The impetus for this argument came a few weeks ago as I was walking through the downtown area where I live. I was approached by a male, who appeared to be a college student on break, who asked me to sign a petition for him. Not being someone who willy-nilly signs off on anything without at least getting some information on what it is that I'm signing for. He got all perky, real quick, but he motormouthed what he was saying, so I had to ask him to repeat himself.
What it came down to was he was collecting signatures so that women could be provided with "free" birth control. My initial reply was to laugh at him, which seemed to frustrate him, but he managed to regain his composure and asked whether I thought that women had the right to contraception, especially poor women who are unable to afford it on their own.
Again, I laughed, but this time I spoke with him, too. I stated that if a woman is too poor to afford contraception on her own (or with her partner), then perhaps she was too poor to engage in sexual relations. I said this in all dead seriousness. He was not amused. I looked across the street, and I saw an attractive female, approximately his same age, holding the same paraphernalia that he had, and it suddenly clicked. He likely couldn't care one way or the other about the issue, except for the fact that it allowed him to get closer to her, with an eye on using some of that "free" birth control. That's fine. Men the world over have done far more nefarious thing while pursuing the fairer sex. He just happens to be wrong, though I don't blame him exclusively. In my limited time following the topic, I would say it goes back to the Sandra Fluke affair of 2012, but it could be older than that, too.
We live in a world (in the U.S., at least) where most people expect every single want and desire they have to be taken care of, whether or not they can afford it. I spoke about this a little in my health care diatribe yesterday, but it holds true here, too. People do not want to accept that there are costs and risks involved with every decision made. There simply is. Further, as I went on to explain to my deluded new friend, sex is a risk-reward proposition. It is something desired, but it is not a "right". It's a choice. People either get together and decide to have relations, or they don't, but it's a choice, nothing more, nothing less. Expecting others to pay for your choices seems a bit selfish to me. I then reiterated my stance that those that are too poor to afford birth control are perhaps too poor to have sexual relations. He was not amused, but I chuckled all the way down the road.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mark Cuban is Wrong Regarding ObamaCare
Quick note: In the words below, I will speak of ObamaCare in general terms, because I have not read the entire 3,000 page document. I don't feel bad about this at all, because save Ron Paul, I don't believe anyone else has, either. When I speak of other types of insurance, such as auto and home insurance, I do that from experience, as I was a licensed P & C agent in the Commonwealth of MA, along with other states.
I like Mark Cuban a lot, or at least as much as you can like someone that you've never met or held a conversation with. I find his BlogMaverick to be entertaining and informative, and I love that he does his level best to keep the NBA honest. He is an obviously intelligent man, a wildly successful businessman, and someone whose opinion I always consider whenever I read it.
However, his though process on ObamaCare, and his comparison to auto insurance is a bit convoluted. He stated in this email exchange with CNN's S.E. Cupp when asked what his thoughts on ObamaCare were:
Within the Commonwealth of MA, the only parts of insurance that are mandatory are parts 1-4, which are as follows:
Part 1 Bodily Injury To Others (compulsory limit of $20,000 per person/$40,000 per accident.) This coverage will pay if the policyholder (or a listed driver, or a driver who is operating with consent.) injures another person with their vehicle, while driving on a public road (read: not parking lots, driveways, or private drives of any sort) within the boundaries of MA. In order to have coverage on private ways, driveways, parking lots, or anywhere outside of the boundaries of MA, the policyholder must purchase additional coverage via part 5, Optional Bodily Injury to Others. As the description of the part states, this coverage is optional, not compulsory. There is nothing in the world to keep a MA driver from heading over the border to RI, CT, NH, VT, or other points on the map and causing an accident for which there is no coverage.
Part 2 Personal Injury Protection This portion of insurance is known as "no-fault", meaning the company will pay for anyone who is injured during an accident, with the limit of $8,000 per person (There are exceptions- pedestrians are covered, but those on motorcycles, motorbikes, mopeds, or any motorized vehicles are not. Those operating under the influence of drugs {including marijuana} or alcohol, and those committing a crime or evading police.) This portion of insurance benefits the Companies, mostly, because it saves them the process of finding out who and what is responsible for minor injuries, and the losses sustained became of them. This part is compulsory, but the policyholder may exclude her/himself from the coverage.
Part 3 Bodily Injury Caused By An Uninsured Auto This part of insurance will cover the policy holder or any guest occupants in the event that they are in accident that is the fault of vehicle driven by a person who chose to not have an auto insurance policy. This coverage protects the Commonwealth, for the most part, because the Commonwealth would be on the hook to pay for damages elsewise. Or at least that's my interpretation of it.
Part 4 Damage to Someone Else's Property Again, this coverage is in the event that the policy holder damages someone else's property (or a business, or public property. The worst example of this I saw involved a claim for over $400,000. If you live in MA, and you don't have at least $100,000 per incident on this coverage part, you're making a big mistake. The dollars saved on the policy are negligible unless you drop down to the mandatory limit, which is $5,000.)
That's all the coverage that is mandated to operate a motor vehicle within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and as I laid out above, the coverage parts you must carry are to protect others, not yourself. The parts of coverage that you may purchase are called optional for a reason- you do not need to carry them. The exception to this is if you are purchasing a vehicle and financing it, the finance company will mandate that you purchase part 7 (Collision) and part 9 (Comprehensive, known as "other than collision" in most places that are not MA.) This in no way compares to what Cuban says a good reason to have ObamaCare in place. Perhaps in Texas, where I have no insurance experience, the rules are different, but I don't feel that is true. I think that in this one instance, Cuban was simply parroting rhetoric that he has hear other intelligent (but misinformed) persons state. They're wrong, and so is he for repeating their words without actually investigating how auto insurance works.
To my second point, and one of the bigger problems with ObamaCare (there are so many, that even when using a phrase like "one of the bigger problems", I feel I'm being overly general. Scrapping the law is the only way to solve the problems that exist within the legislation.) is that there was a huge push for those with pre-existing conditions to get coverage, which of course led to exploding costs for the insurance carriers, and necessary bailouts in order to keep the companies solvent. This is the type of sharing that Cuban was discussing, however, it is not insurance. It's downright theft.
Insurance, both by the dictionary definition, and how a policy is designed to work, is a risk reward type proposition. Insurance companies bank on the law of large numbers- by insuring many people they assume they will only pay out on a specific, smaller segment of those they insured, and they will then turn a profit on the remaining policies. This doesn't always work out for insurers- a few years back a company called Narragansett Insurance (I hope I'm recalling the company name correctly) had begun to expand their coverage to more interior markets, when they previously had been more of a by the sea type of company. It likely seemed like a good idea, given that home insurance policies away from the ocean are usually a pretty reliable source of income for companies, even if there is not huge premiums.
The problem was, Mother Nature came calling and delivered the first tornado that many people had seen in at least a generation, if not longer. Narragansett took huge losses in the wake of that disaster, and then began to retract their inward expansion. The risk-reward does not always pay out for the insurance companies, but most times, it is an adequate model to stay afloat. On the consumer side, the risk is a comparatively small premium (depending on driving history/claim history) to cover substantial losses. For $100,000 of property damage coverage, I pay about $$300 a year, and a lot of that cost is due to the urban setting in which I live. If I lived in Florida, MA, my premium for that part of insurance would be much less. If I had to pay $100,000 out of my own pocket, I would have to become an indentured servant to the person's property I damaged, because there is no way in the world I could raise those kind of funds. My paychecks would be attached until 6 years after the Apocalypse. So for a relatively small risk, there is the potential of a big reward should I be the cause of loss for someone else's property.
It is my firm belief that health insurance should be a policy that is what insurance actually in intended for: catastrophic events. Further, mitigating factors such as alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, along with how a person chooses to live their life (jumping out of airplanes or skiing down a black diamond mountain are necessarily riskier than sitting at home, knitting a sweater.), and the type of jobs they work at to earn a paycheck (though other types of insurance covers workplace injuries, there is a difference on the long-term affects each job causes each individual.) Further, insurance policies should be only for catastrophic events, not for coughs, colds, temperatures at 99.2. It's ridiculous. Insurance has been taken over by so many special interests, that it's beginning to lose what it was designed to do. Cuban misses the mark, but he's not the only one that has. There's a country full of politicians whose job it is to not miss the mark that did the same thing, but much worse. At least Cuban can fall back on all of his real-life accomplishments. Those politicians have nothing.
I like Mark Cuban a lot, or at least as much as you can like someone that you've never met or held a conversation with. I find his BlogMaverick to be entertaining and informative, and I love that he does his level best to keep the NBA honest. He is an obviously intelligent man, a wildly successful businessman, and someone whose opinion I always consider whenever I read it.
However, his though process on ObamaCare, and his comparison to auto insurance is a bit convoluted. He stated in this email exchange with CNN's S.E. Cupp when asked what his thoughts on ObamaCare were:
I love the concept. The execution, to this point, has been miserable. Part of that misery is because of the tech issues it has faced; the others are because of the choices states have made to opt in or out.
I will repeat my mantra: The risk never leaves the system.As a country, we have chosen to not let people die on the streets or suffer. We as Americans have chosen to help our fellow citizens when in need. Right now, I believe the past approach of letting insurance companies skim the most profitable customers off the top and let all of us pay for the rest in the most inefficient manner possible has been a mistake.
We have recognized this with car insurance. No insurance? (Then) you can't drive. We all share in the cost.There are a few things to consider here:
- Auto insurance (along with home insurance) are not cumpulsory.
- Allowing persons with pre-existing conditions to receive "health insurance", that is simply sharing the burden of ones own medical bills with the general public, something that Cuban seems to hint at in the first part of his response.
Within the Commonwealth of MA, the only parts of insurance that are mandatory are parts 1-4, which are as follows:
Part 1 Bodily Injury To Others (compulsory limit of $20,000 per person/$40,000 per accident.) This coverage will pay if the policyholder (or a listed driver, or a driver who is operating with consent.) injures another person with their vehicle, while driving on a public road (read: not parking lots, driveways, or private drives of any sort) within the boundaries of MA. In order to have coverage on private ways, driveways, parking lots, or anywhere outside of the boundaries of MA, the policyholder must purchase additional coverage via part 5, Optional Bodily Injury to Others. As the description of the part states, this coverage is optional, not compulsory. There is nothing in the world to keep a MA driver from heading over the border to RI, CT, NH, VT, or other points on the map and causing an accident for which there is no coverage.
Part 2 Personal Injury Protection This portion of insurance is known as "no-fault", meaning the company will pay for anyone who is injured during an accident, with the limit of $8,000 per person (There are exceptions- pedestrians are covered, but those on motorcycles, motorbikes, mopeds, or any motorized vehicles are not. Those operating under the influence of drugs {including marijuana} or alcohol, and those committing a crime or evading police.) This portion of insurance benefits the Companies, mostly, because it saves them the process of finding out who and what is responsible for minor injuries, and the losses sustained became of them. This part is compulsory, but the policyholder may exclude her/himself from the coverage.
Part 3 Bodily Injury Caused By An Uninsured Auto This part of insurance will cover the policy holder or any guest occupants in the event that they are in accident that is the fault of vehicle driven by a person who chose to not have an auto insurance policy. This coverage protects the Commonwealth, for the most part, because the Commonwealth would be on the hook to pay for damages elsewise. Or at least that's my interpretation of it.
Part 4 Damage to Someone Else's Property Again, this coverage is in the event that the policy holder damages someone else's property (or a business, or public property. The worst example of this I saw involved a claim for over $400,000. If you live in MA, and you don't have at least $100,000 per incident on this coverage part, you're making a big mistake. The dollars saved on the policy are negligible unless you drop down to the mandatory limit, which is $5,000.)
That's all the coverage that is mandated to operate a motor vehicle within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and as I laid out above, the coverage parts you must carry are to protect others, not yourself. The parts of coverage that you may purchase are called optional for a reason- you do not need to carry them. The exception to this is if you are purchasing a vehicle and financing it, the finance company will mandate that you purchase part 7 (Collision) and part 9 (Comprehensive, known as "other than collision" in most places that are not MA.) This in no way compares to what Cuban says a good reason to have ObamaCare in place. Perhaps in Texas, where I have no insurance experience, the rules are different, but I don't feel that is true. I think that in this one instance, Cuban was simply parroting rhetoric that he has hear other intelligent (but misinformed) persons state. They're wrong, and so is he for repeating their words without actually investigating how auto insurance works.
To my second point, and one of the bigger problems with ObamaCare (there are so many, that even when using a phrase like "one of the bigger problems", I feel I'm being overly general. Scrapping the law is the only way to solve the problems that exist within the legislation.) is that there was a huge push for those with pre-existing conditions to get coverage, which of course led to exploding costs for the insurance carriers, and necessary bailouts in order to keep the companies solvent. This is the type of sharing that Cuban was discussing, however, it is not insurance. It's downright theft.
Insurance, both by the dictionary definition, and how a policy is designed to work, is a risk reward type proposition. Insurance companies bank on the law of large numbers- by insuring many people they assume they will only pay out on a specific, smaller segment of those they insured, and they will then turn a profit on the remaining policies. This doesn't always work out for insurers- a few years back a company called Narragansett Insurance (I hope I'm recalling the company name correctly) had begun to expand their coverage to more interior markets, when they previously had been more of a by the sea type of company. It likely seemed like a good idea, given that home insurance policies away from the ocean are usually a pretty reliable source of income for companies, even if there is not huge premiums.
The problem was, Mother Nature came calling and delivered the first tornado that many people had seen in at least a generation, if not longer. Narragansett took huge losses in the wake of that disaster, and then began to retract their inward expansion. The risk-reward does not always pay out for the insurance companies, but most times, it is an adequate model to stay afloat. On the consumer side, the risk is a comparatively small premium (depending on driving history/claim history) to cover substantial losses. For $100,000 of property damage coverage, I pay about $$300 a year, and a lot of that cost is due to the urban setting in which I live. If I lived in Florida, MA, my premium for that part of insurance would be much less. If I had to pay $100,000 out of my own pocket, I would have to become an indentured servant to the person's property I damaged, because there is no way in the world I could raise those kind of funds. My paychecks would be attached until 6 years after the Apocalypse. So for a relatively small risk, there is the potential of a big reward should I be the cause of loss for someone else's property.
It is my firm belief that health insurance should be a policy that is what insurance actually in intended for: catastrophic events. Further, mitigating factors such as alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, along with how a person chooses to live their life (jumping out of airplanes or skiing down a black diamond mountain are necessarily riskier than sitting at home, knitting a sweater.), and the type of jobs they work at to earn a paycheck (though other types of insurance covers workplace injuries, there is a difference on the long-term affects each job causes each individual.) Further, insurance policies should be only for catastrophic events, not for coughs, colds, temperatures at 99.2. It's ridiculous. Insurance has been taken over by so many special interests, that it's beginning to lose what it was designed to do. Cuban misses the mark, but he's not the only one that has. There's a country full of politicians whose job it is to not miss the mark that did the same thing, but much worse. At least Cuban can fall back on all of his real-life accomplishments. Those politicians have nothing.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Envy is a Terrible Sin
Before we move in to today's discussion, I feel it is extremely important to disclose the following information: I am poor. I don't mean that I'm poor in a way that I'm living beyond my means by purchasing multiple vehicles, McMansions, dining out 6 days a week, etc. I am not so poor that I worry about where my next meal will come from, but that is the exact limit of what I don't worry about. I juggle my bills so much, that I'm considering joining the circus.
That being said, I cannot fathom how those who are poor like I am, or even those who have enough means that paying bills is just something they do, because it's part of life, think that anyone who is "rich" (a highly malleable term, depending on the situation/politician speaking) should pay exponentially more in taxes and penalties because they made the mistake of being 'successful' and 'rich'.
What?
The American Dream has always been (or at least, it has been previous) that by working hard and doing things the right way, you would succeed, and in some manner of speaking become 'rich'. Whether that means you're Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or a gal/guy who has found their way in to their own home, it was something to aspire to.
However, a politician's dream is to find a base of committed voters that he/she can tap in to in order to guarantee continued election, because hey, if there's anything better than a guaranteed check, it's one that comes with power and lots of fringe benefits. At its absolute worst, you get someone like Adolph Hitler who tapped in to the frustration of the German people to push the his nation and the world to war. On the not all the way to the other side of the spectrum, you have the U.S. political system.
Fortunately for us, as citizens in the U.S., our politicians are not that nefarious, or perhaps they are simply not as charismatic as Hitler was. They choose to divide the citizenry across many lines, but the two chief ways (often used interchangeably by those who employ this strategy) are race and class. Those who articulate this strategy come up with clever tag lines like "the rich should pay their fair share".
The question that I would like someone with a little more power and influence than I have is "How much is fair?" According to government records (I wish I had a more reliable source, but they are the keepers of data), in 2011 the richest 1% of the nation paid 38% of the tax burden in this country. That's a pretty healthy share, if you ask me. On the other hand, the bottom 50% pay 3% of the total tax burden (and many of those pay zero tax dollars, or even receive money despite not paying any tax, or receive a larger return than they paid in total taxes.)
Is that fair?
There are other, farther ranging arguments that we could delve in to with regard to the taxation of the American public, and on another day, we can. For now, I'd like to stay focused on the singular topic of how politicians use class structure to divide the nation, and keep them occupied in a way that prevents the citizens from noticing how badly the politicians are messing the nation up.
When a politician says it "isn't fair" that Taxpayer A earned let's say, $10,000,000 last year, while taxpayer B only earned $24,000, he/she couldn't care less about taxpayer B. As a fact, our politicians don't look at this situation and try to figure out how to help Taxpayer B become more like Taxpayer A, because there's no votes in that. Instead of trying to lift Taxpayer B up (which would require effort, time, and actual thinking), politicians of this ilk instead look at Taxpayer A and say "Damn, he/she is loaded. Why aren't they paying more taxes, to help little old Taxpayer B with their lot in life." This takes no thought process (outside of what the benefit to said politician will be), and gives the politician an "Evil" to campaign against. "It's the fault of the Rich people that your life isn't everything you hoped it would be." Yeah, that's probably what it is. It's not hard work, it's not putting in extra effort, trying hard, failing but getting back up, and finding a way to succeed. None of those qualities exist in a politician's mind who employs this strategy (and why should they, when their entire life is a walk in the park and they don't have to consider those things in order to continue to be 'successful' at their chosen career.)
Now I should clarify: clearly not all of those who are rich got there by honest means. Some undoubtedly employed nefarious actions or told outright lies to get to their position as part of the "Evil Rich". Al Gore's name comes to mind, but that's just my bias, I'm certain. Dude's got a Nobel Prize and it's not like just give those things out like candy, you really have to earn them.* Then there are others who attained their wealth by breaking laws and the like. The proper way to punish them, of course, would be to charge them with the crimes they've committed and send them away from their cozy mansions for a nice long stretch.
What shouldn't happen is those that have worked hard to build something up, or have continued the work of previous generations to be taxed at a ridiculous rate simply because that is the only 'solution' that politicians can come up with. At a time when our economy is stagnant, at best, money should be in the hands of those that know what to do to turn things around. By that, I mean any place but in Washington, D.C. (or a state capital, for that matter.) The next time you hear about the "Evil Rich", consider the source, and then start thinking about what that person has to gain by pointing fingers at those that most help keep our nation moving forward.
That being said, I cannot fathom how those who are poor like I am, or even those who have enough means that paying bills is just something they do, because it's part of life, think that anyone who is "rich" (a highly malleable term, depending on the situation/politician speaking) should pay exponentially more in taxes and penalties because they made the mistake of being 'successful' and 'rich'.
What?
The American Dream has always been (or at least, it has been previous) that by working hard and doing things the right way, you would succeed, and in some manner of speaking become 'rich'. Whether that means you're Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or a gal/guy who has found their way in to their own home, it was something to aspire to.
However, a politician's dream is to find a base of committed voters that he/she can tap in to in order to guarantee continued election, because hey, if there's anything better than a guaranteed check, it's one that comes with power and lots of fringe benefits. At its absolute worst, you get someone like Adolph Hitler who tapped in to the frustration of the German people to push the his nation and the world to war. On the not all the way to the other side of the spectrum, you have the U.S. political system.
Fortunately for us, as citizens in the U.S., our politicians are not that nefarious, or perhaps they are simply not as charismatic as Hitler was. They choose to divide the citizenry across many lines, but the two chief ways (often used interchangeably by those who employ this strategy) are race and class. Those who articulate this strategy come up with clever tag lines like "the rich should pay their fair share".
The question that I would like someone with a little more power and influence than I have is "How much is fair?" According to government records (I wish I had a more reliable source, but they are the keepers of data), in 2011 the richest 1% of the nation paid 38% of the tax burden in this country. That's a pretty healthy share, if you ask me. On the other hand, the bottom 50% pay 3% of the total tax burden (and many of those pay zero tax dollars, or even receive money despite not paying any tax, or receive a larger return than they paid in total taxes.)
Is that fair?
There are other, farther ranging arguments that we could delve in to with regard to the taxation of the American public, and on another day, we can. For now, I'd like to stay focused on the singular topic of how politicians use class structure to divide the nation, and keep them occupied in a way that prevents the citizens from noticing how badly the politicians are messing the nation up.
When a politician says it "isn't fair" that Taxpayer A earned let's say, $10,000,000 last year, while taxpayer B only earned $24,000, he/she couldn't care less about taxpayer B. As a fact, our politicians don't look at this situation and try to figure out how to help Taxpayer B become more like Taxpayer A, because there's no votes in that. Instead of trying to lift Taxpayer B up (which would require effort, time, and actual thinking), politicians of this ilk instead look at Taxpayer A and say "Damn, he/she is loaded. Why aren't they paying more taxes, to help little old Taxpayer B with their lot in life." This takes no thought process (outside of what the benefit to said politician will be), and gives the politician an "Evil" to campaign against. "It's the fault of the Rich people that your life isn't everything you hoped it would be." Yeah, that's probably what it is. It's not hard work, it's not putting in extra effort, trying hard, failing but getting back up, and finding a way to succeed. None of those qualities exist in a politician's mind who employs this strategy (and why should they, when their entire life is a walk in the park and they don't have to consider those things in order to continue to be 'successful' at their chosen career.)
Now I should clarify: clearly not all of those who are rich got there by honest means. Some undoubtedly employed nefarious actions or told outright lies to get to their position as part of the "Evil Rich". Al Gore's name comes to mind, but that's just my bias, I'm certain. Dude's got a Nobel Prize and it's not like just give those things out like candy, you really have to earn them.* Then there are others who attained their wealth by breaking laws and the like. The proper way to punish them, of course, would be to charge them with the crimes they've committed and send them away from their cozy mansions for a nice long stretch.
What shouldn't happen is those that have worked hard to build something up, or have continued the work of previous generations to be taxed at a ridiculous rate simply because that is the only 'solution' that politicians can come up with. At a time when our economy is stagnant, at best, money should be in the hands of those that know what to do to turn things around. By that, I mean any place but in Washington, D.C. (or a state capital, for that matter.) The next time you hear about the "Evil Rich", consider the source, and then start thinking about what that person has to gain by pointing fingers at those that most help keep our nation moving forward.
Monday, July 28, 2014
The Constitution Is Honored, Thanks To Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
One of the most argued about amendments in the Bill of Rights, is the second one. It states, rather plainly:
In his opinion, Scullin references Heller which stated:
The Framers of the Constitution, along with those who struggled through the American Revolution, were not fond of authoritarian governments. They also were aware that the people would need the ability to not only protect themselves from criminals who may do them harm, but from their government should it overstep its bounds. Those who seek to restrict the 2nd amendment in a fully non-Constitutional manner often argue that the Framers of the Constitution never foresaw the type of weaponry the citizens of this country have the option of procuring. I will grant that as a true point. On the flip side of that equation, however, is that they could never have imagined the weapons of mass destruction that our government would also possess.
Ignoring court interpretations, along with legislative actions that have occurred over the last 3/4 of a century, and focusing on primary and secondary documents of the feelings of those who wrote the Constitution, along with the wording they chose for the amendment, makes it clear to me what their intent was. Justin Scullin in his decision recognizes that in part, and partially restores the 2nd amendment right to the citizens of Washington, D.C.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.In the recently decided case Palmer v. District of Columbia,Justice Scullin, following in the footsteps of other recent decisions including District of Columbia v. Heller amongst others. While neither Heller nor Palmer extends the rights that I believe the Founding Fathers intended, it gets it closer.
In his opinion, Scullin references Heller which stated:
Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad (emphasis added.)The arguments that are also built against the 2nd amendment, and other portions of the Constitution, is that the Constitution is intended to be a living, breathing document. That is not an application that I can subscribe to, in particular with regard to the 2nd amendment.
The Framers of the Constitution, along with those who struggled through the American Revolution, were not fond of authoritarian governments. They also were aware that the people would need the ability to not only protect themselves from criminals who may do them harm, but from their government should it overstep its bounds. Those who seek to restrict the 2nd amendment in a fully non-Constitutional manner often argue that the Framers of the Constitution never foresaw the type of weaponry the citizens of this country have the option of procuring. I will grant that as a true point. On the flip side of that equation, however, is that they could never have imagined the weapons of mass destruction that our government would also possess.
Ignoring court interpretations, along with legislative actions that have occurred over the last 3/4 of a century, and focusing on primary and secondary documents of the feelings of those who wrote the Constitution, along with the wording they chose for the amendment, makes it clear to me what their intent was. Justin Scullin in his decision recognizes that in part, and partially restores the 2nd amendment right to the citizens of Washington, D.C.
Friday, July 25, 2014
What This World Really Needs
Three weeks ago, it was the 4th of July which throughout the rest of the world isn't that big of a deal, but here in the United States it's kind of a thing. A little over 238 years, the United States began its long journey to the nation that it has become today. Thoughts on that front will be tabled for another day, however.
In the moment, I'd like to focus on how I spent approximately two hours of my 4th. Here in the Baystate, we were absolutely deluged with rain along with lightning, but fortunately for me, FX Network was running an Independence Day marathon, and as it had been literally years since I saw it, I settled in to watch.
Will Smith was just beginning his run of summer blockbuster movies*, and the story, if a little hokey, was entertaining. I was surprised at how well the movie has held up over the years, actually. I can remember thinking when I first saw the movie, how amazing the special effects were. They're still alright, but definitely second tier by now.
Getting back to the thought that occurred to me while I was watching the movie was how much planet Earth could use a legitimate outer space Alien invasion. I would like to think that as a species, we would find a way to pull together, and defeat a common enemy. The troubles in the Middle East, our own domestic strife, and problems the world over would disappear in literally one instant if only the Aliens would attack. Heck, Maxxtone might finally release their long shelved "Aliens" project, which in and of itself would make the Invasion worthwhile.
What would be most interesting to me, is that assuming us puny Earthlings managed to survive the Alien attack by bonding together, how long would it take before we went back to sniping at each other, starting wars, and basically getting back to the way things would before. In a post-Alien Invasion world, I can imagine that our seemingly unending thirst for destruction would be limited only by the amount of survivors there were. If 90% of the world's population was eliminated, it would take quite some time before we were ready to go all-out in our own attempt to destroy all life on the planet.
However, if the total population loss was less than 50%, I imagine that we'd be back at war just as soon as the first crazy person decided to drop a bomb on someone. It's just the way we are. Alas.
In the moment, I'd like to focus on how I spent approximately two hours of my 4th. Here in the Baystate, we were absolutely deluged with rain along with lightning, but fortunately for me, FX Network was running an Independence Day marathon, and as it had been literally years since I saw it, I settled in to watch.
Will Smith was just beginning his run of summer blockbuster movies*, and the story, if a little hokey, was entertaining. I was surprised at how well the movie has held up over the years, actually. I can remember thinking when I first saw the movie, how amazing the special effects were. They're still alright, but definitely second tier by now.
Getting back to the thought that occurred to me while I was watching the movie was how much planet Earth could use a legitimate outer space Alien invasion. I would like to think that as a species, we would find a way to pull together, and defeat a common enemy. The troubles in the Middle East, our own domestic strife, and problems the world over would disappear in literally one instant if only the Aliens would attack. Heck, Maxxtone might finally release their long shelved "Aliens" project, which in and of itself would make the Invasion worthwhile.
What would be most interesting to me, is that assuming us puny Earthlings managed to survive the Alien attack by bonding together, how long would it take before we went back to sniping at each other, starting wars, and basically getting back to the way things would before. In a post-Alien Invasion world, I can imagine that our seemingly unending thirst for destruction would be limited only by the amount of survivors there were. If 90% of the world's population was eliminated, it would take quite some time before we were ready to go all-out in our own attempt to destroy all life on the planet.
However, if the total population loss was less than 50%, I imagine that we'd be back at war just as soon as the first crazy person decided to drop a bomb on someone. It's just the way we are. Alas.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
The Real Problem With Common Core
If there is one issue that can unite people of all political persuasions, it is their strong dislike of the Common Core which has taken to American schools like locust to a new crop of wheat. Most of the discontent focuses on how problems are presented to students, or how teachers are affected in the way they are able to present material. These are both very real concerns, however, I don't believe that either one of them gets to the heart of the matter.
The biggest problem I have with Common Core is its top down philosophy, and the notion that one size fits all as far as education goes. The thought process at the beginning (I hope) was likely a good one- all students should have the same opportunity to learn exactly the same material, regardless of where they went to school.
If only the architects of Common Core had took the time to read Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron (disclaimer: I have not. I have, however, watched the 1995 Showtime movie of the same name, starring Sean Astin. I feel this is nearly the same thing.), they might have realized the flaw in that line of thinking.
Human beings are not equal, in any way, manner, or form. It's what makes the world a great place to live. For instance- I have absolutely no musical ability whatsoever, I couldn't tell you the difference between a C sharp and an A minor (nor am I astute enough to know if that is even something real.) Somehow I've stumbled through life without this ability, while millions around me are much more gifted. Here's what's great about that- I absolutely love listening to those talented musicians perform. There are few things in the world to me as listening to a person/band who knows what they are doing.
If in a Harrison Bergeron type world, those talented musicians were all relegated to simply average, would my enjoyment of their performance increase because they were more like me? I shouldn't think so, but that is the underlying philosophy behind Common Core, or at least that's how it's appeared as I've made my way through pedagogical process to become a licensed teacher.
The bigger problem with Common Core past its seeming desire to make everyone 'equal', is that it further erodes local control over what is taught in individual schools. With the top down (or "factory") method of education, parents, teachers, principals, and other educators are cut out of the decision-making process. Instead, what they are left in charge of is how to implement the Common Core so that they are able to receive the federal funding that comes along with it. Without that money, the schools would be even less able to provide a 'quality' education than they currently are able to do.
The problem that I've noticed with this mentality, however, is that it causes educators to feel like they have less control over what they are teaching, because along with Common Core comes a plethora of mandated tests that are extremely important. Way more important than allowing students the opportunity to actually study something in depth, for instance. Or learn how to critically think.
Sure, those in charge will tell you that is exactly what students are learning. I'm here to tell you that's a lie. What students are learning is how to manage the tests that they need to pass, but they aren't actually learning material. They are engaged in learning "knowledge" which is the lowest form of learning that can transpire. Sure, they might be able to tell you that Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, that Columbus set sail in 1492, or Sir Isaac Newton 'discovered' gravity, but more often than not, that will be the extent of student 'learning'.
They are not able to engage in discussions that might point to the significance of any of those events, nor the ramifications that transpired as a result. They'll simply know whether to circle "A", "B", "C", or "D" on their state-sponsored, high stakes test. Which is an important skill in this moment, but not something that helps them prepare for their future.
What it will take to defeat Common Core (and yes, it is an enemy that must be defeated) is a united front between parents and educators. They must demand that education is returned to the local level, and then they must work together to return the focus to student learning. In the short term, there will be hiccups. Educators may need to figure out ways of getting by with less money. This will not be pleasant, but it may be necessary.
Whether parents or educators have the wherewithal to make such a stand will determine whether or not Common Core is beat back. There are always decisions to be made. The easy one is to simply roll with the status quo, despite the fact that there is no proven benefit to it. The right choice, though more difficult, will help set our nation back on track, and allow students to reach their full potential, wherever they are strongest.
The biggest problem I have with Common Core is its top down philosophy, and the notion that one size fits all as far as education goes. The thought process at the beginning (I hope) was likely a good one- all students should have the same opportunity to learn exactly the same material, regardless of where they went to school.
If only the architects of Common Core had took the time to read Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron (disclaimer: I have not. I have, however, watched the 1995 Showtime movie of the same name, starring Sean Astin. I feel this is nearly the same thing.), they might have realized the flaw in that line of thinking.
Human beings are not equal, in any way, manner, or form. It's what makes the world a great place to live. For instance- I have absolutely no musical ability whatsoever, I couldn't tell you the difference between a C sharp and an A minor (nor am I astute enough to know if that is even something real.) Somehow I've stumbled through life without this ability, while millions around me are much more gifted. Here's what's great about that- I absolutely love listening to those talented musicians perform. There are few things in the world to me as listening to a person/band who knows what they are doing.
If in a Harrison Bergeron type world, those talented musicians were all relegated to simply average, would my enjoyment of their performance increase because they were more like me? I shouldn't think so, but that is the underlying philosophy behind Common Core, or at least that's how it's appeared as I've made my way through pedagogical process to become a licensed teacher.
The bigger problem with Common Core past its seeming desire to make everyone 'equal', is that it further erodes local control over what is taught in individual schools. With the top down (or "factory") method of education, parents, teachers, principals, and other educators are cut out of the decision-making process. Instead, what they are left in charge of is how to implement the Common Core so that they are able to receive the federal funding that comes along with it. Without that money, the schools would be even less able to provide a 'quality' education than they currently are able to do.
The problem that I've noticed with this mentality, however, is that it causes educators to feel like they have less control over what they are teaching, because along with Common Core comes a plethora of mandated tests that are extremely important. Way more important than allowing students the opportunity to actually study something in depth, for instance. Or learn how to critically think.
Sure, those in charge will tell you that is exactly what students are learning. I'm here to tell you that's a lie. What students are learning is how to manage the tests that they need to pass, but they aren't actually learning material. They are engaged in learning "knowledge" which is the lowest form of learning that can transpire. Sure, they might be able to tell you that Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, that Columbus set sail in 1492, or Sir Isaac Newton 'discovered' gravity, but more often than not, that will be the extent of student 'learning'.
They are not able to engage in discussions that might point to the significance of any of those events, nor the ramifications that transpired as a result. They'll simply know whether to circle "A", "B", "C", or "D" on their state-sponsored, high stakes test. Which is an important skill in this moment, but not something that helps them prepare for their future.
What it will take to defeat Common Core (and yes, it is an enemy that must be defeated) is a united front between parents and educators. They must demand that education is returned to the local level, and then they must work together to return the focus to student learning. In the short term, there will be hiccups. Educators may need to figure out ways of getting by with less money. This will not be pleasant, but it may be necessary.
Whether parents or educators have the wherewithal to make such a stand will determine whether or not Common Core is beat back. There are always decisions to be made. The easy one is to simply roll with the status quo, despite the fact that there is no proven benefit to it. The right choice, though more difficult, will help set our nation back on track, and allow students to reach their full potential, wherever they are strongest.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Israel Has a Right to Defend Herself
Imagine for a moment instead of an endless stream of illegal aliens walking across our southern border, their was an armed camp fortified with rockets of various shapes and sizes, and these rockets were fired constantly at Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. How long do you think the American government would wait before we started blasting those with rockets to smithereens?
That's right, about .000001 seconds. For good measure, we'd probably wipe Mexico off the face of the map, just to make sure another such incursion does not occur. We'd do this, and only the most far-left hippies who hang out in Northampton, MA would have anything to say about it. Why? Because it would be a justified defense.
I find it odd that in this country, which is fortunate enough (so far) not to have (combative) enemies for neighbors, we always look at Israel as the enemy of peace, despite the fact that in nearly every published account, the hostilities always begin on the Hamas side of the equation.
Before we go any further, I'll stop and say this: It is possible that Hamas has legitimate contentions with regard to territory that they believe is 'theirs', or how they feel they are being treated in their relations with Israel. It's possible. I wouldn't wager on that, but perhaps it is true. There are far better ways, ones that are more 'humanitarian' than launching non-stop rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, with little regard for life or property.
On the Israeli side of the equation, I've always been amazed by the amount of restraint that they have shown when dealing with their enemies, often due to the prodding of the U.S. government, no doubt, but nonetheless, they have been restrained in their attacks.
They give fair warnings before they attack, so that civilians (and even enemy leaders) have the opportunity to move away from the areas they will attack. They are willing to accept peace at a moment's notice, as was most recently seen when they accepted Egypt's ceasefire, which Hamas rejected on its face. They endlessly have allowed for humanitarian ceasefires, despite the fact that Hamas has continually made attempts to attack Israel during these alleged moments of calm.
In Benjamin Netanyahu's shoes, I would have long ago obliterated anyone that I believed to be an enemy of my nation, just as I would do if I were the leader of any nation that found itself under attack. Protecting one's citizens, and one's national borders are the very foundation of what it takes to lay claim to nation status.
In the end, the best we can hope for is an end of hostilities on both sides, but for once, Israel appears determined to weed out as much of the Hamas leadership as it can. Hamas, on the other hand, may continue to fight on, believing that their cause is also just. Until both sides are willing and able to trust the other and act in a way that would suggest peace can exist in the region, it is easy to predict that history will continue to repeat itself.
07.24.2014 update:
an app that came across my facebook timeline that tracks rockets fired in to Israel:
http://israelhasbeenrocketfreefor.com/
That's right, about .000001 seconds. For good measure, we'd probably wipe Mexico off the face of the map, just to make sure another such incursion does not occur. We'd do this, and only the most far-left hippies who hang out in Northampton, MA would have anything to say about it. Why? Because it would be a justified defense.
I find it odd that in this country, which is fortunate enough (so far) not to have (combative) enemies for neighbors, we always look at Israel as the enemy of peace, despite the fact that in nearly every published account, the hostilities always begin on the Hamas side of the equation.
Before we go any further, I'll stop and say this: It is possible that Hamas has legitimate contentions with regard to territory that they believe is 'theirs', or how they feel they are being treated in their relations with Israel. It's possible. I wouldn't wager on that, but perhaps it is true. There are far better ways, ones that are more 'humanitarian' than launching non-stop rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, with little regard for life or property.
On the Israeli side of the equation, I've always been amazed by the amount of restraint that they have shown when dealing with their enemies, often due to the prodding of the U.S. government, no doubt, but nonetheless, they have been restrained in their attacks.
They give fair warnings before they attack, so that civilians (and even enemy leaders) have the opportunity to move away from the areas they will attack. They are willing to accept peace at a moment's notice, as was most recently seen when they accepted Egypt's ceasefire, which Hamas rejected on its face. They endlessly have allowed for humanitarian ceasefires, despite the fact that Hamas has continually made attempts to attack Israel during these alleged moments of calm.
In Benjamin Netanyahu's shoes, I would have long ago obliterated anyone that I believed to be an enemy of my nation, just as I would do if I were the leader of any nation that found itself under attack. Protecting one's citizens, and one's national borders are the very foundation of what it takes to lay claim to nation status.
In the end, the best we can hope for is an end of hostilities on both sides, but for once, Israel appears determined to weed out as much of the Hamas leadership as it can. Hamas, on the other hand, may continue to fight on, believing that their cause is also just. Until both sides are willing and able to trust the other and act in a way that would suggest peace can exist in the region, it is easy to predict that history will continue to repeat itself.
07.24.2014 update:
an app that came across my facebook timeline that tracks rockets fired in to Israel:
http://israelhasbeenrocketfreefor.com/
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Teachers Are Not Underpaid
A complaint that is heard far too often is that there needs to be more money put in to schools, because by golly, our teachers simply aren't paid enough to deal with this current generation of students. I imagine this argument isn't a new one, and in fact goes back nearly to the day that Horace Mann helped found Westfield State University (nee "Westfield Normal School") as "the people's college" way back in 1838. With the advent of social media, and the need to fill 24 hour news cycles every single hour of every single day, we all are aware of how underpaid teachers are.
However, I feel the question must be asked, are they really underpaid? I posit this question as someone who has recently completed the requirements to gain my initial license within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
To begin to answer the question, I looked at the average salary for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the most recent year I could find it (2011-2012), and found, not surprisingly, that the numbers simply don't bear that out. Of the approximately 325 school districts spread out throughout the Commonwealth, only one (1!) district has an average salary that is less than $51,109. How the good people of Florida, MA manage to keep their average teacher salary at just a touch over $37,000 I don't know. Perhaps they've brainwashed their teachers in to thinking that they're teaching in the state of Florida, and they're only a stone's throw away from the nearest beach. What I do know is that they are definitively an outlier, as the average teacher salary within the Commonwealth is just a touch under $71,000.
Many people complain that this simply isn't enough for what teachers do, and the impact that they have on young students who are in their charge. While what teachers do in the classroom (good teachers, at least) cannot be quantified, the expense in terms of dollars and cents easily can be.
I had a professor who put forth a statistic as if it was a fact (it was a class where I expect she knew what she was talking about) that stated that if you netted over $35,000 in a year, you were in the top 1% of wage earners world wide. That would seem to jibe with what wikipedia has to say on the topic. The list on wikipedia also notes that the average salary in the United States as of 2012 is roughly $55,000, or just about $16,000 short of what the average teacher in the Commonwealth earns.
For those that might argue that the pay scale is top-heavy, and new teachers are vastly underpaid by comparison, I'm here to tell you, that's simply not true. As I have been applying out for jobs over the last few months, I have not been able to find a "full-time" teaching position that pays less than just under $42,000 (and even with that, there are bonuses if you're willing to teach in certain districts that increase that pay level.) I'll grant, I've pointedly avoided Florida, MA, but still, I have not been able to find a job that pays less than that. For 10 months (9, really) worth of work. Sure, there may be some 'long' days (I have a hard time listening to conversations about 'long' days, when the school day is less than 7 hours long.) It's a good gig, if you can get it.
So the next time you hear someone complaining about how underpaid teachers are, I beg you to remember that in the Commonwealth of MA (and likely everywhere else, too), teachers are part of the 1%.
However, I feel the question must be asked, are they really underpaid? I posit this question as someone who has recently completed the requirements to gain my initial license within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
To begin to answer the question, I looked at the average salary for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the most recent year I could find it (2011-2012), and found, not surprisingly, that the numbers simply don't bear that out. Of the approximately 325 school districts spread out throughout the Commonwealth, only one (1!) district has an average salary that is less than $51,109. How the good people of Florida, MA manage to keep their average teacher salary at just a touch over $37,000 I don't know. Perhaps they've brainwashed their teachers in to thinking that they're teaching in the state of Florida, and they're only a stone's throw away from the nearest beach. What I do know is that they are definitively an outlier, as the average teacher salary within the Commonwealth is just a touch under $71,000.
Many people complain that this simply isn't enough for what teachers do, and the impact that they have on young students who are in their charge. While what teachers do in the classroom (good teachers, at least) cannot be quantified, the expense in terms of dollars and cents easily can be.
I had a professor who put forth a statistic as if it was a fact (it was a class where I expect she knew what she was talking about) that stated that if you netted over $35,000 in a year, you were in the top 1% of wage earners world wide. That would seem to jibe with what wikipedia has to say on the topic. The list on wikipedia also notes that the average salary in the United States as of 2012 is roughly $55,000, or just about $16,000 short of what the average teacher in the Commonwealth earns.
For those that might argue that the pay scale is top-heavy, and new teachers are vastly underpaid by comparison, I'm here to tell you, that's simply not true. As I have been applying out for jobs over the last few months, I have not been able to find a "full-time" teaching position that pays less than just under $42,000 (and even with that, there are bonuses if you're willing to teach in certain districts that increase that pay level.) I'll grant, I've pointedly avoided Florida, MA, but still, I have not been able to find a job that pays less than that. For 10 months (9, really) worth of work. Sure, there may be some 'long' days (I have a hard time listening to conversations about 'long' days, when the school day is less than 7 hours long.) It's a good gig, if you can get it.
So the next time you hear someone complaining about how underpaid teachers are, I beg you to remember that in the Commonwealth of MA (and likely everywhere else, too), teachers are part of the 1%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)