The Menil in The Wall Street Journal

What Dominique de Menil Wrought

The museum she built for the works she and her late husband collected turned Houston into an art mecca

By ANNE S. LEWIS
June 9, 2007; Page P16

Houston

Houston in the 1940s was not exactly an art destination. Nor -- when they settled there, fleeing wartime Paris -- would John and Dominique de Menil have been considered art collectors. This, after all, was a couple who'd casually left behind -- still in its original brown wrapping and stashed ignominiously on a shelf somewhere in their Paris apartment -- Max Ernst's "Portrait of Dominique." (They weren't that pleased with it.)

But Houston was the site of U.S. operations for Schlumberger, the French oil field services giant that Dominique's family had founded and whose world-wide operations John was to direct. And over the next decades, the de Menils evolved into serious art patrons, eventually assembling more than 16,000 works spanning antiquities, Byzantine art, the arts of tribal cultures and contemporary art. (And yes, they did subsequently retrieve that Ernst portrait -- only the first of many Ernsts and Magrittes in a collection that would become known for its strong Surrealist holdings.)

Understated, illuminating, personal. Architect Renzo Piano's Menil Collection offers a unique environment for experiencing art.

Before Mr. de Menil died unexpectedly in 1973, the couple had spoken with Louis Kahn, among others, about designing a museum to house their collection. Mrs. de Menil eventually hired Renzo Piano, the Genoan architect whose sole claim to fame at the time was the outré 1976 Pompidou Center (the Beaubourg) in Paris that he designed with British architect Richard Rogers. In a long, storied collaboration, the architect and his exacting, opinionated client would fine-tune the design of a building that, when it opened in 1987 -- 10 years before Mrs. de Menil's death, at age 89 -- attracted international attention and acclaim.

This month marks the 20th anniversary of the Menil Collection -- the actual date was Friday. In an era of monumental museums whose architectural pyrotechnics sometimes detract from the art inside, Mr. Piano's Menil is a masterpiece of understated, deferential elegance: a museum that, with a light, respectful touch, facilitates and enhances the experience of the art while also illuminating and remaining true to the sensibility of the collectors.

Passing through the tree- and bungalow-lined area of Montrose, just minutes from downtown Houston's exhibitionist skyline, one comes upon the Menil almost by accident. The long, prim-looking, gray rectangular box, with its horizontal cypress siding, white steel frame and "ruffled" wrap-around portico, sits far back from the sidewalk on an unmanicured, well-trodden lawn with huge live oaks and an occasional sculpture. The museum takes up one block of a 30-acre arts-related neighborhood compound owned by the Menil Foundation; a short walk away is the Rothko Chapel with Barnett Newman's "Broken Obelisk" in front; across the street is the later-built, Piano-designed Cy Twombly Gallery; beyond that, Richmond Hall's Dan Flavin installation.

Visiting Houston for the Menil's 20th-anniversary celebration, held two months early in April, Mr. Piano recalled the early first steps of his collaboration with Mrs. de Menil: "One of the first things Dominique said to me was 'Renzo, I don't like Beaubourg.' What she wanted was a building that looked small on the outside but was big on the inside." "Big on the inside" meant a space conducive to the private, contemplative, spiritual experience of art that Mrs. de Menil cherished. Too many masterpieces vying for attention induced what she called "museum fatigue."

The solution, the two concluded, was to rotate the Menil's collection, exhibiting perhaps 10% of it at one time -- hung generously spaced and at eye level -- while the remainder "rested" upstairs, in accessible storage. Works would wait in the wings for their next call-back, a chance to be hung with a fresh curatorial idea, a new juxtaposition with other works, and always the possibility of deeper understanding.

Mrs. de Menil wanted her art to be experienced under the changing conditions and moods of natural light, as it fluctuated with the seasons, the movement of the clouds and the sun. Mr. Piano's solution was an overhead system, in most of the nine galleries, of ferro-cement louvres, or leaves, which bounce, reflect and filter light into the gallery. Taking a page from Mrs. de Menil's residence, the African and Oceanic art galleries also have enclosed gardens whose natural light adds a brilliant mise-en-scène realism to the setting.

One enters the Menil through a tall, spacious foyer with floor-to-ceiling windows. The space is unfurnished save for a huge brown suede ottoman in the middle of the room, and a small desk off to the side. The loudest sound is the clack of footsteps on the floors of ebonized pine, a soft wood chosen for the stories its wear patterns would tell. There, one might find oneself in the middle of a dialogue between three works of art triangulated on three walls. Or be struck by the presence of, say, a rare, billboard-sized painting by Walter de Maria, "The Color Men Choose When They Attack the Earth" (1968). A Rothko canvas hanging in the foyer during a recent "Klee in America" exhibit was a subtle curatorial nod to the mutual admiration between those two artists.

To walk the nine galleries -- grouped by period but arranged nonchronologically -- emanating from a single long hallway with a huge John Chamberlain crushed-car sculpture at one end, is to re-experience the quirky trajectories of the de Menils' art sensibilities, as influenced over the years by four pivotal art dealers, scholars and curators, including the Menil's founding director, the late Walter Hopps.

The couple's early forays into modern art led to an appreciation of the links it shared with the art of ancient and indigenous cultures. Thus, galleries move from Cycladic and other ancient figures to Egyptian mummy masks, pre-Columbian art, Byzantine icons and golden medieval reliquaries, and onto the creations of African, Oceanic and Northwest Coast peoples. Then -- finally -- the large Modern and Contemporary galleries, with their deep holdings of living giants Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg, to name but two.

Works are exhibited without explanatory wall notes, identified only by title, artist, medium and date; more information is available in brochures and catalogs. "Here is one of the few remaining refuges where you can come and have an experience of your own without being told what you have to feel or have to do, or what you have to buy," says the nuseum's current director, Josef Helfenstein, adding that the bookstore and gift shop are in a bungalow across the street.

Visitors come and go freely -- literally. There's no admission charge, an absence of post-9/11 package-checking, and parking is easy. So accessible is the museum that visitors make regular impromptu stops -- a few therapeutic minutes on the way home from work, perhaps, or for a second, fourth or 10th look at a single work. All exactly as Dominique de Menil wanted it.

The self-esteem generation in the workplace

The Most-Praised Generation Goes to Work
Uber-stroked kids are reaching adulthood -- and now their bosses (and spouses) have to deal with them. Jeffrey Zaslow on 'applause notes,' celebrations assistants and ego-lifting dinnerware.
By JEFFREY ZASLOW
April 20, 2007; Page W1

You, You, You -- you really are special, you are! You've got everything going for you. You're attractive, witty, brilliant. "Gifted" is the word that comes to mind.

Childhood in recent decades has been defined by such stroking -- by parents who see their job as building self-esteem, by soccer coaches who give every player a trophy, by schools that used to name one "student of the month" and these days name 40.

Now, as this greatest generation grows up, the culture of praise is reaching deeply into the adult world. Bosses, professors and mates are feeling the need to lavish praise on young adults, particularly twentysomethings, or else see them wither under an unfamiliar compliment deficit.

Employers are dishing out kudos to workers for little more than showing up. Corporations including Lands' End and Bank of America are hiring consultants to teach managers how to compliment employees using email, prize packages and public displays of appreciation. The 1,000-employee Scooter Store Inc., a power-wheelchair and scooter firm in New Braunfels, Texas, has a staff "celebrations assistant" whose job it is to throw confetti -- 25 pounds a week -- at employees. She also passes out 100 to 500 celebratory helium balloons a week. The Container Store Inc. estimates that one of its 4,000 employees receives praise every 20 seconds, through such efforts as its "Celebration Voice Mailboxes."

Certainly, there are benefits to building confidence and showing attention. But some researchers suggest that inappropriate kudos are turning too many adults into narcissistic praise-junkies. The upshot: A lot of today's young adults feel insecure if they're not regularly complimented.

America's praise fixation has economic, labor and social ramifications. Adults who were overpraised as children are apt to be narcissistic at work and in personal relationships, says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University. Narcissists aren't good at basking in other people's glory, which makes for problematic marriages and work relationships, she says.

Her research suggests that young adults today are more self-centered than previous generations. For a multiuniversity study released this year, 16,475 college students took the standardized narcissistic personality inventory, responding to such statements as "I think I am a special person." Students' scores have risen steadily since the test was first offered in 1982. The average college student in 2006 was 30% more narcissistic than the average student in 1982.

Praise Inflation

Employers say the praise culture can help them with job retention, and marriage counselors say couples often benefit by keeping praise a constant part of their interactions. But in the process, people's positive traits can be exaggerated until the words feel meaningless. "There's a runaway inflation of everyday speech," warns Linda Sapadin, a psychologist in Valley Stream, N.Y. These days, she says, it's an insult unless you describe a pretty girl as "drop-dead gorgeous" or a smart person as "a genius." "And no one wants to be told they live in a nice house," says Dr. Sapadin. "'Nice' was once sufficient. That was a good word. Now it's a put-down."
THE ART OF CONSTRUCTIVE COMPLIMENTS

Below are some guidelines from researchers, educators and corporate consultants on how to praise properly without overdoing it.
Limit the adjectives: Telling a student, employee or mate that they're "wonderful" might help them feel good temporarily, but such evaluative praise can give them an inflated sense of themselves while offering no direction, says Chick Moorman, a former teacher who travels the country teaching verbal skills to educators. Instead, use descriptive praise. Rather than telling an underling he's a genius, a boss might say: "Everyone was listening so attentively when you gave your report. And the statistics you found really drove home your point."
Don't overdo email: Email makes it easy to send quick praise -- and one grateful sentence, artfully composed, can leave an employee flying for a week. But sending "mass praise" to a hundred underlings is the corporate equivalent of Soccer Trophy Syndrome: If everyone gets a pat on the back, no one feels special. Eye-to-eye praise is often the most effective and appreciated.
Monitor your motivations: When you praise your offspring -- whether a young child or an adult child -- a part of you is really horning in on his accomplishments, said the late education-reform proponent John Holt. "Is not most adult praise of children a kind of self-praise?" he asked.
Also, be careful about praising an adult child to satisfy your own ulterior motives. Po Bronson interviewed 1,000 people about their occupations for his book "What Should I Do With My Life?" Many told him that their parents had used praise to steer them into occupations: "You're so smart, you'd be a great doctor." "You have such charisma, you should be a politician." Advises Mr. Bronson: "Don't use praise as a tool of manipulation."
Don't believe the hype: The Internet allows you to post, and receive comments on, your writings, photos, artwork and opinions. You can't always trust the criticism, of course, but you also shouldn't fall for the praise. On professional and amateur photography sites, people laud each other's work all day long, says Dennis Dunleavy, a professor of communications at Southern Oregon University. Years ago, "photographers rarely got any feedback. Now there's all this praise that pumps us up. And if there are negative comments, people ignore them." Prof. Dunleavy runs "The Big Picture," an influential photo blog, and says photographers have complained to him that the culture of praise makes it harder for them to get a nonhyped sense of their work.
Sometimes, you have no choice: If underlings seem to require a lot of praise, "we can ignore that and have them be disgruntled, or we can praise them," says corporate consultant Bob Nelson, the author of "1001 Ways to Reward Employees." "What's the big deal? By encouraging and praising them, you'll get more out of them." He advises: Give praise as soon, as sincerely, as specifically, as personally, as positively, and as proactively as possible.

The Gottman Institute, a relationship-research and training firm in Seattle, tells clients that a key to marital happiness is if couples make at least five times as many positive statements to and about each other as negative ones. Meanwhile, products are being marketed to help families make praise a part of their daily routines. For $32.95, families can buy the "You Are Special Today Red Plate," and then select one worthy person each meal to eat off the dish.

But many young married people today, who grew up being told regularly that they were special, can end up distrusting compliments from their spouses. Judy Neary, a relationship therapist in Alexandria, Va., says it's common for her clients to say things like: "I tell her she's beautiful all the time, and she doesn't believe it." Ms. Neary suspects: "There's a lot of insecurity, with people wondering, 'Is it really true?'"

"Young married people who've been very praised in their childhoods, particularly, need praise to both their child side and their adult side," adds Dolores Walker, a psychotherapist and attorney specializing in divorce mediation in New York.

Employers are finding ways to adjust. Sure, there are still plenty of surly managers who offer little or no positive feedback, but many withholders are now joining America's praise parade to hold on to young workers. They're being taught by employee-retention consultants such as Mark Holmes, who encourages employers to give away baseball bats with engravings ("Thanks for a home-run job") or to write notes to employees' kids ("Thanks for letting dad work here. He's terrific!")

Bob Nelson, billed as "the Guru of Thank You," counsels 80 to 100 companies a year on praise issues. He has done presentations for managers of companies such as Walt Disney Co. and Hallmark Cards Inc., explaining how different generations have different expectations. As he sees it, those over age 60 tend to like formal awards, presented publicly. But they're more laid back about needing praise, and more apt to say: "Yes, I get recognition every week. It's called a paycheck." Baby boomers, Mr. Nelson finds, often prefer being praised with more self-indulgent treats such as free massages for women and high-tech gadgets for men.

Workers under 40, he says, require far more stroking. They often like "trendy, name-brand merchandise" as rewards, but they also want near-constant feedback. "It's not enough to give praise only when they're exceptional, because for years they've been getting praise just for showing up," he says.

Mr. Nelson advises bosses: If a young worker has been chronically late for work and then starts arriving on time, commend him. "You need to recognize improvement. That might seem silly to older generations, but today, you have to do these things to get the performances you want," he says. Casey Priest, marketing vice president for Container Store, agrees. "When you set an expectation and an employee starts to meet it, absolutely praise them for it," she says.

Sixty-year-old David Foster, a partner at Washington, D.C., law firm Miller & Chevalier, is making greater efforts to compliment young associates -- to tell them they're talented, hard-working and valued. It's not a natural impulse for him. When he was a young lawyer, he says, "If you weren't getting yelled at, you felt like that was praise."

But at a retreat a couple of years ago, the firm's 120 lawyers reached an understanding. Younger associates complained that they were frustrated; after working hard on a brief and handing it in, they'd receive no praise. The partners promised to improve "intergenerational communication." Mr. Foster says he feels for younger associates, given their upbringings. "When they're not getting feedback, it makes them very nervous."

Modern Pressures

Some younger lawyers are able to articulate the dynamics behind this. "When we were young, we were motivated by being told we could do anything if we believed in ourselves. So we respond well to positive feedback," explains 34-year-old Karin Crump, president of the 25,000-member Texas Young Lawyers Association.

Scott Atwood, president-elect of the Young Lawyers Division of the Florida Bar, argues that the yearning for positive input from superiors is more likely due to heightened pressure to perform in today's demanding firms. "It has created a culture where you have to have instant feedback or you'll fail," he says.

In fact, throughout history, younger generations have wanted praise from their elders. As Napoleon said: "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." But when it comes to praise today, "Gen Xers and Gen Yers don't just say they want it. They are also saying they require it," says Chip Toth, an executive coach based in Denver. How do young workers say they're not getting enough? "They leave," says Mr. Toth.

Many companies are proud of their creative praise programs. Since 2004, the 4,100-employee Bronson Healthcare Group in Kalamazoo, Mich., has required all of its managers to write at least 48 thank-you or praise notes to underlings every year.

Universal Studios Orlando, with 13,000 employees, has a program in which managers give out "Applause Notes," praising employees for work well done. Universal workers can also give each other peer-to-peer "S.A.Y. It!" cards, which stand for "Someone Appreciates You!" The notes are redeemed for free movie tickets or other gifts.

Bank of America has several formal rewards programs for its 200,000 employees, allowing those who receive praise to select from 2,000 gifts. "We also encourage managers to start every meeting with informal recognition," says Kevin Cronin, senior vice president of recognition and rewards. The company strives to be sensitive. When new employees are hired, managers are instructed to get a sense of how they like to be praised. "Some prefer it in public, some like it one-on-one in an office," says Mr. Cronin.

No More Red Pens

Some young adults are consciously calibrating their dependence on praise. In New York, Web-developer Mia Eaton, 32, admits that she loves being complimented. But she feels like she's living on the border between a twentysomething generation that requires overpraise and a thirtysomething generation that is less addicted to it. She recalls the pre-Paris Hilton, pre-reality-TV era, when people were famous -- and applauded -- for their achievements, she says. When she tries to explain this to younger colleagues, "they don't get it. I feel like I'm hurting their feelings because they don't understand the difference."

Young adults aren't always eager for clear-eyed feedback after getting mostly "atta-boys" and "atta-girls" all their lives, says John Sloop, a professor of rhetorical and cultural studies at Vanderbilt University. Another issue: To win tenure, professors often need to receive positive evaluations from students. So if professors want students to like them, "to a large extent, critical comments [of students] have to be couched in praise," Prof. Sloop says. He has attended seminars designed to help professors learn techniques of supportive criticism. "We were told to throw away our red pens so we don't intimidate students."

At the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, marketing consultant Steve Smolinsky teaches students in their late 20s who've left the corporate world to get M.B.A. degrees. He and his colleagues feel handcuffed by the language of self-esteem, he says. "You have to tell students, 'It's not as good as you can do. You're really smart, and can do better.'"

Mr. Smolinsky enjoys giving praise when it's warranted, he says, "but there needs to be a flip side. When people are lousy, they need to be told that." He notices that his students often disregard his harsher comments. "They'll say, 'Yeah, well...' I don't believe they really hear it."

In the end, ego-stroking may feel good, but it doesn't lead to happiness, says Prof. Twenge, the narcissism researcher, who has written a book titled "Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled -- and More Miserable than Ever Before." She would like to declare a moratorium on "meaningless, baseless praise," which often starts in nursery school. She is unimpressed with self-esteem preschool ditties, such as the one set to the tune of "Frère Jacques": "I am special/ I am special/ Look at me..."

For now, companies like the Scooter Store continue handing out the helium balloons. Katie Lynch, 22, is the firm's "celebrations assistant," charged with throwing confetti, filling balloons and showing up at employees' desks to offer high-fives. "They all love it," she says, especially younger workers who "seem to need that pat on the back. They don't want to go unnoticed."

Ms. Lynch also has an urge to be praised. At the end of a long, hard day of celebrating others, she says she appreciates when her manager, Burton De La Garza, gives her a high-five or compliments her with a cellphone text message.

"I'll just text her a quick note -- 'you were phenomenal today,'" says Mr. De La Garza, "She thrives on that. We wanted to find what works for her, because she's completely averse to confetti."

Write to Jeffrey Zaslow at jeffrey.zaslow@wsj.com

HISD and KIPP

Houston schools can certainly use the competition. With just over 200,000 students, the school district is the nation's seventh-largest. KIPP aims to expand its student body to around 10% of that number, which might be enough to exert pressure on district schools to improve or close down. Last year more than 50 district schools, or roughly one out of six, failed to make adequate yearly progress as mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind Act, and nearly half of the district's high schools were rated "academically unacceptable."

By contrast, KIPP students were acing state tests. At the KIPP Academy Middle School, 99% of eighth-graders scored "proficient" or "advanced" in math and reading. The corresponding results for their district counterparts were 57% and 79%. No wonder the current KIPP waiting list in Houston is 2,500 students long.

KIPP's accomplishments are all the more impressive when you consider that charter schools in Texas receive no public funding for buildings and $1,200 to $1,800 less than the $9,000 per student the state spends on other public schools. More evidence, we'd say, that what public schools need is not more tax dollars but more autonomy to utilize the ample resources they already have.

Democrats, Iraq and WMD

Check out this site:

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

The Real Gas Gougers

The Real Gas Gougers
May 11, 2006; Page A16

Perhaps the explanation is an outbreak of mad cow disease on Capitol Hill. Last week the House of Representatives expressed its collective outrage over high gas prices by voting as a herd, 389-34, to make gasoline "price gouging" a federal felony.

Really. This command and control legislation reads like the kind of law passed by the old Soviet Politburo. If an oil company is found guilty of charging a "grossly excessive" price for gasoline, it could face a $250 million fine and its executives face imprisonment. Even neighborhood service station owners could be sentenced to two years in jail and a $2 million fine for the high crime of charging too much at the pump.

One small problem is that no one in Washington can seem to define what constitutes price gouging. Under the House legislation, the bureaucrats at the Federal Trade Commission would define a "grossly excessive" price and then, once prosecutors charge some politically vulnerable target, juries across the country would decide who's guilty and who's not. A Senate version, sponsored by Maria Cantwell of Washington, contains terms like "excessively unconscionable price increases" and "a gross disparity" between the normal price and the price during a shortage or an emergency.

If all of this seems hopelessly vague, the heretofore sensible Joe Barton, head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, explains that "we know price gouging when we see it. . . . We're here to put the gougers out of business . . . or behind bars." If this works at all like the malpractice tort system, with deep pocketed oil companies pitted against widows and orphans, look out.

The fact that only 33 of 231 House Republicans voted against this devious idea marks a new low for the melting GOP majority. Yes, it's also depressing that only one Democrat voted against the bill as well, and Ohio's Dennis Kucinich did so because he didn't think the bill was punitive enough. As Jeff Flake of Arizona, one of the brave 33 no votes, tells us: "None of my colleagues actually believes this will reduce prices, and many realize it will ultimately make shortages worse." Yet this is what happens when petrified politicians allow mob rule to trump economic common sense.

There's no actual evidence that oil companies or gas stations are in any way "gouging" consumers. Webster's Dictionary defines the term "gouge" as "to extort from or to swindle." But in the marketplace with prices set free of government intervention, the sales price is established through a transaction of a willing buyer and a willing seller. Service stations are in no way "extorting" or "swindling" motorists at the pump.

In recent years, prices at the gas pump have risen less than has the global price of crude oil, which would seem to refute any price gouging claim. But even if service stations decided to charge $5 or more a gallon, how is any consumer being extorted or swindled? No one can compel a consumer to buy at any price. Most service stations post pump prices on signs 50-feet high outside their stores. Drivers are free to shop around and find the best price they can.

If service stations are guilty of extortion because their prices are rising more than their costs, then are we to have pricing police preventing homeowners from selling their houses for two or three times what they bought them for, or movie theaters from charging $6 for popcorn that costs 25 cents to produce, or Barbra Streisand from commanding a $1 million fee for a single performance? Now that Republicans have surrendered to the political expediency of price controls on big oil, they won't have much standing to stop Democrats from imposing price ceilings on pharmaceutical drugs, school supplies, medical equipment, and the like.

The irony here is that if there is any extortion or swindling going on in the oil marketplace, Congress is the guilty party. It is Congress that ordered service stations across America to switch last month to ethanol additives that have both raised prices at the pump and exacerbated shortages in recent weeks. It is Congress and state governments that take 59 cents a gallon on average of fuel taxes at the pump -- almost six times the average of 10 cents per gallon profit that the oil companies make.

When the House had a chance to take a positive step to increase gasoline supplies and lower prices last week by making it easier for oil companies to expand their domestic refinery capacity -- Northeastern Republicans teamed with Democrats to bring the measure down. The U.S. now consumes 21 million barrels of oil a day but has a refining capacity of only 17 million. As usual, the loudest Congressional complainers about high gas prices voted as a bloc to keep supplies precariously low.

Mark this "gouging" law down as the first step back toward the oil and gas price controls of the 1970s. We know that chapter of history ended poorly for American consumers -- with supply disruptions, gas lines, and increased dependence on foreign oil. Under Congress's new brainchild, the next time there is a gasoline supply disruption, service station owners may well hold prices artificially low to avoid jail sentences. As night follows day, that will lead to shortages, lines and stranded motorists. So if Congress thinks that voters are in a foul mood now, wait until their price-control scheme offers them no gas at "non-gouging" prices.

Kerry for president??

Bring It On
January 27, 2006; Page A8

According to CNN, Senator John Kerry announced yesterday that he will attempt to rally his fellow Democrats to stage a filibuster to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Apparently, this is not a parody.

Mr. Kerry made this dramatic political intervention from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he was communing with his political base. He wants his Democratic colleagues to revisit the filibuster strategy that they used to such brilliant effect during President Bush's first term. Republicans assailed Democrats for this obstructionism in 2002 and 2004, and the issue helped them win a mere seven or eight seats in red states.

And this was after filibusters on obscure appellate nominees. Imagine the political gain for Republicans after a Supreme Court filibuster -- with all of its 24/7 publicity -- by blue-state liberals against a modest Italian-American with impeccable legal credentials and stainless ethics. Mr. Kerry really seems to believe that the country will rise up in fury when it discovers that Judge Alito believes that the Constitution gives a President wide powers to defend America.

Back on planet Earth, at least three red-state Democrats have now said they'll vote for Judge Alito. Two of them -- Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- happen to be up for re-election this year. Mr. Kerry may not care much about the Senate because his real goal is winning the Democratic nomination for President again in 2008. Republicans should be so lucky.

Teacher's Unions vs. Education

Teacher's Unions vs. Education
January 23, 2006;

Teachers unions keep telling us they care deeply, profoundly, about poor children. But what they do, as opposed to what they say, is behave like the Borg, those destructive aliens in the Star Trek TV series who keep coming and coming until everyone is "assimilated."

We saw it in Florida this month when the state supreme court struck down a six-year-old voucher program after a union-led lawsuit. And now we're witnessing it in Milwaukee, where the nation's largest school choice program is under assault because Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle refuses to lift the cap on the number of students who can participate.
ilwaukee's Parental Choice Program, enacted with bipartisan support in 1990, provides private school vouchers to students from families at or below 175% of the poverty line. Its constitutionality has been supported by rulings from both the Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Courts.

Yet Mr. Doyle, a union-financed Democrat, has vetoed three attempts to loosen the state law that limits enrollment in the program to 15% of Milwaukee's public school enrollment. This cap, put in place in 1995 as part of a compromise with anti-choice lawmakers backed by the unions, wasn't an issue when only a handful of schools were participating. But the program has grown steadily to include 127 schools and more than 14,000 students today. Wisconsin officials expect the voucher program to exceed the 15% threshold next year, which means Mr. Doyle's schoolhouse-door act is about to have real consequences.

"Had the cap been in effect this year," says Susan Mitchell of School Choice Wisconsin, "as many as 4,000 students already in the program would have lost seats. No new students could come in, and there would be dozens of schools that have been built because of school choice in Milwaukee that would close. They're in poor neighborhoods and would never have enough support from tuition-paying parents or donors to keep going."

There's no question the program has been a boon to the city's underprivileged. A 2004 study of high school graduation rates by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute found that students using vouchers to attend Milwaukee's private schools had a graduation rate of 64%, versus 36%