Recession Nightmare: From Unemployed to Unemployable

Recession Nightmare: From Unemployed to Unemployable

Getting It Right: Dean of George Mason Law Sets Excellent Example - FIRE

Getting It Right: Dean of George Mason Law Sets Excellent Example about Free Speech:

Courtesy of F.I.R.E., a groups whose mission I fully support and endorse, here is the story:

Recently, two student groups at George Mason University School of Law, the Federalist Society and the Jewish Law Students Association, have taken heat for inviting controversial activist Nonie Darwish to campus for a lecture. Specifically, the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on the school to disinvite Darwish because of her past statements regarding Islam.

Here is the Dean Daniel Polsby's response to calls to disinvite Darwish in its entirety. (Again, comlpiments of F.I.R.E.)

It appears that there is need to clarify the policy affecting speakers at the law school.

Student organizations are allocated budget by the Student Bar Association in order to allow them, among other things, to bring speakers to the law school. Neither the law school nor the university can be taken to endorse such speakers or what they say. Law school administration is not consulted about these invitations, nor should we be. Sometimes speakers are invited who are known to espouse controversial points of view. So be it. So long as they are here, they are free to say whatever is on their mind within the bounds of law. They cannot be silenced and they will not be.

Just as speakers are free to speak, protesters are free to protest. They must do so in a place and in a manner that respects the rights of speakers to speak and listeners to listen, and that is in all other ways consistent with the educational mission of the university. Student organizations which hold contrary points of view have every right to schedule their own programs with their own speakers, and these speakers' rights will be protected in just the same way.

The law school will not exercise editorial control over the words of speakers invited by student organizations, nor will we take responsibility for them, nor will we endorse or condemn them. There has to be a place in the world where controversial ideas and points of view are aired out and given space. This is that place.

Daniel D. Polsby

Professor of Law, Dean

Bravo Dean Polsby, Bravo sir.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Bank of America Should Sue Dick Durbin

On Monday Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) took to the floor of the Senate and said “Bank of America customers, vote with your feet. Get the heck out of that bank. Find yourself a bank or credit union that won’t gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day.”

Now, you can bet that Bank of America is going to look at every customer and wonder, are they leaving because we are now charging them $5 for a debit card or are they leaving because some blowhard U.S. Senator said they should leave.

If I was Bank of America, I would be thinking about a tortious interference with contract claim against the Senator.

A good idea on many levels

From Jerry Pournelle:

Mission for NASA: Become the national Space Prize organization. Congress appropriates $2 billion a year, relatively trivial amounts; NASA sets up prize committees, stores up the money, and gives it away as prizes. It doesn’t fund anything, it doesn’t need large staffs, it needs some bright people to come up with prize objectives and definitions, judges to determine that the prize objectives have been met, and someone to sign the checks for winners. Nothing else.

Unleashes innovation, spurs development, oh and saves a few billion dollars a year in government spending.

I like it.

It is Not Just About the $16 Muffin

Why the $16 muffin is no joke, and according to Matt Welch, the reason is that it doesn't stop there.

[T]here is no such thing as government spending without gobs of disgusting waste, graft and corruption. It's all cooked right into the system.

And therein lies the problem with government spending. In the government's rush to do so much (even laudable things that the government must do) there is very little incentive to government officials to be frugal. Furthermore as Welch points out:

Managers whose budgets do not depend on customer satisfaction and who do not face competitive pressure in the marketplace, will not, on balance, spend their money wisely. Vendors selling to those managers know that price matters much less than it does to, say, Wal-Mart.

Say what you want about Wal-Mart--their aggressive focus on keeping costs and prices down works. Maybe, just maybe, Congress should be hiring some of those folks to manage the budget. Just saying.

But I digress. The fact that the Justice Department is spending $16 on a muffin or $8.00 on a cup of tea sounds like small change. To the federal government it is. But the more important question is, would you as a taxpayer pay $16 for a muffin? Not me--I balk at paying $16 for a steak sometimes. An even more important question would be, would that Justice Department manager pay $16 for a muffin if it was his/her own money that she was spending? Almost assuredly not.

Therein lies the problem with government spending, they don't treat the money that is spent as if it were their own money. Until everyone who draws a government paycheck starts to treat their budget as if it were their own money, you will not see any change in behavior. It won't matter if it is at $16 muffin, a $500 million loan guarantee or $50 billion on Medicare waste, fraud and abuse.

What Did the President Hope to Accomplish

From Althouse: "This I know... When I raise my hand and take that oath of office, I think the world will look at us differently. And millions of kids across the country will look at themselves differently." Quoting Ron Suskind's new book Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President.

I don't think the world as a collective body, can rightfully said to give a toss about who is President of the United States. Sure, some people like him, some people hate him and I would wager that most of the world could care less.

But that last sentence bothers me a great deal. Who is the President talking about? Minority kids or all kids? How does the president want them to see themselves? There are lots of questions just about the text of that statement.

Here is the larger question: is that really a good reason to want to become President? So that kids will feel better about themselves?

I have a question for the President--how do you think those kids feel if they happen to be the child of a man or woman who has been unemployed for months? How are they supposed to look at themselves now? How do you think they view you now?

Social Security

Shikha Dalmia over at Reason Magazine has a bit responding to a riff on a previous article describing Social Security as worse than and Ponzi scheme.

The original piece, here, gave three reasons why Social Security is worse than a Ponzi Scheme:

One, a Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats.

Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.

Three: When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes.

But there is a fourth reason. A Ponzi scheme is not backed up by the full faith and credit of the United States.

Lest there is anyone out there, liberal, conservative or other, who thinks that the money deducted from you paycheck for Social Security taxes is still there, sitting in an account until the day you retire, take a gander at this little bit: Right now, according to Jagdaeesh Gokhlae of the Cato Institute, Social Security Trust Fund has $2.5 trillion in accumulated surpluses.

When the program was started during the 1930s, early retirees received more benefits than their payroll taxes, thus contributing a deficit to the program. As the program's benefits and taxes were increased, subsequent generations also received more benefits during retirement than their payroll taxes while working. The Social Security trustees report that under current payroll tax and benefit rules, the system's total shortfall equals $16.1 trillion. Of this, the legacy from past and current generations is a debt of $17.4 trillion ($20 trillion worth of gross debt offset by $2.5 trillion of trust fund Treasury securities) and a net projected contribution by future generations of $1.3 trillion.

So, what does this mean. Social Security was sold to the public as a bill of goods it was never intended to be, not from the beginning and certainly not now. In the 1930's, 40's and 50's people did not receive 20-25 years of Social Security benefits, indeed, most Americans never saw any at all, dying before they reached eligibility. But even then, the redistributionist policies of the program created a deficit in the scheme.

People were told, we the government are going to take a small percentage of you pay (1% at the time and another 1% coming from the employer) and put it into an account so that when you retire you will get your money back. But that money never went into the account. The money came out almost as soon as it was paid in. Now this wouldn't be nearly as bad if the money going out was just used to pay benefits, but that is not the case, it has been used for all sorts of governmental purposes. (not to say that the lie is better if it is used for benefits only--just a bit more palatable.) But in reality the money was used for all sorts of things.

What is shocking is that years ago, we were hearing debates, when the solvency of the Social Security "Trust Fund" was raised, of creating a Social Security "Lockbox" so that taxes paid in would be protected from use in general fund spending. That should have been a warning that the funding mechanism is a joke. But no, our politicians continued on, spending Social Security taxes for all sorts of matters, not caring one whit about the lies they have told.

The old saying that lie repeated often enough soon looks likes the truth is so apt. For decades, the American people have been told a lie about Social Security. The hard part is that it is people of my generation and our children that have to wake up to the actual reality--that government lied to us about Social Security. The 70 year old lie is coming home--and it is not pretty.

Has Anti-Bullying Gone Too Far

Late last night, I posted about the over reaction of the federal govenrment to the issue of sexual assault on college campuses.  There is no doubt in my mind that sexual assaults happen on college campuses, but not with the frequency the Department of Education would have you believe. 

Today, we visit an issue on the other side of the spectrum--bullying in elementary and secondary schools.  Again, let me acknowledge from the beginning that bullying happens, it is wrong and it is a problem.  But like sexual assaults on college campuses, the problem, I beleive, is not nearly as widespread as the nanny staters would have you believe. 

This morning, I saw this story in the New York Times about New Jersey's tough new anti-bullying law. 

Under a new state law in New Jersey, lunch-line bullies in the East Hanover schools can be reported to the police by their classmates this fall through anonymous tips to the Crimestoppers hot line.

In Elizabeth, children, including kindergartners, will spend six class periods learning, among other things, the difference between telling and tattling.

And at North Hunterdon High School, students will be told that there is no such thing as an innocent bystander when it comes to bullying: if they see it, they have a responsibility to try to stop it.

But while many parents and educators welcome the efforts to curb bullying both on campus and online, some superintendents and school board members across New Jersey say the new law, which takes effect Sept. 1, reaches much too far, and complain that they have been given no additional resources to meet its mandates.

The law, known as the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, is considered the toughest legislation against bullying in the nation. Propelled by public outcry over the suicide of a Rutgers University freshman, Tyler Clementi, nearly a year ago, it demands that all public schools adopt comprehensive antibullying policies (there are 18 pages of “required components”), increase staff training and adhere to tight deadlines for reporting episodes.

Seriously, a law that puts kindergartners into six hours of anti-bullying seminars instead of, I don't know, reading or math class.  A law that requires bystanders to get involved or potentially face some kind of punishment (NOTE:, As an adult, if I see an assault going on in the street, I have no legal obligation to call the police or intervene, and I cannot be sued if I don't). 

This law is a classic example of an overreaction by government busybodies who have nothing better to do.  Instead of addressing a bullying problem that is smaller in scope than is proably the truth, the New Jersey legislature has enacted a law that dramatically blows out of proportion a real problem, making it a monstrosity of intervention, informing and administration that will cost millions and won't solve the problem.

Bullying takes so many forms, from the low-tech in-your-face milkmoney shakedown, to the high-tech, online and texting shaming that happens.  This law apparently makes no distinction between the two and brands the culprits as beasts or criminals when in fact the former is pretty minor and probably pretty easily handled by both the victim and the schoool.  The latter instance is more complicated and might need some special intervention.  But a massive state law like New Jersey's treats every one of these incidents, from the trifling to the significant, in the same way--ultimately poorly.

The fact of the matter is bullying is going to happen no matter what kind of law is put in place in an effort to "stop bullying."  Bullies should be punished, of course,  and most bullies grow out of their behavior.  Would not a far better use of taxpayer dollars and student's precious time be to teach kids how to handle bullies themselves?  Do we really need a massive governmental program, complete with hundreds of hours of training for adults (at millions of dollars in taxpayer funds) and tedious paperwork and reporting requirements, for school administrators and teachers to address a problem that has existed in schools since the formation of the first schools?  Why not let school administrators, guidance counselors, teachers and oh yeah, parents, address bullying in a manner tailored to the incident. 



Wait....because that is not what government wants.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Demonization and Victimization on Campus

Some good friends and colleagues of mine spent the last couple of weeks packing their kids, young men and women really, into their cars with all their stuff and then moving their children in to dorms at various colleges and universities across the country.  The hustle and bustle of moving in the college, of stepping out from their parent's shadow and immediate protection certainly made most of my friends proud, and maybe a little apprehensive. 

After the chore of moving into to the dorms, the parents departed, leaving their children on their own.  But what most parents didn't see or experience was the orientation seminars that took place on college campuses.  While some orientation sessions are to be expected, i.e. where to go if you are sick, where to go if you need to get something to eat, got to the gym, proceedures for signing up for classes or changning a schedule, there is one session, effectively mandated by law, that is guaranteed to scare the crap out of men and women--the sexual assault session.  I have no problem with sexual assault awareness seminars, but is there any college adminsitrator out there who thinks that this seminar is going to stop what is almost certianly going to happen hours after the seminar--the semi-anonymous hook-up fueled perhaps by a little alcohol? 

Certainly sexual assault is something to be avoided, but in the new rules of sexual behavior, a staple of collegiate activity, sex, can and should make men very afraid and women very angry.  Right now, as I write, I am willing to wager significant sums of my annual income for the next 10 years that hundreds, if not thousands, of college students are drunk and having sex.  But under recent guidelines promulgated by the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, unless the "sexual initiator" (almost always assumed to be the man) has explicit consent for each act of sexual activity, from kissing a girl, to feeling her up, to grabbing her butt, right up to taking off her clothes and actually engaging in sex of any kind, that man has committed a sexual assault.  The consequences of his act can mean expulsion and the end of his academic career at the current school and indeed any school. 

Here's the next scary thing--the young woman doesn't have to bring the charges--it can be brought by anyone, including a bystander.  Here is the truly frightening thing--the young man, at most colleges, is not entitled to legal represenation when brought up before a "judicial committee" to hear the case.  At the same time, there is an entire bureaucracy on hand assist the woman (or the bystander) in filing the case.

The recent policy changes, applicable to every school that receives even a penny of federal funds including federal student loans (so effectively just about every school in the country), means that in place of a campus culture that puts a premium on personal responsbility, on growth and learning, we have arrived at the ultimate nanny state--one that blames men (no matter what actually happened) and coddles and degrades women (no matter how much they take responsibility for their role in what happened).  It is the perfect storm of predator naming and shaming and victim culture. 

The burden of proof of a sexual assault hearing on a college campus is not on the college to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or even on a clear and convincing standard, that a man committed a sexual assault.  Indeed the burden of proof is prepodnerance of the evidence (a more likely than not) standard.  Adding insult to injury, the burden is on the "initiator" of the sexual activity (almost always assumed to be the man) to prove that he had consent.  Absent written proof, the man will not have anything other than his word. 
At a time when men are disappearing from college campuses, why would a man risk going to college and knocking beer (or six) back and talking to a woman?  If he touches her, in any way, he could be doomed to underemployment or worse for years to come, a damage to his psyche and future that he may never recover from.

But lest you think that I am trying to stick up for men here, the policy is, in my opinion, just as bad in its treatment of women.  Women make up the majority of students on most college campuses today.  But this policy, at a time when women have made significant strides in higher education, treats them in a manner reminiscent of worst cliches we think of from the Victorian age.  This policy doesn't treat women as individual, adutl women--it treats them as if they are 8 year old girls rather than the young adults we want them to be.  They cannot, under this policy, admit to the mistakes (if it is a mistake) of sleeping with some random guy.  This policy doesn't allow women to be adults--it treats them like children.

Is there a problem with sexual assault on campus?  Probably, yes.  Is it as widespread as Vice President Biden and the Department of Education would have us believe?  Probably not. 

The true test of any policy is does it deal with the minority case as well as the majority case?  In other words, does this policy protect the male victim of a sexually aggressive woman? 


No one, man or woman, should have to suffer the indignity and violation of a sexual assautlt.

But no man, or woman, should be raped by a process that classifies horny teenagers predators and victims without regard to what actually happened (or whether the so-called victim thinks of themselves as a victim) when both participants are best classified, in the overwhelming, vast majority of cases, simply as college students being college students.


_____________________________
Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Why Do People Get Hung Up on Forecasts?

In the aftermath of Hurricane Irene, there is a more than a little finger pointing about steps taken by various governmental entities and actors based upon the forecasts of Irene, the storm's track and its intensity.
To be sure, and credit to the forecasters--there projected track could not have been more accurate, but everyone seems to be pitching a fit that the storm was not more intense when it made landfall in North Carolina--blaming the forecasters for getting it wrong.  Like it was a bad thing that the storm was not a bad as predicted. Had Irene made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane, everyone would have been pointing the finger at the forecasters for not making the correct call.

To be honest, there is a reason why I call weather forecasters--weather guessers.  Yes, they have lots and lots of data that they use to make a forecast--but in the end it is a guess, an educated guess.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

An Outside Observer Goes to Madison

As the recall elections in Wisconsin wind to a close, Ann Althouse has been providing excellent coverage of the events in Madison, including wonderful coverage of the various protestes that have happened. As it turns out, a preacher from Kansas went to see first hand what was going on and he provided some interesting comments, which Prof. Althouse was kind enough to republish. Some of the less clever protesters dubbed him The Nefarious Kansas Preacher, who made the following comment:

4. Folks who work for the government, union or not, you are not oppressed. You make good salaries compared to your counter parts in the private sector, have more job security by far, more holidays, vacation days and comparatively outstanding health and retirement benefits. The problem for you as I see it is that you thought it would never end. Well, guess what, while you are singing about saving the middle class I want you to know, I AM the middle class and I pay for you! If you want to help the middle class then you are going to have to accept compensation that is more in line with reality. If you are fearful of the future may I suggest to you that your friends have been fearful for a long time. Change is coming and the old arguments born in the industrial age and honed in earlier eras of fatness sound incredibly hollow today. You singing songs and beating drums in what sounds like a Salvation Army street meeting only underscores how old and out of touch your ideas have become.(emphasis added)

Madison is but one battle ground in the contest between public sector unions and the rest of the public. People in America who work in the private sector now fully understand that it takes several of them working and paying taxes to pay for one public sector worker's salary and benefits. When you start getting to the point where that number if 5:1 or 7:1 or 10:1 (that is 10 private sector taxpayers for 1 public sector worker), people are starting to balk. To be honest, I have no idea what the ratio of taxpayers to public sector workers is, but here are some back of the envelope calculations.

According to the IRS, for FY 2009, the average taxes paid by individuals was approximately $8,156. (Note this does not count anything other than individual tax returns so the calculations are necessarily off, but individual income tax returns are the biggest category of tax revenue). If the average federal employee makes $50,000 per year, it takes 6 American taxpayers to pay for 1 federal employee. This clearly doesn't count state workers, city workers or other public sector workers. Nor does it cover the fairly generous benefit package (including a defined benefit pension plan for many federal workers). So a ratio of 10 taxpayers (or more) to 1 federal worker is not an unreasonable deduction based on the above calculations.

So the Nefarious Kansas Preacher is right, public sector workers are not an oppressed group by any stretch of the imagination. Change is coming and it may have started in Madison, but it is not going to end there. An adjustment is coming and it is long over due.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

The Real Reason You Won't See A Real Increase In Taxes on the SuperRich

On Monay, mega investor, the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet authored an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to increase taxes on the super rich.  The nugget take away came in this paragraph: 

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

 So, increase the taxes on those making more than $1 million.  This statement, if made by President Obama, would be called classic class warfare, but because the statements come from Buffett, they are somehow more palatable.

So Buffett is making a call for a change in taxes for those making more than $1 million and I can predict how that is going to go over with Congress--like a lead balloon.  The reason why is simple--it is not in the individual self-interest of Members of Congress.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, twenty five members of Congress had incomes in 2009 over $280,000 in income other than their Congressional salaries, which are substantial as well.  In 2011, a rank and file member of congress makes $174,000 per year.  So for those 25 Members of Congress listed by the CRP, their combined total income is more than $450,000 per year.

To increase the taxes on millionaires jeopardizes Congress's own tax bill.  Remember, the income discussed by the CRP is outside income.  While it might make good policy, an assertion I am not ready to admit, the fact is that if you were a member of Congress would you willinging punish yourself and your family by voluntarily increasing your tax burden? 

Increasing taxes on yourself requires an understanding of "shared sacrifice" that I really don't see a lot of in our current leaders in Washington.  It requires a courage that is lacking, so as appealing as Buffett's call may be, I simply don't see it happening.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Tim Pawlenty Quits

Really, Pawlenty pulls third place in a "buy your way to a win" contests and packs it in. Come on man, show some back bone. If lost the actual Iowa caucuses, I could see withdrawing--but a straw poll--in August.

Have some backbone man.

What Cato has to say about the budget deal

the Cato Institute, unlike some other thing tanks in Washington DC which are designed to bolster a partisan agenda, is usually pretty good with a clear explantiona, and it doesn't get much clearer than this: Budget Deal Doesn’t Cut Spending.

If Congress were serious about making a real change in how the federal budget works they would implement a zero baseline budget--that is a budget like you and I use. The budgets would start at zero every year. Right now the federal budget has a built increase every year, as much as 3 percent or more for some agencies/programs. So that is how it is possible for the government to claim they are "cutting" the budget and there is actually more money spent from year to year.






__________________________________
Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

What's the Real Cost of the Debt Debate

We have a deal on the debt.  Like most political compromises, it sucks in everyway, nobody got what they wanted and the American public got screwed.  Already, people are talking about who won and who lost, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter.  Talk of only $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years is irrelevant because after 2012, the next Congress will do whatever it wants and unless something changes, we will have a similar "crisis" in a few months or years.

No matter what the parameters of the deal might be, there is a cost that almost no talking head will talk about, and it is a cost that hurts me unlike any other.  The loss of faith in government.  It is that faith, that belief in government that has been lost that is the true cost of this debt debate.

If you ask anyone who knows me, I have always been a big believer in our system of government, I have always beleived that ours is the best form of government on the planet.  But is is not perfect and I know that.  Yet for some reason, this time around, the inefficiencies have been exacerbated by political parties and the one feature of our Constitutional system that was predicatable--fixed elections.  The Framers were mistrustful of political parties and like much of their early predictions--were very right about the potential negative impact of parties.  But, I don't think the Framers fully anticipated the impact of regular elections and the negative influence they would have on our political discourse.

But then, I don't think the Framers envisioned a full time Congress either, so they might not have anticiapted the problems created by having elections every two years.  This debt crisis and deal is the first truly national issue that not only could have been avoided, but is a result, in part, of the inability of our politicians to look further than the next election.

Everyone knew, before the 2010 election that the debt ceiling limit was being approached, but neither party wanted to be responsible for screwing up an election, so they kicked the can down the road so that the current Congress would deal with the problem.  So, a stop gap measure was implemented.  While no one would have been able to pinpoint a day, everyone in Congress and the White House knew the problem was there.  But in a rush to position themselves as the heroes for the next election, or to punish the other side, they stake out a position designed to appease some segment of their base and only reluctantly move off that position.

Thus, the politlcal parties (both of them) spend more time playing a massive game of political chicken.  The problem is that they are not hired to play chicken, but to make decisions.  What I have learned is that no matter what, Congress and the President (any Congress and any President, not just these) appear to be incapable of making any long term decision and won't even make a short term decision without a figurative gun to their head.  The reason for it is clear--they worry about the next election.  Since the next election is as sure as the sun rising tomorrow, they can plan their decisions, or lack of decisions, around the beginning of November every even numbered year. 

So political parties and fixed elections have robbed the American people of leaders capable of making the tough decision for the long term.  No decision is considered for its effects beyond the next election.

The people who populate the system have corrupted it to the point where I no longer recognize the system I love.  Sure, the structures are still there, but it is no longer a system of limited government, of course, it probably hasn't been since before I was born, but now I just don't have faith in the ability of Congress and the President to make a decision until a crisis is truly upon us. 

We won't be able to address problems like Medicare and Social Security or other problems that are slow to build becuase there is not urgency.  But acting takes courage and quite frankly, we don't have leaders with courage.  The adherence to a political party (and the necessity of affiliating with a party) and the regular metronome of elections makes courage unnecessary.  All it takes is a willingness to care more about your re-election than about making America better. 

So the cost of the debt debate is not how many trillions in debt limit we get or what gets cut in the budget.  It is the loss of faith in government and our leaders.  We might be able to cut the budget, reduce our spending, and maybe get a surplus back, but replacing and restoring faith in governemnt--that might not ever happen in my life time.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Let's Do a Little Math

A vote will happen in this weekend about the debt deal. Let's make no mistake about the debt deal is going to screw the average taxpayer and won't even pretend give my kids the courtesy of a kiss before screwing them.

In exchange for a trillion dollar increase in the debt ceiling we will have an unenforceable promise to cut spending by a similar amount over the next ten years.

But what kind of debt are we running? Well as Victor Davis Hanson points out out government is borrowing about $4 billion a day. Yes, you read that right--$4 billion dollars a day. At 365 days in a year, we are talking $1.460 trillion a year. That is what this country is borrowing every year. President Obama proposed a $3.7 trillion dollar budget for 2012. At the current rate of borrowing, the President's budget is supported by a 4o percent borrowing ratio.

But those are some pretty big numbers, hard to wrap your head around. So let me make it a little more understand able.

Let's say your household budget is $100,000 and you are borrowing at that same 40% ratio. That means you are borrowing $40,000 per year. Your income is just $60,000 per year. That means in two years, your debt will be 25% more than your income. In three years, your debt would be equal to your income. Clearly, such a household budget is unsustainable.

But how does the government keep going without problems from its creditors. Simple, the governmnet can do something you can't--print money. Oh, and they can raise their own credit limit. Try calling your credit card company and saying--"gee Visa company....I like living the way I do, so I know I owe you $10,000, but i am going to increase my debt limit with you to $20,000 and not pay what I currently owe."

Sounds ludicrous right, but that is exactly what Congress has been doing and no one is calling them on it.

Well, I am now. It is time to stop kicking the can down the road. We cannot borrow 40% of our budget anymore. Give you representatives a call--put their feet to the fire.

OOlberman--Still a Hateful Man

The next time some liberal tells me that Keith Olberman is not as mean or spiteful as Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly, I will scream. The latest piece of evidence Olbermann thinks conservative commentarot, S.E. Cupp is a perfect example of why Planned Parenthood is necessary.

Olberman was clearly implying that Cupp's mother should have gotten an abortion preventing Cupp's birth. Olberman has tried to walk it back and the more effort he makes the more it becomes obvious of what his intention originally was--a wish the Cupp had never been born.

The New Political Rhetoric

Right on Left attacks are verboten, but Left on Right Attacks--well that's okay.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Clueless and In Charge

Much is being made of President Obama's quip to a citizen who stated that he can't afford to fill his gas tank at current prices. The President, so empathetically, said that maybe this voter should trade in his car.

What, you didn't see that coverage in the Associated Press report. Yeah, that's because they scrubbed from their coverage. Never fear though, you can get the real, and whole story, from Instapundit “Obama fills the role of clueless aristocrat..."

Seriously? This is the man our country elected as President? Can't afford gas, but should buy a new car?

Heroes Beyond Description

Following World War II, the armistice imposed upon Japan severely restricted that size of the island nation's military. In fact, the military in Japan is referred to as the Self Defense Force (SDF) and in a nation with pacificism enforced on it and now partly cultural as a collective shaming and reconciliation, it has taken a couple of natural disasters and a nuclear crisis to see the value of Japan's tiny (in comparison to its population and status in the world) military.

With local governments fractured and the Tokyo Electric Power Co. ill-equipped for a large-scale disaster, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces have emerged as the backbone of this country’s crisis management. And they have drawn praise from defense experts for their competence as they deliver aid, search for bodies in rubble and perform among the most dangerous tasks at the radiation-leaking Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

The SDF’s precision in this crisis has eroded some of the deep domestic cynicism about the role of — and even the need for — a military that fights only when under attack. Japan is one of the world’s most antimilitarist countries, a legacy of its post-war sensibilities.

As the Washington Post pointed out, the SDF has taken on dangerous tasks, facing nuclear radiation as the crippled nuclear plant, batting elements and even praying for the victims of the quake and tsunami in less than comfortable conditions:

One widely circulated photo showed a semicircle of SDF troops, on a search mission, praying for a just-recovered victim while standing in frigid, knee-high water. On March 16, low-flying SDF Chinook helicopters dumped saltwater on the overheated reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Later, a half-dozen SDF soldiers in firetrucks equipped with high-pressure hoses sprayed water over the reactors in an effort to cool the overheated spent fuel pools, an unconventional attempt to bring the nuclear emergency under control.

At the same time, what the SDF has done is not just humanitarian, but simply human--listening to the surviving victims of the disaster lament the loss of loved ones in what must be a litany of tragedy that few can understand, let alone withstand. Yet, the SDF has done all this and more.

In the aftermath of 9/11 this country rightfully celebrated the bravery of New Yorks police and firefighters for their response and mourned the loss of so many of them as well as their fellow citizens. Now imagine the loss of life on 9/11 multipled by 10 or 100. As tragic and as indelible as that day was, imagine living like that for weeks, even months, with constant reminders of what happened. Imgaine Ground Zero extending for hundreds of square miles. Only then can you get even a hint at the devastation and working conditions of the SDF, almost half of which are now in Sendai Province.

But, oddly enough, we don't hear much of the SDF outside of Japan, even now. The coverage of their efforts is largely overshadowed by "nuclear meltdown" doomsday scenarios. As Charlie Martin pointed out, we don't hear of the truth--only the scaremongering:

Yamato gokoro is perhaps the most noble of human characteristics, and it’s hardly limited to the Japanese. Any time you hear of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his friends, or firefighters going into a burning building, you’re hearing an example of kokoro — not Japanese kokoro, but human kokoro, the guts it takes to press on, to persevere, and finally to conquer.

It’s all too easy to forget this, however, when we look at press reports coming out of Japan.

We hear of Fukushima workers “fleeing” the plant, when what happened is they left for a few hours.

We hear about the appearance of tiny amounts of radioactive iodine in Tokyo tap water — but nothing the next day, when it returns to safe levels.

We hear a thousand commentators mention one measurement that was ten million times normal — but nothing when that turns out to have been a measurement error, made by someone who had little sleep and the weight of the world on his shoulders.

We hear people spinning tales of “worst case scenarios” ten thousand times worse than anything that could plausibly happen — and almost nothing about the fact that the Fukushima reactors endured an earthquake 32 times as forceful as they had been designed for, followed by a tsunami twice as high, and still largely survived.

We hear about “plutonium in the soil” — but not that it’s an amount so tiny that pound for pound, bananas in the grocery store are five thousand times more radioactive.

The London Daily Mail reports that the workers “expect to die,” but not that the worst radiation exposure among all the workers amounts to about as much as 15 CT scans, a dose that not only isn’t fatal, but that has no observable health effects.

Of course, bad news sells papers and drives ratings in this country. But whatever happened to the human bonding that occurred in the aftermath of 9/11 or following the tsunami in 2004 in Thailand and Indonesia or the earthquake in Haiti. All these disasters, man-made and natural, included significant press coverage of the near super-human efforts of relief workers and aid agencies. There were pleas for help sent to all corners of the globe. But when whole Japanese towns were leveled by a quake or washed away by a tsunami, the only thing we hear out of Japan is doom and gloom.

It would be nice if the Western press looked away from the Fukushima speculation to look at the tens of thousands dead and the lives destroyed, and find time in all the doom and gloom to say “Ganbatte! We know you can do it!”

But doing that would mean finding something that seems to be in short supply in the Western press. They could use a little kokoro ["guts"] of their own.

But it goes beyond just saying to the Japanese, "We know you can do it!" It should extend to "We can do it with you."

So for now, to the members of the Japanese SDF, you are heroes beyond description. You are honorable men and women serving in the worst conditions possible, amongst the rubble of your own nation. I salute you and I know your countrymen do too. Well done.

This is a Problem

Stephen Moore: We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers:

Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers.

And make no mistake, a government worker is generally a taker, meaning that take tax money as a salary and do little to actually contribute to the economy. No matter what you say, there is an imbalance in private and public sector jobs.

Dear Environmental Lobby--Pick 1 Please

Bird group calls for end to wind energy due to threats to species.

Don't get up in my face about the need for more wind energy and then get all uppity when those big honkin' windmills start killing birds that fly into them.

There is a reason why coal, natural gas and nuclear work so well--not as much bird damage there.

A Media Double Standard

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS LANGUAGE I WOULD NOT NORMALLY USE IN THIS BLOG, BUT ACCURACY REQUIRES PROPER QUOTATION.

Remember almost four years ago, when Don Imus was hounded off the air and suspended for two weeks for calling some players of the Rutgers University Women's Basketball team "nappy-headed hos." Was it a smart thing to say? Nope. Was it a funny thing to say? Probably not. Should Imus have been suspended? Yeah, I think so. Imus is back on the air and I think he has learned a lesson-but whom am I to know.

When Imus said what he said, the liberal left was all up in arms. There were calls for him to be fired, including calls by one would-be president junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, who at the time opposed Imus returning to the air. CBS and MSNBC stopped carrying Imus in the Morning, but eventually Imus returned to the air.

So why rehash all this history? Because Bill Maher should be taken off the air for terms more derogatory, more insensitive and demeaning to more than a dozen young women who probably shouldn't have been insulted by Imus, but had. Bill Maher has called former Governor Sarah Palin and U.S. Representative Michelle Bachman, names that SHOULD make everyone's blood boil, having called the two conservative women "dumb twats," "bimbos" and "cunt." The Daily Caller's Amy Siskind writes:

Mr. Maher’s most recent string of vulgar comments has little to do with political party, and everything to do with his utter contempt for women.

Mr. Maher’s use of the terms dumb twat, bimbos, and cunt hurts not only Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Palin, but each and every mother, daughter and wife.

Mr. Maher’s statements reveal his belief that rather than criticizing or questioning a woman on her positions or ideas, it is acceptable and appropriate to demean and diminish her by sexualizing her or presuming that, because she’s a woman, she’s unintelligent.

But while the National Organization for Women has criticized Maher for his statements, there does not seem to be a lot of calls to push the "comedian" off the air. Maher was almost fired by HBO for referring to Hillary Clinton's lady parts in a derogatory fashion. (Note: Maher didn't call Hillary Clinton the c-word, only referred to it as somehow worth more money that seeing Janet Jackson's nipple) If it was almost a firing offense to do it once, why isn't a repeat of the offense a firing offense?

The lack of truly public outcry for Maher's ouster is indicates yet another media double standard. It is not okay to call young black women "hos" but is it okay to call conservative, elected leaders and former elected leaders "bimbos" and "dumb twats" and worse. Good to now that the media has standards, that HBO has standards and that Bill Maher can be insulting to women in such a public and personal manner and still collect a paycheck.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Scarborough on Hypcoris

The hypocrisy of the American left by Joe Scarborough at Politico.com:

That extremism required that the Bush years be filled with images of CODEPINK protesting on Capitol Hill, anti-war activists clogging the streets of New York City and left-wing commentators beating their chests with the self-righteous indignation of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

But in the morally murky afterglow of the Obama years, the certainty of these secular saints has melted away.

President Barack Obama bowed to his generals’ demands by tripling troops in an unending war. CODEPINK did nothing.

Obama backed down on Guantanamo Bay. Anti-war protesters stayed at home.

America invaded its third Muslim country in a decade. The American left meekly went along. Without the slightest hint of irony, liberals defended the president’s indefensible position by returning again to a pose of moral certainty.

Democrats streamed to the floors of the House and Senate to praise the president for invading Libya. It was, after all, a moral mission that would stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. Whether protesting for peace or calling for war, these liberals once again convinced themselves of the moral superiority of their positions.

While one can make the moral argument that countries can be attacked strictly on humanitarian grounds, that argument is laughable when it comes to Libya.

How can the left call for the ouster of Muammar Qadhafi for the sin of killing hundreds of Libyans when it opposed the war waged against Saddam Hussein? During Saddam’s two decades in Iraq, he killed more Muslims than anyone in history and used chemical weapons against his own people and neighboring states.

[snip]

Katrina vanden Heuvel, one of the few liberals to take a principled stand against what America is doing in Libya, has written in The Nation that the anti-war left has been silent since Obama took office because they don’t want to hurt the president’s reelection chances.

In defending Obama’s Libya offensive, they are compromising their own morals. The American left is also making it abundantly clear that it does not find all wars morally reprehensible — only those begun by Republicans.

As I am sure Scarborough knows--this kind of moral relativism is not new nor is it unique to the Left either.

When a nation chooses a military option, it must do so in a clear way, with a clear understanding of the moral, national security and global implications. I fear that this Administration is not clear on any of them.

I am also not sure whose side we are on. In domestic politics, it is a far more tenable position to be in support of a notion than to simply be opposed to a position. If you are simply opposed to something, the inevitable question will be what is your alternative or suggested solution. If you are simply anti-"something" you have nothing to offer.

I fear we are in similar situation. The President has determined that Ghaddafy must go. But that is just an anti-Ghaddafy stance--who should be in charge when Ghaddafy is gone? The President has no idea or at least he has not articulated one. But that hasn't stopped the President's cheerleaders from supporting him-despite the complete lack of a moral foundation that any of his supporters have. Like so many politicians and their supporters have done in the past, the President and his liberal/left support structure are focused simply on winning in 2012. They have made no effort to understand the long view.

South Dakota Institutes a Waiting Period to Get an Abortion

The waiting period is 72-hour wait between consultation and abortion. As Ann Althouse noted, "Under the case law, "the means chosen by the State to further the interest in potential life must be calculated to inform the woman's free choice, not hinder it.""

Of course there is going to be a court challenge, so the battle will join again. Once again we will see hypocrisy on both sides. But let me lay out a big hypocrisy that the political left simply will not be able to overcome:

Why is it okay for a woman to choose to end a life (and make no mistake that is what she is doing) without waiting for three days but at the same time, the people who advocate for the "right to choose" think that it is right to make a woman who wants to buy a gun for self-protection should have to wait?

The hypocrisy on the political right is that they claim to stand for personal freedom, individual choice, but want to deny a private choice because of their ideology. Neither side has a consistent stand on the matter.

Both sides are guilty of abandoning their principles in order to impose on someone a moral choice they think superior to all others. That particularly high horse ridden by each side chafes me to no end. But there is another aspect of abortion law that bothers me:

Where are the father's rights in this matter? Leave aside cases of rape and incest because they are special circumstances where the father of the child has forfeited any say in the matter, in other cases why doesn't the father get a say? Of course, women will argue "it is my body that the child is in?" That is true, but unless the woman got pregnant by artificial insemination or immaculate conception, in order for that child to have been created--the woman had to share her body with the father. The resulting child is genetically half the father. If the child is born, then the father has rights, but the political left's response is that during the gestation period the father has no rights. That is wrong, it is a narcissistic self-delusion and it thinks the worst of men.

Of course, lots of people will ask, what do you think? Well, let me start with my base position: I could never counsel a woman to get an abortion. Call it morality, call it conservative, call it what you will, I just don't think I could do it in good conscience. Yet, if a law makes a woman wait to think about the consequences of her actions, and she considers them, and still decides to move forward with the abortion, it is not my place nor should it be the state's place to stand in the way. Will the law have an effect on reducing the number of abortions? I don't know and we may never know if the law is struck down. But if the law simply says you have to wait and does nothing else, what is the harm to the choice options of the woman?

I have no evidence to believe that before seeking to obtain an abortion a woman has not considered the implications of her actions. By the same token I don't have any evidence to support that they do think about either. So what is the harm in waiting? If it is such a problem, could not the woman simply go to another state that doesn't have a three day waiting period to get an abortion?

I fail to see how this law in any way restricts a woman's "right" to get an abortion.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Yes, Violence Can be the Answer

That is the headline at American Thinker in reaction to the viral video of an Australian kid who decided to turn the tables on the kids who had bullied him mercilessly for years, including responding that day to actual punch in the face. I think Casey Heynes was fully within his rights as a human being to react as he did and, given what we have learned about the history of bullying Mr. Heynes endured, he fact that Mr Heynes didn't body slam his tormentors earlier is a demonstration of patience that I think a lot of kids wouldn't have.

Or, as American Thinker's Selwyn Duke points out--the fact that Mr. Heynes didn't react sooner may be attributed to the "experts" who say that violence is not the answer to any situation.

What a mountain of rubbish. Violence may not be THE answer, but violence is AN answer and in some circumstances the best answer.

Should violence be the first response to a problem? That depends greatly upon the problem. Should a country tolerate an attack by foreign power on its own soil and say, pretty please--don't do that again? No. Could the country try a diplomatic solution? Sure and it might work or it might not. Maybe violence--controlled violence in the form of a military strike--is the proper response.

The so-called "experts" will say that violence is not the answer and do so with regularity. But how much should a bullying victim endure? I would guess that Mr. Heynes had complained to his teachers, parents, and/or school administrators. I would not be surprised if his tormentors had not been suspended or otherwise disciplined for their actions. But what had it gotten Mr. Heynes? No doubt once released from their punishment, his tormentors resumed their activities. What had non-violence gotten Mr. Heynes?

As Duke writes:

Yes, Casey could have done a ‘50s-style duck-and-cover. Hey, kid, don't you know you should just cower and curl up into a ball? And, for sure, violence is never the answer...except with the Nazis, Mussolini, and Napoleon; during the American Revolution, the Barbary Wars, and the Battle of Tours; and when stopping the criminals during the North Hollywood Shootout, University of Texas Tower Shooting, and incidents every single day in which someone, somewhere uses physical force to thwart a crime. It's never the answer -- except, sometimes, when you actually have to deal with reality.

Mr. Heynes reality is not one that the experts were dealing with. The experts were not being subjected to verbal and physical abuse. Duke quotes another expert:

Perhaps he'll take the advice of another expert, child psychologist Susan Bartell, and find some other way to "manage" it. When analyzing Casey's response, she said, "A better course of action...would have been for him to walk away. Would have been for him to immediately take the power away from the bully, who was punching him in the face, and just run away, walk away...." "Take the power away from the bully...."

Take the power away from the bully by walking away--walking away. Really? Mr. Heynes had probably walked away dozens of times and he had not take the "bully's power" away. The only way these bully's were going to have their "power" taken from them was by force. Mr. Heynes no doubt tried what the experts say he should, walk away, ignore the bullies, talk to adults, etc. But the final humiliation, being punched in the face on video, was the last straw and Mr. Heynes took the bully's power by taking it from them by force. Mr. Heynes walked away from his tormentors with the sure knowledge that he responded with the only message these bullies can understand--violence.

I do not believe that violence should be the first answer in human relations, but neither do I think it is necessarily the absolute last resort. I do believe that there is a proper of amount of violence that can be applied to counter a violence visited upon you. The problem with these so-called experts is the almost patent hypocrisy. Would they be preaching non-violence if a criminal (and that is what these bullies are because the committed a battery on videotape and probably multiple assaults over time) was assaulting their own family? Would they go look for an "adult" or "police officer?" Or would they show a backbone and resist?

I know what I would do if someone is assaulting my family and I can assure you that the criminal will not be walking away. I will stand "trial" for my "crime" of using violence to stop violence every day and twice on Sunday without blinking, without fear and secure in the knowledge that I did right.

Mr. Heynes, I salute you, you didn't try violence first, but your reaction was right and the "experts" were wrong.

Obama Is OK with Off Shore Drilling--Just Not Our Shores

According to this AFP report, during his recent visit to Brazil, President Obama and the U.S. Export-Import Bank "announced $2 billion in credit to Brazilian state-run oil giant Petrobras, Latin America's biggest company, which aims to become one of the world's biggest oil producers in coming years." Where will that drilling take place--yep off Brazil's shores.

So a drilling moratorium for American oil production but a $2 billion credit card for a Brazilian company to drill for oil off its own shores.

Yeah, that works for American energy independence.

The word you are looking for is hypocrisy.

Victor Davis Hanson--Lots on His Mind and I Share His Concern

In America Through the Looking Glass, a piece on Pajamas Media, Hanson talks about a number of issues:

Libya:

For two weeks, the administration was largely quiet about the unrest in Libya until the insurgents began taking entire cities and seemed on the verge of closing in on Gaddafi’s Tripoli. Then President Obama called on Gaddafi to step down and stop the “unacceptable” level of violence. But things then got worse, not better, once Gaddafi began to employ a level of violence that his ilk counts on to stay in power (cf. Assad in Syria or Ahmadinejad in Iran). So at last we announced a funny sort of no-fly-zone, inasmuch as Gaddafi can put down the rebellion without use of his planes and gunships.

So, President Obama does nothing while civil unrest--like that seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and other places grows. We do nothing to fan the flames of freedom, we do nothing to put a halt to Gaddafi's brutal response. Then when the brutality gets too many headlines on CNN and the President has finished his NCAA Bracket--we get the most wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed response. Where is Ronald Reagan, where is George W. Bush, hell at this point I would take a Bill Clinton--at least they had a real response. You either hated the response or you loved the response-but at least you knew it was a response. What is this action by the President?

Debt:

Debt is now the father of us all. In some sense, every cruise missile fired, every Social Security check cashed, ever NPR show aired is done so in part with borrowed money. In response, the president saw the impending doom of insolvency, appointed a bipartisan commission to draft a solution, and then ignored his own appointees’ recommendations. So far the excuse is largely that George Bush ran up debt as well, although last month Obama’s red-ink exceeded the entire 2007 budget deficit under Bush — 30 days of Obama trumping 365 of Bush.

Well all know that debt is a problem, my larger concern is the inability of this Administration to own up to its spending habit. Further irritating me is that this Administration continues to blame George W. Bush. I didn't like the spending Bush did, I think it was wrong in some regards. But I have never, ever, in my lifetime or in my reading of history heard of one President blaming his predecessor for so long. Sure, Obama inherited a fiscal mess--but this Administration has done little to clean it up and in fact has added piles of debt to the nation's balance sheet. Even my kids eventually admit that they did something wrong after blaming their sibling--but not this President. He seems oblivious.

Double Standards:

There is no longer a “war on terror,” and we are to understand that its former components — tribunals, renditions, preventative detention, Guantanamo, Predator assassinations, Iraq, the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and intercepts — were as subversive to the Constitution under Bush as they are essential to our security under Obama.

So if it was bad under Bush--why isn't it as bad under Obama. The difference is clear--in 2008 Obama was a candidate not responsible for the saftety and security of 330 million Americans. The world looks a lot different when you pick up that burden. The fact is, the Constitution is a document designed to protect the American People from the American Government. The document does not protect those who would do our Nation harm. Cross our nation, feel her wrath--that is the what the World needs to understand.

Brilliant--But Read Through to the Punchline

Bill Ferriter--satire extraordinaire!

A Modest Proposal for March Madness

Like I said, wait for the punchline it is great!

Haunted by the Past

What were you doing fifteen years ago?  Did you engage in a legal activity?  Did you do something illegal?  Do you regret what you were doing 15 years ago?  Does anyone care?

Well, if 15 years ago you appeared in a pornographic movie--you might lose your job--not once but twice.  That is the story of Tera Myers, AKA Terika Dye, AKA Rikki Andersin.  Ms. Myers, 15 years ago, when she was 23, was apparently broke and so chose to appear in a porn film.  She was clearly above the age of consent, made a decision, made a pay check, and did nothing illegal.  In fact, she probably did nothing that she hadn't done in her personal life, the difference is that her escapades were captured on film.  So, after a student found out and reported her to the school system, Ms. Myers is now without a job, having resigned.

But this is not the first time that Ms. Myers lost her job after being outed as a former porn actress.  But just I like a blogged about almost five years ago, forcing Myers to resign sends the wrong, and inconsistent message.  If Mrs. Myers had been appearing in porn videos while employed as a teacher--then there is a case for the violation of a morals clause.  But it is just an argument--not necessarily cause for her firing.

How many teachers out there, young and old, have gone out, had a few drinks and driven home.  That activity is illegal (the drinking and driving--not the drinking).  But teachers who are convicted of DUI are not routinely fired.  But a bigger question is how many teacher drank and drove 15 years ago--before they were teachers.  Probably more than a few, but we don't fire teachers for that activity that happened in the past--an activity that was and is illegal.  Where is the line to be drawn?  What is Ms. Myers has appeared topless in a magainze?  What if she had appeared nude in a magazine?  Would it matter if the magazine were say GQ or Details as opposed to Playboy or Hustler?  What about appearing nude in a magazine with a man or another woman?  What is Ms. Myers was briefly topless in a "mainstream" movie?  What if Ms. Myers has appeared in an R rated movie nude but not in a sex scene?  What is she has appeared nude in a sex scene in an R rated movie?  What about soft core porn, where the sex is explicit but actual penetration is not shown?

Not a single one of these activities is illegal.   But where in that list of options does someone cross a line into immoral behavior?  Where is the line?  More importantly who gets to define where that line exists?

Ms. Myers is described by the New York Post (admittedly not the most circumspect of papers) as "buxom" "blond" and so, if she is attractive (and the picture in the New York Post is not the most flattering), she is almost assuredly the subject of her male students adolescent comments and fantasies.  Why should the fact that Ms. Meyers has a past change that?  Just because a few sexual acts were captured on film doesn't mean that her male (and perhaps some female) students can't imagine it for themselves.

Joanne Jacbos wonders if Ms. Myers should lose her job?  My answer is no.  This is nothing more than a morality police double standard.  If you want to fire a teacher for past illegal activity--you might actually have a problem--if it was disclosed.  But no employment questionnaire that I have ever seen asks if you did anything 15 years ago that is "immoral" based on someone else's unstated standard.  What Myers did was not illegal and in my and many other people's book, not immoral.  You may not agree with her choices, but it is not immoral.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Changing the Way We Train Teachers

One of my absolute favorite education writers is teacher Bill Ferrirter and he puts the spotlight on a facet of teacher education that I had long suspected but for which I never had any empirical or even anecdotal proof: teacher education does actually prepare a person to be a teacher.  In Redefining Teacher Education, Ferriter writes: 

The thing is that despite being protective of my profession—teaching really does require unique knowledge and skill that few people outside of education actually understand—I’m ready for people to start questioning teacher preparation programs delivered by colleges of education.

Here’s why: I didn’t learn a darn thing in five years of higher education—including the graduate work that earns me a 10% annual salary stipend here in NC—that actually prepared me to be a classroom teacher.

In fact, I think I'd go as far as to say that outside of a course on Constructivism and an adolescent psychology class taught by a professor that I still quote to this day, my degrees were essentially exercises in professional hoop-jumping—an expensive prerequisite for employment that did little to help me once I was actually employed.

I am 99% sure that most teachers feel the same way, but very few of them will ever admit it.  For that reason alone, I admire Ferriter's honesty. 

As an attorney, I can attest to the fact that law school has very little to do with the actual practice of law, that is the day in, day out practice of law.  However, perhaps unlike teacher education, a legal education does provide the basic skills necessary to be a successful lawyer, but it takes a few years of apprenticeship with an experience attorney to actual become a good lawyer. Sure there are some people who can exit law school, pass the bar and be a successful solo practitioner without working at a law firm under experienced lawyers.  Similarly, there are teachers who can exit college and be effective teachers from day one.  But I know such lawyers are very rate and I suspect that such teachers are very rare as well.

Ferriter's solution:

Easy: Start by requiring longer apprenticeships for pre-service educators. And---as Louise mentions in a particularly insightful comment below---require that at least a part of that apprenticeship be spent working in the field that a teacher is going to be certified in.
Do you know how much actual full-time teaching I did before becoming certified as a teacher?
About 8 weeks.

Sure—I went on a school visit here or there. I also spent another 6-8 weeks observing my cooperating teachers in the senior year of my education program.

But I only had about 8 weeks of full-time experience with students before I was licensed for life. The rest of my 5 YEARS of college preparation was spent strapped into seats in lecture halls listening to professors drone on about collaborative learning for hours on end.

And do you know how much time I spent working with other geographers, journalists or scientists---the fields that I'm supposedly qualified to prepare my students to enter?

Not one day.

Can it really be that simple?  Given my belief that Ferriter has spent some significant time thinking about this problem, I dare say--yes.  To be it seems imminently logical.  It is a two step process--learn the subject matter that you will teach and learn how to teach in a real environment with real students under the guidance of an experienced, effective and knowledgeable teacher. 

So why isn't that done more?  I dare say that too stringent and too lengthy a process affects the ability of the teaching profession to attract practitioners to replace the turnover that happens in teaching.  But I think that the teachers unions should embrace a more stringent licensure and apprenticeship process--it increases the value of the teaching license.

Let's face it, unless you are a convicted felon or a sex offender, most college educated individuals can pass the testing requirements to get a teaching license.  Now before teachers jump down my throat, I didn't say that the person would be a good teacher, I just mean to say that the academic and testing standards for a teaching license are not particularly high compared to other licenses professionals, such as engineers or doctors.  I firmly believe the standards should be much stronger and it should be more difficult to get a teaching license, but that has been the subject of other posts. 

So while the testing and academic standards could be higher, what Ferriter and I are arguing is that before a lifetime license is granted to a teacher, they should be spending a lot more time in front of students.  I would suspect that prospective teachers spend their final two years of teacher education in a classroom, everyday, with constant evaluation, before even being eligible for a teaching license. 

If policy makers don't want to listen to me, they should listen to guys like Bill Ferriter. 

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Then Do Something About It

Matthew Tabor has a post on his very good blog titled Grass is Green, Sky is Blue (as Rome Burns or Something) where he talks about the annual Metlife Survey of the American Teacher. Matthew pulls this quote from the study regarding the aspirations of students wanting to go to college and the actual realities:

That could be a challenge for some, however, as teachers surveyed said only about 63 percent of their students would be prepared for college without taking remedial coursework. Teachers estimated about half of their students would graduate from college.

Matthew asks why that little nugget is not a headline. I have a more important question:

If teachers are aware of the lack of preparation--then why isn't more being done to prepare the students for college without needing remedial work?

David Border, Dead at 81

David Broder has passed away from complications arising from diabetes.

I didn't always agree with Broder, but I did always admire his writing.

My condolences to his family.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

About that Obama Care Waiver for the Entire State of Maine

Look, I like the state of Maine, I really do. The folks from Maine that I have met are a good lot, and anyone who regularly deals with that crap weather the get a lot of deserves some respect. But Maine got a golden ticket from the Obama Care mandates when the entire state got a waiver. As John Hayward points out:

Since society as a whole benefits from universal access to the “basic human right” of health care, the Left thinks it’s fair to total up the cost and spread it across the entire population.

But now we’ve got over a thousand waivers to ObamaCare, including one that applies to an entire state. Everyone is not paying for government-run health insurance, at least not equally. Some corporate and union entities are granted permission to step outside the system. What kind of “universal” solution doesn’t apply to everyone?

From long ago, there was an engineering principle that boiled down to this: Better, Faster, Cheaper--choose any two. You generally cannot create something new that encompasses all three features. You can choose two unless you are willing to compromise on all three.

With health care there is a triumvirate of features as well: Universal, Comprehensive, Affordable--choose only two. The problem with universal health care (if that indeed is the goal of Obama Care--which it won't accomplish by the way) is that if you want it truly universal--you can only have one of the other two features. If ObamaCare was intended to be affordable by forcing everyone to pay--how does the notion of waivers play into that plan. It is clear that not everyone will be subject to the rules, including the entire state of Maine. Hayward is right--it can't be universal if it doesn't apply to everyone.

But the key fact to look at is the reason why Maine needed a waiver: the state has only three insurance companies that market individual plans and if required to comply with Obama Care, one of those companies might leave the market--not will--might. And that assumes that no other company will come into the market.

Waivers are being granted on mere speculation and self-serving statements. I have no doubt that insurance companies are going to close--there might not be a way for them to make money under the Obama Care scheme. But the reason for them going out of business is created by the very government granting the waivers. The regulatory structure of mandates and coverage requirements makes it impossible for insurance companies to make money and why is a company in business if not to make money?

But a larger concern is beginning to creep in: what if the general rule of Obama Care is swallowed by the growing list of exceptions. Where will it lead? Is it good policy to have a rule or law that is so riddled with exceptions that the structure of the law can no longer stand under its own weight?

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Nice--This is What Gov. Scott Walker is Dealing With

One Wisconsin Democrat says…if people don’t like paying union dues that are used to support Dem candidates, they can always get another job. I would be all for it, reducing the government payroll, but yeah, we are in a time of 10% unemployment.

Say it with me: Not Gonna Happen.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Funny/Not Funny

Daily Pundit » Funny/Not Funny

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Rep. Alcee Hastings Sued for Sexual Harassment of Former Aide

Rep. Alcee Hastings Sued for Sexual Harassment of Former Aide. The Florida Congressman is a former federal judge, who had been impeached from his judicial post for corruption.

Yeah, I am not sure how he got elected either.

Surf's Up

This is why the federal budget is so hard to trim, tiny cuts and big complaints,

In the context of federal spending that will total something like $3.8 trillion this year, $61 billion is a rounding error. Yet the Democrats resisting that amount in House-approved cuts say it will wreck the economy while leaving children unschooled, taking food from the mouths of the elderly, and casting disabled people into the streets.
Laughter is the only appropriate response to such predictions. In these absurd times, when both parties quibble over crumbs while the layer cake of debt rises higher and higher, laughter is a mark of fiscal seriousness.

Yet, when we talking of a 1.6 percent reduction in spending, you would think the apocalypse is just around the corner.  Want an example?  Here is one from Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and this is pretty mild.

Speaking of accounting problems:  That $6.5 billion in spending cuts proposed by Democrats--yeah not so much.  The Congressional Budget Office says it is really $4.7 billion.  Love that fuzzy math.

Another Governor doing somethings right, this time in Puerto Rico.

Since coming into power in 2009, Gov. Luis Fortuño  (R-Puerto Rico) has cut government spending by 20 percent, lowered taxes and raised the territory’s bond status to its highest rating in 35 years – all during a punishing economic climate.

Impressive, yes.  Not getting a lot of play elsewhere.

Shocking, I know, but college kids have sex.  So why all the hubbub about Brigham Young University suspending their star center on the #3 ranked basketball team in the country?  Because he had sex--really?  Yes, and it is not because he had sex, but because he violated the school's honor code.  Brandon Davies signed an honor code before enrolling, understood that and has accepted the consequences of his actions.  I personally think the BYU code is a tad restrictive, but it is based on the Mormon religious beliefs so who am I to question it.  What I find refreshing is that both the school and the student taking the Honor Code seriously.  If only more schools had and enforced an honor code, we might be better off.

Speaking of higher education--don't be surprised if public and private universities start up an escalator of ever-increasing tuition hikes.  State and local higher education spending hit a 25 year low and with booming enrollement and the coming end of the federal stimulus money to higher education, don't be surprised to see big, big tuition hikes coming.

The end of an era.  The Space Shuttle Discovery landed a short while ago after its final mission and the third to last for the Shuttle Program.  The future of the NASA Space Flight program is in limbo.  I think, though, that private space companies will start to take up the slack.

In soccer/charity news, Major League Soccer's Sporting Kansas City club announced the naming rights for its new stadium will go to champion cyclist Lance's Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation.  This is just way cool, as a percentage of all revenue at the stadium--ticket sales, concessions, etc., will go to the Foundation.  Sporting KC is one of the 18 MLS clubs and they are all getting their acts together on an off the field (well except maybe Toronto--whose front office is being a joke).

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

: Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages - CNBC

CNBC's Fast Money: Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages.

Holy Cow!!

Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

“The U.S. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus,” said Madeline Schnapp, director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs, in a note to clients. “Consumption supported by wages and salaries is a much stronger foundation for economic growth than consumption based on social welfare benefits.”

That apparently doesn't include salary payments made to government workers either. Shocking.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers