Wednesday, May 2, 2012

FOXNews.com: Keeping nature safe while stealing your freedom

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Keeping nature safe while stealing your freedom
May 2nd 2012, 12:00

The human brain is torn between simple intuition and the more complex hard work of figuring out the unintended consequences of any policy. Who doesn't like thinking about trees and greenery and happy animals? Who doesn't want to see steps taken to protect those things, all else being equal? 

But all else is not equal. Civilization doesn't work when central planners treat each tree as if its value is infinite.

Politicians specialize in convincing you that, with their help, you can have your cake and eat it, too. The idea of a new "green economy" that is both clean and rich with jobs became popular under Bill Clinton's administration, thanks in large part to a compliant media and Vice President Al Gore. But as I point out in my new book, "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed", anyone who understands economics knows that President Obama's green jobs initiative is snake oil.

Obama boasted that his $2.3 billion plan would "help close the clean-energy gap between America and other nations." But other nations now move in the opposite direction. 

"Countries are cutting these programs because they realize they aren't sustainable and they are obscenely expensive," says the American Enterprise Institute's Kenneth P. Green. 

In Spain, economists at La Universidad Rey Juan Carlos found that each "green" job cost more than $750,000.

Obama claims that if we "invest" more, we can "create millions of jobs -- but only if we accelerate the "green transition." What could make more sense? A little push from the smart politicians, and -- voila! -- an abundance of new jobs and a cleaner, sustainable environment. It's the ultimate twofer. Except it's an illusion, because governments do not "create" jobs.

Once you decide nature is inherently healthy, moral and beautiful, the reasons to restrict human activity are endless.

-

"All the government can do is subsidize some industries while jacking up costs for others," writes Green. "It is destroying jobs in the conventional energy sector -- and most likely in other industrial sectors -- through taxes and subsidies to new green companies that will use taxpayer dollars to undercut the competition. The subsidized jobs 'created' are, by definition, less efficient uses of capital than market-created jobs."

This is good, solid economic thinking. 

Many years ago, Henry Hazlitt wrote in his bestseller, "Economics in One Lesson," "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

In judging any government initiative, you can't look just at the credit side of the ledger. Government is unable to give without first taking away. Inevitably, more is taken away because the government substitutes force for free exchange. Instead of a process driven by consumers weighing their preferences, we get one imposed by politicians' grand social designs, what economist F.A. Hayek called "the fatal conceit." The green schemes make energy cost more.

Of course, some who push "green jobs" want the price of energy to rise. Then we will live in smaller homes, drive less and burn fewer fossil fuels. But if the environmental lobby wants Americans to be poorer, it ought to come clean about that.

Once you decide nature is inherently healthy, moral and beautiful, the reasons to restrict human activity are endless. Every time we move or breathe, we alter the environment. Some environmentalists won't be satisfied until our carbon footprint is reduced to zero.

Of course, that requires abolishing civilization. But if humanity's impact on nature is an evil, abolishing us wouldn't be so bad. The group Earth First! had the slogan, "Back to the Pleistocene!"

Most of us don't think civilization is evil, but we worry about what environmentalists say. We don't have the time to do complicated calculations about economic trade-offs. It's easier to just recycle something, buy a Prius and donate to the Environmental Defense Fund.

Today, we put up with amazing intrusions in the name of environmentalism. A million petty regulations mandate surtaxes on gas, separation of garbage into multiple bins, special light bulbs, taxes on plastic bags and so on.

Yet these things are of so little ecological consequence that the Earth will never notice. For this, we must surrender our freedom?

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "No They Can't:  Why Government Fails but Individuals Succeed;""Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Adam Sandler may a comedian, but there's nothing funny about rape

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Adam Sandler may a comedian, but there's nothing funny about rape
May 2nd 2012, 13:00

Adam Sandler's new movie, "That's My Boy," should be BOY-cotted by anyone who believes that statutory rape of a 13-year-old is wrong.

That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?  I mean, after all, "That's My Boy" is a comedy that makes light of the seduction and statutory rape of a 13-year-old boy by his pretty teacher.  -- A rape that results in the birth of a child.  

Yet, Hollywood thinks it knows two things:  

1) Sex sells

2) Little boys do not need or deserve the same protections from sexual assault as girls because they actually like it.   

They're entirely right about sex selling, of course.  In our almost hopelessly repressed culture just about anything, including a movie with such a sordid premise, can reawaken the sexual feelings we tend to wall off and deny. And yes, those same feelings will get some people to part with a little time and a little cash for a movie.

Hollywood writers, producers and directors are entirely wrong, however, about believing that 13-year-old boys are fair game sexually for adult women because the boys will enjoy going to bed with them.  

It should go without saying that 13-year-olds aren't immune to the psychological fallout of being manipulated into bed by authority figures, like teachers, who are supposed to help them to focus and to learn, not help themselves to their bodies.  And it should go without saying that a 13-year-old boy who has a son after being raped by his teacher isn't going to live happily-ever-after.  

The truth is that both girls and boys obviously have sexual feelings when they are 13-years-old (and much, much earlier).  Both girls and boys fantasize about what it would be like to have romantic relationships with attractive teachers, or coaches, or youth group leaders.  

They're supposed to be having these thoughts; they're a normal part of sexual development.  But they are supposed to learn that those who care for them in other ways—as their educators, for example—won't commandeer those natural and innocent impulses for their own pleasure.  

They are supposed to be learning things like trust in others and respect for authority and that they are worth being kept safe when their parents allow schools or churches or athletic leagues are left to care for them.  They are supposed to learn that they matter for their minds and potential.

Sadly, too many Americans, however, agree with Hollywood on both counts.  They think adolescent boys can't be harmed by adult women who have sex with them. They think males are merely sexual "animals," without any feelings. That those feelings  begin in the teenage years  and continue forever.  

Imagine, after all, a film company making a comedy about a 13-year-old girl who is seduced by her attractive male teacher, has a baby with him and always remembers her exploits happily—because it was a great "conquest."

Now, imagine theatres across America showing this film.  Imagine people buying tickets to see it.  Imagine newspapers and magazines rating it with three or four stars, along with a wink and a nod.

That just couldn't happen.  

Why?  

Because we still want to think it is open season on males in this culture.  After all, aren't they the sexual predators among us?

Remember all the jokes about John Wayne Bobbitt being castrated by his wife after she found out that he had had an affair?  It was the stuff of late night comedy routines and one-liners at the water cooler.  People even chuckled when he hopelessly tried to regain his image as a man by working in the adult film industry for a while.  

Well, imagine late night comics doing stand-up routines about a woman being maimed genitally because her husband is angry she had an affair, who then becomes a porn star people gawk at.  

Does that sound funny?  Not so much, huh?

If we want a culture that protects girls and cherishes women's rights, we'd better stop  denigrating the sexuality of boys and men.  And there's no better place to start than boycotting Adam Sandler forever and his film "That's My Boy" right now.  

Let this be Adam Sandler's well-earned legacy:  He tried to make it funny for 13-year-olds to be raped.  

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

FOXNews.com: When did it become OK for Americans not to work?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
When did it become OK for Americans not to work?
May 1st 2012, 18:00

My neighbor left his supermarket job and now gets a regular government check. In other words, he quit the work force and now feeds from the public trough. 

He is healthy, and knows I do not approve of his sloth. 

I wonder if my disdain for this scoundrel is fair or shared. When did it become okay for Americans not to work? Recently, Charles Murray, author of "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 – 2010," wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

"It must once again be taken for granted that a male in the prime of life who isn't even looking for work is behaving badly. There can be exceptions for those who are genuinely unable to work or are house husbands. But reasonably healthy working-age males who aren't working or even looking for work, who live off their girlfriends, families or the state, must once again be openly regarded by their fellow citizens as lazy, irresponsible and unmanly. Whatever their social class, they are, for want of a better word, bums." 

The slowly declining national unemployment rate typically cited (now at 8.2 percent) understates the true number of unemployed Americans because it only includes those actively looking for work in the past four weeks and not those who have left the work force. 

The "official" unemployment rate that measures adults who have left the workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6) is 14.8 percent. Even this probably underestimates things, because it does not include those who never entered the workforce or those who failed to seek unemployment benefits after leaving the workforce. 

Whatever the true number of unemployed able-bodied Americans, it is much larger than it should be. These people are straining our economy and our collective ability to support them.

Part of the problem is that well-meaning laws encourage workers to look for a government check rather than a job. Although the 1996 reform of welfare capped the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families benefit to five years, the program still incentivizes many teenagers to become unwed young mothers and fathers to disappear. 

The Social Security Disability Insurance program, which paid out $130 billion in benefits to 10.6 million Americans in 2011, uses 1950s medical standards for manufacturing jobs to determine a worker's disability. Sadly, when a region loses jobs, disability applications rise –suggesting that many Americans are using disability benefit when they are employable. 

As Murray, also a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, writes in his recent book, Coming Apart: "(O)nce, working at a menial job to provide for his family made a man proud and gave him status in the community... (N)ow it doesn't." This perfectly captures our cultural shift.

One problem is that our legal benefits, intended to help the truly needy, also encourage the able bodied to play the system. 

Our parents' generation believed in hard work as an ethical mandate. Too many in our generation have shifted to a concept that because something is "legal" it is ethical. 

In fact, this view has infected our leadership at the highest level. Many of our leaders celebrate and seemingly encourage the able-bodied to get maximum benefits. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently lauded the increase in the number of people on food stamps under President Obama as a "badge of honor." 

Remarkably, Pelosi outdid this ethically barren statement with her March 22 comments celebrating "ObamaCare" as allowing anyone to quit their job and pursue their passion. Calling this a "liberation," she said, "You want to be a photographer or a writer or a musician, whatever – an artist, you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, you want to change jobs, you no longer are prohibited from doing that because you can't have access to health care…" 

And despite speeches in 2008 from candidate Obama implying that Americans should take responsibility for their fate, his presidency has been bereft of a moral call for self-reliance, sacrifice or hard work. 

In fact, he is now campaigning by threatening that if the Republicans win, Americans will have to become self-reliant. 

In late 2011, President Obama paraded some examples of Americans fending for themselves and declared: "That's not the America I believe in. It's not the America you believe in." 

It's just not Democrats – the Republicans have been complicit, too: they have yet to take a principled stand. 

In fact, Republicans have agreed repeatedly to "temporary" extensions of unemployment benefits. More, they blithely oppose any tax increases, even loophole cuts, decrying any concept of sacrifice and instead only suggest modest budget cuts down the road. They too promise Americans they can have it all – and ignore that it is our children that are paying for today's excesses. 

President Kennedy set an exemplary bar when he told every American to "ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." While our brave soldiers still live this creed, sadly our recent presidents have not. 

President George W. Bush missed a huge opportunity to seek national sacrifice after September 11, and President Obama blew it after he created and then ignored the Bipartisan Deficit Commission, which suggested a plan of shared sacrifice. Is it any wonder that more and more Americans choose to live off the government rather than seek gainful employment? 

Right now, someone on unemployment benefits simply needs to show they are actively looking for work – and this can go on for up to two years. 

Yet, even President Obama's top economic adviser has published research showing that extending unemployment benefits increases the jobless rate, proving that the longer the unemployment benefits, the longer people will stay unemployed. 

My view is that any unemployment benefits lasting for more than a few weeks should be tied to volunteer work at a non-profit organization. Not only would this benefit the community but it would also keep the person active and engaged, both of which are critical during tough times.

What is often left out in these discussions is that a government check exhausts self-worth while an earned check gives a feeling of value, worth and contribution to an enterprise. 

The truth is that Americans that do work are hard workers. According to OECD numbers, the average employed American in 2010 worked 1,778 hours per year. This is more than Japan, France and Germany. 

Americans love our nation and care about our future. 

I believe almost all Americans will do more with motivation, moral leadership and a sense of unity. Americans need to hear it from the top and will get off the dole or start sacrificing if they feel everyone else is also sacrificing. 

Sadly, now, our leadership and our laws simply encourage taking. Except for our brave soldiers, we are far from the Kennedy ideal of giving to our country. It's time we rethought our approach and considered the burden we are putting on our children. 

I would welcome any of today's political leaders voicing the Kennedy-type call for patriotic sacrifice. Today's "have it all" leaders, instead, expand entitlements, cut taxes and promise equality of outcome. 

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)®, the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the New York Times bestselling book, "The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Even Afghanistan is a campaign stop for President Obama

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Even Afghanistan is a campaign stop for President Obama
May 1st 2012, 21:14

In the four mostly grim years that Barack Obama has been president of these United States, he has made one, and only one, decision that has united Americans, drawn plaudits from both sides of the aisle, and substantially advanced the interests of our country. That, of course, would be his decision to order the killing of Usama bin Laden, the mass murderer who had planned the deaths of nearly three thousand Americans a decade before.  

It was no accident that following the death of bin Laden his approval rating spiked and he enjoyed his only period of 50% plus support since ending his first year in office. 

It's amazing to contemplate your political reward if you keep the country first in mind.

But that was then, this is now. 

Now Obama is fully engaged in the grubby business of re-election, something he has focused on to the exclusion of his day job.

Tuesday, President Obama made a surprise trip to Afghanistan in order to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement with President Hamid Karzai. He will address the nation this evening. 

Underneath this dramatic diplomatic show, however, it is not difficult to see that the president's trip is just another campaign stop for President Obama, one in which he will politicize the one-year anniversary of Usama bin Laden's death and take credit for what was no doubt a team effort that began long before he took office.  

Furthermore, in a new low for political campaign commercials, a business with virtually no standards to begin with, Obama's latest paid political ad shows him discussing his decision to attack bin Laden's compound and of course claiming full credit for the successful raid. -- Never mind the years of intelligence work and the thousands of man hours expended by countless dedicated professionals to track and isolate bin Laden. Never mind the bravery of the SEAL team that actually carried out the mission.  

That's not all. 

Subtlety has never been President Obama's strong suit, and so he has also gone on to question whether Republican Mitt Romney would have made the same decision. Can't he leave anything to the imagination? The commercial is now a full-blown attack ad on his political opponent.

Finally, his campaign drags poor Bill Clinton into this mess as the narrator, praising Obama's courage, decision-making and decisiveness. 

Why would Clinton participate in this? 

It's my best guess that he desperately wants to be accepted by the Obama inner circle and still feels he is on probation with them for his wife's unforgivable sin of running against the "Chosen One."

There is really little precedent for politicizing a national security decision in such a blatant manner. "Mission Accomplished" seems almost quaint by comparison. 

Most incumbents have used a version of the "burdens of the presidency" reelection campaign ad with varying degrees of effectiveness (Reagan and Nixon yes, Jimmy Carter, not so much), but the focus was on more general matters of statecraft and the need to consider the country's interest ahead of partisan concerns -- just the opposite of Obama's message.

While his governing philosophy mirrors European socialism, Obama has the uncanny ability to easily slip back into his role as bare-knuckled Chicago politician when the situation warrants. 

He campaigns in regal style and mostly on the American taxpayer's dime. 

He routinely publicizes names of Republican donors and then castigates and mocks their motives. 

News reports indicated this week that he has looted HHS coffers to fund a "demonstration project" which, according to the Government Accountability Office, is a thinly disguised slush fund to postpone Medicare Advantage cuts for seniors beyond the November elections, cuts mandated by his signature achievement, ObamaCare.

It's an old story now, but it bears repeating: The president elected on a promise of "hope and change" feels his only route to reelection is dividing America, castigating his political opponents, and even politicizing great matters of national security.

Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, "Facts are stubborn things." Sadly for the president, he cannot run away from his record no matter how many political ads he runs, and he will have to answer for that in November.    

Frank Donatelli is Chairman of GOPAC, the center for educating and electing the next generation of Republican leaders.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Give Spirit Airlines an 'F' in Public Relations 101

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Give Spirit Airlines an 'F' in Public Relations 101
May 1st 2012, 16:50

Ever shake your head, ruefully, and wonder why those Occupy Wall Street rabble rousers despise corporations so virulently?

Here's the answer: Spirit Airlines.

And here's a better answer: Lawyers.

Spirit, of course, is the airline that has been blistered in the media for refusing a dying Vietnam veteran a $197 ticket refund, because his doctor forbade him to fly. The 76-year-old esophageal cancer sufferer, Jerry Meekins, bought a ticket on Spirit to fly from Clearwater, Fla. to visit his daughter in Atlantic City – perhaps for the last time.

But then his doctor nixed the trip. And Spirit nixed the refund.

After the turndown, Mr. Meekins went public with his plight. And Spirit CEO Ben Baldanza, like most CEOs, no doubt must have turned to his lawyers for benevolent counsel. The lawyers'must have offered the predictable advice: "Spirit has a non-refundable ticket policy. Refunding Mr. Meekins' ticket would set a dangerous precedent. He should have bought flight insurance. He didn't." 

So.....

Ixnay on the efundray.

Equally predictably, Spirit's callous, inflexible, "my way or the fly way" public response drew immediate public condemnation from just about everybody.

One airline watchdog group pointedly noted that Spirit is notoriously cheap and virtually "spiritless" when it comes to customer service.

"If someone is ill and they have a doctor's note, airlines must refund their money," said Kate Hanni, executive director of FlyersRights.org.

Of course, there is one way around the Spirit ironclad policy for Mr. Meekins to get his refund: He can die. As Spirit's website quaintly puts it, "Death before or during a scheduled flight may qualify someone for a partial refund."

Short of that final solution, Spirit might consider one other option: the art of public relations.

Lawyers and public relations professionals often find themselves at loggerheads over the advice they proffer. While lawyers advise CEOs to take actions that ultimately protect the company in a court of law, public relations advisers recommend acting to protect the company in the court of public opinion.

And there's a huge difference.

While Spirit's lawyers appear to be worried about "precedent," Spirit's CEO ought to be more concerned about "reputation;" that is, the rapidly-deteriorating image of his airline, as it continues to endure a solid round of national media bashing for its heartlessness.

So what might a public relations counselor suggest to Mr. Baldanza to tamp down the merciless media spigot and keep America's journalists from nesting at his front porch door?

How 'bout this idea: Why not offer Mr. Meekins' daughter in Atlantic City a credit equivalent to the amount her father paid for the flight, so that she might fly Spirit Airlines down to Clearwater to see her ailing dad?

Even better would be a decision by Spirit to let Jerry Meekins' daughter fly down to see her ailing dad for free – but that might send the lawyers into apoplexy.

Such a compassionate resolution, of course, might, indeed, be (heaven forefend) "precedent setting." Still, it's a much better outcome for the family and the company than the daily public  pounding that the airline is absorbing as a result of its ruthless, cold-blooded, short-sighted policy.

Somewhere, the father of public relations, Edward L. Bernays, is rolling in his grave.

Fraser P. Seitel has been a communications consultant, commentator, author and teacher for 40 years. He teaches public relations at NYU and is the author of the Prentice- Hall textbook "The Practice of Public Relations," now in its eleventh edition, and co-author of "Rethinking Reputation" and "Idea Wise." 

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Should Spirit Airlines refund dying vet's money?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Should Spirit Airlines refund dying vet's money?
May 1st 2012, 11:45

Should Spirit Airlines refund Jerry Meekins' ticket in spite of its 'no refund' rule for passengers who don't pay extra for insurance?

Should Spirit Airlines refund Jerry Meekins' ticket?

This is a non-scientific viewer question.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why Condoleezza Rice could change everything for Romney

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Why Condoleezza Rice could change everything for Romney
May 1st 2012, 12:00

Washington's favorite gossip game — speculating about the vice presidential pick — now gets serious.

Following last week's five-state primary sweep, Mitt Romney has forced even the last hold-out, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, to acknowledge reality: Romney has a lock on the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination.

The next step for Romney is to introduce himself to America as a general election candidate. It will be tough. He begins with negative favorability ratings — especially compared to President Obama.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 47 percent of Americans holding an unfavorable opinion of Romney with just 35 percent viewing him favorably. Obama has a 21-point advantage with a 56 percent favorability rating.

Romney is fighting the image created over the primary campaign in which he came across as an out-of-touch rich guy, pandering to the right wing by flip-flopping on the moderate Republican positions he held as governor of Massachusetts.

Romney also has to flip the script on the perception that he is 'Your Father's Oldsmobile': a patrician, white Republican male with no sense of the changing racial make-up of America or the reality that women are now power players in the workplace and in politics.

The biggest move he can make to change his image is via an eye-catching pick for the number two slot on the presidential ticket.

-

The biggest move he can make to change his image is via an eye-catching pick for the number two slot on the presidential ticket.

A CNN/ORC poll from last week asked Republicans and Republican-leaning independents to pick their preference for Romney's running mate. At the top was a surprise choice:  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She attracted 26 percent support. Rick Santorum won second place with 21 percent support. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio were tied for third place with 14 percent each. At the meeting of state GOP chairmen in Arizona last week half of them told a National Journal reporter they wanted Romney to pick Rice.

Rice would be a political game changer for the 2012 race.

Yes, she would be the first African-American woman to be on a major party's presidential ticket, at a time when the GOP is losing ground with minority and female voters.

But she is more than that because — unlike some other prospects — her selection can never be dismissed as racial tokenism. She is an experienced political player who has scars from previous battles; former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are still taking shots at her in their latest books.

And her expertise on foreign policy, as a former secretary of state, would compensate for Romney's lack of international experience. As a governor and a businessman, Romney dealt almost exclusively with domestic policy.

Keep in mind, Rice has a strong political spine. She flew in the face of anti-immigrant fervor from the GOP right wing recently by standing up for immigrants. She opposed individual states, beginning with Arizona, passing laws to increase pursuit of illegal immigrants. That position — politically daring in the modern-day GOP — will be a big help as the Romney campaign tries to win over Latino voters.

There is another critical reason why Romney should pick Rice. Over the last few months, she has partnered with Joel Klein, the former chancellor of the New York City public school system, to draw attention to the crisis in American public education. They co-chaired a Council on Foreign Relations panel that examined the failure of public education as a threat to America's national security.

They found that 75 percent of American young adults do not qualify to serve in the military because they have criminal records, are physically unfit or — the biggest reason — have inadequate levels of education. One out of every four American students fails to get the high school diploma needed to join the military.

This includes about half of the nation's black and Hispanic students, who drop out of high school. Even more disturbing is the report's finding that 30 percent of the young people graduating from America's high schools don't do well enough in math, science and English on the aptitude test to serve in the military.

The report also screamed out that the U.S.  State Department is unable to find enough foreign-language speakers to serve as interpreters and translators.

"The education crisis may well be the greatest threat to our national security," Rice explained at a recent speech before the Heritage Foundation in Washington.  

"The crisis in K-12 is producing unemployable people who will ultimately be on the dole because they will have nowhere else to go."

In his election night speech in New Hampshire last week, Romney said he wanted to "stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice."

Rice has exactly the right message to jump start the education debate.

By putting Rice on the ticket Romney could reform his image and give the education reform movement a boost. And win or lose in November, he will have created a political legacy for himself and done his country a great service.  

Juan Williams is an author and political analyst for Fox News Channel. This column originally appeared in The Hill newspaper and on TheHill.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.