A Sunday editorial by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel laments "that teachers have been singled out for much venom these days." A better idea according to the MJS: "Lets debate policy. There is plenty of it to debate. Let's not dump on teachers."
So this intro was followed by a robust policy discussion, right? Uh, no. Instead, we heard about the commanding presence of Ricardo Pimentel's teacher who scared him into college, and about the feared and stern Mrs. Peer recalled by board member Mabel Wong and so on and so forth.
It is true that singling out teachers for venom is one way to avoid a substantive policy discussion, but then again, so is anecdotal praise. How about that policy debate then MJS?
There is plenty to debate as the MJS noted. Do our current policies allow us to efficiently identify and remove subpar teachers while rewarding the best ones? Does tenure create the incentive to improve as a teacher? Does a backloaded compensation arrangement discourage people from becoming teachers? Can we afford the amount we are paying for public education? Would competition in education reduce the cost and improve performance?
Oh, I almsot forgot. Mrs. Peer was actually a softy and "her sternness gave way to smiles."
Monday, April 25, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Uncivil Warfare
Recently I was having a conversation with a long time and very liberal acquaintance. We were discussing his difficulty, indeed the near impossibility, of maintaining positive relationships with conservative/Republican/Walker supporters. After it was essentially established that he now socializes entirely with liberals, he noted that he has had multiple conversations comparing our current divisive political climate with the Civil War.
When all your friends agree that a policy that raises the meager public employee contributions towards their health insurance and pensions is like a fight over slavery, well.... I can't think of a better argument for broadening your circle of friends.
In one sense he is right. A civil war will start brewing with uncivil behavior.
When all your friends agree that a policy that raises the meager public employee contributions towards their health insurance and pensions is like a fight over slavery, well.... I can't think of a better argument for broadening your circle of friends.
In one sense he is right. A civil war will start brewing with uncivil behavior.
What Rude Looks Like
I have to admit that Sean's (at Kay's Blue racine) post announcing the Palin rally didn't really register with me. He wrote "More cowbell, less Palin."
Of course now I know that the protester class used cowbells and other noisemaking devices to drown out Sarah Palin's speech.
Misbehaving in a crowd can be kind of fun for the immature I suppose, but how exactly will this behavior win over the all important moderate voter?
Of course now I know that the protester class used cowbells and other noisemaking devices to drown out Sarah Palin's speech.
Misbehaving in a crowd can be kind of fun for the immature I suppose, but how exactly will this behavior win over the all important moderate voter?
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Mysterious Activity Downtown
The Journal Times has a story today concerning an alleged fight outside a downtown bar. The owner of the bar claims that there was not a fight while sworn officers claim otherwise.
Perhaps it was urban kinetic activity.
Perhaps it was urban kinetic activity.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Liberals Please Think
It is such a simple concept and life would be much easier if liberals understood.
The money that is spent on public sector employees is good for them insofar as they can afford their mortgage, groceries etc.... but simultaneously bad for the rest of us who then have less money to pay for their own mortgage, groceries etc...
It baffles me that so many liberals can't seem to understand this.
The money that is spent on public sector employees is good for them insofar as they can afford their mortgage, groceries etc.... but simultaneously bad for the rest of us who then have less money to pay for their own mortgage, groceries etc...
It baffles me that so many liberals can't seem to understand this.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Quibbling with the JT
Generally speaking I think the Racine Journal Times has improved of late insofar as they are not as blatantly political as they had been. That said, I have to quibble a bit.
Yesterday the JT had an otherwise excellent story about the AFSCME union threatening Union Grove businesses with boycotts if they didn't put a "We Support Workers Rights" poster in their windows. The print addition headline was "Businesses asked to pick sides." Asked? How about forced?
Today they ran a short story about one charming Katherine Windels who threatened the lives of Republican lawmakers by "putting a nice little bullet" in the head, along with a couple of bomb threats. They forgot to mention that Windels is a teacher. Unimportant detail? I hardly think so. One mitigating factor in the JT's favor is that it was an AP story.
Yesterday the JT had an otherwise excellent story about the AFSCME union threatening Union Grove businesses with boycotts if they didn't put a "We Support Workers Rights" poster in their windows. The print addition headline was "Businesses asked to pick sides." Asked? How about forced?
Today they ran a short story about one charming Katherine Windels who threatened the lives of Republican lawmakers by "putting a nice little bullet" in the head, along with a couple of bomb threats. They forgot to mention that Windels is a teacher. Unimportant detail? I hardly think so. One mitigating factor in the JT's favor is that it was an AP story.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Stupid American
Today I was selling my wares at a multicultural/international event at a university. Next to me was vendor who was talking to a customer for quite some time. He was from Milwaukee but appeared to be of middle eastern origin. His customer was speaking amiably and enthusiastically until he asked her where she was from. Her reply was "I'm from stupid America."
And this pretty well sums up the multicultural mindset. Celebrate other cultures, denigrate our own. Stupid indeed.
And this pretty well sums up the multicultural mindset. Celebrate other cultures, denigrate our own. Stupid indeed.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
On Progressives and Aversion to Truth
Lately I have been discussing characteristics of liberal progressives, noting a general hostility toward Israel and an ideological litmus test for friendship. Today I add aversion to the truth to that growing list of negative characteristics.
I just read Kay's Blue Racine where a full throated progressivism is on daily display. Today Kay is outraged at some anti-abortion advertisements that state that the womb is the most dangerous place for a black baby and that a potential black leader is aborted every 21 minutes. Kay did not attempt to refute the ads. Rather, they just seem to make her angry. Of course, it is not the deaths of millions of black babies that makes her angry. It is that someone dares to tell the truth.
But it is not just abortion truth that outrages the far left. The terrorist problem in the world and the US is almost entirely a Muslim phenomenon. Crime rates are higher among blacks than most other ethnicities in the US. Lower tax rates often result in more tax revenue. Bad teachers exist in public schools. Single parent families contribute to social ills when compared to two parent families. These and other truths simply can't be tolerated on the far left.
I just read Kay's Blue Racine where a full throated progressivism is on daily display. Today Kay is outraged at some anti-abortion advertisements that state that the womb is the most dangerous place for a black baby and that a potential black leader is aborted every 21 minutes. Kay did not attempt to refute the ads. Rather, they just seem to make her angry. Of course, it is not the deaths of millions of black babies that makes her angry. It is that someone dares to tell the truth.
But it is not just abortion truth that outrages the far left. The terrorist problem in the world and the US is almost entirely a Muslim phenomenon. Crime rates are higher among blacks than most other ethnicities in the US. Lower tax rates often result in more tax revenue. Bad teachers exist in public schools. Single parent families contribute to social ills when compared to two parent families. These and other truths simply can't be tolerated on the far left.
Monday, March 28, 2011
On Progressive Insularity
Over the years, I have on numerous occasions been rejected personally because of the views that I have, hold, explain and espouse. But I have no similar political litmus test for friendship. It seems to be a one way street, and the further to the left, the likelier one is to limit their potential friendships in this manner. It is these folks on the extreme left that don't simply think that conservatives are mistaken and can be won over with persuasive argument. Attempts at argument have not persuaded the conservative who has heard it all before and reached other conclusions. The liberal then concludes that the conservative is therefore evil in some or multiple ways. Never will they consider much less conclude that their own arguments are ineffective, simplistic or mistaken. It then follows that said conservative must be shunned, ridiculed, rejected, boycotted etc.... because they are evil.
The unfortunate result of this childishness is coarsened rhetoric and an insularity that explains why these folks never seem to think they are wrong or outside the mainstream. Heck, all their friends agree with them.
The unfortunate result of this childishness is coarsened rhetoric and an insularity that explains why these folks never seem to think they are wrong or outside the mainstream. Heck, all their friends agree with them.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
On Firing Lousy Teachers
I had a wonderful conversation with a public school teacher yesterday. There was much agreement between us, so I won't reveal her name, lest she be ostracized by her more militant peers.
Of particular interest to me was our discussion on the problem of ineffective teachers. For starters, she acknowledged quite readily that there are some teachers that need to go. But she seemed to defend to some degree the current method to remove lousy teachers, a method created via collective bargaining. To me this should have caused her a bit of cognitive dissonance because on the one hand she recognizes the need to get rid of lousy teachers while on the other hand she defended a process that makes it all but impossible.
My own view is that an education system that is unable to root out lousy teachers isn't really "for the children" and ought to be an embarrassment for teachers serious about educating children.
Of course there is no utopian solution to the problem. That said, there must be a method for firing, not relocating, lousy teachers. That power should be held by an administrator who is in turn held accountable for his/her decisions. It is true that an administrator might wrongly fire a teacher, or worse, do so for nefarious reasons. Again, this should lead to the firing of an unprofessional administrator. And so on up the chain of command.
This task is much harder when the organization is a political one and harder still if the organization is large. Smaller units, say, individual schools, held responsible for results would be a step in the right direction. Of course this takes power away from the teachers union. That is what should happen because it is the teachers union which created a system that makes it all but impossible to fire a lousy teacher. The union too should be held responsible for their lousy results.
Of particular interest to me was our discussion on the problem of ineffective teachers. For starters, she acknowledged quite readily that there are some teachers that need to go. But she seemed to defend to some degree the current method to remove lousy teachers, a method created via collective bargaining. To me this should have caused her a bit of cognitive dissonance because on the one hand she recognizes the need to get rid of lousy teachers while on the other hand she defended a process that makes it all but impossible.
My own view is that an education system that is unable to root out lousy teachers isn't really "for the children" and ought to be an embarrassment for teachers serious about educating children.
Of course there is no utopian solution to the problem. That said, there must be a method for firing, not relocating, lousy teachers. That power should be held by an administrator who is in turn held accountable for his/her decisions. It is true that an administrator might wrongly fire a teacher, or worse, do so for nefarious reasons. Again, this should lead to the firing of an unprofessional administrator. And so on up the chain of command.
This task is much harder when the organization is a political one and harder still if the organization is large. Smaller units, say, individual schools, held responsible for results would be a step in the right direction. Of course this takes power away from the teachers union. That is what should happen because it is the teachers union which created a system that makes it all but impossible to fire a lousy teacher. The union too should be held responsible for their lousy results.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
On Liberals and Israel
I was asked by my son yesterday why liberals tend not to like Israel very much. This was a very difficult question for me, as I don't really understand the liberal animosity towards Israel and I don't want to unfairly represent the liberal position. After a bit I suggested he ask a friend of his who proudly claims to be a communist.
The young communist answer was that Israel was a militaristic country and that liberals don't like war, though he acknowledged that Israel was living among hostile neighbors.
I thought this was an interesting answer. Granted, it was provided by a ninth grade communist, but I don't think he was off the mark in portraying a liberal take on the issue. The problem with this view, if accurate, is that it unfairly focusses on the militarism of Israel, without which it would certainly be wiped off the map.
If Israel were to adopt the liberal position, that is, disarm and hope for peace, it would certainly be wiped off the map. This is eerily similar to the dreams and aspirations of so many of Israel's hostile neighbors.
Now I don't think for a minute that liberals want Israel wiped off the map. Rather, I think they refuse to see the world as it is. It is a dangerous place, especially for Israel. The preferred method of resolving grievances - negotiation, diplomacy etc...- simply can't work if one party to the dispute wants the other party to be dead.
Liberal fantasies don't help much in this situation.
The young communist answer was that Israel was a militaristic country and that liberals don't like war, though he acknowledged that Israel was living among hostile neighbors.
I thought this was an interesting answer. Granted, it was provided by a ninth grade communist, but I don't think he was off the mark in portraying a liberal take on the issue. The problem with this view, if accurate, is that it unfairly focusses on the militarism of Israel, without which it would certainly be wiped off the map.
If Israel were to adopt the liberal position, that is, disarm and hope for peace, it would certainly be wiped off the map. This is eerily similar to the dreams and aspirations of so many of Israel's hostile neighbors.
Now I don't think for a minute that liberals want Israel wiped off the map. Rather, I think they refuse to see the world as it is. It is a dangerous place, especially for Israel. The preferred method of resolving grievances - negotiation, diplomacy etc...- simply can't work if one party to the dispute wants the other party to be dead.
Liberal fantasies don't help much in this situation.
Monday, March 21, 2011
No on RUSD Referenda
Last week I heard snippets of a radio interview with RUSD superintendent Dr. Shaw. I wasn't paying close attention to the interview but I do recall the repeated use of the word "reinvestment" as part of a pitch to pass the three upcoming referenda.
As a business owner, I know a bit about reinvestment. Most importantly, the word implies that you got a return on a previous investment such that there is something there to reinvest. Certainly this is not the case with Racine Unified. Obviously there is no money to reinvest, hence the need to pass the referenda. Re the educational return, again, the previous investments have not yielded results.
In my business as in all others small enough to fail, a series of bad investments would result in unpleasant consequences ending in the most unpleasant, bankruptcy.
As we consider RUSD's request for more money, we should ask ourselves whether we are indeed "reinvesting" or whether we are funding an operation that is making repeated bad "investments" that will ultimately bankrupt the "investors", ie, the Racine area.
Now suppose you agree to some extent that RUSD is a failure. Still, you wonder, what good will it do if we don't fund RUSD? Won't it be even worse than it is now? This is indeed the dilemma for the vast majority of people in Racine. They want a good school system, and they wouldn't mind paying for a good one, but they realize RUSD ain't it.
I have over the years grappled with exactly these questions. I have concluded that RUSD is simply unable to reform itself. It exists for the adults and their retirements and their health care. Real reform in education will not come from our public education "leaders." It will come from the public. It will come when we recognize that the lack of resources is not the problem at RUSD. It will come when we recognize that a government monopoly is not the way to provide critical services. It will come when RUSD no longer has a stranglehold on the education market in the Racine area.
Don't fund a losing operation that leads only to financial and educational bankruptcy. Ask instead for something better, like a school voucher system that will allow kids to attend private schools. Vote no on the latest series of school referenda.
As a business owner, I know a bit about reinvestment. Most importantly, the word implies that you got a return on a previous investment such that there is something there to reinvest. Certainly this is not the case with Racine Unified. Obviously there is no money to reinvest, hence the need to pass the referenda. Re the educational return, again, the previous investments have not yielded results.
In my business as in all others small enough to fail, a series of bad investments would result in unpleasant consequences ending in the most unpleasant, bankruptcy.
As we consider RUSD's request for more money, we should ask ourselves whether we are indeed "reinvesting" or whether we are funding an operation that is making repeated bad "investments" that will ultimately bankrupt the "investors", ie, the Racine area.
Now suppose you agree to some extent that RUSD is a failure. Still, you wonder, what good will it do if we don't fund RUSD? Won't it be even worse than it is now? This is indeed the dilemma for the vast majority of people in Racine. They want a good school system, and they wouldn't mind paying for a good one, but they realize RUSD ain't it.
I have over the years grappled with exactly these questions. I have concluded that RUSD is simply unable to reform itself. It exists for the adults and their retirements and their health care. Real reform in education will not come from our public education "leaders." It will come from the public. It will come when we recognize that the lack of resources is not the problem at RUSD. It will come when we recognize that a government monopoly is not the way to provide critical services. It will come when RUSD no longer has a stranglehold on the education market in the Racine area.
Don't fund a losing operation that leads only to financial and educational bankruptcy. Ask instead for something better, like a school voucher system that will allow kids to attend private schools. Vote no on the latest series of school referenda.
Monday, March 14, 2011
He took er job
The Journal Times has a cool story about a middle school kid at Prairie who is helping other kids in math at the Racine Public Library.
We are in Racine, so look for a teachers union grievance any day now.
We are in Racine, so look for a teachers union grievance any day now.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Unified Kickback?
The Journal Times has a commentary on the Unified headquarters deal. The JT points out that Unified paid $3.8 million for property last sold in 2008 for $2.5 million and last assessed at $2.95 million in 2010. The JT rightly points out that it was not such a good deal.
I will go a step further. Nobody spending their own money would agree to such a deal. The only way it makes sense is if there is a kickback of some sort involved.
On the other hand, if any credible accusations of the sort (mine is pure speculation and conjecture, admittedly) were to surface, the folks at Unified have prepared a great defense. That is, they always squander the taxpayers money, nothing to see here.
I will go a step further. Nobody spending their own money would agree to such a deal. The only way it makes sense is if there is a kickback of some sort involved.
On the other hand, if any credible accusations of the sort (mine is pure speculation and conjecture, admittedly) were to surface, the folks at Unified have prepared a great defense. That is, they always squander the taxpayers money, nothing to see here.
No Shame
The Journal Times has a photo today of five returning Wisconsin state senators, arms raised in triumph in front of the Wisconsin State Capitol.
Where are the crowds chanting "Shame... Shame... Shame" when you need them?
Where are the crowds chanting "Shame... Shame... Shame" when you need them?
Friday, March 11, 2011
Progressive Values Explained
Piecing together the fragments of far left political orthodoxy can be a daunting task - don't try it at home. Leave that task to me.
When elections or school referenda come around, the left will stress the importance of voting. We must have an informed and active electorate to ensure the proper functioning of our democracy blah blah blah. We need to get kids involved in this process early, so we will take them out of school to urge people to vote, so long as they live in Democratic wards.
After the election, depending on the outcome, there may need to be retribution. Voting and political participation are good - see previous paragraph - unless we don't like the outcome. It is important to punish those who voted the wrong way. Let's boycott those businesses that gave money to the candidates that we don't like. This will demonstrate our love for working people.
This boycotting business can get a little tricky. Those Koch brothers have their greedy paws involved in virtually every business imaginable. Time to swear off butt wiping because a subsidiary of the Koch brothers owns a 12% stake in a paper company that subcontracts with a non-union trucking company that delivers to PDQ, whose owner gave money to a pro-marriage initiative in California... And lets not forget Culvers, M$I bank, their investors, Woodman's cause they are non -union, no wait they are good cause they are employee owned, Taco Bell doesn't provide a suitable pension for the Mexican tomato pickers and on and on.
It is important to bring these businesses to their knees so they have to lay off the workers that we love. And we don't have to worry about failing businesses because those damn businesses aren't paying any taxes anyway, we'll show em dammit. The whole private sector is just so greedy, we should join Michael Moore, declare their wealth a national resource and take it, proving once and for all our selflessness and generosity.
Now kids, today we are going to talk about bullying. We must learn to get along and appreciate, even celebrate, our differences. Bullying is wrong, unless you disagree with the political agenda of the teachers union. Then we try to destroy the business that employs your mother. Oh I know, she is a sweet woman, she votes the right, er, correct way and everything, but she works for a company whose Chief Financial Officer gave money to Scott Walker, so she will have to be sacrificed, for you kids of course.
So, to conclude this lesson on liberalism, we value voting, democratic participation, a socially just marketplace, workers, diversity, fairness and getting along with people who are different than us, unless our pension deal is threatened.
When elections or school referenda come around, the left will stress the importance of voting. We must have an informed and active electorate to ensure the proper functioning of our democracy blah blah blah. We need to get kids involved in this process early, so we will take them out of school to urge people to vote, so long as they live in Democratic wards.
After the election, depending on the outcome, there may need to be retribution. Voting and political participation are good - see previous paragraph - unless we don't like the outcome. It is important to punish those who voted the wrong way. Let's boycott those businesses that gave money to the candidates that we don't like. This will demonstrate our love for working people.
This boycotting business can get a little tricky. Those Koch brothers have their greedy paws involved in virtually every business imaginable. Time to swear off butt wiping because a subsidiary of the Koch brothers owns a 12% stake in a paper company that subcontracts with a non-union trucking company that delivers to PDQ, whose owner gave money to a pro-marriage initiative in California... And lets not forget Culvers, M$I bank, their investors, Woodman's cause they are non -union, no wait they are good cause they are employee owned, Taco Bell doesn't provide a suitable pension for the Mexican tomato pickers and on and on.
It is important to bring these businesses to their knees so they have to lay off the workers that we love. And we don't have to worry about failing businesses because those damn businesses aren't paying any taxes anyway, we'll show em dammit. The whole private sector is just so greedy, we should join Michael Moore, declare their wealth a national resource and take it, proving once and for all our selflessness and generosity.
Now kids, today we are going to talk about bullying. We must learn to get along and appreciate, even celebrate, our differences. Bullying is wrong, unless you disagree with the political agenda of the teachers union. Then we try to destroy the business that employs your mother. Oh I know, she is a sweet woman, she votes the right, er, correct way and everything, but she works for a company whose Chief Financial Officer gave money to Scott Walker, so she will have to be sacrificed, for you kids of course.
So, to conclude this lesson on liberalism, we value voting, democratic participation, a socially just marketplace, workers, diversity, fairness and getting along with people who are different than us, unless our pension deal is threatened.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Poll Question
I have been paying fairly close attention to the Madison standoff. I have heard of numerous polls concerning whether unions should pay more for health care and pensions. I have heard of polls asking whether or not Governor Walker should limit collective bargaining for state employees. Both sides of the divide use the results to bolster their respective arguments.
I have yet to hear of a poll concerning the missing state senators. My own view is that this is not an inconsequential question. I can't imagine that leaving your job to prevent a vote would poll well with the vast majority of Americans.
I can understand why most of the media would avoid the question. But I can't fathom why Fox News wouldn't ask the question.
Anyway, I am just a tad puzzled by the lack of polling on this issue. My hope would be that it would poll terribly such that neither party would ever again try such a stunt.
I have yet to hear of a poll concerning the missing state senators. My own view is that this is not an inconsequential question. I can't imagine that leaving your job to prevent a vote would poll well with the vast majority of Americans.
I can understand why most of the media would avoid the question. But I can't fathom why Fox News wouldn't ask the question.
Anyway, I am just a tad puzzled by the lack of polling on this issue. My hope would be that it would poll terribly such that neither party would ever again try such a stunt.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
RUSD Spends $14,000 Per Student
The Journal Times has an article today headlined "Unified to lose $19.1 million." Scary stuff right? How can we possibly teach our children with per student spending that exceeds tuition at The Prairie School?
The JT article points out that Unified had a budget last year of $294 million. And over the years, student enrollment has held steady at about 21,000 students, that is if you trust the pizza party/principal head shaving on the roof/free ipod counting methods currently used to calculate student enrollment. Anyway, grab a calculator and divide the big number by the little number and you get $14,000 in spending per student. Shave $19 million off, recalculate and the per student spending exceeds $13,000. Prairie tuition is tad short of $13 K. And most private schools are far less expensive then Prairie.
These are numbers to keep in mind when the usual suspects cry foul and implore you to vote for increased spending referenda.
The JT article points out that Unified had a budget last year of $294 million. And over the years, student enrollment has held steady at about 21,000 students, that is if you trust the pizza party/principal head shaving on the roof/free ipod counting methods currently used to calculate student enrollment. Anyway, grab a calculator and divide the big number by the little number and you get $14,000 in spending per student. Shave $19 million off, recalculate and the per student spending exceeds $13,000. Prairie tuition is tad short of $13 K. And most private schools are far less expensive then Prairie.
These are numbers to keep in mind when the usual suspects cry foul and implore you to vote for increased spending referenda.
Friday, March 04, 2011
On Ideological Freedom
Like most people I suppose, I have been exposed to a mixed bag of political influences over the years. I have no recollection of political conversations at home as a child, but I do recall an emphasis on education (that I promptly ignored) and Catholicism that all of my siblings and I ignored. I went to high school at Prairie here in town and again have little recollection of political influences as little if any instruction pertained to politics. It was only in college that I began to concern myself a bit with politics and the political view was decidedly liberal. I was mentored by Catholic priest and former member of the US House of representatives, one Father Cornell, a Democrat. After college I got a master degree in school social work. I was a lefty but not particularly hard core. I was in my 30's before I before I began a gradual rethinking of my world view that accelerated when I happened upon a book by one Dr. Thomas Sowell who articulated clearly, methodically and logically many of the thoughts that were germinating in my head at the time.
I share this biographical information as it pertains to a conversation I had yesterday with a highly educated customer of mine. Her view, if I can summarize it accurately, is that I have returned philosophically to the "indoctrination" of my formative years. She had to be going on her way and our conversation ended amicably as always, but it did get me thinking.
Are we all just prisoners of a world view imposed on us during our formative years? I hardly think so. If I had been successfully indoctrinated, I would be a practicing Catholic professor somewhere. I have four siblings. Most of us have rejected Catholicism to one degree or another. We have absorbed I think the value of education. And most of us are left of center with one notable exception. Sounds like a thoroughly botched indoctrination job by my parents!
My own view is that I am an adult who has carefully considered the many influences that I have been exposed to over the years, rejecting some, keeping others and discovering entirely new ones on my own. What a sad existence to believe that you have no free will and that you are merely a slave of your upbringing.
I share this biographical information as it pertains to a conversation I had yesterday with a highly educated customer of mine. Her view, if I can summarize it accurately, is that I have returned philosophically to the "indoctrination" of my formative years. She had to be going on her way and our conversation ended amicably as always, but it did get me thinking.
Are we all just prisoners of a world view imposed on us during our formative years? I hardly think so. If I had been successfully indoctrinated, I would be a practicing Catholic professor somewhere. I have four siblings. Most of us have rejected Catholicism to one degree or another. We have absorbed I think the value of education. And most of us are left of center with one notable exception. Sounds like a thoroughly botched indoctrination job by my parents!
My own view is that I am an adult who has carefully considered the many influences that I have been exposed to over the years, rejecting some, keeping others and discovering entirely new ones on my own. What a sad existence to believe that you have no free will and that you are merely a slave of your upbringing.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
When Will It End Mr. President?
"When will it end?" The Journal Times asks this question today in their print edition, referring, of course, to the political standoff in Madison.
The simple answer to the question is that it will end when the state senators who have left their jobs return to them. But it ain't that simple.
I have noticed the nearly complete lack of criticism of the fleeing lawmakers by prominent national Democrats. Not a senator, not a house member, not Maureen Dowd, or Paul Krugman, or even the sports guy turned politico who used to work at MSNBC, have criticized the absent senators. And most importantly, President Obama too, has been silent on the matter.
Now it is not as though these folks aren't paying attention or that they are too timid to weigh in on a contentious political matters. President Obama has weighed in publicly at least twice in support of the government unions.
What to make of the silence from President Obama on down concerning the fleeing 14 state senators? Of lesser importance, fleeing your job probably doesn't poll well with Americans. Of great importance, President Obama AGREES with the tactic. If he didn't, he would say so, if not publicly then behind the scenes. And if he said so, would all fourteen Democratic state senators defy pressure from the President of the United States? Hell no!
For over two hundred years, we have decided matters of great importance through an established political process. We vote for representatives who in turn decide important matters with input, often contentious and raucous, from anyone who wants to weigh in. Admittedly, the governing bodies in power of both parties will sometimes use their majorities to rush things through the system to their advantage. The process can be ugly but we have tended to agree that it beats all other alternatives. And in the end, there is a vote, the matter is decided. If you lose, you resolve to convince voters to toss the other guys out of office at the next election.
But now the Democratic Party, from President Obama on down, is changing the way we decide matters. If we don't like how the vote will go down, we flee to prevent a vote. We break the established rules. We replace a voting process with protesters. It is an ends justifies the means approach to governing and it is ominous for our country. And publicly at least it has the tacit approval of the President of the United States.
Now back to the "when will it end" question. I don't know, but it could and should end with President Obama saying something like:
I support unions and collective bargaining. I am discouraged that the Republican Party of Wisconsin has the votes to diminish the collective bargaining powers of the state workers unions. As important as collective bargaining rights are, there is something of much greater importance. Voting. It is how we decide matters here in America. The state senators who have fled the state need to return and do their job representing their constituents. If they don't like the result of that vote, they can work hard to convince the people of Wisconsin to move in another direction. But the people of Wisconsin recently voted for Governor Scott Walker and he has the votes to move in a direction that you may not like. But as I like to say, elections have consequences.
Like I said, this is how the standoff could and should end. But it won't, because President Obama apparently agrees with tactics that undermine 200 plus years of political tradition in our country.
The simple answer to the question is that it will end when the state senators who have left their jobs return to them. But it ain't that simple.
I have noticed the nearly complete lack of criticism of the fleeing lawmakers by prominent national Democrats. Not a senator, not a house member, not Maureen Dowd, or Paul Krugman, or even the sports guy turned politico who used to work at MSNBC, have criticized the absent senators. And most importantly, President Obama too, has been silent on the matter.
Now it is not as though these folks aren't paying attention or that they are too timid to weigh in on a contentious political matters. President Obama has weighed in publicly at least twice in support of the government unions.
What to make of the silence from President Obama on down concerning the fleeing 14 state senators? Of lesser importance, fleeing your job probably doesn't poll well with Americans. Of great importance, President Obama AGREES with the tactic. If he didn't, he would say so, if not publicly then behind the scenes. And if he said so, would all fourteen Democratic state senators defy pressure from the President of the United States? Hell no!
For over two hundred years, we have decided matters of great importance through an established political process. We vote for representatives who in turn decide important matters with input, often contentious and raucous, from anyone who wants to weigh in. Admittedly, the governing bodies in power of both parties will sometimes use their majorities to rush things through the system to their advantage. The process can be ugly but we have tended to agree that it beats all other alternatives. And in the end, there is a vote, the matter is decided. If you lose, you resolve to convince voters to toss the other guys out of office at the next election.
But now the Democratic Party, from President Obama on down, is changing the way we decide matters. If we don't like how the vote will go down, we flee to prevent a vote. We break the established rules. We replace a voting process with protesters. It is an ends justifies the means approach to governing and it is ominous for our country. And publicly at least it has the tacit approval of the President of the United States.
Now back to the "when will it end" question. I don't know, but it could and should end with President Obama saying something like:
I support unions and collective bargaining. I am discouraged that the Republican Party of Wisconsin has the votes to diminish the collective bargaining powers of the state workers unions. As important as collective bargaining rights are, there is something of much greater importance. Voting. It is how we decide matters here in America. The state senators who have fled the state need to return and do their job representing their constituents. If they don't like the result of that vote, they can work hard to convince the people of Wisconsin to move in another direction. But the people of Wisconsin recently voted for Governor Scott Walker and he has the votes to move in a direction that you may not like. But as I like to say, elections have consequences.
Like I said, this is how the standoff could and should end. But it won't, because President Obama apparently agrees with tactics that undermine 200 plus years of political tradition in our country.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Economic Fantasies of the Left
From Kay at Blue racine: Well, I don't get your logic then. You want people to make less money so you can pay less in taxes and then those people will spend less in stores like yours and that benefits you how? I'm going to take a wild leap here and guess your college degree wasn't in accounting or basic economics type of areas?
So according to Kay, I should be opposed to Governor Walkers budget because it would be in my financial interest to do so. Notice the assumption that financial self interest should be the motivating factor here, that we should use the political process to get what we can get. And they call us greedy and selfish.
Now on to the economics. Kay's assumption is that if the government pays people more they will spend more, like at my store, and everything will be peachy. There is no apparent consideration of where the money comes from to pay the government union folks the additional money.
I wish Kay's economic illiteracy was the exception on the left. Unfortunately, this thinking is the norm in the party, trickling down to Kay from President Obama.
I have read somewhere or other that a bad economist will look only at all the wonderful things you can do with money, like ensure a fine standard of living for public employees. A good economist will consider the other potential uses of said money. Like Kay, the left only considers one side of the equation.
In contrast, I have to look a bit deeper. Where does the money come from to pay greater than the market rate for public employees? Well it comes from the profit making sector of the economy, ie the private sector. What will happen if too much money is pulled from the private sector? The private sector will have less money available to pay salaries or reinvest in other profitable, that is, taxable ventures.
Obviously there are a lot more problems with the Kay/Democrat economic theory. To name a few, there is a temptation to tax the hell out of the rich/most productive as though that would have no consequences on the economy. Or to simply print more money and pretend it retains its value - reality be damned. Or to borrow and keep pushing the problem down the road as though our creditors will keep lending and forget to collect.
It is true Kay, I don't have a degree in economics or accounting. But I do have a functioning brain and I can observe the obvious. The lefts fantasy economic theories have been tried repeatedly and have failed repeatedly throughout history. And they are failing here again.
So according to Kay, I should be opposed to Governor Walkers budget because it would be in my financial interest to do so. Notice the assumption that financial self interest should be the motivating factor here, that we should use the political process to get what we can get. And they call us greedy and selfish.
Now on to the economics. Kay's assumption is that if the government pays people more they will spend more, like at my store, and everything will be peachy. There is no apparent consideration of where the money comes from to pay the government union folks the additional money.
I wish Kay's economic illiteracy was the exception on the left. Unfortunately, this thinking is the norm in the party, trickling down to Kay from President Obama.
I have read somewhere or other that a bad economist will look only at all the wonderful things you can do with money, like ensure a fine standard of living for public employees. A good economist will consider the other potential uses of said money. Like Kay, the left only considers one side of the equation.
In contrast, I have to look a bit deeper. Where does the money come from to pay greater than the market rate for public employees? Well it comes from the profit making sector of the economy, ie the private sector. What will happen if too much money is pulled from the private sector? The private sector will have less money available to pay salaries or reinvest in other profitable, that is, taxable ventures.
Obviously there are a lot more problems with the Kay/Democrat economic theory. To name a few, there is a temptation to tax the hell out of the rich/most productive as though that would have no consequences on the economy. Or to simply print more money and pretend it retains its value - reality be damned. Or to borrow and keep pushing the problem down the road as though our creditors will keep lending and forget to collect.
It is true Kay, I don't have a degree in economics or accounting. But I do have a functioning brain and I can observe the obvious. The lefts fantasy economic theories have been tried repeatedly and have failed repeatedly throughout history. And they are failing here again.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Mystery Money
This one is just too juicy to leave in the comments section. Sean is claiming that taxpayers pay nothing towards government union pensions, citing an article in Forbes.
Here is what he had to say: Denis, the workers have ALREADY AGREED to the PAYCUTS. Forbes: Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing to Employee Pensions: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/
Lets get this party started Sean. Where does the pension money come from?
Here is what he had to say: Denis, the workers have ALREADY AGREED to the PAYCUTS. Forbes: Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing to Employee Pensions: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/
Lets get this party started Sean. Where does the pension money come from?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
What A Bargain!
The scene: Government union guy sees attractive gal.
Government union guy: Hey good looking, how about a date, maybe a movie, some drinks and then, who knows...
Attractive gal: Get lost.
GUG: Hey wait a minute, don't just walk away. We can work this out.
AG: What the" %%$^&" is there to work out. Leave me alone.
GUG: You are being unreasonable. I have rights you know.
AG: Rights?
GUG: Ya, bargaining rights. Look, perhaps we started our relationship off on the wrong foot. Let's start over.
AG: Relationship? We have no relationship. Just go away.
GUG: Your not negotiating in good faith. Not even a counteroffer, like..... uh, coffee and a walk on the beach.
AG: Final offer, a kick in the groin.
GUG: Now you are just being unreasonable, denying my rights. Look, I just want to sit down and work out our differences. It would be a shame if we had to go to arbitration. That might not work out so well for ya. I'm just sayin.
AG: Arbitration?
GUG: Ya, I'd hate to go that route. I still think we can work this out. But if you continue to be unreasonable, well, an arbitrator will choose between our two final offers.
I could go on, but I will stop and explain things so Sean will understand. The exchange above is fictitious, false, made up, not true, and entirely a figment of my imagination. But is an attempt to illustrate the nonsense that is the "right" to negotiate. Whether it is an innocent woman, a business, a union, or our elected representatives, negotiations should only take place if both sides want to negotiate. What about consent? Anyone forced to negotiate is not free.
But hey, if bargaining is inevitable, lay back and enjoy!
Government union guy: Hey good looking, how about a date, maybe a movie, some drinks and then, who knows...
Attractive gal: Get lost.
GUG: Hey wait a minute, don't just walk away. We can work this out.
AG: What the" %%$^&" is there to work out. Leave me alone.
GUG: You are being unreasonable. I have rights you know.
AG: Rights?
GUG: Ya, bargaining rights. Look, perhaps we started our relationship off on the wrong foot. Let's start over.
AG: Relationship? We have no relationship. Just go away.
GUG: Your not negotiating in good faith. Not even a counteroffer, like..... uh, coffee and a walk on the beach.
AG: Final offer, a kick in the groin.
GUG: Now you are just being unreasonable, denying my rights. Look, I just want to sit down and work out our differences. It would be a shame if we had to go to arbitration. That might not work out so well for ya. I'm just sayin.
AG: Arbitration?
GUG: Ya, I'd hate to go that route. I still think we can work this out. But if you continue to be unreasonable, well, an arbitrator will choose between our two final offers.
I could go on, but I will stop and explain things so Sean will understand. The exchange above is fictitious, false, made up, not true, and entirely a figment of my imagination. But is an attempt to illustrate the nonsense that is the "right" to negotiate. Whether it is an innocent woman, a business, a union, or our elected representatives, negotiations should only take place if both sides want to negotiate. What about consent? Anyone forced to negotiate is not free.
But hey, if bargaining is inevitable, lay back and enjoy!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
On No Bid Union Contracts
Apparently Governor Walker has something in the budget allowing for some no bid contracts and the left is up in arms. On this score I would agree with the lefties as I am no fan of no bid contracts. However.....
When was the last time a government union was subjected to a competitive bid for their services? Union contracts are always no bid.
If it is wrong (and it is) for government to sell power plants without competitive bidding, wouldn't it also be wrong to purchase labor without competitive bidding?
How about a little consistency. Let us put an end to all no bid contracts.
When was the last time a government union was subjected to a competitive bid for their services? Union contracts are always no bid.
If it is wrong (and it is) for government to sell power plants without competitive bidding, wouldn't it also be wrong to purchase labor without competitive bidding?
How about a little consistency. Let us put an end to all no bid contracts.
Democrats to the Rescue
Imagine if their were a taxpayers union that was part of the negotiations for state services, tax rates, and labor contracts. And that they were allowed to deduct money automatically from all the citizens of State of Wisconsin, even those who disagreed with their message and agenda. At first this union did a fair job looking out for the taxpayers, but over the years things began to change. They gradually decided to throw their weight behind only one political party, the Republicans. They gave large quantities of cash to elect Republicans such that it became obvious that you needed the support of the taxpayers union even to think about running for office. And if you ever bucked the taxpayers union in any way, you could forget about reelection. Now suppose that the leaders of the taxpayers union became so powerful and so self interested that they began to really harm the state and the citizens they purported to serve. And that over the years they had gained such influence with the media that their claims that "its for the taxpayer" were never challenged and the health of the taxpayer never really considered. And just when the state was nearing insolvency, the states citizens threw out the Republican Party and elected Democrats to step in to restore fiscal sanity. After proposing modest changes to curb the power of the taxpayers union/Republican Party and pave the way for a more responsible state apparatus, the taxpayers union started to foment unrest in the state capitol. More ominously, they decided to forgo the democratic process that had worked so well for them in the past. They ordered their pawns in the Republican Party to break the law, flee the state, and disrupt procedure in Madison, creating chaos all along.
I may have an additional chapter to this story that I hope does not include caving to the demands of the taxpayers union.
I may have an additional chapter to this story that I hope does not include caving to the demands of the taxpayers union.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Democratic Governance at Stake
My son went to school this week. All week. His teachers were there too. All of them. This has been going on week after week and year after year.
This continuity and predictability would not ordinarily be worthy of comment. But this has not been an ordinary week.
As we all know, thousands of public school teachers throughout the state left their jobs this week to join a protest. Meanwhile, thousands of private school teachers did their jobs this week.
Those private school teachers don't make as much money as their public school counterparts. Their health care plans are nowhere near as lavish. Neither are their pensions, assuming they even have them. But they showed up for work this week.
What's more, they seldom seem miserable or disgruntled to me. Now I don't think for a second that all is blissful behind the scenes of your average private school. Certainly some teachers feel that they should be getting more pay or better benefits. Some may think they are not recognized properly for their accomplishments. Some in management might be buffoons. Always there are problems and challenges.
The difference between the public sector and the private sector is how these problems are handled. At my sons school, they are handled one at a time and behind the scenes, with, I suspect, a guiding document such as policy manual. Egregious departures from policy would leave either party, management or labor, to answer to a board of directors.
The system seems to work pretty well. Despite not being able to offer as much money, benefits, or job protections as their public school counterparts, the school is always well staffed with dedicated professionals. Some teachers move on, some are nudged along, and some pushed, but a large number seem to stay for a long time, an indicator of general contentedness in my view. The same is true of the administrators.
At the end of the day, all the parties involved, and that includes parents and students, are working toward a common goal of educating children. If teachers don't perform, they improve or move on. If children don't study or behave adequately, they improve or move on. If administration makes too many poor decisions, parents send their children to another school.
There is a proper balance of power between the parties involved, without which the school would fail. If management gained enough power, for example, to pay themselves lavishly, tuition would increase beyond the level acceptable to parents, and they would stop paying. If any of the interested parties were empowered sufficiently to put their interests above the others and to the detriment of the mission, the school would decline and ultimately collapse.
Decline is well under way at our public schools and collapse may not be far in the offing. The reason is an imbalance of power and insufficient means to check said power.
Do parents have the power to reform public schools? In a word, no. At the end of the day, the school will still be in operation because their funding source is Madison, not parents. The school system needs to keep politicians happy. Politicians are kept happy with campaign contributions.
Does administration have the power to reform public schools? No. Obviously and at a minimum, reforming a school system would require an efficient way to remove elements detrimental to the mission of educating students. No such efficient means exists because of the successful collaboration between and the teachers union and politicians.
The school system simply can't reform itself. The balance of power is skewed heavily in favor of the teachers union. Parents are powerless. Administration is powerless and co-opted in any case by the teachers union agenda. The same is true of school boards. And arguably, especially evident this week, the Democratic party itself is a de facto arm of the teachers union.
But alas, the public at large can act as a check on the power of the teachers union and their allies. We have elections for just this purpose, among others. As it happens, we recently did have an election. The people of Wisconsin voted. They voted to empower the Republicans. Said Republicans are attempting to curb some of the power of government unions. They are doing so via the powers established by the people of Wisconsin and the constitution that we enacted. In short, they are making laws based on a democratic process agreed upon by all Wisconsinites.
All Wisconsinites...... well, except for the government unions and their allies on the extreme left. Unhappy with the results of an election and impending changes, they have enlisted their pawns, Democratic state senators, to flee the state and avoid a legitimate debate and vote on a critical matter to the state and, it now seems, our nation.
At issue for Wisconsin and indeed our country is nothing less than the survival of our system of governance. Will we keep our established system of governance or will it be government by mob rule?
I am hopeful that our Republicans have the strength and courage to withstand the pressures of the mob and to vote to curb the powers of the government unions, assuming that we still adhere to old fashioned notions like voting.
This continuity and predictability would not ordinarily be worthy of comment. But this has not been an ordinary week.
As we all know, thousands of public school teachers throughout the state left their jobs this week to join a protest. Meanwhile, thousands of private school teachers did their jobs this week.
Those private school teachers don't make as much money as their public school counterparts. Their health care plans are nowhere near as lavish. Neither are their pensions, assuming they even have them. But they showed up for work this week.
What's more, they seldom seem miserable or disgruntled to me. Now I don't think for a second that all is blissful behind the scenes of your average private school. Certainly some teachers feel that they should be getting more pay or better benefits. Some may think they are not recognized properly for their accomplishments. Some in management might be buffoons. Always there are problems and challenges.
The difference between the public sector and the private sector is how these problems are handled. At my sons school, they are handled one at a time and behind the scenes, with, I suspect, a guiding document such as policy manual. Egregious departures from policy would leave either party, management or labor, to answer to a board of directors.
The system seems to work pretty well. Despite not being able to offer as much money, benefits, or job protections as their public school counterparts, the school is always well staffed with dedicated professionals. Some teachers move on, some are nudged along, and some pushed, but a large number seem to stay for a long time, an indicator of general contentedness in my view. The same is true of the administrators.
At the end of the day, all the parties involved, and that includes parents and students, are working toward a common goal of educating children. If teachers don't perform, they improve or move on. If children don't study or behave adequately, they improve or move on. If administration makes too many poor decisions, parents send their children to another school.
There is a proper balance of power between the parties involved, without which the school would fail. If management gained enough power, for example, to pay themselves lavishly, tuition would increase beyond the level acceptable to parents, and they would stop paying. If any of the interested parties were empowered sufficiently to put their interests above the others and to the detriment of the mission, the school would decline and ultimately collapse.
Decline is well under way at our public schools and collapse may not be far in the offing. The reason is an imbalance of power and insufficient means to check said power.
Do parents have the power to reform public schools? In a word, no. At the end of the day, the school will still be in operation because their funding source is Madison, not parents. The school system needs to keep politicians happy. Politicians are kept happy with campaign contributions.
Does administration have the power to reform public schools? No. Obviously and at a minimum, reforming a school system would require an efficient way to remove elements detrimental to the mission of educating students. No such efficient means exists because of the successful collaboration between and the teachers union and politicians.
The school system simply can't reform itself. The balance of power is skewed heavily in favor of the teachers union. Parents are powerless. Administration is powerless and co-opted in any case by the teachers union agenda. The same is true of school boards. And arguably, especially evident this week, the Democratic party itself is a de facto arm of the teachers union.
But alas, the public at large can act as a check on the power of the teachers union and their allies. We have elections for just this purpose, among others. As it happens, we recently did have an election. The people of Wisconsin voted. They voted to empower the Republicans. Said Republicans are attempting to curb some of the power of government unions. They are doing so via the powers established by the people of Wisconsin and the constitution that we enacted. In short, they are making laws based on a democratic process agreed upon by all Wisconsinites.
All Wisconsinites...... well, except for the government unions and their allies on the extreme left. Unhappy with the results of an election and impending changes, they have enlisted their pawns, Democratic state senators, to flee the state and avoid a legitimate debate and vote on a critical matter to the state and, it now seems, our nation.
At issue for Wisconsin and indeed our country is nothing less than the survival of our system of governance. Will we keep our established system of governance or will it be government by mob rule?
I am hopeful that our Republicans have the strength and courage to withstand the pressures of the mob and to vote to curb the powers of the government unions, assuming that we still adhere to old fashioned notions like voting.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Just Askin
I know a handful of fiscally conservative tea party types who are supporting Alderman Eric Marcus for mayor. Though I like his tenacity on some issues and that he seems to be despised by many on the council, I have not yet sipped the Kool-Aid. I have a few concerns but my main one is that he seems to be courting both tea party folks AND the municipal unions. Events in Madison this week suggest a wee bit of philosophic difference between these constituencies.
At some point Marcus will have to favor one group and disappoint the other. Last night at the city council was a perfect example. Marcus voted with the majority in support of a new contract for parks and public works employees to the delight I am sure of his new friends, Penny and Scott Sharp, the latter being president of local 67.
I have given my share of grief to Alderman Greg Helding in recent years, and deservedly so, but I commend him on his dissenting vote and this comment found in the Journal Times: "I have a feeling when we go to the state they will tell us, 'Well, we tried to help you out but you guys passed the contract that you didn't have to.'" Aldermen Maack, Wisneski, and Weidner also voted no citing "looming state cuts, decreasing property values and the burden on taxpayers..."
Our Republican lawmakers are in Madison in a fight to the death with state employees unions and for taxpayers. I am as proud of them as a first lady of her country, so I am more than a little perplexed that small government types are rallying behind Alderman Marcus. If any can explain the attraction, have at it.
At some point Marcus will have to favor one group and disappoint the other. Last night at the city council was a perfect example. Marcus voted with the majority in support of a new contract for parks and public works employees to the delight I am sure of his new friends, Penny and Scott Sharp, the latter being president of local 67.
I have given my share of grief to Alderman Greg Helding in recent years, and deservedly so, but I commend him on his dissenting vote and this comment found in the Journal Times: "I have a feeling when we go to the state they will tell us, 'Well, we tried to help you out but you guys passed the contract that you didn't have to.'" Aldermen Maack, Wisneski, and Weidner also voted no citing "looming state cuts, decreasing property values and the burden on taxpayers..."
Our Republican lawmakers are in Madison in a fight to the death with state employees unions and for taxpayers. I am as proud of them as a first lady of her country, so I am more than a little perplexed that small government types are rallying behind Alderman Marcus. If any can explain the attraction, have at it.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
On Limiting Collective Bargaining, Part 2
A comment I made to Sean concerning the 50% of teachers who quit the profession within five years:
Sean, I don't doubt the truth of your non-anecdotal fact about teachers quitting within five years. But let us think it through a bit. Since it is likely you can't, I will do it for you. Compensation for teachers in the public sector is back loaded. The payoff really comes later after many years of service. Initially, salaries are modest. But after a while, teachers cash in with higher salaries, the better jobs, pensions and free health care for life in many cases. So young teachers have to make a choice within a few years. Will I accept a relatively raw deal now for a big payoff years down the road? Some will, while the truly talented will in many cases move on to other professions where their value is not defined by the passage of time. It would be interesting to see how many teachers leave after they are well down that road. While many have probably quit in effect, they muddle through, bide their time and await the payoff. Not exactly the best system to secure great teachers, but what would you expect from collective bargaining?
Sean, I don't doubt the truth of your non-anecdotal fact about teachers quitting within five years. But let us think it through a bit. Since it is likely you can't, I will do it for you. Compensation for teachers in the public sector is back loaded. The payoff really comes later after many years of service. Initially, salaries are modest. But after a while, teachers cash in with higher salaries, the better jobs, pensions and free health care for life in many cases. So young teachers have to make a choice within a few years. Will I accept a relatively raw deal now for a big payoff years down the road? Some will, while the truly talented will in many cases move on to other professions where their value is not defined by the passage of time. It would be interesting to see how many teachers leave after they are well down that road. While many have probably quit in effect, they muddle through, bide their time and await the payoff. Not exactly the best system to secure great teachers, but what would you expect from collective bargaining?
On Limiting Collective Bargaining Power
So it seems that many teachers throughout the state will not show up for work today. Instead, they will be protesting in Madison over a proposal that would limit their collective bargaining power.
Some teachers will use personal days while others will just call in sick. In Racine today the district is making plans to deal with an unusual number of teacher absences. In Madison, teachers are planning a district wide coordinated absence so they can protest.
My guess is that your average teachers collective bargaining agreement is about the size of a federal health care bill. But apparently they have secured personal days such that they can skip school and protest while still being paid by Wisconsin taxpayers. In Madison, teachers seemingly feel confident that they can walk off the job without consequences. The union and their collectively bargained contract has their back.
In the real world, people can't just walk off the job without being fired or at least disciplined. And that is how it should be. But the teachers union, via collective bargaining, have won concessions that would (and have) destroyed private sector businesses. And the concessions they have won have already done serious damage to our education system while threatening the solvency of our state.
Who would have thought that teachers, by walking off the job, would present the best argument yet for limiting their collective bargaining power.
Some teachers will use personal days while others will just call in sick. In Racine today the district is making plans to deal with an unusual number of teacher absences. In Madison, teachers are planning a district wide coordinated absence so they can protest.
My guess is that your average teachers collective bargaining agreement is about the size of a federal health care bill. But apparently they have secured personal days such that they can skip school and protest while still being paid by Wisconsin taxpayers. In Madison, teachers seemingly feel confident that they can walk off the job without consequences. The union and their collectively bargained contract has their back.
In the real world, people can't just walk off the job without being fired or at least disciplined. And that is how it should be. But the teachers union, via collective bargaining, have won concessions that would (and have) destroyed private sector businesses. And the concessions they have won have already done serious damage to our education system while threatening the solvency of our state.
Who would have thought that teachers, by walking off the job, would present the best argument yet for limiting their collective bargaining power.
Monday, February 14, 2011
On Government Employees and Lambs
We are about to witness a huge upsurge of hysteria over Governor Walkers attempts to limit the power of state employees and their unions. So I began to ponder the purpose of unions and to what extent government employees should even need one.
My understanding is that unions formed initially in the private sector. Through a collective with a looming threat of strikes, unions sought to win a greater share of profits, improve working conditions etc.... when negotiating with ownership.
Public sector unionization lacks some key features of their private sector counterparts.
For starters, there is not a worker/owner dynamic battling with each other over profits. Rather than battling over a finite amount of money, ie profits, generated from the efforts of both parties, the government and government unions are battling over a huge and nearly limitless amount of money generated by OTHER people's efforts. This is a recipe for disaster for the other people.
Secondly, where is the worker vs owner dynamic with a government union? Are government workers mere employees or are they the government? In truth I suppose they are a mix of the two. To the extent that they are the government, it sort of begs the question: Why does government need to negotiate with itself?
Thirdly, is government an owner? As an advocate for small government, it is beginning to feel that way to me, but that is a subject for another day. Most of us would like to think that we, as in all of us, own or are in charge of government. And that would include public employees. As "owners," why would they need to negotiate with themselves?
Lets face it, there are three separate parties involved here with three separate goals. Public sector employees want whatever they can get. Elected officials want to be reelected. The rest of us want services delivered efficiently and cost effectively.
Only two of these parties are at the negotiating table. It reminds me a little of the quip about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. The difference being in our case as lambs that we don't even get a vote.
Yes, I know, the elected officials are there to represent us. But they are also there to represent government employees, also citizens deserving of representation. Since the goals and objectives of government employees and the lambs are rather different, this creates an unresolvable conflict for our representatives.
Furthermore, we mustn't forget the objectives of government officials. They want to get reelected. Getting reelected is not so easy when you drive a hard bargain with a large, powerful and political force such as government employees. The temptation surely is there to appease them at the expense of the lambs.
All of which leaves us with a growing government and a shrinking private sector, brought on by an unnecessary, unfair and ultimately self destructive imbalance of power which favors government employees over regular citizens. It is time to change this formula.
This is the opinion of one lamb with no vote. Thank you Governor Walker for looking out for me.
My understanding is that unions formed initially in the private sector. Through a collective with a looming threat of strikes, unions sought to win a greater share of profits, improve working conditions etc.... when negotiating with ownership.
Public sector unionization lacks some key features of their private sector counterparts.
For starters, there is not a worker/owner dynamic battling with each other over profits. Rather than battling over a finite amount of money, ie profits, generated from the efforts of both parties, the government and government unions are battling over a huge and nearly limitless amount of money generated by OTHER people's efforts. This is a recipe for disaster for the other people.
Secondly, where is the worker vs owner dynamic with a government union? Are government workers mere employees or are they the government? In truth I suppose they are a mix of the two. To the extent that they are the government, it sort of begs the question: Why does government need to negotiate with itself?
Thirdly, is government an owner? As an advocate for small government, it is beginning to feel that way to me, but that is a subject for another day. Most of us would like to think that we, as in all of us, own or are in charge of government. And that would include public employees. As "owners," why would they need to negotiate with themselves?
Lets face it, there are three separate parties involved here with three separate goals. Public sector employees want whatever they can get. Elected officials want to be reelected. The rest of us want services delivered efficiently and cost effectively.
Only two of these parties are at the negotiating table. It reminds me a little of the quip about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. The difference being in our case as lambs that we don't even get a vote.
Yes, I know, the elected officials are there to represent us. But they are also there to represent government employees, also citizens deserving of representation. Since the goals and objectives of government employees and the lambs are rather different, this creates an unresolvable conflict for our representatives.
Furthermore, we mustn't forget the objectives of government officials. They want to get reelected. Getting reelected is not so easy when you drive a hard bargain with a large, powerful and political force such as government employees. The temptation surely is there to appease them at the expense of the lambs.
All of which leaves us with a growing government and a shrinking private sector, brought on by an unnecessary, unfair and ultimately self destructive imbalance of power which favors government employees over regular citizens. It is time to change this formula.
This is the opinion of one lamb with no vote. Thank you Governor Walker for looking out for me.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Walk the Walk
Yesterday I heard WRJN's Don Rosen argue that there is no difference between the government mandate that we buy clothes and the Obamacare mandate that we buy insurance.
Rosen could easily prove his point by walking around naked on Monument Square. When the police arrive to arrest/institutionalize him, he could pull out, from where I don't know, a receipt from Boston Store proving that he has purchased clothing.
Rosen could easily prove his point by walking around naked on Monument Square. When the police arrive to arrest/institutionalize him, he could pull out, from where I don't know, a receipt from Boston Store proving that he has purchased clothing.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Character Assassination Starts Now
Never heard of Roger Vinson? Me neither. Soon we will hear what a despicable human being he is, courtesy of the left.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Misleading Education Argument Exposed
With a RUSD referendum coming up, be prepared to hear a similar argument repeated over and over. An excellent example of this argument was submitted to the Journal Times by the lovely and feisty Dorothy Constantine, and it goes something like this:
Education is critical. Education prepares our youth to be productive members of society. Other nations are getting ahead of us, posing a threat to our quality of life. But alas, education costs money. We should spend it.
Though here argument isn't finished, I will stop there and comment. I am in full agreement with Mrs. Constantine at this point in here argument. Education is critical, it costs money and we should spend money on education.
And now for Constantine closes her argument with: Support our public schools, where our future lies.
Notice the subtle switch from education to public schools? If you're not careful that will slip right past you. The argument assumes that education and public education are one in the same and that anyone who believes in the importance of education will therefore support public education.
What Constantine and others forget or deliberately omit is that one could strongly value education, as I do, while also recognizing the failure that is public education. There are other paths to an education outside of of government schools. Indeed, when we speak of an education crisis, most I think assume the conversation is about our public schools. Is there a private education crisis in this country?
I agree with Constantine for the most part, but I would change the final sentence. Education is important, support the privatization of education, where our future lies.
Education is critical. Education prepares our youth to be productive members of society. Other nations are getting ahead of us, posing a threat to our quality of life. But alas, education costs money. We should spend it.
Though here argument isn't finished, I will stop there and comment. I am in full agreement with Mrs. Constantine at this point in here argument. Education is critical, it costs money and we should spend money on education.
And now for Constantine closes her argument with: Support our public schools, where our future lies.
Notice the subtle switch from education to public schools? If you're not careful that will slip right past you. The argument assumes that education and public education are one in the same and that anyone who believes in the importance of education will therefore support public education.
What Constantine and others forget or deliberately omit is that one could strongly value education, as I do, while also recognizing the failure that is public education. There are other paths to an education outside of of government schools. Indeed, when we speak of an education crisis, most I think assume the conversation is about our public schools. Is there a private education crisis in this country?
I agree with Constantine for the most part, but I would change the final sentence. Education is important, support the privatization of education, where our future lies.
Friday, January 28, 2011
The Left and Fantasy Dictators
I am enjoying a new local lefty blog, rootriversiren.blogspot.com. A recent post about Ann Rand led to this exchange:
Siren: Rand saw a centralized government as an evil thing (and don't ya imagine how being raised in Russia influenced her, I always did). I for one, don't see it as an evil or even a bad thing...but all that depends on the mechanisms for control or regulation.
Downtown Brown: Which of the following persons or people would you like to have their hands on the levers of your "Mechanism". Bernard Madoff? George W Bush?, Michelle Obama? Margaret Sanger? Just curious which one you want to turn our system over to for "Control", and "regulation".
Siren: "We The People" baby boy, of course!
Me: "We The People" and centralized government are incompatible concepts.
Siren: I don't believe that is true. A government of the people, by the people and for the people is still a great concept and a worthy goal. Your point is registered and I shall end the conversation before it becomes unbearably obnoxious. Thank you for playing.
New comments are not allowed
Notice that the Siren begged out before having to defend her(?) assertion that a Soviet style dictatorship is not an evil thing so long as "mechanisms for control" remain with "we the people." Now this is the lefts fantasy, is it not? A benevolent dictator committed to justice and equality for all. It is a dangerous fantasy that has played out repeatedly and disastrously for millions of people throughout the world.
OK then, why is she wrong? Well for starters, by definition power and influence in centralized governments are, well, centralized in the hands of a few, or, with a dictator, one. Under such governments, again by definition, decentralized/"we the people" government doesn't exist. "We the people" might however be a useful propaganda slogan for the dictator.
So what if we have no power? We finally have selected a good and fair dictator who embodies the virtues of "we the people." Well perhaps, though not at all likely, but once that selection is made, there is no going back. And you will have a succession problem to deal with. Remember, you have chosen a dictator so by definition you have given up what power you have.
It is pure fantasy to believe that it will be the good and the just that will rise to power. Just as pedophiles are drawn to the teaching or preaching professions, the power hungry will be drawn to an empowered government. And the most skilled and most manipulative and the most narcissistic and the one best at consolidating power by whatever means necessary will rise to the top. And haven't we seen this over and over again throughout history to realize that the meek and humble and the just just (just wanted to use just twice in a row for the first time ever, sorry) won't make it to the top.
But alas, even a kind and just dictator would fail to make life wonderful for "we the people." Why? Try this thought experiment. Would New York City be better off today if there was a highly competent NYC food czar with dictatorial powers or with the present, nearly completely decentralized system of food procurement? Would a brilliant, competent, kind and just dictator be able to improve on the impossibly complex and diverse system that unfailingly delivers a mind numbing menu of foods to millions of people every day without anyone in charge. Now that is the true power and brilliance of "we the people" on display.
So if a kind and humble and competent dictator can't improve the food situation in just one American city, he won't be able to control and improve the lives of Americans. This is because the collective genius of "the people" will always exceed the genius of ANY one individual.
And lastly, we have a mechanism already that empowers "we the people." It is our Constitution and it will work if we use it.
Siren: Rand saw a centralized government as an evil thing (and don't ya imagine how being raised in Russia influenced her, I always did). I for one, don't see it as an evil or even a bad thing...but all that depends on the mechanisms for control or regulation.
Downtown Brown: Which of the following persons or people would you like to have their hands on the levers of your "Mechanism". Bernard Madoff? George W Bush?, Michelle Obama? Margaret Sanger? Just curious which one you want to turn our system over to for "Control", and "regulation".
Siren: "We The People" baby boy, of course!
Me: "We The People" and centralized government are incompatible concepts.
Siren: I don't believe that is true. A government of the people, by the people and for the people is still a great concept and a worthy goal. Your point is registered and I shall end the conversation before it becomes unbearably obnoxious. Thank you for playing.
New comments are not allowed
Notice that the Siren begged out before having to defend her(?) assertion that a Soviet style dictatorship is not an evil thing so long as "mechanisms for control" remain with "we the people." Now this is the lefts fantasy, is it not? A benevolent dictator committed to justice and equality for all. It is a dangerous fantasy that has played out repeatedly and disastrously for millions of people throughout the world.
OK then, why is she wrong? Well for starters, by definition power and influence in centralized governments are, well, centralized in the hands of a few, or, with a dictator, one. Under such governments, again by definition, decentralized/"we the people" government doesn't exist. "We the people" might however be a useful propaganda slogan for the dictator.
So what if we have no power? We finally have selected a good and fair dictator who embodies the virtues of "we the people." Well perhaps, though not at all likely, but once that selection is made, there is no going back. And you will have a succession problem to deal with. Remember, you have chosen a dictator so by definition you have given up what power you have.
It is pure fantasy to believe that it will be the good and the just that will rise to power. Just as pedophiles are drawn to the teaching or preaching professions, the power hungry will be drawn to an empowered government. And the most skilled and most manipulative and the most narcissistic and the one best at consolidating power by whatever means necessary will rise to the top. And haven't we seen this over and over again throughout history to realize that the meek and humble and the just just (just wanted to use just twice in a row for the first time ever, sorry) won't make it to the top.
But alas, even a kind and just dictator would fail to make life wonderful for "we the people." Why? Try this thought experiment. Would New York City be better off today if there was a highly competent NYC food czar with dictatorial powers or with the present, nearly completely decentralized system of food procurement? Would a brilliant, competent, kind and just dictator be able to improve on the impossibly complex and diverse system that unfailingly delivers a mind numbing menu of foods to millions of people every day without anyone in charge. Now that is the true power and brilliance of "we the people" on display.
So if a kind and humble and competent dictator can't improve the food situation in just one American city, he won't be able to control and improve the lives of Americans. This is because the collective genius of "the people" will always exceed the genius of ANY one individual.
And lastly, we have a mechanism already that empowers "we the people." It is our Constitution and it will work if we use it.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Economic Miracles
Do you believe in miracles? Sue Pedersen and Gary Bahr do. In the Journal Times today Sue supports a new school funding plan wherein "every school will receive more state aid and every taxpayer will see a reduction in the school tax levy." Gary wants an 85% reduction in property taxes, financed by "eliminating unfair special interest tax exemption devices", a move that will end our deficit and allow us to reduce the sales and income tax rates.
Both seem to come from the "have your cake, eat it, AND lose weight" school of economics. But I say if we are going to repeal the rules of economics, lets really make an impact. Under my plan, everybody makes $1 million a year, prices stay the same or go down, government delivers any service we desire and we pay no taxes. Anybody on board?
Both seem to come from the "have your cake, eat it, AND lose weight" school of economics. But I say if we are going to repeal the rules of economics, lets really make an impact. Under my plan, everybody makes $1 million a year, prices stay the same or go down, government delivers any service we desire and we pay no taxes. Anybody on board?
Friday, January 21, 2011
On Sound Philosophy
The Journal Times today reported that the Wisconsin School for the Deaf "soundly" defeated Union Grove Christian in basketball. After recovering from the profound insensitivity of the JT, I naturally began to ponder the age old philosophical question: If a basketball team falls in the woods....does it make a sound?
Now for the perpetually aggrieved, this post is intended as a playful take on our language rather than an effort to demean anyone with a handicap. But feel free to mock the presumably all-white Christian males who lost the game.
Now for the perpetually aggrieved, this post is intended as a playful take on our language rather than an effort to demean anyone with a handicap. But feel free to mock the presumably all-white Christian males who lost the game.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Boring Voter ID Thread
I don't want to write this thread. The subject bores me. But I am taking the bait from Sean at Kay's Blue Racine. The subject is a voter ID requirement. Here goes.
There are various claims about the impact a voter ID requirement would have on people. Sean's thread at KBR makes some rather outrageous claims. Can I refute them? I am not sure if I could or I couldn't. You see, I don't really care if the claims are true or not. Rights come with responsibilities or ought to. If you want to participate in a democracy, it really isn't too much to ask that you prove your identity in order to safeguard our democracy and make voter fraud more difficult.
Are there some people for whom a voter ID requirement will cause some measure of hardship? No doubt. This presents an opportunity for either political party to help said individuals to overcome the obstacle. Imagine a comfortable van paid for by George Soros, shuttling grateful seniors, homeless, handicapped etc...., chock full of cigarettes and propaganda about the virtues of the Democrat Party. Everyone who wants to vote will be able to vote. Only once though. End of story.
Sean, if I choose not to respond to your rebuttal, it is because it is not you that needs convincing. It is our democratically elected representatives that seemingly already are convinced. Elections have consequences.
There are various claims about the impact a voter ID requirement would have on people. Sean's thread at KBR makes some rather outrageous claims. Can I refute them? I am not sure if I could or I couldn't. You see, I don't really care if the claims are true or not. Rights come with responsibilities or ought to. If you want to participate in a democracy, it really isn't too much to ask that you prove your identity in order to safeguard our democracy and make voter fraud more difficult.
Are there some people for whom a voter ID requirement will cause some measure of hardship? No doubt. This presents an opportunity for either political party to help said individuals to overcome the obstacle. Imagine a comfortable van paid for by George Soros, shuttling grateful seniors, homeless, handicapped etc...., chock full of cigarettes and propaganda about the virtues of the Democrat Party. Everyone who wants to vote will be able to vote. Only once though. End of story.
Sean, if I choose not to respond to your rebuttal, it is because it is not you that needs convincing. It is our democratically elected representatives that seemingly already are convinced. Elections have consequences.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Constitution Disappoints
Journal Times letter writer Sherry Trentadue-Forman pointed out that the United States Constitution hasn't "done a damn thing to eliminate the problem of looney toons with weapons." Or pens, but I digress.
Now that I think about it, the Constitution has been a major disappointment. The Constitution has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure for me a lucrative career in the NBA. I even have trouble getting into a pick up game at the Y, thanks to that useless historical artifact.
Is there still hunger and poverty? Wars? You bet. In fact, some of the most horrific wars in history occurred after the US Constitution was written. Did the Constitution even bother to lift a finger?
Our economy is teetering on the edge, Muslim terrorists want to blow us up, the temperature on earth changes daily, and I still have a wart on my right hand. And what is our Constitution doing about these pressing issues? Nothing!
Now that I think about it, the Constitution has been a major disappointment. The Constitution has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure for me a lucrative career in the NBA. I even have trouble getting into a pick up game at the Y, thanks to that useless historical artifact.
Is there still hunger and poverty? Wars? You bet. In fact, some of the most horrific wars in history occurred after the US Constitution was written. Did the Constitution even bother to lift a finger?
Our economy is teetering on the edge, Muslim terrorists want to blow us up, the temperature on earth changes daily, and I still have a wart on my right hand. And what is our Constitution doing about these pressing issues? Nothing!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Tucson Explained
My apologies for my fixation on the Arizona tragedy, but I think I am ready to explain its political essence to my readers. It is this:
In the interest of promoting responsible civic discourse, the left is accusing conservatives of being accomplices to murder.
Ya, that'll work.
In the interest of promoting responsible civic discourse, the left is accusing conservatives of being accomplices to murder.
Ya, that'll work.
On Tragedies and their Political Uses
Political vitriol is a bipartisan phenomenon. So is the inclination to use current events to score points against ideological opponents and to advance agendas.
High profile shooting sprees by white people are tailor made for the lefts agenda. They allow the left to point the finger at the root causes of crime. Those root causes are always an insufficient amount of liberalism and or an abundance of conservatism, to paraphrase a recent George Will commentary. Conservatism therefor is implicated as an accomplice to the crime. The answer is to silence dissent (ie Fox, talk radio etc...) or otherwise attempt to restrict speech of political opponents. It also provides the opportunity to discuss anew the lefts desire to disarm the citizenry.
The recent Arizona tragedy presents fewer opportunities for conservatives to exploit. It would be hard to use it as an argument for lower taxes for example. But it could be used as an argument for tougher sentencing or for more jails. The right has not done this, however. The reason is that it doesn't fit this particular crime insofar as the perpetrator wasn't free on a technicality or because of insufficient jail space. I would also like to think that basic human decency is a factor as well. So the right is scoring political points mainly by challenging the despicable attempts by the left to pin this crime on, well, basically conservatism.
I am glad to be on the right on this issue and I would be embarrassed to be a liberal right about now.
High profile shooting sprees by white people are tailor made for the lefts agenda. They allow the left to point the finger at the root causes of crime. Those root causes are always an insufficient amount of liberalism and or an abundance of conservatism, to paraphrase a recent George Will commentary. Conservatism therefor is implicated as an accomplice to the crime. The answer is to silence dissent (ie Fox, talk radio etc...) or otherwise attempt to restrict speech of political opponents. It also provides the opportunity to discuss anew the lefts desire to disarm the citizenry.
The recent Arizona tragedy presents fewer opportunities for conservatives to exploit. It would be hard to use it as an argument for lower taxes for example. But it could be used as an argument for tougher sentencing or for more jails. The right has not done this, however. The reason is that it doesn't fit this particular crime insofar as the perpetrator wasn't free on a technicality or because of insufficient jail space. I would also like to think that basic human decency is a factor as well. So the right is scoring political points mainly by challenging the despicable attempts by the left to pin this crime on, well, basically conservatism.
I am glad to be on the right on this issue and I would be embarrassed to be a liberal right about now.
Monday, January 10, 2011
On Crime and Culpability
Now is as good a time as any to consider the intersection of crime, causation and politics. In my previous post I suggested that liberals tend to seek out the root causes of crime. By contrast, conservatives tend to emphasize personal responsibility. Nowhere is this divide more evident than in the discussion of the crazed Arizona assassin named Jared Loughner. How long did it take before national liberal media sources began to speculate about the influence of Sarah Palin and or the Tea Party phenomenon?
To borrow a phrase from our esteemed president, "Let me be perfectly clear"... I do not think that we should seek to implicate either liberalism or conservatism for PARTICULAR crimes. Certainly not before examining the evidence as we have seen from many irresponsible liberal journalists. Be assured that I am NOT blaming liberalism for the Loughners crime. I am blaming Loughner as any true conservative would.
Now on to crime generally. Consider two perspectives on crime. Perspective #1 seeks to find reasons (other than the criminal himself) that a particular criminal committed a crime. Perspective #2 instead emphasizes personal responsibility and therefor holds the criminal solely responsible for the behavior. Those holding perspective #1 are always able to find reasons (other than the criminal himself) for a crime and in doing so therefor reduce culpability on the part of the criminal. Holders of perspective #1 will tend to influence policy such that criminals, being only partially responsible for their behavior, will receive lighter sentences. Similarly, they will excuse lesser offenses knowing that it is the larger society that is or should be held somewhat responsible for an individuals behavior.
Now ask yourself, which perspective on crime would tend to lead to more crime and which perspective would lead to less crime?
To borrow a phrase from our esteemed president, "Let me be perfectly clear"... I do not think that we should seek to implicate either liberalism or conservatism for PARTICULAR crimes. Certainly not before examining the evidence as we have seen from many irresponsible liberal journalists. Be assured that I am NOT blaming liberalism for the Loughners crime. I am blaming Loughner as any true conservative would.
Now on to crime generally. Consider two perspectives on crime. Perspective #1 seeks to find reasons (other than the criminal himself) that a particular criminal committed a crime. Perspective #2 instead emphasizes personal responsibility and therefor holds the criminal solely responsible for the behavior. Those holding perspective #1 are always able to find reasons (other than the criminal himself) for a crime and in doing so therefor reduce culpability on the part of the criminal. Holders of perspective #1 will tend to influence policy such that criminals, being only partially responsible for their behavior, will receive lighter sentences. Similarly, they will excuse lesser offenses knowing that it is the larger society that is or should be held somewhat responsible for an individuals behavior.
Now ask yourself, which perspective on crime would tend to lead to more crime and which perspective would lead to less crime?
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
On Liberalism and Social Ills
Does liberalism contribute to the social problems of crime and family breakdown? Well yes it does. Sean wants me to back up my claim, so here goes. Sean et al, please consider the following as the beginning of a discussion rather than an outright claim of proof.
Let us start with family breakdowns. Generally speaking, liberals want to help people who are having difficulties, albeit with other people's money. Such a view leads to policy choices. One of the most pernicious and harmful to families is what most call "welfare." One of the consequences of welfare was that men became expendable as the government became the provider for single women and their children. Perverse incentives resulted wherein there were financial incentives to have children and remain unmarried. The result, predictably, was more single parents, more men with fewer responsibilities, more fatherless children.
Now crime. Again liberals have a soft spot for the downtrodden and this leads to policy choices. With respect to crime, liberals tend to hold society to blame for the bad behavior committed by criminals, well, unless they are white collar criminals. This mindset leads to excuse making/blaming of others rather than holding people accountable for their own behavior. This is particularly harmful for children to be fed the ideology that they live in a society bent on oppressing them. Thus bad behavior will not be "nipped in the bud" but rather will be seen and perhaps inadvertently encouraged as a sort of protest against society. As far as policy goes, this mindset contributes to laws that allow criminals to walk because of technicalities, light sentences, comfy prisons etc... that make criminal activity a more attractive option.
In both cases, liberalism fosters irresponsibility. When indeed we get irresponsibility, why should we be surprised?
Let us start with family breakdowns. Generally speaking, liberals want to help people who are having difficulties, albeit with other people's money. Such a view leads to policy choices. One of the most pernicious and harmful to families is what most call "welfare." One of the consequences of welfare was that men became expendable as the government became the provider for single women and their children. Perverse incentives resulted wherein there were financial incentives to have children and remain unmarried. The result, predictably, was more single parents, more men with fewer responsibilities, more fatherless children.
Now crime. Again liberals have a soft spot for the downtrodden and this leads to policy choices. With respect to crime, liberals tend to hold society to blame for the bad behavior committed by criminals, well, unless they are white collar criminals. This mindset leads to excuse making/blaming of others rather than holding people accountable for their own behavior. This is particularly harmful for children to be fed the ideology that they live in a society bent on oppressing them. Thus bad behavior will not be "nipped in the bud" but rather will be seen and perhaps inadvertently encouraged as a sort of protest against society. As far as policy goes, this mindset contributes to laws that allow criminals to walk because of technicalities, light sentences, comfy prisons etc... that make criminal activity a more attractive option.
In both cases, liberalism fosters irresponsibility. When indeed we get irresponsibility, why should we be surprised?
PC Gun Battle
I am just returning from a nice vacation to Las Vegas. Among our many activities was a visit to an indoor shooting range. After selecting a weapon, a Glock for me, we had a choice of targets. There were basically three types of targets/bad guys to shoot at: Arab/terrorist ( sold out), white men, or Zombies. No blacks, Hispanics, women, apparent homosexuals, handicapped etc... villains to shoot at. Most of the many customers were white. How could a business get away with portraying their customer base as villains to shoot at?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Free The Children
Got a spare $128 million Racine? I didn't think so. But that is not stopping Racine Unified from asking, in the form of three separate referenda questions on the spring ballot.
Just say no. Anyone with half a clue knows that Racine Unified is likely the biggest obstacle to the fortunes of the Racine area. Over the years I have had countless conversations with folks considering a move to the Racine area. Not one of those persons ever put Racine Unified in the positive column. Anyone moving to Racine does so despite Racine Unified. It is time we frankly recognize this fact.
So why not pump money into Unified and make it a great school system? Well, if you have been paying attention, that is what we have been doing for the last 30 years. Per pupil spending has been increasing above and beyond the rate of inflation, yet the product is worsening. If money were the solution, we would have a first class education system in Racine and indeed, throughout the nation. We don't. The system is broken.
We have an expensive education system that serves to protect said system from meaningful reform and or competition. More money for Unified simply delays the inevitable day of reckoning.
Education reform will not come from within the public education system. Quite the opposite. It will come from people like you who demand better use of your taxes. The first step is rejecting the status quo which is quite obviously not working.
Voting no is one small step toward freeing Racine area children from the vice grip of failure that is Racine Unified.
Just say no. Anyone with half a clue knows that Racine Unified is likely the biggest obstacle to the fortunes of the Racine area. Over the years I have had countless conversations with folks considering a move to the Racine area. Not one of those persons ever put Racine Unified in the positive column. Anyone moving to Racine does so despite Racine Unified. It is time we frankly recognize this fact.
So why not pump money into Unified and make it a great school system? Well, if you have been paying attention, that is what we have been doing for the last 30 years. Per pupil spending has been increasing above and beyond the rate of inflation, yet the product is worsening. If money were the solution, we would have a first class education system in Racine and indeed, throughout the nation. We don't. The system is broken.
We have an expensive education system that serves to protect said system from meaningful reform and or competition. More money for Unified simply delays the inevitable day of reckoning.
Education reform will not come from within the public education system. Quite the opposite. It will come from people like you who demand better use of your taxes. The first step is rejecting the status quo which is quite obviously not working.
Voting no is one small step toward freeing Racine area children from the vice grip of failure that is Racine Unified.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Purchase Your Boccoli
The LA Times argues here that the Obamacare individual mandate is constitutional. Let us dissect the argument.
LA: The Constitution's commerce clause doesn't give Congress the power to force people to buy something against their will...That may be a fine boundary to set for lawmakers...but....
Me: Actually it is a fine boundary, already set. Thank you to our founders.
LA: Congress did not cross that line in the Affordable Care Act. That's because the mandate isn't merely an attempt to regulate the purchase of insurance. It's a vital part of a larger scheme to overhaul the healthcare industry, including the way medical services are delivered and paid for.
Me: So as long as an unconstitutional law is part of a "larger scheme," the requirements of our constitution no longer apply? Really, don't you folks at the LA Times have anyone capable of producing a better argument? Can I be required to purchase broccoli so long as it is only a mere part of a "larger scheme" to overhaul the food industry?
LA: There's no question that healthcare is a form of interstate commerce subject to regulation by Congress. Nor is there any question that the adults subject to the individual mandate participate in that market, whether it be buying aspirin at a drugstore, visiting a doctor for a checkup or rushing to an emergency room for treatment.... The individual mandate affects how people pay for the care they consume, but it doesn't force them into the healthcare market — they're already there.
Me: Well, you are already in the news and opinion business. Would you hold such a view if you were mandated to pay dues to the John Birch Society as part of a "larger scheme" to regulate the news business? On a more serious note, it is true that health insurance is a subset of the health business. But so are breast implants and sex reassignment surgery. Would it be OK to mandate prepayments for those services? You name the product and I will rationalize the forced purchase of said product as part of a "larger scheme." Is there anything our government can't force us to purchase, according to your reading of the constitution? The power to force purchases is the power to destroy is it not?
LA: In that sense, what's at stake isn't Americans' cherished "right to be let alone." It's whether they'll continue to be stuck in a system in which millions of uninsured people force those with insurance to pick up at least part of the tab for their visits to the emergency room and for the untreated diseases that they spread.
Me: So a system in which people are forcibly required by government to purchase health insurance and thereby pick up a part of the tab for others is better than a system where health care consumers pick up the tab for the uninsured. Why is that better? A wash at best.
LA: Shut up.
Me: No you shut up.
LA: The Constitution's commerce clause doesn't give Congress the power to force people to buy something against their will...That may be a fine boundary to set for lawmakers...but....
Me: Actually it is a fine boundary, already set. Thank you to our founders.
LA: Congress did not cross that line in the Affordable Care Act. That's because the mandate isn't merely an attempt to regulate the purchase of insurance. It's a vital part of a larger scheme to overhaul the healthcare industry, including the way medical services are delivered and paid for.
Me: So as long as an unconstitutional law is part of a "larger scheme," the requirements of our constitution no longer apply? Really, don't you folks at the LA Times have anyone capable of producing a better argument? Can I be required to purchase broccoli so long as it is only a mere part of a "larger scheme" to overhaul the food industry?
LA: There's no question that healthcare is a form of interstate commerce subject to regulation by Congress. Nor is there any question that the adults subject to the individual mandate participate in that market, whether it be buying aspirin at a drugstore, visiting a doctor for a checkup or rushing to an emergency room for treatment.... The individual mandate affects how people pay for the care they consume, but it doesn't force them into the healthcare market — they're already there.
Me: Well, you are already in the news and opinion business. Would you hold such a view if you were mandated to pay dues to the John Birch Society as part of a "larger scheme" to regulate the news business? On a more serious note, it is true that health insurance is a subset of the health business. But so are breast implants and sex reassignment surgery. Would it be OK to mandate prepayments for those services? You name the product and I will rationalize the forced purchase of said product as part of a "larger scheme." Is there anything our government can't force us to purchase, according to your reading of the constitution? The power to force purchases is the power to destroy is it not?
LA: In that sense, what's at stake isn't Americans' cherished "right to be let alone." It's whether they'll continue to be stuck in a system in which millions of uninsured people force those with insurance to pick up at least part of the tab for their visits to the emergency room and for the untreated diseases that they spread.
Me: So a system in which people are forcibly required by government to purchase health insurance and thereby pick up a part of the tab for others is better than a system where health care consumers pick up the tab for the uninsured. Why is that better? A wash at best.
LA: Shut up.
Me: No you shut up.
Thought of the Day
Just once I would like a political candidate to say he wants to spend less time with his family.
A New Deal, Replacing Raw Deal
The Scott Walker apocalypse is coming soon. Well, at least several state employees would have you think so.
In a letter to the JT today, one such employee argued that state employees are the ones who will stimulate the economy. Not the $9 per hour folks that can't afford to leave the home.
Why not have everyone be a highly compensated state employee. Now that would really stimulate the economy, right?
Of course not. The money for such largesse has to come from somewhere. It comes from the rest of us. If we pay to much for state employees, we are wasting the taxpayers money.
How do we know if we are paying too much for labor? One clue is comparisons with similar private sector employment. Another is to look at the attrition rate of state employees. My guess is that if we looked at these factors, we would find that state employees are compensated better than their peers in the private sector and that they hardly ever leave for better opportunities.
State employees should be paid fairly. Taxpayers should be taxed fairly. The best indicator of fairness in trade for products, service labor or whatever is to observe what happens when things, such as labor, are traded freely. That is, to see what happens in the private sector.
Why not peg state employee compensation to averages in private sector employment of the same type? As a generous taxpayer, I would be willing to sweeten the pot and throw in the de facto tenure for no charge. What a deal for state employees!
In a letter to the JT today, one such employee argued that state employees are the ones who will stimulate the economy. Not the $9 per hour folks that can't afford to leave the home.
Why not have everyone be a highly compensated state employee. Now that would really stimulate the economy, right?
Of course not. The money for such largesse has to come from somewhere. It comes from the rest of us. If we pay to much for state employees, we are wasting the taxpayers money.
How do we know if we are paying too much for labor? One clue is comparisons with similar private sector employment. Another is to look at the attrition rate of state employees. My guess is that if we looked at these factors, we would find that state employees are compensated better than their peers in the private sector and that they hardly ever leave for better opportunities.
State employees should be paid fairly. Taxpayers should be taxed fairly. The best indicator of fairness in trade for products, service labor or whatever is to observe what happens when things, such as labor, are traded freely. That is, to see what happens in the private sector.
Why not peg state employee compensation to averages in private sector employment of the same type? As a generous taxpayer, I would be willing to sweeten the pot and throw in the de facto tenure for no charge. What a deal for state employees!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Will The Truth Set Kay Free?
Per usual, I have been having a disagreement with Kay at Kay's Blue Racine. The difference this time is that our disagreement concerns a matter of fact, not opinion. I contended that the Employee Free Choice Act, which I called the Union Coercion Act, would end the secret ballot for unionization if enough (50%+) pro-union signatures were collected. Kay disagrees.
One of us is wrong. On the line for both of us is the trustworthiness of our news sources. I trusted among others Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. I don't know where she gets her misinformation.
So I went to the text of the legislation, HR 1409 and found:
SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.
(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)
Pretty much a slam dunk for me but I am not sharing this to gloat. OK, maybe a little. It will be interesting to watch Kay's reaction. She has said that secret ballots are un-American etc... and she obviously has been mislead by her sources of news. Will the truth open Kay's eyes or will she dig in her heals and go on the attack to protect her discredited notions/ideology? I'm guessing the latter.
One of us is wrong. On the line for both of us is the trustworthiness of our news sources. I trusted among others Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. I don't know where she gets her misinformation.
So I went to the text of the legislation, HR 1409 and found:
SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.
(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)
Pretty much a slam dunk for me but I am not sharing this to gloat. OK, maybe a little. It will be interesting to watch Kay's reaction. She has said that secret ballots are un-American etc... and she obviously has been mislead by her sources of news. Will the truth open Kay's eyes or will she dig in her heals and go on the attack to protect her discredited notions/ideology? I'm guessing the latter.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Fighting the Scourge of Censustractism
I went to the Racine Finance and Personnel Committee meeting tonight as a proposal to change the Racine First program (see previous post) was on the agenda. It was quickly decided to refer the matter to the Public Works committee.
Even so, the committee allowed comment from three proponents of the program, all of whom discussed the merits of the proposal without mentioning racial implications.
Then Mayor Dickert chimed in. He noted that the subject would be discussed in greater detail at the Public Works meeting complete with a presentation etc... But what I found most interesting was the mayors emphasis on getting more minority or women-owned businesses in the city of Racine.
The proposal in question says nothing about race or gender. Rather it is about geography. The stated intent is to get more people from census districts 1-5 to get jobs working on city projects.
My understanding with respect to affirmative action is that its purpose is to combat or mitigate the effects of discrimination. My hope is that before requiring contractors to hire people from census tracts 1-5, the city will document the number of complaints and or convictions stemming from Racine's apparently pervasive problem with geographic discrimination. Just how many licensed electricians have been denied jobs because they live in census tract 4? How many experienced carpenters have been shown the door with a "call us when you've moved to census tract 9, then we'll talk."
You see, I just don't believe anyone in their right mind discriminates against tradespeople because of where they live. But perhaps I am just a bit naive. Still, if the city is going to fight censustractism, (or is it geographism, or addressism?) they should at least have to prove that the problem really exists.
And if there are no examples of such discrimination, as I suspect, then there is no reason to create an ordinance to address a phantom problem.
Even so, the committee allowed comment from three proponents of the program, all of whom discussed the merits of the proposal without mentioning racial implications.
Then Mayor Dickert chimed in. He noted that the subject would be discussed in greater detail at the Public Works meeting complete with a presentation etc... But what I found most interesting was the mayors emphasis on getting more minority or women-owned businesses in the city of Racine.
The proposal in question says nothing about race or gender. Rather it is about geography. The stated intent is to get more people from census districts 1-5 to get jobs working on city projects.
My understanding with respect to affirmative action is that its purpose is to combat or mitigate the effects of discrimination. My hope is that before requiring contractors to hire people from census tracts 1-5, the city will document the number of complaints and or convictions stemming from Racine's apparently pervasive problem with geographic discrimination. Just how many licensed electricians have been denied jobs because they live in census tract 4? How many experienced carpenters have been shown the door with a "call us when you've moved to census tract 9, then we'll talk."
You see, I just don't believe anyone in their right mind discriminates against tradespeople because of where they live. But perhaps I am just a bit naive. Still, if the city is going to fight censustractism, (or is it geographism, or addressism?) they should at least have to prove that the problem really exists.
And if there are no examples of such discrimination, as I suspect, then there is no reason to create an ordinance to address a phantom problem.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Racine's Human Wrongs Commission
Racine's misnamed Affirmative Action and Human Right's Commission is recommending that the city "force contractors to hire more residents from the city's poorest neighborhoods for work on city projects", according to this Journal Times article.
The poor neighborhoods in question are census tracks 1-5, an area with chronically high unemployment and a large percentage of black residents. The Racist Action/Human Wrongs Commission is trying to get the city to hire black people but that would be illegal racial discrimination so they are attempting an end run around the law by requiring hires from predominantly black neighborhoods.
Still we have discrimination - against Racine citizens not in census tracks 1-5 - though the RAHWC will play it off as benign, well intentioned discrimination if they even are asked to address the issue.
Racine contractors should at the very least demand "discrimination waivers" from the city such that they are protected from the legal liability when they are sued by a Racine resident victimized because he lives outside census tracks 1-5.
It is too bad that Racine doesn't have a human rights commission that could do something about this proposed discriminatory legislation.
The poor neighborhoods in question are census tracks 1-5, an area with chronically high unemployment and a large percentage of black residents. The Racist Action/Human Wrongs Commission is trying to get the city to hire black people but that would be illegal racial discrimination so they are attempting an end run around the law by requiring hires from predominantly black neighborhoods.
Still we have discrimination - against Racine citizens not in census tracks 1-5 - though the RAHWC will play it off as benign, well intentioned discrimination if they even are asked to address the issue.
Racine contractors should at the very least demand "discrimination waivers" from the city such that they are protected from the legal liability when they are sued by a Racine resident victimized because he lives outside census tracks 1-5.
It is too bad that Racine doesn't have a human rights commission that could do something about this proposed discriminatory legislation.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Assuaged Guilt Sale
Allow me a bit of a rant. I just read this commentary/advertisement by Mary Beth Danielson and I would like to share a few thoughts.
Danielson owns a business wherein she sells items produced by poor Guatemalan women. Good for her. That was not a sarcastic "good for her." I mean it.
But I have a few problems with her approach. Though she notes that a young Guatemalan man is able to attend school because of her sales activities, she nonetheless blasts away at banks, investment firms, the rich and the pursuit of profits. Why does she think that only her business ventures are virtuous while more successful business people are vaguely evil?
Danielson has a habit of sharing heart wrenching stories followed by opportunities to purchase her products. This strikes me as a bit manipulative and self serving. Why the Journal Times and now the Racine Post don't charge her for advertising is beyond me.
I have never seen the products that Danielson is selling. I don't know whether they are worth buying or not. But it is rather obvious that there is more than just knit gloves and hats being sold. You also get the Danielson compassion stamp of approval with a side of guilt assuagement. Don't buy it cause you don't need it.
In the interest of full disclosure, I also sell products produced in developing nations. I don't know who is being saved from starvation or a life of prostitution because a family member is working to produce things that I sell in my store. But trade works. It helps all sorts of people without our even realizing it.
Class warfare, on the other hand, is a dangerous and destructive force in our society. Don't buy it.
Danielson owns a business wherein she sells items produced by poor Guatemalan women. Good for her. That was not a sarcastic "good for her." I mean it.
But I have a few problems with her approach. Though she notes that a young Guatemalan man is able to attend school because of her sales activities, she nonetheless blasts away at banks, investment firms, the rich and the pursuit of profits. Why does she think that only her business ventures are virtuous while more successful business people are vaguely evil?
Danielson has a habit of sharing heart wrenching stories followed by opportunities to purchase her products. This strikes me as a bit manipulative and self serving. Why the Journal Times and now the Racine Post don't charge her for advertising is beyond me.
I have never seen the products that Danielson is selling. I don't know whether they are worth buying or not. But it is rather obvious that there is more than just knit gloves and hats being sold. You also get the Danielson compassion stamp of approval with a side of guilt assuagement. Don't buy it cause you don't need it.
In the interest of full disclosure, I also sell products produced in developing nations. I don't know who is being saved from starvation or a life of prostitution because a family member is working to produce things that I sell in my store. But trade works. It helps all sorts of people without our even realizing it.
Class warfare, on the other hand, is a dangerous and destructive force in our society. Don't buy it.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Representative Government?
I learned a few interesting tidbits about city government yesterday from Alderman Eric Marcus.
#1. There is a committee (name escapes me) with a $10 million budget that does all the buying, selling and rehabbing of properties for the city of Racine. The problem is that there are no elected officials on this committee.
#2. There is no ordinance on the books authorizing the city and the Unified Neighborhood Inspection Team to do what they do. Rather, it was simply put into a recent budget.
Re #1, I don't think city government should be in the property speculation business because they are terrible at it but more importantly because they are competing against the private sector with an unfair advantage.
Re #2, I have railed against UNIT in the past because it deprives citizens of a constitutional right to due process. The city thinks they have found a way around our nuisance of a constitution by reclassifying a fine as an inspection "fee." To discover that the city, with the approval of our aldermen, just stuck this in the budget...
I will have to take a look at my sons social studies text book. I thought I had a pretty good idea about how a bill becomes a law. Now I realize that there is an open process for popular legislation, like resolutions condemning George Bush for torture, and another for less popular measures. We will just stick it in the budget and hope nobody notices. Unreal. And these people claim to be our representatives?
#1. There is a committee (name escapes me) with a $10 million budget that does all the buying, selling and rehabbing of properties for the city of Racine. The problem is that there are no elected officials on this committee.
#2. There is no ordinance on the books authorizing the city and the Unified Neighborhood Inspection Team to do what they do. Rather, it was simply put into a recent budget.
Re #1, I don't think city government should be in the property speculation business because they are terrible at it but more importantly because they are competing against the private sector with an unfair advantage.
Re #2, I have railed against UNIT in the past because it deprives citizens of a constitutional right to due process. The city thinks they have found a way around our nuisance of a constitution by reclassifying a fine as an inspection "fee." To discover that the city, with the approval of our aldermen, just stuck this in the budget...
I will have to take a look at my sons social studies text book. I thought I had a pretty good idea about how a bill becomes a law. Now I realize that there is an open process for popular legislation, like resolutions condemning George Bush for torture, and another for less popular measures. We will just stick it in the budget and hope nobody notices. Unreal. And these people claim to be our representatives?
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Imaginary Losses
A debate is underway concerning the federal income tax rate. On January 1st tax rates are scheduled to increase for all taxpayers. Democrats want to keep the current lower rate for those with incomes of $250,000 or less while Republicans want the current lower rate extended for all taxpayers.
"How will you pay for the lost revenue?" asked the interviewer of the Republican politician.
This seemed to me a funny question. How will I pay for having lost the $100,000,000 Powerball lottery?
There really isn't any lost revenue. The tax rate would remain the same. Revenue would increase or decrease a bit based on total economic activity.
A liberal might say that there is a loss of anticipated or hoped for revenue. But can you really lose what you never had to begin with? Apparently liberals think so.
Enough blogging. It is time to lament the losses of my mistress Cindy Crawford and my NBA contract.
"How will you pay for the lost revenue?" asked the interviewer of the Republican politician.
This seemed to me a funny question. How will I pay for having lost the $100,000,000 Powerball lottery?
There really isn't any lost revenue. The tax rate would remain the same. Revenue would increase or decrease a bit based on total economic activity.
A liberal might say that there is a loss of anticipated or hoped for revenue. But can you really lose what you never had to begin with? Apparently liberals think so.
Enough blogging. It is time to lament the losses of my mistress Cindy Crawford and my NBA contract.
Monday, November 01, 2010
The Embarrassed Millions
Tomorrows election is a referendum on President Obama's progressive agenda. Millions of people who voted for Obama will now vote to stop him. It is shaping up to be a historic rebuke of a sitting president.
But where are these millions of voters who are switching sides? Why are there no news stories about them? Media bias I am sure plays a role. But there is more to it than that.
You have all heard of the Nigerian money wiring scams. You probably have gotten an e-mail or two promising you thousands of dollars if you could only help the Nigerian prince get his money to the US. But you didn't fall for it.
If you did, you might be reluctant to come forward. You wouldn't want newspapers writing stories about how you were duped.
I think a similar phenomenon is at play with many Obama supporters. They are embarrassed. They were duped. They would rather not announce that fact to the world.
But announce it they will, silently, tomorrow.
But where are these millions of voters who are switching sides? Why are there no news stories about them? Media bias I am sure plays a role. But there is more to it than that.
You have all heard of the Nigerian money wiring scams. You probably have gotten an e-mail or two promising you thousands of dollars if you could only help the Nigerian prince get his money to the US. But you didn't fall for it.
If you did, you might be reluctant to come forward. You wouldn't want newspapers writing stories about how you were duped.
I think a similar phenomenon is at play with many Obama supporters. They are embarrassed. They were duped. They would rather not announce that fact to the world.
But announce it they will, silently, tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
My Concerns, Unestimated
"The taxpayers in my estimation are concerned about layoffs, furloughs and services."
That quote was from Mayor Dickert and can be found here as part of a larger discussion about a 2.7% tax increase.
I am just one Racine taxpayer who would prefer not to have my concerns estimated. I prefer to be direct.
Here are my concerns Mayor Dickert: As you know, Racine continues to have high unemployment. Also, our properties have lost value. What this means is that Racine taxpayers have even less money and or net worth than they did a year ago. I am concerned about those people, many of whom will have great difficulty paying their taxes. I am less concerned about city employees. They have jobs with benefits that no longer exist in the private sector. They are doing just fine. But alas, something must be done. Sacrifices must be made. My concern is that all the sacrifices are being made by the taxpayers. I am also concerned about your apparent view of the role of government. It is not to ensure full employment for city workers. Rather it is to provide for the needs of taxpayers, constrained of course, by their ability to pay. I am concerned that we have reached a point in Racine where the tax burden is simply too high for many individuals and businesses to thrive in Racine. I am concerned that this burden will lead to more unemployment, more foreclosures and a weakened private economy. If you were to introduce layoffs of city employees, or furloughs, or reduction in city services with a commensurate savings to taxpayers, you would show Racine taxpayers that you understand their struggles. My final concern is that my concerns will not be shared, expressed, or represented by any Racine officials.
That quote was from Mayor Dickert and can be found here as part of a larger discussion about a 2.7% tax increase.
I am just one Racine taxpayer who would prefer not to have my concerns estimated. I prefer to be direct.
Here are my concerns Mayor Dickert: As you know, Racine continues to have high unemployment. Also, our properties have lost value. What this means is that Racine taxpayers have even less money and or net worth than they did a year ago. I am concerned about those people, many of whom will have great difficulty paying their taxes. I am less concerned about city employees. They have jobs with benefits that no longer exist in the private sector. They are doing just fine. But alas, something must be done. Sacrifices must be made. My concern is that all the sacrifices are being made by the taxpayers. I am also concerned about your apparent view of the role of government. It is not to ensure full employment for city workers. Rather it is to provide for the needs of taxpayers, constrained of course, by their ability to pay. I am concerned that we have reached a point in Racine where the tax burden is simply too high for many individuals and businesses to thrive in Racine. I am concerned that this burden will lead to more unemployment, more foreclosures and a weakened private economy. If you were to introduce layoffs of city employees, or furloughs, or reduction in city services with a commensurate savings to taxpayers, you would show Racine taxpayers that you understand their struggles. My final concern is that my concerns will not be shared, expressed, or represented by any Racine officials.
Friday, October 22, 2010
No to Corporate Welfare
I'll be glad to have 189 new jobs in Racine if they ever materialize (read story here). That said, isn't $5.7 million in corporate welfare from the state an admission that Wisconsin has a burdensome tax and or regulatory environment? Do we want government using our money to pick business winners and losers? My answers are yes and no respectively. Let us level the playing field and make life easier for the only people who can actually grow our economy, entrepreneurs.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Be Afraid
'I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
Juan Williams was fired from NPR (National Public Radio) for making this statement on the O'Reilly show the other day.
Note that Williams was not advocating any kind of different treatment of apparent Muslims. He was simply nervous and worried. Some Americans might recall that several years ago some Muslims hijacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Might that historical event have contributed to Williams anxiety?
It is not clear whether the fireable offense was being nervous or speaking about said nervousness, but I suspect the latter. After all, being nervous is not something we can easily control. I am often a bit nervous when flying, usually on takeoffs and landings. I suppose now I should be careful not to share my anxiety lest I offend all airline pilots. But somehow I don't think Williams would have been fired if he merely offended pilots.
No, Williams was fired for speaking truthfully about his anxiety about Muslims and airplanes. Obviously, speaking truthfully is not something that one should be punished for. Therefore, the answer is to address Williams' fears.
I suggest nationwide reeducation camps. We all need to learn about the benign nature of all adherents to Islam. We need to pretend that 9-11 had no connection to Islam whatsoever. The culprits were extremists. All extremists are equally dangerous.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Just don't tell anyone.
Juan Williams was fired from NPR (National Public Radio) for making this statement on the O'Reilly show the other day.
Note that Williams was not advocating any kind of different treatment of apparent Muslims. He was simply nervous and worried. Some Americans might recall that several years ago some Muslims hijacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Might that historical event have contributed to Williams anxiety?
It is not clear whether the fireable offense was being nervous or speaking about said nervousness, but I suspect the latter. After all, being nervous is not something we can easily control. I am often a bit nervous when flying, usually on takeoffs and landings. I suppose now I should be careful not to share my anxiety lest I offend all airline pilots. But somehow I don't think Williams would have been fired if he merely offended pilots.
No, Williams was fired for speaking truthfully about his anxiety about Muslims and airplanes. Obviously, speaking truthfully is not something that one should be punished for. Therefore, the answer is to address Williams' fears.
I suggest nationwide reeducation camps. We all need to learn about the benign nature of all adherents to Islam. We need to pretend that 9-11 had no connection to Islam whatsoever. The culprits were extremists. All extremists are equally dangerous.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Just don't tell anyone.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
WW Sean Cranley Do?
Whenever you challenge the pro abortion crowd, as I have been doing recently at Kay's Blue Racine, they inevitably bring up the small percentage of abortions that pose genuine moral quandaries, such as when the pregnancy is caused by rape or if the life of the mother is at risk etc...
So I figured I would present an atypical abortion decision and see if abortion is acceptable to Sean Cranley et al under the following hypothetical circumstance:
Husband and wife are expecting their fourth child, a boy after three girls. Everything is going just fine with the pregnancy until wife discovers that husband had an affair. She files for divorce and tells anyone willing to listen that she will not give that good-for-nothing husband the boy he wanted. She even posts on Facebook her intent to abort the baby to spite her husband. Should this be legal Sean?
Husband files suit, wife makes appointment for the abortion. The fateful day arrives only the little fellow doesn't cooperate. Actually, he's just a little lucky. The abortion doc only crushes the jaw and shoulder and misses the brain. He's still alive when the husband rushes in with a duffle bag filled with cash accompanied by the world's most reknowned pediatric surgeon eager to save the boy. The abortion doc doesn't know what to do so he calls the Chief Ethicist at Burlington Secular Progressive Hospital, one Sean Cranley.
We already know what our president would do. He would nudge the little boy (or delegate the task) into the red biohazard bin. But WWSCD? Go ahead Sean, play god.
So I figured I would present an atypical abortion decision and see if abortion is acceptable to Sean Cranley et al under the following hypothetical circumstance:
Husband and wife are expecting their fourth child, a boy after three girls. Everything is going just fine with the pregnancy until wife discovers that husband had an affair. She files for divorce and tells anyone willing to listen that she will not give that good-for-nothing husband the boy he wanted. She even posts on Facebook her intent to abort the baby to spite her husband. Should this be legal Sean?
Husband files suit, wife makes appointment for the abortion. The fateful day arrives only the little fellow doesn't cooperate. Actually, he's just a little lucky. The abortion doc only crushes the jaw and shoulder and misses the brain. He's still alive when the husband rushes in with a duffle bag filled with cash accompanied by the world's most reknowned pediatric surgeon eager to save the boy. The abortion doc doesn't know what to do so he calls the Chief Ethicist at Burlington Secular Progressive Hospital, one Sean Cranley.
We already know what our president would do. He would nudge the little boy (or delegate the task) into the red biohazard bin. But WWSCD? Go ahead Sean, play god.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Kay's Bad Religion
I have been making the point, at Kay's Blue Racine, that dehumanization is the intellectual foundation upon which the pro-abortion argument is built. Which prompted this challenge from Kay:
"Denis, the thing about being human involves, for most people, the concept that all humans have souls. Another widespread belief is that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent then why would he put a soul into a cellular mass or a fetus that is not destined to be born? Are you questioning God's wisdom? Can you explain why a soul would be created not to have the ability to experience a single breath on Earth?"
Allrighty then. Let's break down Kay's theology here. Humans have God given souls. God knows all. God will not give a soul to a cellular mass that will be scooped out and discarded in the garbage bin behind the abortion clinic. Therefore, that cellular mass, without a soul, is not human. Therefore again, it doesn't matter what is done with said cellular mass. When abortion occurs, it is because God wanted an abortion.
Now that does rather convincingly prove my original point about dehumanization does it not? According to Kay's religion, a pregnant woman is carrying a soulless cellular mass. When you make that appointment at the clinic, you are doing God's work.
Kay's is a truly scary religion. Everything is known to God and part of the plan. Anything whether good or evil is part of the plan. Basically, anything goes in Kay's world since it is part of God's plan.
Ironically, Kay goes on to accuse me of playing God, as follows:
" I firmly believe that people like you are trying to play God by taking away free will from women who may die from a forced birth, lose the ability to have more children in the future or have been told that their fetus is so deformed that it will either die inside them or within minutes to days after taken from their bodies. Who are you to make those decisions for another person? What about women who cannot mentally cope with giving birth? Do you claim to be able to see into their hearts and minds? Is that not playing God? Or at the very least assuming you have a God like ability? "
Kay's accusations are ironic because, if you believe in Kay's religion, if I am indeed playing God, it would (like abortion) be known and approved by God. And I am accused of "taking away the free will from women." What free will? There is no free will with predestination. We are all going to do what we are going to do and it is because God wants it that way.
Now who is playing God here, Kay or me? In Kay's world, a woman who does not abort her child gives birth to a human with a soul. The child, oops I meant soulless cellular mass, that is aborted didn't have a soul anyway. Note that gift of a soul is entirely dependent on the woman's abort or not decision. It is the woman that decides whether the soulless cellular mass becomes a human being. The woman is playing God.
"Denis, the thing about being human involves, for most people, the concept that all humans have souls. Another widespread belief is that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent then why would he put a soul into a cellular mass or a fetus that is not destined to be born? Are you questioning God's wisdom? Can you explain why a soul would be created not to have the ability to experience a single breath on Earth?"
Allrighty then. Let's break down Kay's theology here. Humans have God given souls. God knows all. God will not give a soul to a cellular mass that will be scooped out and discarded in the garbage bin behind the abortion clinic. Therefore, that cellular mass, without a soul, is not human. Therefore again, it doesn't matter what is done with said cellular mass. When abortion occurs, it is because God wanted an abortion.
Now that does rather convincingly prove my original point about dehumanization does it not? According to Kay's religion, a pregnant woman is carrying a soulless cellular mass. When you make that appointment at the clinic, you are doing God's work.
Kay's is a truly scary religion. Everything is known to God and part of the plan. Anything whether good or evil is part of the plan. Basically, anything goes in Kay's world since it is part of God's plan.
Ironically, Kay goes on to accuse me of playing God, as follows:
" I firmly believe that people like you are trying to play God by taking away free will from women who may die from a forced birth, lose the ability to have more children in the future or have been told that their fetus is so deformed that it will either die inside them or within minutes to days after taken from their bodies. Who are you to make those decisions for another person? What about women who cannot mentally cope with giving birth? Do you claim to be able to see into their hearts and minds? Is that not playing God? Or at the very least assuming you have a God like ability? "
Kay's accusations are ironic because, if you believe in Kay's religion, if I am indeed playing God, it would (like abortion) be known and approved by God. And I am accused of "taking away the free will from women." What free will? There is no free will with predestination. We are all going to do what we are going to do and it is because God wants it that way.
Now who is playing God here, Kay or me? In Kay's world, a woman who does not abort her child gives birth to a human with a soul. The child, oops I meant soulless cellular mass, that is aborted didn't have a soul anyway. Note that gift of a soul is entirely dependent on the woman's abort or not decision. It is the woman that decides whether the soulless cellular mass becomes a human being. The woman is playing God.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Spoiling for a Dog Fight
Kay at Blue Racine has a lengthy diatribe about aggressive dogs that morphs, predictably, into the dangers posed by Sarah Palin and her followers.
According to Kay:
Their problem is that at some point she may take that group of people to the point of no return in regards to behavior. How soon before we see a surge of shootings of gays? Afterall, Sarah thinks they're sinful and immoral. Abnormal. Is it easier for someone who might not want to kill someone they can identify with to kill someone they believe is born of Satan and isn't even "normal"?
My response to Kay:
Yes, probably. However, the best justification to kill is to claim that the victim is not even a human. I have heard them called "potentials" on this site (Kay's Blue Racine). You don't have to worry about a wave of such killings because we are already awash in their dead bodies.
I now await the gnashing of teeth, baring of fangs etc... in keeping with the aggressive dog theme.
According to Kay:
Their problem is that at some point she may take that group of people to the point of no return in regards to behavior. How soon before we see a surge of shootings of gays? Afterall, Sarah thinks they're sinful and immoral. Abnormal. Is it easier for someone who might not want to kill someone they can identify with to kill someone they believe is born of Satan and isn't even "normal"?
My response to Kay:
Yes, probably. However, the best justification to kill is to claim that the victim is not even a human. I have heard them called "potentials" on this site (Kay's Blue Racine). You don't have to worry about a wave of such killings because we are already awash in their dead bodies.
I now await the gnashing of teeth, baring of fangs etc... in keeping with the aggressive dog theme.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Having It Both Ways
Have you ever noticed that Racine Unified supporters are quick to blame parents for the school children that fail? Have you also noticed that Racine Unified will point out to critics that many students do quite well, graduate, go to college etc...?
It took me a while to figure this out, but notice that Unified and their apologists take credit for successful outcomes while placing blame for lousy outcomes. In short, the education profession can do no wrong. Forget about reform, just give those heroes anything they ask for and more.
This is a great marketing strategy by Unified. But we don't have to buy it. Either we should expect Unified to own both the success and failure of its students or own neither. If they choose the former, they need to hold them accountable for poor results. If they choose the latter, it will be a de facto admission that teachers can't impact students and they should all be fired. Let's not let them have it both ways any longer.
It took me a while to figure this out, but notice that Unified and their apologists take credit for successful outcomes while placing blame for lousy outcomes. In short, the education profession can do no wrong. Forget about reform, just give those heroes anything they ask for and more.
This is a great marketing strategy by Unified. But we don't have to buy it. Either we should expect Unified to own both the success and failure of its students or own neither. If they choose the former, they need to hold them accountable for poor results. If they choose the latter, it will be a de facto admission that teachers can't impact students and they should all be fired. Let's not let them have it both ways any longer.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Waiting Forever
What are the odds that RUSD teachers will show Waiting for Superman in any of their classes that deal with current issues?
For those of you not yet aware, Waiting for Superman is a documentary produced by Davis Guggenheim of An Inconvenient Truth fame. The committed liberal takes an honest look at our public schools.
For those of you not yet aware, Waiting for Superman is a documentary produced by Davis Guggenheim of An Inconvenient Truth fame. The committed liberal takes an honest look at our public schools.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Clash of Perverts?
A recent post of mine entitled Universalist Truth has generated some interesting discussion so I thought I would reintroduce it here. Sean Cranley maintains that when religious folks do some crazy things, like fly airplanes into buildings, they are perverting their religion. Maybe so in some cases, but certainly there are religious (or philosophical) differences between people such that it isn't so easy slap on the "perversion" label and walk away. For example, Christian denominations disagree on the issue of homosexuality. Which ones are perverting their religion and who decides? Sean responded as follows:
"We all make those judgments and we arrive at a general consesus on the big issues. It's called civilization. Clearly threatening or inflicting phyical harm crosses the line of reasonable people in all cultures."
Oh really? This ranks right up there with Sean's "schools can't fail" theory. Note the moral relativism in arriving at a general consensus. But clearly inflicting physical harm crosses of reasonable people in all cultures, says Sean. What about war Sean? Can civilizations clash? Was England being unreasonable in declaring war on Germany?
Lets move beyond war. For thousands of years slavery was, by consensus of non slaves, an institution that was commonplace across many civilizations. Was that consensus OK Sean, or are we correct today in our revulsion of slavery? Lest you think we are in an uninterrupted march toward greater civilization, consider that at one time Muslim women were able to work, reveal their faces, drive cars, keep their clitori and what not, yet, in some Muslim civilizations, by consensus of those with power, well, those rights don't exist.
Write them off as perversions Sean, pretend it is just a handful of crazies, bury your head in the sand. As for me, I will recognize it for what it is. It is a clash of civilizations. Some things are right, others wrong, irrespective of consensus. But I suppose that makes me one of the perverts, eh Sean?
"We all make those judgments and we arrive at a general consesus on the big issues. It's called civilization. Clearly threatening or inflicting phyical harm crosses the line of reasonable people in all cultures."
Oh really? This ranks right up there with Sean's "schools can't fail" theory. Note the moral relativism in arriving at a general consensus. But clearly inflicting physical harm crosses of reasonable people in all cultures, says Sean. What about war Sean? Can civilizations clash? Was England being unreasonable in declaring war on Germany?
Lets move beyond war. For thousands of years slavery was, by consensus of non slaves, an institution that was commonplace across many civilizations. Was that consensus OK Sean, or are we correct today in our revulsion of slavery? Lest you think we are in an uninterrupted march toward greater civilization, consider that at one time Muslim women were able to work, reveal their faces, drive cars, keep their clitori and what not, yet, in some Muslim civilizations, by consensus of those with power, well, those rights don't exist.
Write them off as perversions Sean, pretend it is just a handful of crazies, bury your head in the sand. As for me, I will recognize it for what it is. It is a clash of civilizations. Some things are right, others wrong, irrespective of consensus. But I suppose that makes me one of the perverts, eh Sean?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Profiling Double Standard
A Racine man carrying a firearm was arrested in Madison after refusing to produce identification that the police demanded to determine whether or not he was a felon.
In other words, the man was profiled as a potential felon because he was engaging in the legal act of carrying a firearm.
Not to worry folks. Any minute now President Obama will scold the State of Wisconsin. Soon the federal government will sue the state for profiling. Demonstrations will break out throughout the country for the unfairness of it all. States will refuse to do business with Wisconsin. And finally, we will plead guilty to the United Nations civil rights commission and beg for forgiveness.
In other words, the man was profiled as a potential felon because he was engaging in the legal act of carrying a firearm.
Not to worry folks. Any minute now President Obama will scold the State of Wisconsin. Soon the federal government will sue the state for profiling. Demonstrations will break out throughout the country for the unfairness of it all. States will refuse to do business with Wisconsin. And finally, we will plead guilty to the United Nations civil rights commission and beg for forgiveness.
RUSD Dreams
The following is a sentence by sentence rebuttal of Al Levie's letter to the JT. Levie is a teacher at Horlick High School.
Al: RUSD supporting the DREAM Act is the right thing to do.
Me: How so Al?
Al: Our country was based on the guiding principal of liberty and justice for all.
Me: For illegal immigrants as well? Do you really teach this nonsense to your students?
Al: Students who work hard in school should be given an opportunity to pursue their dreams of a college education.
Me: Really Al? I had to pay for my college education. Besides, are the illegals really prevented from attending our universities or are they just required to pay the out of state tuition rate?
Al: As a society, we tell our children if you work hard in school and do the best you can will be rewarded with a good education and a bright future.
Me: I don't recall society ever saying such a thing to me.
Al: RUSD needs to advocate for those students who society has made false promises to.
Me: Who are they Al?
Al: Undocumented students do not have access to student loans and in many states have to pay out-of-state tuition.
Me: When did society ever promise in-state tuition to people who have broken our immigration laws?
Al: Upon graduation in order to get a good job they must lie about their status.
Me: What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Al: Do we really want to put our best and brightest in that position?
Me: Our evil society didn't put them there Al, their parents did.
Al: Is it fair?
Me: Its more than fair Al. Despite breaking our immigration laws, they were given a free elementary and high school education. This costs the rest of us in the neighborhood of $12,000 per illegal immigrant.
Al: Is it just?
Me: Yes, but let me tell you what would be unjust. It would unjust to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants with in-state tuition while legal residents of other states have to pay the full amount. Giving more rights to illegal immigrants than to legal citizens is very unjust.
Al:There are those who qualify their application of the ideals embodied in our Pledge of Allegiance by not extending the rights of citizenship to hardworking students.
Me: The Pledge of Allegiance reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Now if the pledge read: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice and in-state tuition and citizenship for hard working students who have disregarded our immigration laws" .... well, then I would concede the argument.
Al: RUSD do not be pressured by them. They need to be educated, not catered to.
Me: RUSD does catering? I'll have sloppy Joes, tator tots and sugar free desserts for our next tea party planning session. Want to join us Al?
Al: If the mission of RUSD is to educate all children, then we need to advocate for them and help them realize their dreams.
Me: Educate all children Al? Even citizens of foreign countries? Better double check that RUSD mission statement.
Al: Support the DREAM Act.
Me: Dream on.
Al: RUSD supporting the DREAM Act is the right thing to do.
Me: How so Al?
Al: Our country was based on the guiding principal of liberty and justice for all.
Me: For illegal immigrants as well? Do you really teach this nonsense to your students?
Al: Students who work hard in school should be given an opportunity to pursue their dreams of a college education.
Me: Really Al? I had to pay for my college education. Besides, are the illegals really prevented from attending our universities or are they just required to pay the out of state tuition rate?
Al: As a society, we tell our children if you work hard in school and do the best you can will be rewarded with a good education and a bright future.
Me: I don't recall society ever saying such a thing to me.
Al: RUSD needs to advocate for those students who society has made false promises to.
Me: Who are they Al?
Al: Undocumented students do not have access to student loans and in many states have to pay out-of-state tuition.
Me: When did society ever promise in-state tuition to people who have broken our immigration laws?
Al: Upon graduation in order to get a good job they must lie about their status.
Me: What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Al: Do we really want to put our best and brightest in that position?
Me: Our evil society didn't put them there Al, their parents did.
Al: Is it fair?
Me: Its more than fair Al. Despite breaking our immigration laws, they were given a free elementary and high school education. This costs the rest of us in the neighborhood of $12,000 per illegal immigrant.
Al: Is it just?
Me: Yes, but let me tell you what would be unjust. It would unjust to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants with in-state tuition while legal residents of other states have to pay the full amount. Giving more rights to illegal immigrants than to legal citizens is very unjust.
Al:There are those who qualify their application of the ideals embodied in our Pledge of Allegiance by not extending the rights of citizenship to hardworking students.
Me: The Pledge of Allegiance reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Now if the pledge read: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice and in-state tuition and citizenship for hard working students who have disregarded our immigration laws" .... well, then I would concede the argument.
Al: RUSD do not be pressured by them. They need to be educated, not catered to.
Me: RUSD does catering? I'll have sloppy Joes, tator tots and sugar free desserts for our next tea party planning session. Want to join us Al?
Al: If the mission of RUSD is to educate all children, then we need to advocate for them and help them realize their dreams.
Me: Educate all children Al? Even citizens of foreign countries? Better double check that RUSD mission statement.
Al: Support the DREAM Act.
Me: Dream on.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Just Trust Us
The Journal Times has a commentary today warning readers to be aware of impending political spin as November 2nd approaches. As an antidote they suggest, you guessed it, reading the Journal Times. Who needs The Onion?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Universalist Truth
The Racine Post has a little article centered around a statement issued by Racine's Olympia Brown Unitarian Universalist Church. Read the article here. The church issued the following statement:
“We, the undersigned members and friends of the Olympia Brown Unitarian Universalist Church, along with Unitarian Universalists throughout the country, stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters and their right to the free exercise of their religion in these United States. We deplore the senseless destruction of their places of worship and we denounce all acts of intolerance against Islam and other religions. We support the right of Muslims and those of all religions, as affirmed in the U.S. Constitution, to worship in their faith tradition.”
Should read:
We, the undersigned members and friends of the Olympia Brown Universalist Church, along with Unitarian Universalists throughout the country, stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters and their right to the free exercise of their religion in these United States. We will continue to pretend as though there are serious efforts to curtail the free exercise of religion by Muslims in this country. We will continue to actively ignore the real issue at hand, that is, whether it is highly insensitive of Muslims to build an enormous mosque so near to the former World Trade Center grounds and the national tragedy inflicted upon us by radical Muslims. In taking this difficult and courageous stand, we will demonstrate once again our moral superiority to the unenlightened masses.
“We, the undersigned members and friends of the Olympia Brown Unitarian Universalist Church, along with Unitarian Universalists throughout the country, stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters and their right to the free exercise of their religion in these United States. We deplore the senseless destruction of their places of worship and we denounce all acts of intolerance against Islam and other religions. We support the right of Muslims and those of all religions, as affirmed in the U.S. Constitution, to worship in their faith tradition.”
Should read:
We, the undersigned members and friends of the Olympia Brown Universalist Church, along with Unitarian Universalists throughout the country, stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters and their right to the free exercise of their religion in these United States. We will continue to pretend as though there are serious efforts to curtail the free exercise of religion by Muslims in this country. We will continue to actively ignore the real issue at hand, that is, whether it is highly insensitive of Muslims to build an enormous mosque so near to the former World Trade Center grounds and the national tragedy inflicted upon us by radical Muslims. In taking this difficult and courageous stand, we will demonstrate once again our moral superiority to the unenlightened masses.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Tea Party Protesters Lack Diversity
I just came back from Racine's Tea Party gathering. I will leave it to the mainstream press to accurately characterize the event and the participants. I want to focus on the protesters.
I was struck by the complete lack of diversity among the five protesters. They were all young white males. There was absolutely no representation from women, blacks, or Latino's - can't be sure about gays- I'm a don't ask kind of guy. Speaking of homogeneity, their hand held messages were uniformly devoid of original thought. "If you can read this, you're smarter than Sarah Palin" and "go home racist sexist homophobes" and similar deep thoughts.
On second thought, they did use a variety of bright and cheery colors for their hateful messaging.
I was struck by the complete lack of diversity among the five protesters. They were all young white males. There was absolutely no representation from women, blacks, or Latino's - can't be sure about gays- I'm a don't ask kind of guy. Speaking of homogeneity, their hand held messages were uniformly devoid of original thought. "If you can read this, you're smarter than Sarah Palin" and "go home racist sexist homophobes" and similar deep thoughts.
On second thought, they did use a variety of bright and cheery colors for their hateful messaging.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Free Merchandise Offer
Regular readers of Free Racine probably know that I own a business downtown and that I rarely mention it by name on this blog as I prefer to separate my business interests from my political interests as much as possible.
Today however I am faced with an awkward dilemma. There is a rather large Tea Party rally scheduled for downtown Racine tomorrow and merchants have been asked to give a symbolic tax break (note to WI Department of Revenue, I really mean a discount) of 5.1% to customers.
I normally participate in any and all downtown events but this one has a decidedly political tone about it despite claims to contrary. Additionally, the attendants are regularly met with scorn and accusations of racism, sexism, homophobism, Islamaphobism etc... from a good portion of the electorate. I would rather not have my business associated with those disgusting attributes.
So what to do? I am damned if I participate and damned if I don't.
I think I have a solution. Yes, I will offer a 5.1% discount to any and all customers on Saturday. But in an effort to distance myself from the ism and phobia crowd, I will make an even better offer to their detractors. I hereby announce, in a spirit of nonpartisan inclusiveness, free merchandise, yes you read that correctly, free merchandise, 100% off, to anyone and everyone who can prove that they are not, pick one, a racist or a sexist or an Islamaphobe or a homophobe.
Dimple's LLC is located at 416 Main Street, downtown Racine.
Today however I am faced with an awkward dilemma. There is a rather large Tea Party rally scheduled for downtown Racine tomorrow and merchants have been asked to give a symbolic tax break (note to WI Department of Revenue, I really mean a discount) of 5.1% to customers.
I normally participate in any and all downtown events but this one has a decidedly political tone about it despite claims to contrary. Additionally, the attendants are regularly met with scorn and accusations of racism, sexism, homophobism, Islamaphobism etc... from a good portion of the electorate. I would rather not have my business associated with those disgusting attributes.
So what to do? I am damned if I participate and damned if I don't.
I think I have a solution. Yes, I will offer a 5.1% discount to any and all customers on Saturday. But in an effort to distance myself from the ism and phobia crowd, I will make an even better offer to their detractors. I hereby announce, in a spirit of nonpartisan inclusiveness, free merchandise, yes you read that correctly, free merchandise, 100% off, to anyone and everyone who can prove that they are not, pick one, a racist or a sexist or an Islamaphobe or a homophobe.
Dimple's LLC is located at 416 Main Street, downtown Racine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
