"highway robbery"
"There's somethin' goin' on here."
Those were the words used by a local news radio morning show personality when describing the $10,000/year being charged for home insurance in New Orleans, to which I must say, game a break...please! A freaking H-U-R-R-I-C-A-N-E blew through there a year ago! What was it, a category 4 or 5, and the levees were only strong enough for a 3 (I'd have to research the facts, hence the question mark to follow)? The big one finally hit, and there's no guarantee there will not be another one in the future. Those (above) are the words of nutty conspiracy theorists. The residents of New Orleans were apparently getting by on the cheap with regard to insurance before. It should be expensive to live in (a) hurricane alley. They should have to contribute more to the pool, regardless of their income/wealth. People do NOT have to live there. As a lady called in and told the show this morning, the insurance industry is "highly regulated". They have extra, non-market costs (whether explicit or implicit) that they have to pay.
There is the solution to the problem; cut the red tape. As with many other issues (health care, K-12 education, smoking bans, etc.), there is too much government involvement/intervention. The more deregulation, the better. Let private enterprise take care of itself. If another insurance company deems insurance too expensive, it will swoop in, charge a lower price, gain market share and force others to follow. Everyone will benefit. If not, so be it. That's the going rate.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
It's Ultimately Up to the People
"When you vote this November, remember which party (Democrat) places unionizing the largest private employer’s workers over jobs and low retail prices for the communities and families who need them the most."
"Wal-Mart also announced this month that it is raising wages by an average of six percent for employees in over 1,200 of its 4,000 U.S. stores. Further, the company offers qualifying employees a menu of 18 healthcare plans, some costing as little as $11 per month."
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HermanCain/
2006/08/22/hezbocrats_attack_wal-mart
"One estimate is that Wal-Mart saves the average household as much as $2,300 a year."
"In Democratic politicians’ contempt for Wal-Mart, there is an element of snobbery."
http://article.nationalreview.com/
?q=ZmU4MjM4NmQ1OWU1NTYzMDdiMmJiNjg4OWRmMTU5ZTA=
"It's clearly the company's fault, at least from a skewed senatorial perspective, that all Americans cannot live a comfortable middle-class life. How dare it pay prevailing retail wages?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/
la-ed-walmart23aug23,0,2463162.story
"When in history has a store clerk had a claim on the middle class life … home ownership, a late model car or two?"
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/
2006/08/democrats_war_o.html
"Compounding the electoral asininity is the glorious hypocrisy of it all. Hillary Rodham Clinton - who returned a donation from the devilish retailer - was on Wal-Mart's board of directors from the mid-1980s until the 1992 presidential campaign. If the store's policies are so un-Progressive, how come it never occurred to her to do anything about it until now? Similarly, former would-be first lady Teresa Heinz attacked the store in 2004, saying it "destroys communities" - which apparently never stopped her from hawking her ketchup there or owning $1 million in Wal-Mart stock. Even Lamont, the golden boy of the new yuppie populism, owns a few thousand bucks of Wal-Mart stock."
"It's horrific politics and silly public policy - but a joy to watch."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006
/08/walmart_drives_democrats_batty.html
"...it is unlikely that there is any single organization on the planet that alleviates poverty so effectively for so many people."
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082206D
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17dems.html?ex=1156651200&en=babcc417c997b486&ei=5070
====
I could cut and paste these wonderful excerpts from responses to the democrats' Wal-Mart bashing (as reported in the concluding new york times article) all day. This is just one big fat curve ball lobbed over the plate (that's a baseball reference for you hippies) for conservatives to knock out of the park. And, as you can see, they have, responding all the way up to yesterday. I'm anxious to see more.
Even though i disagree with him (as exemplified in a previous post), at least Robert Kuttner, in the only liberal piece I have seen in response to the story, addresses the bigger picture.
While I was reading a piece earlier today on the 20 most expensive places to rent (Interestingly, 18 of them happened to be in predominantly blue states. Hmm...), I started thinking about the Wal-Mart issue. It seems many of them are located in the suburbs, which tend to be more conservative, while the number is lower the closer to downtown one goes, where it becomes more liberal. So, those who live in the suburbs, and tend to make more in a year, have easier access to lower priced goods, whereas those who live in the inner cities, where the less affluent tend to live, would seem to have to pay more. (It should be said that there are some affluent people who live downtown and uptown, but, nose firmly in the air, do not wish to have the stain on their area that such a store as Wal-Mart represents to them.)
This seems to be another example (school choice comes to mind) where the poorer among us are losing out. Their elected representatives are failing them, or, rather, have their leash held by unions. How else to explain recent anti-Wal-Mart legislation passed in Maryland (which has since, fortunately, been struck down in court due to violation of equal protection) and Chicago? How many more such examples need to occur before inner-city residents realize that they are voting for people who are putting them second to special-interests (unions)?
"Wal-Mart also announced this month that it is raising wages by an average of six percent for employees in over 1,200 of its 4,000 U.S. stores. Further, the company offers qualifying employees a menu of 18 healthcare plans, some costing as little as $11 per month."
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HermanCain/
2006/08/22/hezbocrats_attack_wal-mart
"One estimate is that Wal-Mart saves the average household as much as $2,300 a year."
"In Democratic politicians’ contempt for Wal-Mart, there is an element of snobbery."
http://article.nationalreview.com/
?q=ZmU4MjM4NmQ1OWU1NTYzMDdiMmJiNjg4OWRmMTU5ZTA=
"It's clearly the company's fault, at least from a skewed senatorial perspective, that all Americans cannot live a comfortable middle-class life. How dare it pay prevailing retail wages?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/
la-ed-walmart23aug23,0,2463162.story
"When in history has a store clerk had a claim on the middle class life … home ownership, a late model car or two?"
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/
2006/08/democrats_war_o.html
"Compounding the electoral asininity is the glorious hypocrisy of it all. Hillary Rodham Clinton - who returned a donation from the devilish retailer - was on Wal-Mart's board of directors from the mid-1980s until the 1992 presidential campaign. If the store's policies are so un-Progressive, how come it never occurred to her to do anything about it until now? Similarly, former would-be first lady Teresa Heinz attacked the store in 2004, saying it "destroys communities" - which apparently never stopped her from hawking her ketchup there or owning $1 million in Wal-Mart stock. Even Lamont, the golden boy of the new yuppie populism, owns a few thousand bucks of Wal-Mart stock."
"It's horrific politics and silly public policy - but a joy to watch."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006
/08/walmart_drives_democrats_batty.html
"...it is unlikely that there is any single organization on the planet that alleviates poverty so effectively for so many people."
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082206D
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17dems.html?ex=1156651200&en=babcc417c997b486&ei=5070
====
I could cut and paste these wonderful excerpts from responses to the democrats' Wal-Mart bashing (as reported in the concluding new york times article) all day. This is just one big fat curve ball lobbed over the plate (that's a baseball reference for you hippies) for conservatives to knock out of the park. And, as you can see, they have, responding all the way up to yesterday. I'm anxious to see more.
Even though i disagree with him (as exemplified in a previous post), at least Robert Kuttner, in the only liberal piece I have seen in response to the story, addresses the bigger picture.
While I was reading a piece earlier today on the 20 most expensive places to rent (Interestingly, 18 of them happened to be in predominantly blue states. Hmm...), I started thinking about the Wal-Mart issue. It seems many of them are located in the suburbs, which tend to be more conservative, while the number is lower the closer to downtown one goes, where it becomes more liberal. So, those who live in the suburbs, and tend to make more in a year, have easier access to lower priced goods, whereas those who live in the inner cities, where the less affluent tend to live, would seem to have to pay more. (It should be said that there are some affluent people who live downtown and uptown, but, nose firmly in the air, do not wish to have the stain on their area that such a store as Wal-Mart represents to them.)
This seems to be another example (school choice comes to mind) where the poorer among us are losing out. Their elected representatives are failing them, or, rather, have their leash held by unions. How else to explain recent anti-Wal-Mart legislation passed in Maryland (which has since, fortunately, been struck down in court due to violation of equal protection) and Chicago? How many more such examples need to occur before inner-city residents realize that they are voting for people who are putting them second to special-interests (unions)?
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Un-zombie the Populace
"The pills are a concentrated dose of the same drug found in many regular birth-control pills. When a woman takes the pills within 72 hours of unprotected sex, they can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/
082506dnmatmorningafter.2e86d579.html
When I look up the word "risk" in the Encarta Dictionary (the reference provided by Microsoft Outlook), I see, among others, the following definitions: "1. chance of something going wrong, the danger that injury, damage, or loss will occur. 2. somebody or something hazardous, somebody or something likely to cause injury, damage, or loss."
Is that what we have come to, to equate the conception of an innocent child to something going "wrong", something "hazardous"?? When did this happen? Do I only notice this now after having two daughters of my own?? Now that I think of it, I've probably seen such phrases as "risk of pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease..." How are those two results on the same plane??
The group Garbage used to be one of my favorite musical acts. I was a big fan in the time immediately following their second album Version 2.0. As much as I dug/dig her voice when she's on, Shirley Manson once said something that really tangled some words. She said she feared reproductive freedom was under attack. I thought to myself 'Yeah, maybe for hookers who work for pimps who sometimes force them to have sex.' People are free to reproduce or not. If you do not want to reproduce, either now or ever, don't have sex. If you do, use protection that prevents conception. If, however, you become pregnant, viewing it as something that went "wrong" or something "hazardous", and terminate that pregnancy because you do not want to bear the responsibility for your actions, shame on you.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/
082506dnmatmorningafter.2e86d579.html
When I look up the word "risk" in the Encarta Dictionary (the reference provided by Microsoft Outlook), I see, among others, the following definitions: "1. chance of something going wrong, the danger that injury, damage, or loss will occur. 2. somebody or something hazardous, somebody or something likely to cause injury, damage, or loss."
Is that what we have come to, to equate the conception of an innocent child to something going "wrong", something "hazardous"?? When did this happen? Do I only notice this now after having two daughters of my own?? Now that I think of it, I've probably seen such phrases as "risk of pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease..." How are those two results on the same plane??
The group Garbage used to be one of my favorite musical acts. I was a big fan in the time immediately following their second album Version 2.0. As much as I dug/dig her voice when she's on, Shirley Manson once said something that really tangled some words. She said she feared reproductive freedom was under attack. I thought to myself 'Yeah, maybe for hookers who work for pimps who sometimes force them to have sex.' People are free to reproduce or not. If you do not want to reproduce, either now or ever, don't have sex. If you do, use protection that prevents conception. If, however, you become pregnant, viewing it as something that went "wrong" or something "hazardous", and terminate that pregnancy because you do not want to bear the responsibility for your actions, shame on you.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Letting it go
Y'know, maybe I complain too much. Maybe I should back off perfection. Maybe I don't see the forest for the trees. Maybe I miss how good things are economically when I think of how they could be better. Sure, the public and private sector could save oodles of money and/or redirect it to better, more productive ventures if there were one simple tax rate than that which we have today. Oops! See, there's an example of looking past the good for the perfect. Federal revenues are as high as they've ever been, doing their best to counteract the spending that is largely to blame for the budget deficit.
Apparently, Robert Kuttner doesn't see it that way (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11890). Either that or he's trying to commune with John Kenneth Galbraith, every liberal economist's idol, like Obi-Wan Kenobi would with Qui-Gon Jinn. Seems to me all the changes over which he laments were good changes and those that have contributed to the explosion in U.S. GDP from “a generation ago”:
“More industries were regulated.” There used to be more red, bureaucratic red-tape through which to cut to do business;
The minimum wage went from “half the average wage” to “below one - third”. This is as much a matter of principle as it is economics. A minimum wage prices workers out of the market (although one result of that is, for example, self-checkout lines at the grocery store, which I like very much) and is viewed by many as a form of social promotion;
Enforcement of “workers' right(s) to organize” has waned. The existence of unions simply impedes the ability of companies to compete, especially with ever-freer trade, which itself raises living standards. It’s a wonder unions have had the smarts to make concessions faced with the realization that avoidance thereof could mean obsolescence for the domestic companies for which they work. (One of the last strong unions, that of public school teachers, will soon be brought to its knees once more parents start lobbying for more choice as to what school earns the taxes they pay to educate their kids);
“Funny-money worker-savings plans.” Don’t defined contribution plans offer people more control over their retirement savings than defined benefit plans??; and,
“Taxation was progressive.” Last I checked, the federal tax code has 6 brackets. Talk about your inconvenient truths.
I tend to be skeptical when I hear or read of writers, politicians, academics and the like pretending to know about the middle class, whether upper or lower. An exchange a few years ago between Al Hunt and Robert Novak on CNN’s defunct Capital Gang always comes to mind. Hunt told Novak (paraphrasing) “I don’t want to raise taxes on everybody. I want to raise taxes on people like you and I.” That simply displayed of sad ignorance of real life out here in the flyover land. Not all upper middle class people are writers. Some own businesses that employ the rest of the middle class. What do you think happens, or becomes possible, when you raise their taxes, or burden them with regulations?
The middle class, in my experience, is not all that different from what it was when I grew up. My education is probably the reason I make twice as much what my dad did when he was supporting my mom, sister and myself. People’s decision to have a two-earner household is just that; their decision. If people cannot live within their means, or they choose not to advance in life, why should I help push them into the middle class with my taxes?
Forbes magazine's Rich Karlgaard brought up a wonderfully insightful point that, for reasons I shall explain, I am almost ashamed I did not think of: since when can one support a middle-class lifestyle when he/she just barely makes double-digit dollars/hour?? Until I graduated college the first time in 1996, I don't believe I ever made more than double the minimum wage. Some of that time (right after graduating high school), I was still living at home. During the rest of it, I had one or two roommates. All the while I was in school. I never dreamed of parking my life at such a wage.
From the time I started studying economics in graduate school, I have never been able to understand the existence of liberal economists like Kuttner, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, etc. (I honestly had never heard of Galbraith until he died) It’s one thing to read some yahoo like Dennis Kucinich talk about “excessive oil company profits”. The man studied speech communications in school. He doesn’t know any better. It’s quite another when someone trained in economics openly proposes government intervention, of any kind to any degree, into the private sector, or uses the word “excessive” to describe such profits. I read their publications because I find their views fascinating. I’m curious. I’m trying to figure them out. Maybe that’s another thing I need to back off from.
Apparently, Robert Kuttner doesn't see it that way (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11890). Either that or he's trying to commune with John Kenneth Galbraith, every liberal economist's idol, like Obi-Wan Kenobi would with Qui-Gon Jinn. Seems to me all the changes over which he laments were good changes and those that have contributed to the explosion in U.S. GDP from “a generation ago”:
“More industries were regulated.” There used to be more red, bureaucratic red-tape through which to cut to do business;
The minimum wage went from “half the average wage” to “below one - third”. This is as much a matter of principle as it is economics. A minimum wage prices workers out of the market (although one result of that is, for example, self-checkout lines at the grocery store, which I like very much) and is viewed by many as a form of social promotion;
Enforcement of “workers' right(s) to organize” has waned. The existence of unions simply impedes the ability of companies to compete, especially with ever-freer trade, which itself raises living standards. It’s a wonder unions have had the smarts to make concessions faced with the realization that avoidance thereof could mean obsolescence for the domestic companies for which they work. (One of the last strong unions, that of public school teachers, will soon be brought to its knees once more parents start lobbying for more choice as to what school earns the taxes they pay to educate their kids);
“Funny-money worker-savings plans.” Don’t defined contribution plans offer people more control over their retirement savings than defined benefit plans??; and,
“Taxation was progressive.” Last I checked, the federal tax code has 6 brackets. Talk about your inconvenient truths.
I tend to be skeptical when I hear or read of writers, politicians, academics and the like pretending to know about the middle class, whether upper or lower. An exchange a few years ago between Al Hunt and Robert Novak on CNN’s defunct Capital Gang always comes to mind. Hunt told Novak (paraphrasing) “I don’t want to raise taxes on everybody. I want to raise taxes on people like you and I.” That simply displayed of sad ignorance of real life out here in the flyover land. Not all upper middle class people are writers. Some own businesses that employ the rest of the middle class. What do you think happens, or becomes possible, when you raise their taxes, or burden them with regulations?
The middle class, in my experience, is not all that different from what it was when I grew up. My education is probably the reason I make twice as much what my dad did when he was supporting my mom, sister and myself. People’s decision to have a two-earner household is just that; their decision. If people cannot live within their means, or they choose not to advance in life, why should I help push them into the middle class with my taxes?
Forbes magazine's Rich Karlgaard brought up a wonderfully insightful point that, for reasons I shall explain, I am almost ashamed I did not think of: since when can one support a middle-class lifestyle when he/she just barely makes double-digit dollars/hour?? Until I graduated college the first time in 1996, I don't believe I ever made more than double the minimum wage. Some of that time (right after graduating high school), I was still living at home. During the rest of it, I had one or two roommates. All the while I was in school. I never dreamed of parking my life at such a wage.
From the time I started studying economics in graduate school, I have never been able to understand the existence of liberal economists like Kuttner, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, etc. (I honestly had never heard of Galbraith until he died) It’s one thing to read some yahoo like Dennis Kucinich talk about “excessive oil company profits”. The man studied speech communications in school. He doesn’t know any better. It’s quite another when someone trained in economics openly proposes government intervention, of any kind to any degree, into the private sector, or uses the word “excessive” to describe such profits. I read their publications because I find their views fascinating. I’m curious. I’m trying to figure them out. Maybe that’s another thing I need to back off from.
(shaking my head)
"Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut," Kerry added, insisting Lieberman's stance on Iraq, "shows you just why he got in trouble with the Democrats there."
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=2334709&page=1
This seems so petty to me. It appears to be all about party loyalty now. Was it 90% of the time Lieberman has voted in a liberal manner? And they are completely abandoning him for...his support of deposing Saddam Hussein?? Not because he voted for pro-life judges. Not because he voted for "tax cuts for the wealthy" (ugh, I HATE even using that phrase in quotes!) Not because he voted for more domestic energy production. Not because he voted for tightening bankruptcy rules. He is on his own because he supports helping Iraq. How does it appeal to the non-partisan populace when, given two candidates who, by all accounts, are similar in every way except where they stand on this single issue, Democrats (with the exception of Pryor, Salazar and B. Nelson) go with the guy who wants to just give up and get out now? Throw in the fact that Lieberman is generally regarded as a likable guy. There are few who are less partisan. Ironically, it seems like the only people who are helped by Lieberman's independent bid are Connecticut's moderate republican congressmen, none of whom have necessarily easy paths to re-election.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=2334709&page=1
This seems so petty to me. It appears to be all about party loyalty now. Was it 90% of the time Lieberman has voted in a liberal manner? And they are completely abandoning him for...his support of deposing Saddam Hussein?? Not because he voted for pro-life judges. Not because he voted for "tax cuts for the wealthy" (ugh, I HATE even using that phrase in quotes!) Not because he voted for more domestic energy production. Not because he voted for tightening bankruptcy rules. He is on his own because he supports helping Iraq. How does it appeal to the non-partisan populace when, given two candidates who, by all accounts, are similar in every way except where they stand on this single issue, Democrats (with the exception of Pryor, Salazar and B. Nelson) go with the guy who wants to just give up and get out now? Throw in the fact that Lieberman is generally regarded as a likable guy. There are few who are less partisan. Ironically, it seems like the only people who are helped by Lieberman's independent bid are Connecticut's moderate republican congressmen, none of whom have necessarily easy paths to re-election.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
and they wonder why they are likened to communists??
“I think our party pretty much across the board agrees that people who work hard should be able to support their families. When a company like Wal-Mart fails to meet its corporate responsibility, it make it impossible for that to occur.”
-Former North Carolina Senator and Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards
“Who can disagree with the proposition that corporations should provide affordable health care, pay decent wages, protect American jobs and help provide a safe and just workplace?”
-Wake Up Wal-Mart communications director Chris Kofinis
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17dems.html?ei=5065&en=9025372a18740903&ex=1156478400&partner=MYWAY
&pagewanted=print
god love 'em, those i-know-how-to-allocate-resources-better-than-the-free-market experts! last i checked, a corporation has a responsibility to one group of people: it's shareholders. these people have no concept of personal responsibility and liberty. none. zero. zilch. nada. if a person cannot support his/her family by working hard for one employer, perhaps he should go to work for another employer who will pay him/her more. maybe they should consider finding more work. maybe they should add some extra training or education. y'know, i wasn't at any of the interviews for any of the employees of wal-mart, but i'd go out on a limb and guess that none of them were given the luca brasi treatment when they decided to sign on the dotted line. when THEY decided, NOT wal-mart!
-Former North Carolina Senator and Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards
“Who can disagree with the proposition that corporations should provide affordable health care, pay decent wages, protect American jobs and help provide a safe and just workplace?”
-Wake Up Wal-Mart communications director Chris Kofinis
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17dems.html?ei=5065&en=9025372a18740903&ex=1156478400&partner=MYWAY
&pagewanted=print
god love 'em, those i-know-how-to-allocate-resources-better-than-the-free-market experts! last i checked, a corporation has a responsibility to one group of people: it's shareholders. these people have no concept of personal responsibility and liberty. none. zero. zilch. nada. if a person cannot support his/her family by working hard for one employer, perhaps he should go to work for another employer who will pay him/her more. maybe they should consider finding more work. maybe they should add some extra training or education. y'know, i wasn't at any of the interviews for any of the employees of wal-mart, but i'd go out on a limb and guess that none of them were given the luca brasi treatment when they decided to sign on the dotted line. when THEY decided, NOT wal-mart!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
competition improves
I was stoked this morning when, listening to the radio while putting my lunch together, I finally heard of a group organized to lobby for school choice: www.texansforschoolchoice.com. As some may know, my interest and advocacy for this was born during the months after Greer was born and I took a class from a professor who wrote a book on the topic.
What if you were relegated to the doctor(s) or dentist(s) in your geographical area? What if you felt more comfortable with a gynecologist who practiced 5 miles away, but your insurance paid nothing unless the doctor was located within a 3 mile radius of your home? Wouldn't you want to choose your own proctologist instead of the insurance company doing it for you? Isn't the education of your child as important? Don't you think you should have the right to send your child to the school of your choice using the taxes you pay, to pay for it? If your child was more inclined to, say, architecture, science, biology, social studies, art, mechanics, math, etc., wouldn't you want to put him/her in a school that specializes in such an area instead of sending them to a cookie-cutter school where, with little deviation, every child learns the exact same thing?
The way to reform and improve public education is to make schools, whether public, private or home-based, compete with each other. Competition has made nearly everything in American life better; why not K-12 education? It would still be public in that every child would have the equivalent of state-public-school-funding-per-child attached to them. However, it would go with them to pay for whatever school their parents choose, including home schooling.
The way to reform schools and the quality of education is NOT through increased funding and teacher pay. As funding has grown, quality, at best, has remained the same (http://www.txccri.org/publications/2004-05-sf-TCCRI-TPPF-Myths.pdf). How would more money help? Also, when you divide the average public school teacher salary in Texas (a little over $40,000) by 75% (assuming a 9-month school-year), they make as much as some of the rest of us do in the private sector. Regardless, I personally do not consider them underpaid. In my mind, one is underpaid only if another employer is willing to pay them more. In that case, the choice is theirs'. If $40,000/year is not enough, work during the summer. Otherwise, enjoy the extra two months (as compared to some of the rest of us).
If teacher pay is low, it is held back by the existence of the unions to which they belong. Unions do little more than provide job protection and benefits to the slackers amongst them. (If you were educated in Texas public schools, you can remember some of the good and bad.) I would guess that those that are active in the union are made up in good part by such slackers. If a teacher is good, and he/she knows it, what do they have to worry about? There will always be demand for their services. There are probably some good teachers that are amongst active union members because they feel like they have no help from home. In this case, it's the parents that are the slackers. Wouldn't parental school choice require them to become more involved?
Some of the main points made by those opposed to allowing parents to choose (i.e. asking 'Big Brother' for permission) would be laughable if they weren't so sad. Accountability. You hear this mainly for the educational bureaucrats who think they know it all. Isn't the quality of a child's education ultimately accountable to the parents?? Shouldn't schools be accountable to them?? I have a fairly good recollection of what I learned in what grade, particularly in math. I’m sure with a little research, I could find out more. That’s not to mention what my wife remembers.
Property values. A percentage of property values in some areas reflect the quality of the schools in the area/school district. This has been the band-aid method most parents have used to ensure the best education possible for their kids. They “vote with their feet”, and move to where the most highly rated schools are. Hence, property values rise. At least these parents are involved, but, alas, a public school is a public school is a public school. All administrators have to do is look out the window, see all the houses that surround their school and know they do not have to compete for those parents’ business. There’s less (not necessarily ‘no’) pressure. Many parents have played this game because they figured it was all they could do…until now. They just need to ask themselves what’s more important, the quality of their child's education or the value of the property upon which one's house rests?? Of, if they are still convinced their kids are receiving the best education possible, what about the children who either lack quality parenting or whose parents do not have the means to afford more than the very worst public schools?
Lack of capacity at private schools (http://www.texans4fairfunding.org/). Have they not heard of the American ability to adapt?? If a private school brings in more and more students, they would do what any company in the private sector would do in a similar situation; they would expand operations i.e. add teachers, facilities, tools and instruments of learning, etc. It is not a tough concept to grasp. One of my personal favorites is that it would not be the "parents who have the choice; it would be the private schools' who would have the choice to accept or reject." So? Parents would have to find another school. My guess is that the most rejected type of student would be the troublemaker. Rejecting these students would have two beneficial results. First, it would force the parent(s) to be more involved, if only to straighten his/her child out. The child is probably the troublemaking sort due to a lack of such attention in the first place. Second, it would free the classroom of such scalawags thereby allowing teachers to TEACH!
The only people who should really be worried about school choice are parents who are not currently as involved as they should be, the teachers of the lowest quality and the bureaucrats who would equate to fat that is trimmed by free-market competition. If you've ever seen Total Recall, they remind me of the Ronny Cox villain Vilos Cohaagen. School Choice is the rock in the middle of the mountain that has the martian handprint carved out of it. Once parents are allowed to depress that rock, new life will be breathed into our children's education.
What if you were relegated to the doctor(s) or dentist(s) in your geographical area? What if you felt more comfortable with a gynecologist who practiced 5 miles away, but your insurance paid nothing unless the doctor was located within a 3 mile radius of your home? Wouldn't you want to choose your own proctologist instead of the insurance company doing it for you? Isn't the education of your child as important? Don't you think you should have the right to send your child to the school of your choice using the taxes you pay, to pay for it? If your child was more inclined to, say, architecture, science, biology, social studies, art, mechanics, math, etc., wouldn't you want to put him/her in a school that specializes in such an area instead of sending them to a cookie-cutter school where, with little deviation, every child learns the exact same thing?
The way to reform and improve public education is to make schools, whether public, private or home-based, compete with each other. Competition has made nearly everything in American life better; why not K-12 education? It would still be public in that every child would have the equivalent of state-public-school-funding-per-child attached to them. However, it would go with them to pay for whatever school their parents choose, including home schooling.
The way to reform schools and the quality of education is NOT through increased funding and teacher pay. As funding has grown, quality, at best, has remained the same (http://www.txccri.org/publications/2004-05-sf-TCCRI-TPPF-Myths.pdf). How would more money help? Also, when you divide the average public school teacher salary in Texas (a little over $40,000) by 75% (assuming a 9-month school-year), they make as much as some of the rest of us do in the private sector. Regardless, I personally do not consider them underpaid. In my mind, one is underpaid only if another employer is willing to pay them more. In that case, the choice is theirs'. If $40,000/year is not enough, work during the summer. Otherwise, enjoy the extra two months (as compared to some of the rest of us).
If teacher pay is low, it is held back by the existence of the unions to which they belong. Unions do little more than provide job protection and benefits to the slackers amongst them. (If you were educated in Texas public schools, you can remember some of the good and bad.) I would guess that those that are active in the union are made up in good part by such slackers. If a teacher is good, and he/she knows it, what do they have to worry about? There will always be demand for their services. There are probably some good teachers that are amongst active union members because they feel like they have no help from home. In this case, it's the parents that are the slackers. Wouldn't parental school choice require them to become more involved?
Some of the main points made by those opposed to allowing parents to choose (i.e. asking 'Big Brother' for permission) would be laughable if they weren't so sad. Accountability. You hear this mainly for the educational bureaucrats who think they know it all. Isn't the quality of a child's education ultimately accountable to the parents?? Shouldn't schools be accountable to them?? I have a fairly good recollection of what I learned in what grade, particularly in math. I’m sure with a little research, I could find out more. That’s not to mention what my wife remembers.
Property values. A percentage of property values in some areas reflect the quality of the schools in the area/school district. This has been the band-aid method most parents have used to ensure the best education possible for their kids. They “vote with their feet”, and move to where the most highly rated schools are. Hence, property values rise. At least these parents are involved, but, alas, a public school is a public school is a public school. All administrators have to do is look out the window, see all the houses that surround their school and know they do not have to compete for those parents’ business. There’s less (not necessarily ‘no’) pressure. Many parents have played this game because they figured it was all they could do…until now. They just need to ask themselves what’s more important, the quality of their child's education or the value of the property upon which one's house rests?? Of, if they are still convinced their kids are receiving the best education possible, what about the children who either lack quality parenting or whose parents do not have the means to afford more than the very worst public schools?
Lack of capacity at private schools (http://www.texans4fairfunding.org/). Have they not heard of the American ability to adapt?? If a private school brings in more and more students, they would do what any company in the private sector would do in a similar situation; they would expand operations i.e. add teachers, facilities, tools and instruments of learning, etc. It is not a tough concept to grasp. One of my personal favorites is that it would not be the "parents who have the choice; it would be the private schools' who would have the choice to accept or reject." So? Parents would have to find another school. My guess is that the most rejected type of student would be the troublemaker. Rejecting these students would have two beneficial results. First, it would force the parent(s) to be more involved, if only to straighten his/her child out. The child is probably the troublemaking sort due to a lack of such attention in the first place. Second, it would free the classroom of such scalawags thereby allowing teachers to TEACH!
The only people who should really be worried about school choice are parents who are not currently as involved as they should be, the teachers of the lowest quality and the bureaucrats who would equate to fat that is trimmed by free-market competition. If you've ever seen Total Recall, they remind me of the Ronny Cox villain Vilos Cohaagen. School Choice is the rock in the middle of the mountain that has the martian handprint carved out of it. Once parents are allowed to depress that rock, new life will be breathed into our children's education.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
voting third party
If you are a voter who usually votes Republican,
If you are disgruntled by the growth in the size and spending of the federal government,
If your congressman/senator is not in the Coburn, Flake, Hensarling, Pence, Paul, et al mode and has not voted to reject such growth,
Vote libertarian this November.
You may have heard, been advised or actually already believe that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote". Actually, "wasting your vote" is when you stay home and do not vote at all. Doing such is one reason many believe Republicans will suffer losses this fall. "Wasting your vote" smacks of a herd mentality: "No one else is going to vote third party, so why waste your vote?" I myself have never bought into the fact that it is "wasting your vote" if you research all the candidates and find out that a third party candidate most closely reflects your beliefs. I believe "wasting your vote" is more accurately reflected in voting how you believe everyone else does or will. If we all behaved that way in the private sector, we would all use the exact same toothpaste, or put on our pants the exact same way, or eat the exact same foods, or read the exact same books, or listen to the exact same music, or go to the exact same tourist destination, etc.?
I know some who say voting Libertarian/third party, if you normally vote Republican, will do nothing more than contribute to liberal democrats regaining control of Congress. That indeed could happen, and it would be the worst possible outcome. It's why Bill Clinton was elected President. But what good is it to be in power if you do not use it to advance the ideas that put you there?? If Republicans are not brought to heel, they will never get the message. If they continue to be re-elected, nothing will change. Why would it? They will have the impression that everything is OK, that there is no objection to the way they have voted. While Bush has been in office, those good things that Congress has done that come immediately to mind are few: cut taxes, tighten bankruptcy laws, confirm judges who will presumably hew closely to the Constitution and funded the fight against terrorists. Those are outnumbered, by more than 3 to 1, by the bad things: Sarbanes/Oxley, the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, added to the complexity of the tax code (as if that was possible), McCain/Feingold/Shays/Meehan, No Child Left Behind, exponentially increased earmarks, increased funding for embryonic stem cell research, continued subsidies to farmers, increased the minimum wage (the house), kept costs of funding the fight against terrorists off the official books, interceded into the Terri Schiavo case, failed to carve private accounts out of social security, increased the debt ceiling, failed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy production, etc.
If ever there was a time to "risk" GOP control of Congress, it would seem to be now while there is, nominally speaking, a Republican in the White House. There would no doubt be consequences. Thanks to the unserious John Conyers, silly impeachment charges might be brought against the President. Confirming judges who have respect for the Constitution might become more difficult. On the other hand, however, any proposed tax hike would likely bring out a second veto from Bush. He might even find it in himself to veto any new spending or federal programs sent to him by Congress. Plus, and biggest of all in my mind, it would decrease the chances that the White House will be lost to democrats in 2008. Potential nominees could point to any tax-raising, security-reducing, regulation-increasing, economic-retarding measure sent to Bush by a Democrat-controlled Congress and say "If a Democrat is elected President (next year), all those bills will become law."
Now, if only the Libertarian party would make at least one big push to introduce themselves to the public at large...
If you are disgruntled by the growth in the size and spending of the federal government,
If your congressman/senator is not in the Coburn, Flake, Hensarling, Pence, Paul, et al mode and has not voted to reject such growth,
Vote libertarian this November.
You may have heard, been advised or actually already believe that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote". Actually, "wasting your vote" is when you stay home and do not vote at all. Doing such is one reason many believe Republicans will suffer losses this fall. "Wasting your vote" smacks of a herd mentality: "No one else is going to vote third party, so why waste your vote?" I myself have never bought into the fact that it is "wasting your vote" if you research all the candidates and find out that a third party candidate most closely reflects your beliefs. I believe "wasting your vote" is more accurately reflected in voting how you believe everyone else does or will. If we all behaved that way in the private sector, we would all use the exact same toothpaste, or put on our pants the exact same way, or eat the exact same foods, or read the exact same books, or listen to the exact same music, or go to the exact same tourist destination, etc.?
I know some who say voting Libertarian/third party, if you normally vote Republican, will do nothing more than contribute to liberal democrats regaining control of Congress. That indeed could happen, and it would be the worst possible outcome. It's why Bill Clinton was elected President. But what good is it to be in power if you do not use it to advance the ideas that put you there?? If Republicans are not brought to heel, they will never get the message. If they continue to be re-elected, nothing will change. Why would it? They will have the impression that everything is OK, that there is no objection to the way they have voted. While Bush has been in office, those good things that Congress has done that come immediately to mind are few: cut taxes, tighten bankruptcy laws, confirm judges who will presumably hew closely to the Constitution and funded the fight against terrorists. Those are outnumbered, by more than 3 to 1, by the bad things: Sarbanes/Oxley, the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, added to the complexity of the tax code (as if that was possible), McCain/Feingold/Shays/Meehan, No Child Left Behind, exponentially increased earmarks, increased funding for embryonic stem cell research, continued subsidies to farmers, increased the minimum wage (the house), kept costs of funding the fight against terrorists off the official books, interceded into the Terri Schiavo case, failed to carve private accounts out of social security, increased the debt ceiling, failed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy production, etc.
If ever there was a time to "risk" GOP control of Congress, it would seem to be now while there is, nominally speaking, a Republican in the White House. There would no doubt be consequences. Thanks to the unserious John Conyers, silly impeachment charges might be brought against the President. Confirming judges who have respect for the Constitution might become more difficult. On the other hand, however, any proposed tax hike would likely bring out a second veto from Bush. He might even find it in himself to veto any new spending or federal programs sent to him by Congress. Plus, and biggest of all in my mind, it would decrease the chances that the White House will be lost to democrats in 2008. Potential nominees could point to any tax-raising, security-reducing, regulation-increasing, economic-retarding measure sent to Bush by a Democrat-controlled Congress and say "If a Democrat is elected President (next year), all those bills will become law."
Now, if only the Libertarian party would make at least one big push to introduce themselves to the public at large...
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
the worst
LINDALE, Texas - An infant was found dead in a hot, parked vehicle outside Lindale City Hall on Tuesday after being left inside by one of the town's reserve police officers, authorities said.
The officer parked his truck Tuesday morning and drove a police car to a law-enforcement class in another town. About 3:20 p.m., the man contacted Lindale police in a panic and said he did not recall taking his infant to day care that day, Justice of the Peace James R. Cowart told The Associated Press.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/
latestnews/stories/081006dntextlindale.9db3f3a.html
----
i don't understand how something like this can happen, involving parent and child. by no means to i want to dump on the guy. imagining what he must be going through right now, as a result of what appears to be a horrible accident, makes me ill inside.
that said, in the 3 1/2 years i've been a daddy, if one, or both of my girls and i are in an unfamiliar or uncontrollable environment (pretty much anywhere that is not our house) i'm all over 'em. i believe that makes me what is referred to as a 'chopper parent'. while i'm unbuckling my youngest from her carseat, my head is on a swivel keeping an eye on my oldest. before that, when each of them was just months old, when we'd be on our way somewhere, i was always looking in the rearview mirror at the mirror positioned in front of them. when we're at a skating rink or a jumpy house playland, even though my trusted family (and that of my wife) and/or friends might be near them to keep an eye on them while i'm tending to something else, i always have a visual 'leash' on them (i look for them every 5 minutes or so just so i know the general area they are in). i suppose i basically reflect something my wife once told me: "i know you're the only one that loves them as much as i do." when they are in my charge, i'm thinking of nothing else. i don't know, maybe it'd be different if i was looking more forward to where i was going after dropping them off. still, i can't imagine something like this happening to me. i forget keys, books, shades, etc. i can't imagine anything making me forget my girls.
The officer parked his truck Tuesday morning and drove a police car to a law-enforcement class in another town. About 3:20 p.m., the man contacted Lindale police in a panic and said he did not recall taking his infant to day care that day, Justice of the Peace James R. Cowart told The Associated Press.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/
latestnews/stories/081006dntextlindale.9db3f3a.html
----
i don't understand how something like this can happen, involving parent and child. by no means to i want to dump on the guy. imagining what he must be going through right now, as a result of what appears to be a horrible accident, makes me ill inside.
that said, in the 3 1/2 years i've been a daddy, if one, or both of my girls and i are in an unfamiliar or uncontrollable environment (pretty much anywhere that is not our house) i'm all over 'em. i believe that makes me what is referred to as a 'chopper parent'. while i'm unbuckling my youngest from her carseat, my head is on a swivel keeping an eye on my oldest. before that, when each of them was just months old, when we'd be on our way somewhere, i was always looking in the rearview mirror at the mirror positioned in front of them. when we're at a skating rink or a jumpy house playland, even though my trusted family (and that of my wife) and/or friends might be near them to keep an eye on them while i'm tending to something else, i always have a visual 'leash' on them (i look for them every 5 minutes or so just so i know the general area they are in). i suppose i basically reflect something my wife once told me: "i know you're the only one that loves them as much as i do." when they are in my charge, i'm thinking of nothing else. i don't know, maybe it'd be different if i was looking more forward to where i was going after dropping them off. still, i can't imagine something like this happening to me. i forget keys, books, shades, etc. i can't imagine anything making me forget my girls.
Monday, August 07, 2006
"keep rock n roll evil"
the missus and i went to the family values show friday night. actually, we caught the last half of it, since it started at 2. we arrived in time enough to hear the last part of stone sour's set and see the deftones and korn, which was all we really wanted to see anyway. it was nice to have a night out, just her and i. however, even though tickets were only $10+ apiece, i think for the first time i learned firsthand the phrase "time is money". the $10 tickets we bought were lawn seats. we hadn't planned on going to this show, just deciding spur-of-the-moment last week to go. i think next time, i want to be closer to the stage.
speaking of music, this week slayer releases christ illusion. no one rocks like they do. who is a cooler vocalist than tom araya and who, outside of possibly ac/dc, has stayed truer to form, or even improved, since their first record?? i caught them performing on the henry rollins show last week at my sister's house (my brother in law is a fan, too, much to my sister's consternation, heh). i've been a fan of theirs since 88s south of heaven. i remember the first time i listened to that cassette (i'm dating myself here), a teammate of mine on our high school football team let me borrow it on the way back home from a road game. the breaks were so very brief between songs (with it being virtually nonexistent between tracks 1 and 2, south of heaven and silent scream) that i thought there were only a few songs on the 10-song record. even though i backfilled my collection with reign in blood and hell awaits, my fandom grew in the 90s, the time during which original drummer dave lombardo left and was replaced by paul bostaph. at the time, i still naive enough to think that the only drummers who could play like that were already in major bands, like lars ulrich, louie clemente, charlie benante, nick menza, etc. the more i heard, the more i thought 'ok, bostaph can do the job well'. then he left and eventually lombardo came back to "the only band he should ever play in" according to a dude from mtv. i didn't think much of it because it was obvious either could do the job. then i saw them perform on rollins' show, and watched the exclusive online clip of them performing disciple from their last album god hates us all. wow! lombardo made it look so effortless playing cult.
i've also heard jihad, a cover of born to be wild (heh, a little bit different from, say, the cult's version) and another song, the title of which i forget, from the record on sirius' heavy metal channel, hard attack. i'm anxious to hear the rest of it!
speaking of music, this week slayer releases christ illusion. no one rocks like they do. who is a cooler vocalist than tom araya and who, outside of possibly ac/dc, has stayed truer to form, or even improved, since their first record?? i caught them performing on the henry rollins show last week at my sister's house (my brother in law is a fan, too, much to my sister's consternation, heh). i've been a fan of theirs since 88s south of heaven. i remember the first time i listened to that cassette (i'm dating myself here), a teammate of mine on our high school football team let me borrow it on the way back home from a road game. the breaks were so very brief between songs (with it being virtually nonexistent between tracks 1 and 2, south of heaven and silent scream) that i thought there were only a few songs on the 10-song record. even though i backfilled my collection with reign in blood and hell awaits, my fandom grew in the 90s, the time during which original drummer dave lombardo left and was replaced by paul bostaph. at the time, i still naive enough to think that the only drummers who could play like that were already in major bands, like lars ulrich, louie clemente, charlie benante, nick menza, etc. the more i heard, the more i thought 'ok, bostaph can do the job well'. then he left and eventually lombardo came back to "the only band he should ever play in" according to a dude from mtv. i didn't think much of it because it was obvious either could do the job. then i saw them perform on rollins' show, and watched the exclusive online clip of them performing disciple from their last album god hates us all. wow! lombardo made it look so effortless playing cult.
i've also heard jihad, a cover of born to be wild (heh, a little bit different from, say, the cult's version) and another song, the title of which i forget, from the record on sirius' heavy metal channel, hard attack. i'm anxious to hear the rest of it!
Friday, August 04, 2006
well yeah...duh!
"Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, a staunch pro-Syrian and close ally of Hezbollah, charged that Israel is trying to pressure Lebanon to accept its conditions for a cease-fire , which include Hezbollah's disarmament and ouster from a swath of south Lebanon."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/
ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_770;_
--
what he wants would result from proportionate use of power. disproportionate power ends hostilities.
geez, and they accuse us of being warmongers because the government is "hostage to the defense industry". more and more, i'm starting to understand what (i believe it was) truman meant when he said that nuking japan probably saved more lives in the long run. when one country doesn't overpower the other, it makes for a never-ending conflict.
i hope they keep severing ways of travel between lebanon and syria. that should dry the hezbollah swamp.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/
ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_770;_
--
what he wants would result from proportionate use of power. disproportionate power ends hostilities.
geez, and they accuse us of being warmongers because the government is "hostage to the defense industry". more and more, i'm starting to understand what (i believe it was) truman meant when he said that nuking japan probably saved more lives in the long run. when one country doesn't overpower the other, it makes for a never-ending conflict.
i hope they keep severing ways of travel between lebanon and syria. that should dry the hezbollah swamp.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
just wondering
from time to time, i can't help but wonder about hw's decision to kick iraq out of kuwait. before, i've phrased it 'would reagan have done that?' invading kuwait wasn't a good idea on saddam's part, and it's not like the world, including other arab states, wasn't with us in kicking him out. i wonder how much of a factor was the urge to use our military for something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)