The Dish

A political sub-plot of J.K. Rowling’s masterpiece?

New research suggests that the medieval period was more literate than we used to believe; and the critical technological component was not print but paper. Where did the paper come from? Most Europeans in late medieval times couldn’t afford expensive parchment, so they used rags. The rags were often made of used undies. Money quote:

Speaking at this year’s IMC, which runs from 9 to 12 July, Dr Mostert said that literacy was more common in the Middle Ages than is popularly thought. “Although the aim of producing a 100% literate population didn’t occur before the 19th century, after about 1100 the need for literacy grew steadily, and from about 1200 onwards the number of literates increased dramatically along with the number of schools in urban areas.”

Yet even in countries where there were few or no towns and, therefore, schools, such as Iceland, the literacy rate continued to grow rapidly. “Many people learnt to read at home, usually from their mothers,” says Dr Mostert. “The role of female literacy in the home has been underestimated until quite recently.”

I have no reason for posting this except I found all of it fascinating. The random ways in which history moves forward and backward are part of the contingency of being human.

"Scientists have gotten way too fond of invoking their authority to claim that "science" dictates their preferred policy solutions and claiming that any disagreement constitutes an attack on science. But, even assuming that scientists agree on the facts, science can only tell us something about the state of the world. It cannot tell us what policy is the best to adopt. Scientists’ preferences are not "science." You cannot go from an "is" (science) to an "ought" (policy). Social science, particularly economics, can tell you something about the likely tradeoffs (hence some of my frustrations at Aspen). But it can’t tell you which tradeoffs to make," – Virginia Postrel, making sense as usual.

Yep: they’re the gay panel questioning the Democratic candidates in another ghettoized minority debate. Rufus Wainwright was unavailable?

Hamlet got a blog.

Stephen Bainbridge sees some all-too-uncomfortable parallels.

His break from liberal orthodoxy is already making waves. The WSJ casts partisan scorn:

So far Mr. Obama has been shrewd in setting himself off from left-wing orthodoxy, though perhaps mainly as a matter of style. But if he is going to ask voters to consider the Presidency an entry-level position, he’ll need to do more than dress up liberal commonplaces as bold truth-telling.

Nice open mind there, eh? Left Coast blogger Darren thinks it’s a very shrewd move. Is the NEA going to endorse a Republican anyway? Lewis Solomon sees Obama catching a wave:

[I]n one national program, the number of teachers who support performance pay has almost doubled in many states after a few years of trying it.

No matter. Many critics remain unconvinced – offended, it seems, by the very notion of connecting teacher pay to student achievement. We have to ask these naysayers this question: if adults (teachers) should never be affected by how well children (students) do in school, does that mean that teachers are not responsible for student learning?

Performance-pay opponents are running out of arguments and allies. School reformers must seize the moment.

For the record, I’ve long believed teachers should get better pay for better exam results, and bad ones should be fired. Eduwonk is not as convinced that teachers are ready for the move though. Some are already whining.

It appears to work. In Finland, anyway.

Megan is against it:

Nixon fell because his behaviour was inarguably criminal, and worse, petty criminal. And he had it all on tape.

Bush’s behaviour is not inarguably criminal. Impeaching him will generate a gigantic mess. And the negative feelings about that gigantic mess will almost certainly be laid at the Democratic Party’s door. An impeachment is almost the only thing guaranteed to deliver a Republican president and the loss of at least one house of Congress in 2008.

But Cheney? Not sure the same caveats apply. Dave Weigel responds:

So an impeachment trial would 1) waste Congress’s time, 2) take the Democrats’ knees out, and 3) humiliate Bush and legions of wide-eyed Republicans. And… what are the arguments against it?