All my life, I have attended private schools and many private schools suffer from the same problems public schools encounter. Funding is as much of an issue for private schools as it is for public schools. Stories of private neighborhood schools closing due to low enrollment or lack of funds are familiar narratives. Public schools may be grossly under-funded, but a simple flick of a politician’s pen can get rid of one of the more crippling inhibitors of public schools. Private schools, since they rely on private funding and do not have the luxury of their financial backers being able to literally print money, are actually less stable financially than public schools and are more prone to collapse when times turn rough.

Not all private schools approach education with the same pedagogy, and simply assuming that all forms of private schools cultivate independence and efficiency as Mr. Pritchett implies does little to advance the debate. Individuation and specialization is not the sole purview of private schools; even with the restrictions of No Child Left Behind, public schools can do many things that allow students to have an experience similar to what Mr. Pritchett experienced through most of his scholastic career. In fact, public education in America already has magnet schools that specialize in specific subjects such as art or science. The private schools I attended practiced a pedagogy that forced the Spanish translator to learn from the calculus instructor. The “waste” that Mr. Pritchett seems to be so categorically against has been part of my entire private school experience.

Mr. Pritchett’s anecdotal story about private education is effective only in a bubble; parallel stories can be found in people who only attended public schools throughout their scholastic careers and I am positive some of those people currently attend Hampden-Sydney College. Private education, while a quality education, is not always superior to public education and the switch that Mr. Pritchett suggests is an unnecessary step, because private school methodologies can be (and have been) applied to public education without switching to an entirely privately funded system. Public schools need to improve and in general, private education will give a student a better grounding for later in life, but the very thing that makes private education so attractive hinges on the fact that most private schools are selective. If students in America attended private schools, the same problems that plague public schools would also plague private schools.

Related posts:

1. Comments on Public and Private Education
2. Privatization Will Improve Education
3. The Public Option Must Go

Even though my private schooling did not cater to my abilities, I actually ended up learning a great enthusiasm for film design and criticism, theater, and music. Right off the bat, I was taken away from my comfort zone in the classroom and benefited from it. It was not until my time as a Senate Page (when I was 14) that I was re-acquainted with public school thinking. All of my page friends readily accepted that it was normal to be confined to specific rooms at all times of the day, while I had become accustomed to dictating my own arrival and departure times, and being responsible for my own actions. My friends were used to public school, and they were not used to independent thought.

Let us move away from my anecdotal evidence. Many noted economists have discussed the apparent ineffectiveness of standard education, including George Mason University’s Bryan Caplan. The basic difficulty they bring up is one of wasted time and money (the two key measurements of value). Why should a Spanish/English translator have to learn calculus? Why should a calculus teacher waste his time teaching the translator rather than another potential mathematician? Obviously, our overall educational system should allocate resources to their most valued students in each area. My private school is a perfect example—an artist, actor or musician would all be in hog heaven there.

Moreover, because there was so much free time allowed, I was able to construct my own curriculum in large part. As such, I exercised my political interests as a Senate Page, which I was given two months off for, then as a field assistant for the Jim Webb campaign I received the last two weeks before election night off and actually spoke with Webb on the phone around 1 AM that morning as a courier. Finally, my senior year I was appointed the media chairman of the Mike Breiner campaign for Senate in the 22nd district for a time, and this campaign went on to lose by a couple thousand votes. Community High is not a feeder school for politics, but because it allowed free time and specialization I was able to make it work for me.

Other private schools, of course, are feeder schools for particular types of undergraduate learning. Certainly George W. Bush would attest that his Exeter education served him well. Private schools work not only through streamlining unnecessary parts of education, but also through bringing together like-minded people who can assist each other throughout life.

The most basic economics teaches us that specialization and trade is the most efficient way for laborers to spend their time—doing only those tasks that they are the best at, compared to their other possible options. Our educational system could only become more efficient by shifting to privatization.

Related posts:

1. Public System Has Flaws but Privatization Is Not the Solution
2. Comments on Public and Private Education
3. An H-SC Education Where It’s Needed Most

But, like the sports in question, I should head straight for the meat of this debate: the combat. Mr. Chapman-Smith’s consideration as to the variety of types of combat in Mixed Martial Arts is duly noted; and is certainly a valid point. Proponents may ask, is the point of combat training not to see who would win in a fight without scorecards, in real life? The real question as to whether you see yourself as an MMA man, or a boxing man, deals with how much specialization you want to see. One can only spend so much of his training period learning grappling, say, if he knows he must also prepare to strike. One can only learn to punch so well if he must also consider kicks.

The way I see it, specialization is the name of the game. A good boxer is a good boxer—period. But a great brawler could annihilate one MMA opponent, and get grounded in 2 seconds flat against another man. Once the limits are removed, it becomes much more difficult to rank the fighters, since so many more variables come into play. Within even boxing, with much more narrow parameters, there are in-fighters, out-fighters, and brawlers. Some debates within the UFC, say, the greatest grappler, are virtually impossible to answer, since one may know Russian Sambo mixed with Muay Thai (grappling and striking, respectively) and another may know Judo and Karate. Did the latter man win because of his Judo training, or the Karate? It is literally impossible to know.

In closing, I would like to address the Rocky effect–that little twinge in every sport-follower that wants to think that sometimes, every once in a while, the man with less training and equipment can gain victory through sheer will. Of course, no

Related posts:

1. Down Goes Boxing
2. Kaleidoscope’s Fate Remains in Question

Americans have developed a sour taste for the sweet science. Boxing, at one time, was arguably the most popular sport in America, but Americans’ love affair with boxing has waned almost synonymously with the decline of the heavyweight division. The most notable fighters during the golden age of boxing fought in the heavyweight division, but now a look at the pound-for-pound rakings reveals that the cream of the boxing crop falls under 200 pounds, with the most note-worthy fighters falling in the 130-150 range. A look at the pound-for-pound rankings for Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) however reveals the parity of talent between weight classes and this parity is partially why MMA will soon surpass boxing as America’s combat sport of choice.

The world has already embraced MMA due largely to MMA’s incorporation of multiple fighting styles from various countries. Muay Tai (Thailand), Karate (Japan), Tae Kwon Do (Korea), Judo (Japan), Jujitsu (Japan), Brazilian Jujitsu (Brazil), Wrestling, Kickboxing, and Boxing are some of the many fighting styles incorporated by MMA fighters. MMA is a sport of dimensions; everything the boxer must excel at, the MMA fighter must also excel at, but the MMA fighter cannot only excel at the elements of boxing. Not only must the MMA fighter be cognizant of a dangerous jab-straight-jab-jab-hook combo, but the MMA fighter must also consider that his opponent can shoot for a takedown, bring him to ground, pass guard, mount, and then proceed to unleash a hellish flurry of hammer fists and elbows or attempt a submission. The incorporation of kicks and a ground game makes the MMA fighter’s job more difficult.
The convergence of styles is not only exciting, but places MMA on a higher platform than boxing. Strategy-wise, the MMA fight is much more intense and difficult. It is a lot easier to slip and counter a punch than to counter a kimura, arm bar, or guillotine submission hold while trapped inside someone’s guard.

The big fights happen more often in MMA as well. Few MMA fighters can be accused of ducking fights or “picking” opponents as is common in boxing. The recent bout between Floyd “Money” Mayweather Jr. and Juan Manuel Márquez is a perfect example of a problem that is prominent in boxing. Realistically, Mayweather Jr. should have fought Manny Pacquiao or Sugar Shane Mosely, but Mayweather Jr. selected the bout with the smaller and less-proficient Márquez and ended up dominating the entire fight. In MMA, one or a couple fight coordinators organize the fights (per organization) and public demand weighs heavily into the decision of which fighters eventually duke it out. There are still lopsided and boring fights in MMA, but rarely can one attribute a bad MMA fight to a fighter’s unwillingness to fight a tough opponent.

MMA, particularly the UFC, has also realized something that boxing long forgot, that putting events on cable television will bring new people into the sport. Boxing on basic cable is rare, but MMA bouts appear on SpikeTM and VersusTM weekly and the fight promotion EliteXC even had a short stint on prime time television on CBS.

Related posts:

1. Boxing Remains an American Legacy
2. The War in Afghanistan Has No End in Sight

The idea of the “unwanted” child is an argument that pro-choice proponents have used for years and on the surface, the claim seems sympathetic to the child, but when examined, the sympathy rings hollow. 

Just because parents did not plan to have a child does not mean that the child is going to have a bad childhood. Children can have bad childhoods with parents who planned to have children; the idea of the unfit parent who plans to have children completely complicates any pro-choice argument that hinges on using bad childhoods as justification for abortions. A bad childhood does not preclude a person from having a successful and happy life. The amount of factors that play into a child having a great childhood is so immense that using the “unwanted” argument as an excuse to justify the killing of a human life drags down the level of the debate. 

While Mr. Pritchett and other pro-choice proponents may contend they are saving the child from the possibility of a bad childhood, they ignore the possibility of a happy and productive adult life. One does not preclude the other and even though bad childhoods make adult life more difficult, there is a litany of examples of people who have overcome rough starts. To justify the killing of a human life, it is going to take much more than the simple idea of the “unwanted” child.

One of the tangential issues surrounding abortion is sex education. I agree with Mr. Pritchett that abstinence-only sex-education is ineffective; I would even go a step further and say that it is naive and dangerous. Effective sex-education based around contraceptives has in the past resulted in a reduced number of abortions. In fact, the CDC states that abortions declined during the period of 1995-2000 and many attribute this decline to the more realistic approach to sex-education pushed by the Clinton administration.

As a legal issue, the “right” to abortion muddles the water of many criminal cases. Take the Laci Peterson case for example; Scott Peterson was charged with two murders, the murder of Laci and of the unborn child. If the killing of an unborn is considered murder, then how is abortion covered under the right to privacy? This aspect of the abortion argument is overlooked and it should be addressed if America takes its constitution and criminal laws seriously, especially since 27 states have laws that mandate punishment for harm done to the unborn during a crime.

There are cases where I believe abortion is warranted, specifically cases where the mother’s health is at risk. Much like killing is permissible in situations of self-defense, a person cannot be held accountable for an abortion performed in the preservation of one’s own life. Cases of rape and incest are much more difficult, and while I do not think it is fair to the child to destroy its life, it is equally unfair to ask the woman to carry the emotional burden of rape and a pregnancy that fallows.

I do not believe making abortion illegal is a good option at this present time, simply because it would be highly ineffective and there are more effective alternatives (better sex-education). Ultimately, the goal of the pro-life movement should be to reduce abortions to the extreme cases. The universe is 14 billion years old, Earth is about 4.5 billion, and the human-genus has been around for roughly 2.5 million years. It has taken billions years for this species to rise out of the murk of the natural world and therefore, killing of a member of this species requires a stronger justification than the simple “unwanted” child contention.

Related posts:

1. Abortion is Acceptable and Must be Legal
2. Public System Has Flaws but Privatization Is Not the Solution

I want to put forth a disclaimer before I discuss abortion, however. My position on abortion is analogous to my position on the death penalty; we should legislate to the exception. What I mean by this is that, in the case of the death penalty, I believe in it only when there is 100% insurance that the executed are guilty, and that no one is ever wrongly sentenced to death. Since our penal system tacitly accepts error through such mechanisms as judicial review and appellate courts, and subjective opinion-based legal decisions, the death penalty is not currently a safe mechanism. In much the same way, even if 99% of the women who get abortions do so (in my opinion) in a frivolous manner or for poor reasons, the hypothetical 1% of women who get abortions after a rape or incest case still deserve that right.

In fact, I believe the numbers are far less one-sided than those. Rape and incest are indisputable justifications for abortion in my eyes, but they are not the only legitimate ones. Let us turn to a more commonplace, and less upsetting, possibility—that of a single, professional woman who does not want to raise a child alone and does not want a relationship as serious as a parental partnership with any of the men she is seeing.

To some, this may sound frivolous, or uncaring. Many would say that this woman could consider having less sex, or being more careful about using contraceptives. If sex-ed taught me nothing else, though, it taught me that contraceptives do not work 100% of the time. Furthermore, as we all know, sex can be thoroughly enjoyable. Yes, if a woman does not want to get pregnant, having no sex is a great way to do that. However, to her, that is only one possible outcome (not a given, but a possibility) and plenty of people have sex without wanting to have children. If a pregnancy is an unwanted outcome of sex, then it could be viewed as similar to a sexually transmitted disease: sure, she doesn’t want to get it, but it’s just one of the risks we all take when we have sex. No one wants an STD, but that does not mean we all stop having sex.

Finally, let us consider the unborn child’s perspective. If abortion is not legal, or is only legal in extreme cases such as rape, then some mothers (such as the example outlined above) will have children they did not really want in the first place. Not all, of course, but some. If we again consider legislating to the exception, we should not consider that lots of children would still be born into happy homes, but the fact that those who are not will have unhappy childhoods. Let me ask you, the reader: would you rather be born to parents that planned and hoped for you, or for a parent who is raising you because they did not have a choice and who had their arm twisted into keeping you?

Abortion, as difficult as it is, cannot be illegal, or even considered immoral. Life happens, and sometimes it happens at exactly the wrong time or the worst possible place. I am not willing to condemn numerous children to unhappy, unwanted childhoods because I believe no one will ever have more influence over the outcome of a person’s life than that person’s parents.

Related posts:

1. Abortion is Only Rarely Acceptable

What is “success” in Afghanistan? Stable, efficient governance? We enabled the most fair election we could in this country—and if we forcibly alter the results, how legitimate will this election, or any other, appear? Perhaps if we encourage stability, leaving the Karzai administration intact, that will allow for the efficiency to build naturally.

Personally, I am dubious that Afghani literacy rates dropped during American invasion and occupation. Although unfortunate, it is not necessarily our responsibility to bring Afghani reading levels up to a first-world level (an implicit goal in Mr. Chapman-Smith’s remarks). 

Similarly, bringing Pakistan into the equation is of limited value. If we are concerned with the possibility of soured Pakistanis nursing anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan, we are slipping into a domino-style cold-war mentality, one that assumes that if one country turned against us, its neighbor must also. This neglects, among other things, the possibility that neighboring countries don’t get along well (as countries are wont to do), or that they operate independently from each other.

The primary motive for invading Afghanistan was to eliminate the Taliban foothold there. Mr. Chapman-Smith has already pointed out that Americans are more popular in Afghanistan than the Taliban, and it seems to me that in enforcing their exile we have been fairly effective. If we wish to make their governance up to American standards, we would probably have to do so via American occupation. 

To address each problem Mr. Chapman-Smith raises would be inordinately expensive, and have unclear benefit to Americans. At that point, we must ask ourselves: why Afghanistan? Why is only this country selected for the literary, technological, and governmental benefits of transplanted American life? We could as easily deal with the prevalence of cocaine in South America, or any of multiple African or Eastern European countries.

Yes, Afghanistan is wracked with problems and inefficient government. But for American interests, an acceptable standard would be: leave the country in at least as good condition as we found it, minus the Taliban presence. That is achievable, because the country was still led by corrupt warlords before we invaded. The bottom line is that there must be an end point, a realistic goal which we set, and to leave after it is achieved.

Related posts:

1. The U.S. Must Increase its Military Presence
2. Obama’s War of Necessity
3. The War in Afghanistan Has No End in Sight

Corruption in the Karzai government is rampant. According to a 2006 survey from Integrity Watch Afghanistan (IWA), corruption in Afghanistan is currently higher than at any time during Taliban or Soviet rule. The same IWA survey also stated that Afghani citizens believe that one out of every two government officials is corrupt; of the Afghani surveyed by IWA, 60% report having to pay a bribe to a government official. 

The United States Agency of International Development also conducted a survey in Afghanistan, but one that focused on the nearly $8 billion USAID has sent to Afghanistan. Of that $8 billion, only 10% has been funneled through the Karzai government mostly due to fears of corruption and immensely inefficient and incompetent government. USAID places more faith and aid in the hands of the local warlords than in the hands of the Karzai government.

Corruption issue aside, Afghanistan has tremendous problems. Afghanistan has a 28% adult literacy rate. Afghanistan’s third world infrastructure and economy also present colossal hurdles. The sole industry is the production of heroin and according to the CIA, Afghanistan produces 93% of world supply and earlier this year, a leaked intelligence report fingered Karzai’s brother as a major narcotics trafficker. 

Elections in Afghanistan suffer incredibly low voter turnout (due to violence) and are swathed with fraud. The government in Kabul is limited in power and influence. Outside of Kabul, the government holds very little sway and if America were to withdraw, the government would quickly fall. In addition, the Taliban is resurging and our friendship with Pakistan is souring. Afghanistan is a quagmire that requires the utmost attention if America wishes to ever leave that region of the world.

If success in Afghanistan is the goal, then the first and most necessary step towards success in Afghanistan is coalition forces re-seizing control of all government functions from the Karzai government. The Karzai government is corrupt and is unable to rid itself of corruption. It is impossible to help the country of Afghanistan progress when corruption prevents agencies from sending aid to the Afghani people through the central government. Relying on warlords to deliver aid is an unacceptable option.

Destroying the central government might be wildly unpopular in Afghanistan and could potentially increase violence against American troops, but the current government is so corrupted and powerless that there is no other path if success is the goal of the Afghanistan effort. According to a recent Al-Jazeera English report, one thing that benefits America is that its popularity in the country is higher than that of the hated Taliban. American forces may be able to pull off this maneuver without driving too many Afghans into the arms of the Taliban.

Related posts:

1. The U.S. Must Withdrawal its Forces
2. Hoping to Deter Damages, Campus Police Increase Presence in Dorms
3. Obama’s War of Necessity