) Evidently things are much worse now. There is no equality before the law ... not even the pretense of equality, insofar as we are told "It's hard and politically difficult to hunt the elephants of industry and politics. It's much easier to hunt the grouse ...." Specifically: a small bribe paid to a minor government official is a felony ... but a huge bribe paid to a famous government official is business as usual. This is a scandal. We do not "have to change those cultural and ethical norms" in the society at large. Anybody with an ounce of sense already knows that 'dependence corruption' is unethical and improper. It is also illegal. Maybe we have been discussing the wrong book. Maybe we should have started by discussing Glenn Greenwald's recent book, which I highly recommend: _Liberty and Justice for SOME_ _How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful_ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805092056/ Maybe some people are inured to large-scale corruption and injustice, but I'm not, and lots of other people are not. The Occupy folks are marching in the streets in protest. The Tea Party folks are threatening armed insurrection and secession. How much worse do things need to get before prosecutors realize that large-scale bribery has become an existential threat to democracy? Those "elephants" need to be hunted. Now.

Four questions in response: 1) How, specifically, do we "put them out of business" unless we make sure the business is against the law *and* make sure the laws are enforced? 2) Why bother to "rejigger" the rules if bribery is already illegal? 3) Given that prosecution is inefficient, isn't non-prosecution even more inefficient? Corruption drains hundreds of billions of dollars directly from the treasury, not to mention the indirect costs associated with distortion of public policy, including such topics as regulation of pollution (including offshore drilling), regulation of the finance industry, etc. etc. etc. When that is taken into account, wouldn't prosecution (even at high cost) bring a tremendous return on investment? 4) Why bother to "rejigger" the rules if the rules cannot be enforced? If it's never going to be a criminal matter, what do you suggest instead? Civil court? Second amendment remedies?