There has been much noise about the failure of sequestration to cause instant pandemonium. You seem to forget that President Obama can "make it so." See recent announcements about furloughs for border and customs agents. See earlier decrees about furloughs for airport screeners. Now we are told that tours of the White House are to be stopped because of budget cuts. This action is the height of a childish temper tantrum. "If I can't have my way I'm gonna get you!" Be very careful about underestimating his determination to lead us to a socialistic state.
See also the provision in Obamacare about a new job classification: navigators. These are people with no training, no licensing and no fiduciary responsibility who are to help the plebeians "navigate" through the complexities of Obamacare, specifically the health care exchanges. I believe this job classification to be the perfect home for community organizers. California estimates it will be required to hire 21,000 such navigators. This is simply another manifestation of the shallowness of his experience and his lack of qualifications for office.
James P. Whitaker
Return on investment
Regarding "Putting Florida students first" (Letter of the Day, March 10): Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education is not really about putting students first as claimed by foundation CEO Patricia Levesque. It is about privatizing the public school system for the benefit of a few under the false pretext of putting students first. Public records and emails show that Bush's FEE lobbied for and helped write laws that benefit FEE's corporate sponsors. FEE helped write legislation to increase the use of FCAT while it is under contract to a FEE donor.
FEE is all about powerful corporations that contribute to FEE that want to access billions of our tax dollars to create markets for themselves to the detriment of the students FEE says it puts first. Levesque gets a nice salary that comes from these corporate donors looking for a return on their investment.
Castles in the air
Regarding "Why we need the liberal arts" by Joseph R. Urgo (Views, March 10): In his stridently defensive essay, Urgo urges us to view a liberal arts college education as the counterpoint to slavery and oppression of women. He asserts that liberal arts graduates are creative and inventive. He would have us believe that there is opposition to liberal arts education and that it is driven by a national despair. St. Mary's College of Maryland must be on another planet. On Earth, liberal arts is not a place for creativity or inventiveness — it is the study of us, our nature, our past and ascent, our social structures, our economics, our political experiments, our successes and failures. All of this should be based on facts and truth, not creativity. Oh, if only ...
The reason our best and brightest choose to spend their college years in the hard sciences and technology programs is not because they have been convinced that there is something wrong with liberal arts, but because it is not where inventiveness and intellectual excitement is found. In the worst case, liberal arts students are continuously subjected to what can only be called collectivist propaganda. Free from the constraints of the practical, they are taught to build castles in the air and expect all of us to move into them.
I have experience both sides of this academic divide. While in liberal arts, I seldom encountered a professor who wasn't a complete fool. They are progressives, meaning they are delusional. I couldn't run to technology majors fast enough when I recognized what I was being turned into.
Dec. 7, 1941 — a day that will live in infamy. A small East Asian country attacked America. Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it.
Now we have a small East Asian country with nuclear capabilities, albeit limited, promising to use these weapons against America.
We need to take action against North Korea, period. Why do we always have to have them strike first, at the cost of how many innocent lives?