New Statesman, Sen. Hollings, and more.

DEATH THREATS FROM THE NEW STATESMAN

A young man named Mark Thomas has lately been using his column in London's left-wing New Statesman to gripe about the West's indifference to the trade-union movement in Colombia. Last month, because the general secretary of the Yumbo Municipal Workers' Union had received death threats from a right-wing group called the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), Thomas decided it was time for tit-for-tat. Because the United States gives military aid to Colombia, Thomas reasons, George Bush is practically wringing those poor Yumbo-ites' necks with his own hands. Therefore (the syllogism continues), Bush ought to die, and, "if it happened, it should be enough to stop Vice-President Dick Cheney's already weak heart."

That was all Thomas had time for that week, since the rest of his column was taken up with celebrating Margaret Thatcher's recent stroke. "The day she dies, they will be queuing up the M1 to dance on her grave," Thomas wrote. "Thatcher suffering a minor stroke, while it didn't have me throwing a hat in the air, definitely did put a spring in my step."

Poor Thomas,saying all these "controversial" things and still no one seemed to be reading him. So in the New Statesman's latest issue, he has decided to issue an outright death threat, straight to the top: "Given that Osama Bin Laden has a price on his head and is wanted dead or alive for organising acts of terrorism," Thomas writes, "it seems only fair to offer a bounty to anyone who can kill George Bush. After all, he is helping to bankroll the AUC. So my contribution to the war against terrorism is to offer L4,320, my total earnings so far for writing in the New Statesman, to anyone who can bag Bush. You don't have to bring me his head or snack on his heart. Nothing weird, just kill him and send me your bank details c/o the New Statesman."

Which gives rise to a couple of questions, like:

Why doesn't Thomas go to Yumbo and issue his death threat to the right-wing AUC directly?

If this is the New Statesman's attitude towards political violence, how can it profess outrage that its readers are similarly indifferent to the taking of innocent life in far-off Colombia?

Does the general secretary of the Yumbo Municipal Workers' Union know that these death threats are being issued in his name?

Who at the New Statesman decided that Thomas had L4,320 worth of journalism that it wanted to buy?

And finally, isn't it an amazing coincidence that the magazine Thomas writes for has the same name as the great left-wing magazine for which George Orwell, E.M. Forster, and John Maynard Keynes once wrote?

VOUCHER VINDICATION

The recent oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Cleveland school voucher case put vouchers back in the headlines. So you'd think the New York Times might take an interest in new research showing the positive effects of vouchers for black students in New York City. Think again.

Last month, a group of researchers at Harvard and Mathematica Policy Research released the latest results of their ongoing voucher study, which revealed large test-score gains after three years for black students receiving vouchers in New York. Indeed, the gains came close to cutting the black-white test-score gap in half. USA Today, the Washington Post, and CNN all found this newsworthy; the Times did not. Which is strange, since the Times paid the Harvard study plenty of attention in September 2000--in order to trash it.

Back then, the Harvard/Mathematica team released the results from the end of year two of the study, showing test-score gains for black students. The Post and Times both ran the story. But just a few days later, Mathematica issued a press release (which they first leaked to the Times) saying the gains were premature, because they were concentrated mostly among 6th graders (the study includes grades 3-6). The Times trumpeted Mathematica's reservations. The fact that this served to debunk the voucher movement smack dab in the middle of the presidential campaign was doubtless a coincidence. The Harvard group wrote a letter to the editor explaining the grade-level disparity, but the Times chose not to print it.

Fast-forward to last month's release of the year-three results, which showed even greater test-score gains, across all grade levels--thus vindicating the Harvard team, as even the Mathematica folks now admit. Not that you would know this from reading the Times.

HOLLINGS RANTS AGAIN