Much like the fictional Skynet in the “Terminator” movies, firms engaging in “high-frequency trading” have unleashed a torrent of unbridled technological firepower that seems to have overwhelmed its human makers’ ability to control.
This week, students are arriving at my university and others. I believe this is a good time to say something both provocative and nuanced: A college diploma is virtually worthless.
At a fundraiser for the president at his Westport, Conn., estate recently, Harvey Weinstein spoke in a softly lit room shimmering with pink dahlias, gold Oscars, silvery celebrities and black American Express cards.
It has long seemed to me that there is far more rationality in sports, and in commentaries on sports, than there is in politics and in commentaries on politics.
I was hesitant to weigh in on the Chick-fil-A controversy, but I decided not doing so would be chicken. (Sorry—couldn’t resist.)
In an economic climate that can at best be deemed uncertain, and at worst catatonic, it is critical that the public and private sectors encourage and aid small-business entrepreneurs.
Government, perhaps even more than most private-sector industries and business models, is reliant upon human capital to thrive. Even as the tenor of most modern discourse on government has to do with its size, the people behind it are the single most important element in successful public policy.
I like Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City. He says what he thinks and thinks about what he says.
Everyone loves to say that all politics is local, and it’s largely true that people get the most riled up about things they see or that affect them on a daily basis.
The disagreement between Mayor Ballard and City-County Council Democrats over the use of tax increment financing sounds like a wonky tax policy debate, but behind this conflict are far more fundamental questions of how we use our city’s resources to prepare for its future.
Dear Mayor Ballard: You need to talk to your guys. They are not giving you the best advice.
According to @IUBloomington, the Twitter account of my alma mater Indiana University, our alumni have won 50 gold medals throughout Olympic history.
Nearly everyone claims to have a strategic window into Mitch Daniels’ head. In truth, no one, including me, knows his plans for Purdue University when he assumes the presidency. Perhaps he, himself, isn’t entirely certain at this point.
When Melina Kennedy ran for mayor of Indianapolis last year, childhood education was a cornerstone of her campaign. The issue caught the attention of parents, employers, educators and the media, and Kennedy made a compelling case for investing in our community’s human capital.
Indiana school corporations no longer have a monopoly on public school programming because the charter movement has given families a choice. But charter schools do not have financial support from state or local government to build, remodel or lease locations for their schools.
The definition of reform is to “make changes in a system to improve it.” The “reforms” under the Indiana Department of Education are not changes to improve our education system.
When I took office in 2009, the Indiana Department of Education set high expectations for our children. My staff and I set ambitious goals for student achievement: improving ISTEP+ pass rates and high school graduation rates, having more students taking Advanced Placement exams, and increasing the number of college credits and technical certifications students earn in high school.
Mitch Daniels’ letter inviting the candidates who want to succeed him as governor to weigh in on how Indiana should implement parts of President Obama’s health care reform law demonstrates at least two things.
As pressure mounts from states pushing back on federal decisions and mandates, representation by their congressional delegations becomes increasingly important.
You say you want a revolution? You believe we need constitutional term limits?
