The impetus of today's argument is the unfortunate, tragic death of Mr. James Foley, who was beheaded in the Syrian desert by ISIS terrorists*. His death may have finally woken those who currently in power here in the U.S. to the real threat that ISIS presents in a way that nothing else to this point has done.
It was just 7 months ago that our current President and his administration dismissed ISIS as being nothing more than the "JV" of terrorist networks. If the President and his administration could have kept that sentiment in-house, it might have been one thing. Taking that statement to the press and letting the entire world know that is your perspective seems rather foolish, however. Even if the statement is true, I don't know that the analogy really works. Is there really such a thing as a "JV" terrorist? The only difference that exists (possibly) between ISIS in January and other more well-known terrorist groups is the matter of resources. What doesn't change is the fact that members of each group despise and hate America and other Western nations simply because we exist.
This is a fact that those in power, and those who voted those in to power here in the U.S. seem unwilling to accept. They like to believe that negotiations might achieve something with people who have deep, strong convictions on this issue. Perhaps it is because our own politicians are so weak-willed and malleable that they assume that 'leaders' in other parts of the world are of the same ilk. Unfortunately, for our citizens and government officials, it isn't true in this situation, and many others like it. Terrorists don't necessarily worry about bad press, or how it affects their poll rankings.
Unfortunately, our politicians do, and so they make rather short-sighted policy decisions based on how they think the voters will react to them. This is not leadership, it is pandering. Pandering to an informed electorate is one thing, but our society has reached a state that is such that if an opinion can't be made in a 6 second video or there isn't a catchy tag line, no one pays attention to it. People are so busy following the latest reality television 'stars' to pay attention to the politicians they vote for (if they bother to take the time to get out and vote.) The aftermath of that is you end up with a 'community organizer' taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
To be fooled once, as was the case in 2008, aided and abetted by the press, is one thing. To repeat that same mistake 4 years later because of hubris and an unwillingness to admit that you were wrong in your previous vote is simply stupid. Granted, the Republican Party made it as easy as they could for people to make these two mistakes by running out the two candidates for President that they have in the last two elections, but the nation would have been far better off if everyone voted for Mickey Mouse (I did not, but I also did not vote for anyone on the Presidential ballot the last two elections. My guys lost in the primaries.) Instead, voters doubled down on a man who managed to do nothing but enrich his friends and cohorts.
Video of the horrific death of James Foley is widely circulating on the Internet. I have not watched this video, nor do I have any intention to do so. I also respect 100% the reasoning why the family would want to have the video in all forms removed from any place it might exist. However, I also believe it is important for the video to remain within the public domain, because it may help to serve as a reminder to those who vote for a candidate simply because it's the 'cool' thing to do. Elections have consequences, and the death of James Foley is one of those unintended consequences. Let us hope that there are no more.
*Of course the tag terrorists is all a matter of perspective. Being an American citizen, I see anyone who threatens to overthrow the U.S. and has murdered, in one of the most barbaric fashions imaginable, a U.S. citizen as the bad guys (while threatening to do the same to another U.S. citizen they have kidnapped.) By their very actions, they are terrorists, coming from this worldview. It's wholly possible that they don't view themselves that way, and those that follow them don't believe they fit that description. They may assign that tag to the Americans and other Western nations.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Suicide Is Not Painless
Contrary to what the lyrics of M*A*S*H*'s theme song might lead one to believe, suicide in fact is not painless (the song originated in the movie version of M*A*S*H*.) Suicide is painful, because whether or not the person who commits the act experiences the release that he/she seeks, that doesn't solve the problem for the family, friends, and others who are left behind in the wake of the tragedy.
I come to this topic because earlier this week, Hollywood actor Robin Williams decided to take his own life, a horrifying act, for sure, but also one that is cowardly and selfish. How else can it be explained? I apologize for the coarseness of my opinion, but I find it very hard to find much sympathy for a man who had as much talent as Williams did, as many admirers, and at one point at least, as much money as he did. None of those resources are a guarantee to avoid depression, from which he suffered, according to media reports, nor is it a guarantee of happiness, but many people without those resources manage to somehow get through the day.
I cannot begin to contemplate the state of mind one must be in, before contemplating suicide. It's something I simply cannot fathom. However, I'd like to think that if you are a person in that situation, and you are thinking about ending your own life, you would have exhausted every single last resource at your disposal before cashing out permanently, because it's a mistake you can't come back from. Death is permanent, regardless of what the "good people" of Alcor sold Ted Williams on in the early part of this century.
One comment that I saw from Williams' wife was something to the effect of "We should not focus on Robin's death." That's absolute bull, we should absolutely focus on his death. Why would a man who had so much going for him act in such a selfish manner? It is a question that needs to be evaluated. Further, just as much as professional athletes are 'role models' for children because of the limelight they are placed in, so are actors and actresses as well. Young people look up to Hollywood stars because they are famous, good looking, and generally well off. When someone in that manner chooses death over battling through life's struggles, what message does that send to the youth of the nation (world?)
In the end, Robin Williams made a tragic, final mistake, for whatever the reason he may have had. He chose to ignore family, friends, and associates who undoubtedly would have come to his aid at a moment's notice. It may have seemed like a painless act in the moment for him (though I can't imagine how), but the devastation he left behind (as is the case whenever someone chooses this route, whether an everyday citizen, or someone who is 'rich' and famous.) will be felt for years and generations to come. His wife, children, and future grandchildren will be forced to carry on without his being around to help guide them in any way. That is their loss, and its one that he bears responsibility for.
So while I understand the outpouring of sadness that has accompanied Williams' death, I believe it is misdirected, or at least parts of it are. Williams' family, not Williams' memory, are who are most in need. Williams chose to exit this life, and its pains, rather than soldier on with those that he loved most. It's devastating for them. It was a cowardly and selfish act by him.
I come to this topic because earlier this week, Hollywood actor Robin Williams decided to take his own life, a horrifying act, for sure, but also one that is cowardly and selfish. How else can it be explained? I apologize for the coarseness of my opinion, but I find it very hard to find much sympathy for a man who had as much talent as Williams did, as many admirers, and at one point at least, as much money as he did. None of those resources are a guarantee to avoid depression, from which he suffered, according to media reports, nor is it a guarantee of happiness, but many people without those resources manage to somehow get through the day.
I cannot begin to contemplate the state of mind one must be in, before contemplating suicide. It's something I simply cannot fathom. However, I'd like to think that if you are a person in that situation, and you are thinking about ending your own life, you would have exhausted every single last resource at your disposal before cashing out permanently, because it's a mistake you can't come back from. Death is permanent, regardless of what the "good people" of Alcor sold Ted Williams on in the early part of this century.
One comment that I saw from Williams' wife was something to the effect of "We should not focus on Robin's death." That's absolute bull, we should absolutely focus on his death. Why would a man who had so much going for him act in such a selfish manner? It is a question that needs to be evaluated. Further, just as much as professional athletes are 'role models' for children because of the limelight they are placed in, so are actors and actresses as well. Young people look up to Hollywood stars because they are famous, good looking, and generally well off. When someone in that manner chooses death over battling through life's struggles, what message does that send to the youth of the nation (world?)
In the end, Robin Williams made a tragic, final mistake, for whatever the reason he may have had. He chose to ignore family, friends, and associates who undoubtedly would have come to his aid at a moment's notice. It may have seemed like a painless act in the moment for him (though I can't imagine how), but the devastation he left behind (as is the case whenever someone chooses this route, whether an everyday citizen, or someone who is 'rich' and famous.) will be felt for years and generations to come. His wife, children, and future grandchildren will be forced to carry on without his being around to help guide them in any way. That is their loss, and its one that he bears responsibility for.
So while I understand the outpouring of sadness that has accompanied Williams' death, I believe it is misdirected, or at least parts of it are. Williams' family, not Williams' memory, are who are most in need. Williams chose to exit this life, and its pains, rather than soldier on with those that he loved most. It's devastating for them. It was a cowardly and selfish act by him.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Liberals Only Care About Their Agenda, Not What the Rule of Law Actually Is
The impetus for today's initial argument comes to us from Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The soon-to-be world famous Mary's Gourmet Diner found themselves in a bit of a pickle, because a certain atheist group (the Freedom From Religion Foundation) got all hot and bothered by Mary's "prayer" discount, as IJReview tells us.
In their threat, the FFRF stated that Mary's Gourmet Diner was violating that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by granting a 15% discount to customer who were seen observing a moment of prayer or silence before eating their delicious meal.
Here was Mary's take on what the discount was for:
Of course, that's simply not true. The Civil Rights Act, a product of the vision of President John F. Kennedy (possibly the last decent national political figure to come out of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) and his successor, President Lyndon Johnson dealt in the main with ensuring that persons of all race, color, religion, sex, or national origin were treated equally, but the main focus (as it should have been at that time) was with regard to the racial divide that was still present in our country at that time.
While there is a clause that dictates that a public establishment (which Mary's is) must provide a full and equal enjoyment clause within the Act, it again was more focused toward racial equality rather than any other lesser detail. If Mary's had stated you had to say 3 Hail Marys prior to consumption of the customer's meal, that would be discrimination. As by Mary's own words, it was not limited to a Judeo-Christian mindset, or any other specific religion. It didn't even have to be prayer (even if it was listed on the receipt that way, probably for efficiency, and to keep from having to ask the customer what they were doing during their moments of silence.)
The difference between Athiests and persons of Faith is that a person of Faith generally couldn't care less what another person believes, as long as it doesn't personally injure them. (Lunatic, fringe members of major religions attempt to bastardize this point, but that is through their own misinterpretations of the religions they claim to espouse.) Atheists, on the other hand, are always spoiling for a fight. It seems as if their day isn't complete unless they've infringed on someone else's rights. Too often, as unfortunately was the case in this instance, the persons they are bullying (man, I can't wait for someone to file charges against one of these groups under all of the new anti-bullying laws that are spreading throughout the land) give in, because it's simply easier than to deal with those who seek to oppress.
To the member(s) of the FFRF: get a life. If someone's business practice is offending you because of their belief systems, it's a real simple solution: don't support their business, regardless of how good a business they may run. Or better yet, at least in this instance: say a little prayer to yourself, the only true god you really serve.
In their threat, the FFRF stated that Mary's Gourmet Diner was violating that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by granting a 15% discount to customer who were seen observing a moment of prayer or silence before eating their delicious meal.
Here was Mary's take on what the discount was for:
There's a lot of craziness going on in regard to the 15% discount. I will not respond to all the posts. I will say that it is not a "policy", it's a gift we give at random to customers who take a moment before their meal. This could be prayer or just a moment to breathe & push the busyness of the world away. Who you talk to or meditate on etc. is your business. I have lived in a 3rd world country, there are people starving. We live in a country with an abundance of beautiful food. I NEVER take that for granted. It warms my heart to see people with an attitude of gratitude. Prayer, meditation or just breathing while being grateful opens the heart chakra. It's good for everyone!!!! Thanks to my local community for your support...you know who I am. As for all the people posting negative comments about me & my restaurant who have never met me or been to the restaurant, thanks for sharing, it's your right to speak out, just as it is mine. Peace, love & happy eating!!!!Whatever her reason was for issuing the "prayer" discount, those words should have been enough to shut down any threats by the FFRF. Of course, they're a liberal hate group, so that's never the end of the story. Instead, they chose to press forward, insisting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being violated.
Of course, that's simply not true. The Civil Rights Act, a product of the vision of President John F. Kennedy (possibly the last decent national political figure to come out of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) and his successor, President Lyndon Johnson dealt in the main with ensuring that persons of all race, color, religion, sex, or national origin were treated equally, but the main focus (as it should have been at that time) was with regard to the racial divide that was still present in our country at that time.
While there is a clause that dictates that a public establishment (which Mary's is) must provide a full and equal enjoyment clause within the Act, it again was more focused toward racial equality rather than any other lesser detail. If Mary's had stated you had to say 3 Hail Marys prior to consumption of the customer's meal, that would be discrimination. As by Mary's own words, it was not limited to a Judeo-Christian mindset, or any other specific religion. It didn't even have to be prayer (even if it was listed on the receipt that way, probably for efficiency, and to keep from having to ask the customer what they were doing during their moments of silence.)
The difference between Athiests and persons of Faith is that a person of Faith generally couldn't care less what another person believes, as long as it doesn't personally injure them. (Lunatic, fringe members of major religions attempt to bastardize this point, but that is through their own misinterpretations of the religions they claim to espouse.) Atheists, on the other hand, are always spoiling for a fight. It seems as if their day isn't complete unless they've infringed on someone else's rights. Too often, as unfortunately was the case in this instance, the persons they are bullying (man, I can't wait for someone to file charges against one of these groups under all of the new anti-bullying laws that are spreading throughout the land) give in, because it's simply easier than to deal with those who seek to oppress.
To the member(s) of the FFRF: get a life. If someone's business practice is offending you because of their belief systems, it's a real simple solution: don't support their business, regardless of how good a business they may run. Or better yet, at least in this instance: say a little prayer to yourself, the only true god you really serve.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Jimmy Carter is the Dumbest Man to Ever Set Foot in the Oval Office
Although I suppose I may be jumping to conclusions. It's possible that Jimmy Carter is simply the most (willfully) ignorant man who has ever set foot in the Oval Office. He might also just be the most senile man who has ever set foot in the Oval Office. If he's none of those, and he also isn't the Dumbest man ever to set foot in the Oval Office, then he's the biggest anti-Semite who's ever set foot in the Oval Office, and yes, I know what a broad statement that is.
How else can his most recent piece for ForeignPolicy.com be explained? In it, he toes around the issue of responsibility for the tragedies that have been occurring in the Middle East for approximately the last month or so, but does so in a way that shades Israel as the bad guy. If only Israel would stop trying to eliminate the persons who are attempting to its existence, then the world would be a better place, or so Mr. Carter's thought process seems to suggest.
I suppose it's possible that Mr. Carter has never got around to reading the charter of Hamas, and if that's the case, then we can attribute his article to intentional ignorance. I've read it, and I'm not even a former President trying to keep myself in the spotlight by pretending like I have a new solution to a problem that dates back several millennia. Especially when I don't have a viable solution.
Articles like the one that Carter chose to write and publish are one of the reasons why former Presidents should simply fade in to the background when their time in office has passed, and allow the next generation of 'leaders' make decisions as they see fit. If Carter was interested in advising the current President, or even members of Congress, that would be one thing. He could meet with them in private and discuss his thoughts, and perhaps with a meeting of so many 'great' minds, a real solution would come about. Mind, I don't think it's likely, but it would be a far better solution than the one Carter has proffered at this point in history.
Or if Carter is really interested in having his voice heard, he should run for President again. After all, his first tenure was such a disaster that he became the first President in 48 years to not be re-elected (Of course, since that time, George H.W. Bush has followed in his footsteps.)
How else can his most recent piece for ForeignPolicy.com be explained? In it, he toes around the issue of responsibility for the tragedies that have been occurring in the Middle East for approximately the last month or so, but does so in a way that shades Israel as the bad guy. If only Israel would stop trying to eliminate the persons who are attempting to its existence, then the world would be a better place, or so Mr. Carter's thought process seems to suggest.
I suppose it's possible that Mr. Carter has never got around to reading the charter of Hamas, and if that's the case, then we can attribute his article to intentional ignorance. I've read it, and I'm not even a former President trying to keep myself in the spotlight by pretending like I have a new solution to a problem that dates back several millennia. Especially when I don't have a viable solution.
Articles like the one that Carter chose to write and publish are one of the reasons why former Presidents should simply fade in to the background when their time in office has passed, and allow the next generation of 'leaders' make decisions as they see fit. If Carter was interested in advising the current President, or even members of Congress, that would be one thing. He could meet with them in private and discuss his thoughts, and perhaps with a meeting of so many 'great' minds, a real solution would come about. Mind, I don't think it's likely, but it would be a far better solution than the one Carter has proffered at this point in history.
Or if Carter is really interested in having his voice heard, he should run for President again. After all, his first tenure was such a disaster that he became the first President in 48 years to not be re-elected (Of course, since that time, George H.W. Bush has followed in his footsteps.)
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
The Problem With Student Loans (and other "Free" College Money)
Having recently completed my time at University, I feel that I have some slight insight in to the problem (s) that are caused by the "free" money that the federal and various state governments. My academic journey led me through junior college before I moved on to a 4 year program, and while I greatly appreciate the fact that there was federal and state financial aid available to me, the reason that I needed it (or more accurately, partly needed it) was due to the high cost of a post-high school education. Even by choosing to go through junior college before moving on to my chosen 4 year program.
Here is where we encounter the first problem with all the available government money. The 4 year school I attended (a public college) has seen its tuition increase about 400% over the preceding decade. The junior college I attended at least doubled in that same time frame.
To be clear: I am perfectly satisfied with the education I received at both institutions. They were top-notch experiences, and the amount I learned expanded my brain power exponentially.
Given that, was my educational 200 or 400% greater than what students earned 10 years ago? I find it to be highly unlikely. However, students will spend the money, because they are able to get financial aid, often with a heaping helping of federal guaranteed loans, which leads us to the second big problem with governmental aid: unsecured student debt.
During my college odyssey, I took out approximately $33,000 in federal loans. Do you want to know the process I had to go through to receive those funds? I simply had to "sign" my name on the dotted line (it was an e-form, so the signing was more ceremonial than literal.) No one asked about my actual prospects, they didn't even bother to check my GPA (which was actually pretty good, but still) or check references to see if I was good for the debt. The fact that I was enrolled in school was all they needed to clear me for tens of thousands of dollars of new debt.
It's not an exact parallel, but those that can recall 5-6 years ago when the home mortgage crisis struck this nation might see where I'm heading with this point. It's well and good to assume that student borrowers will pay back their debts ASAP, and in fact, the government takes steps to make that happen 6 months after someone has graduated or terminated their educational. There are several sub-problems within this problem.
We'll start with the biggie: the student is unable to find a job, period. I know how this goes, I've spent the last 12 weeks since my graduation looking for a job (I did find a temporary position for one month in that stretch working at a school.) I reached out to everyone I knew, I went through two separate staffing agencies, I filled out applications, filled out more applications, and sent emails to anyone and everyone who I thought might have a position open. My hard work was finally rewarded today: Tomorrow I begin a gig earning a whopping $9/ hour, and no, this is not a food service position where I can hope to earn some extra scratch. That's it, except for the mandatory overtime Saturdays (which I thought violated federal or state law, but apparently it does not, except in certain circumstances. I believe this may be one of them, but I'm not sure I have enough pull yet to point that out to the company, I haven't even earned a penny yet.)
Which leads to the second problem: Student borrowers who are determined to not earn enough money after the 6 month grace period (or at any period during their repayment period, based on family size and AGI) can file for hardship and have their debt repayment pushed off. Of course, this may lead to further interest being accumulated, but that's only helpful (to the government) if said funds are ever recovered, and if the expense it takes to recover said funds does not outweigh the net profit on the money lent out.
A tertiary problem with all of this federal aid for students was something I witnessed much more during my junior college time: students would 'attend' class just long enough to receive their refund check from the 'excess' financial aid they had received which was always in the form of extra loan money that was to be used for "living expenses". Listen, I'm not castigating those that found this loophole to help make their lives easier, but seeing as they stopped attending class, one has to wonder what their plans for that cash is, and if they were that desperate to gain those funds, how the government ever plans to recoup them.
Lastly (for today, at least), is this thought: all of this available aid leads many students and would be students to choose an educational path that is not necessarily proper for them. I chose to go the juco route because quite frankly, it was cheaper. Many students and their parents are not willing to do that and insist on attending a 4 year school for the entirety of their schooling career, often to the students' demise, as they are not necessarily prepared for the workload, or to be living away from home at that point in life.
This ties in with what I saw occur a couple of times during my first semester at the 4 year school I went to: professors admonishing, in a rather specific way the fact that many 'students' (one professor labeled it at 15%, I think he was being kind) weren't really qualified to be attending college. Based on the actions of the students in those classes, I had to agree with those assessments. It may simply have been a case of students not being capable in any different number of ways to handle coursework. It may also be that many students spent far more time looking at their smart phones than listening to lectures. I'd point the finger at those showing up hungover or stoned, but I think that's something that's been going on as long as their has been college on this continent, at least. Nonetheless, a goodly portion of those type of 'students' would not attend college if not for the easy government money. Whether or not this is good for the individual student, I can't say. What I do know is that it would be far better for the students who actually care about learning if there was less of those type 'students' in classes, and it would be better for the nation's bottom line, too.
Here is where we encounter the first problem with all the available government money. The 4 year school I attended (a public college) has seen its tuition increase about 400% over the preceding decade. The junior college I attended at least doubled in that same time frame.
To be clear: I am perfectly satisfied with the education I received at both institutions. They were top-notch experiences, and the amount I learned expanded my brain power exponentially.
Given that, was my educational 200 or 400% greater than what students earned 10 years ago? I find it to be highly unlikely. However, students will spend the money, because they are able to get financial aid, often with a heaping helping of federal guaranteed loans, which leads us to the second big problem with governmental aid: unsecured student debt.
During my college odyssey, I took out approximately $33,000 in federal loans. Do you want to know the process I had to go through to receive those funds? I simply had to "sign" my name on the dotted line (it was an e-form, so the signing was more ceremonial than literal.) No one asked about my actual prospects, they didn't even bother to check my GPA (which was actually pretty good, but still) or check references to see if I was good for the debt. The fact that I was enrolled in school was all they needed to clear me for tens of thousands of dollars of new debt.
It's not an exact parallel, but those that can recall 5-6 years ago when the home mortgage crisis struck this nation might see where I'm heading with this point. It's well and good to assume that student borrowers will pay back their debts ASAP, and in fact, the government takes steps to make that happen 6 months after someone has graduated or terminated their educational. There are several sub-problems within this problem.
We'll start with the biggie: the student is unable to find a job, period. I know how this goes, I've spent the last 12 weeks since my graduation looking for a job (I did find a temporary position for one month in that stretch working at a school.) I reached out to everyone I knew, I went through two separate staffing agencies, I filled out applications, filled out more applications, and sent emails to anyone and everyone who I thought might have a position open. My hard work was finally rewarded today: Tomorrow I begin a gig earning a whopping $9/ hour, and no, this is not a food service position where I can hope to earn some extra scratch. That's it, except for the mandatory overtime Saturdays (which I thought violated federal or state law, but apparently it does not, except in certain circumstances. I believe this may be one of them, but I'm not sure I have enough pull yet to point that out to the company, I haven't even earned a penny yet.)
Which leads to the second problem: Student borrowers who are determined to not earn enough money after the 6 month grace period (or at any period during their repayment period, based on family size and AGI) can file for hardship and have their debt repayment pushed off. Of course, this may lead to further interest being accumulated, but that's only helpful (to the government) if said funds are ever recovered, and if the expense it takes to recover said funds does not outweigh the net profit on the money lent out.
A tertiary problem with all of this federal aid for students was something I witnessed much more during my junior college time: students would 'attend' class just long enough to receive their refund check from the 'excess' financial aid they had received which was always in the form of extra loan money that was to be used for "living expenses". Listen, I'm not castigating those that found this loophole to help make their lives easier, but seeing as they stopped attending class, one has to wonder what their plans for that cash is, and if they were that desperate to gain those funds, how the government ever plans to recoup them.
Lastly (for today, at least), is this thought: all of this available aid leads many students and would be students to choose an educational path that is not necessarily proper for them. I chose to go the juco route because quite frankly, it was cheaper. Many students and their parents are not willing to do that and insist on attending a 4 year school for the entirety of their schooling career, often to the students' demise, as they are not necessarily prepared for the workload, or to be living away from home at that point in life.
This ties in with what I saw occur a couple of times during my first semester at the 4 year school I went to: professors admonishing, in a rather specific way the fact that many 'students' (one professor labeled it at 15%, I think he was being kind) weren't really qualified to be attending college. Based on the actions of the students in those classes, I had to agree with those assessments. It may simply have been a case of students not being capable in any different number of ways to handle coursework. It may also be that many students spent far more time looking at their smart phones than listening to lectures. I'd point the finger at those showing up hungover or stoned, but I think that's something that's been going on as long as their has been college on this continent, at least. Nonetheless, a goodly portion of those type of 'students' would not attend college if not for the easy government money. Whether or not this is good for the individual student, I can't say. What I do know is that it would be far better for the students who actually care about learning if there was less of those type 'students' in classes, and it would be better for the nation's bottom line, too.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Our Border Conundrum Is Also a Constitutional Crisis
It was a little over 3 weeks ago that the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick stated that he would help out his friend. Who is the governor's friend, you may ask? Oh, just the man that currently occupies the White House, no big deal. Governor Patrick likes to help out his friends, and that is an admirable thing to do.
Of course, most of us don't have friends in such high places as Governor Patrick does, but friends are friends, regardless of their perceived place in the world.
As it's not quite time for Governor Patrick's friend to vacate the premises of the White House (at least not for another 900 days, 14 hours as of this writing), we know he wasn't helping tape up boxes for the big move back to Chicago. So how was Governor Patrick looking to help out his good friend?
By attempting to stash 1,000 illegal aliens that the President invited in to the country, in clear violation of his Constitutional duties (fret not, other states didn't even have the option of 'volunteering'. See: Louisiana, Texas, California, and Arizona, for starters.)
One might assume that since Governor Patrick had invited the lawbreakers to the Commonwealth, he'd at least put them up at his homestead in Milton. You'd think wrong, however. Governor Patrick is only a man charged with making decisions, not living with the consequences of those actions.
He decided to offer up Westover Air Force Base in Chicopee (the western portion of the Commonwealth) and Camp Edwards military base on Cape Cod (the far eastern part of the Commonwealth.) instead.
Leaders of those two communities were non-plussed, to say the least, despite Patrick's assurances that the "children" (only 25% of those that are entering the nation illegally at most are children traveling alone.) will be vaccinated, secured on the bases, fed, and educated there, too, all on the federal government's dime (the very same federal government that is currently 17.639 TRILLION Dollars {$17,638,604,149,993.63 and is adding $2,730,000,000.00 worth of new debt each and every day.})
Because we have nothing else to worry about here in this country. Our unemployment rate is 6.2% (which is a joke. What that does not take in to consideration is all of the people who have simply given up trying to find work. Real unemployment would come in at no less than 13% if the Feds used real numbers.), our education systems are running fine and dandy, and there's no major crisis going on anywhere in the world with any of our allies.
No, life is just a day at the beach right now, and we should all be soaking up the sunshine and enjoying our picnic baskets.
Of course, none of that is true. Our nation is literally falling apart at the seams, and this manufactured 'crisis' (unlike the genuine, real crisis that has been going on at VA Centers the nation over. It's not like those centers take care of our soldiers who put their lives on the line. Oh? They do? Still, it's much better that they wait years for treatment than an illegal alien who is a potential future voter for a specific political party follow the law.)
I put quotation makes around crisis, for a couple of specific reasons. 1.) The 25% or so of the nearing 200,000 illegal aliens that have crossed our southern border are coming from (according to various news reports) Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica and other southern points. The distance allegedly transversed is in the neighborhood of 1,400 miles on the short end (approximately the length of the eastern seaboard of the United States) to upwards of 2,000 miles. On their own. With no help from anyone else. Which is, of course, a joke.
Our current President has stated he intends to take care of the 'immigration problem' with his phone an his pen. I'm imaging that one or both of those instruments was put to use in order to allow for the 'safe' passage of these illegal aliens (both children and adults) through multiple countries borders. He did this in clear violation of not only the Constitution as an entire document, but in violation of his own Presidential duties and oath, which reads:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This President has decided that defending our border, our very nationhood, is something that is of no concern to him. What is important is pulling in future voters who know where their bread has been buttered (by those that would break federal and state laws.)
Of course, the worse downside to our new open border policy, is that there is no stopping anyone who sees fit to make their way up through Central America to points north, regardless of their citizenry, as this report dictates. In a world as small as the one we live in thanks to technology, it won't take long for those numbers to swell to the numbers we are currently seeing come in from Central American nations. This puts the nation at risk for more terrorist attacks, and perhaps just as frightening, those who may be carriers of the Ebola virus that is running rampant through sections of the world right now.
Our government, in particular our President and our Senate (who decided to go home for a much earned* break rather than work with the House to find a solution to the created problem) have once again exposed Americans to unneeded risk. They have done so under the guise of helping those that are less fortunate, while pretending they have no political aims for any of these people. It's flabbergasting, to say the least. One slightly more cynical than I might infer that they're trying to tear the Nation down from within.
Of course, most of us don't have friends in such high places as Governor Patrick does, but friends are friends, regardless of their perceived place in the world.
As it's not quite time for Governor Patrick's friend to vacate the premises of the White House (at least not for another 900 days, 14 hours as of this writing), we know he wasn't helping tape up boxes for the big move back to Chicago. So how was Governor Patrick looking to help out his good friend?
By attempting to stash 1,000 illegal aliens that the President invited in to the country, in clear violation of his Constitutional duties (fret not, other states didn't even have the option of 'volunteering'. See: Louisiana, Texas, California, and Arizona, for starters.)
One might assume that since Governor Patrick had invited the lawbreakers to the Commonwealth, he'd at least put them up at his homestead in Milton. You'd think wrong, however. Governor Patrick is only a man charged with making decisions, not living with the consequences of those actions.
He decided to offer up Westover Air Force Base in Chicopee (the western portion of the Commonwealth) and Camp Edwards military base on Cape Cod (the far eastern part of the Commonwealth.) instead.
Leaders of those two communities were non-plussed, to say the least, despite Patrick's assurances that the "children" (only 25% of those that are entering the nation illegally at most are children traveling alone.) will be vaccinated, secured on the bases, fed, and educated there, too, all on the federal government's dime (the very same federal government that is currently 17.639 TRILLION Dollars {$17,638,604,149,993.63 and is adding $2,730,000,000.00 worth of new debt each and every day.})
Because we have nothing else to worry about here in this country. Our unemployment rate is 6.2% (which is a joke. What that does not take in to consideration is all of the people who have simply given up trying to find work. Real unemployment would come in at no less than 13% if the Feds used real numbers.), our education systems are running fine and dandy, and there's no major crisis going on anywhere in the world with any of our allies.
No, life is just a day at the beach right now, and we should all be soaking up the sunshine and enjoying our picnic baskets.
Of course, none of that is true. Our nation is literally falling apart at the seams, and this manufactured 'crisis' (unlike the genuine, real crisis that has been going on at VA Centers the nation over. It's not like those centers take care of our soldiers who put their lives on the line. Oh? They do? Still, it's much better that they wait years for treatment than an illegal alien who is a potential future voter for a specific political party follow the law.)
I put quotation makes around crisis, for a couple of specific reasons. 1.) The 25% or so of the nearing 200,000 illegal aliens that have crossed our southern border are coming from (according to various news reports) Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica and other southern points. The distance allegedly transversed is in the neighborhood of 1,400 miles on the short end (approximately the length of the eastern seaboard of the United States) to upwards of 2,000 miles. On their own. With no help from anyone else. Which is, of course, a joke.
Our current President has stated he intends to take care of the 'immigration problem' with his phone an his pen. I'm imaging that one or both of those instruments was put to use in order to allow for the 'safe' passage of these illegal aliens (both children and adults) through multiple countries borders. He did this in clear violation of not only the Constitution as an entire document, but in violation of his own Presidential duties and oath, which reads:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This President has decided that defending our border, our very nationhood, is something that is of no concern to him. What is important is pulling in future voters who know where their bread has been buttered (by those that would break federal and state laws.)
Of course, the worse downside to our new open border policy, is that there is no stopping anyone who sees fit to make their way up through Central America to points north, regardless of their citizenry, as this report dictates. In a world as small as the one we live in thanks to technology, it won't take long for those numbers to swell to the numbers we are currently seeing come in from Central American nations. This puts the nation at risk for more terrorist attacks, and perhaps just as frightening, those who may be carriers of the Ebola virus that is running rampant through sections of the world right now.
Our government, in particular our President and our Senate (who decided to go home for a much earned* break rather than work with the House to find a solution to the created problem) have once again exposed Americans to unneeded risk. They have done so under the guise of helping those that are less fortunate, while pretending they have no political aims for any of these people. It's flabbergasting, to say the least. One slightly more cynical than I might infer that they're trying to tear the Nation down from within.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Put Down the Chocolate!!
I try not to read about government intrusions in to private citizens lives, because invariably, it raises my blood pressure. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but nonetheless, it is something that I try to avoid, for fear that one time I may not be able to calm myself down.
The Wall Street Journal helped increase my bp, temporarily, at least, when they published this article detailing how public schools in 32 states have decided to eliminate popular school fund raisers such as bake sales, candy bar sales, and good gravy! Girl Scout Cookie sales.
The reason behind this change is the 2010 federal law (spurred on by Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign) Hunger Free Kids Act.
Now I'm sure as is the case with with all onerous federal legislation, there was a good thought that began the process of this law coming in to being. In fact, there was a stellar one: youth obesity had quadrupled over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, legislators chose the easy path of regulating what food stuffs may be sold as fundraiser for various school needs.
The best (at least better) solution would have been much more complicated, and it would have upset certain segments of people. The real reason that there is more obese children in this nation now than there was in 1984, or 1994, or likely 2004 has nothing at all do with what types of foods children are eating, and everything to do with how much time they spend playing. Actual real, live playing, not electronic device playing.
There are many reasons that children play less: little to no time for recess, ditto physical education, less money for school sports, parents more fearful of the dangers that are presented in the world today, and on and on. There is some genuinely good reasons within that list, particularly if you're family happens to live in a high crime area.
The biggest reason, outside of schools refusing to lengthen their school day so that there is time for play is family. It is far easier for parents or guardians to encourage their children to play on their electronic devices than it is to go out in the yard and play with their children or take them to the park to do the same. That would take genuine effort, and let's be honest, there's simply no time for that in today's helter-skelter world. Parents have many things to do, including playing with their own electronic devices.
Listen: I have no problem at all with technological advances. I don't even have a huge problem with parents abandoning their children to these devices. In some instances, it's probably a step forward, parenting wise. The big problem that I have is government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. It's not the government's responsibility to legislate what people can and cannot eat, or what (legal) food products may be sold, even at schools.
The government's job in situations such as these should be to provide opportunities for those that are most effected. In this instance, the solution is simple one that will prove difficult to implement. Short of lengthening the school day which many (not all) educators would be opposed to, schools can redistribute the time they are allotted. I'd immediately eliminate all 'study' sessions for high stakes testing. This would be easy to do, because two seconds before that, I'd eliminate all high stakes tests. As I've previously noted, they're absolutely useless in terms of educating students, and just as importantly, they're useless in assessing student learning.
Of course, government solutions are never common sense ones. Unless the government is able to interfere with people's lives, or steal more of the citizenry's money, it's a wasted day from their point of view.
The Wall Street Journal helped increase my bp, temporarily, at least, when they published this article detailing how public schools in 32 states have decided to eliminate popular school fund raisers such as bake sales, candy bar sales, and good gravy! Girl Scout Cookie sales.
The reason behind this change is the 2010 federal law (spurred on by Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign) Hunger Free Kids Act.
Now I'm sure as is the case with with all onerous federal legislation, there was a good thought that began the process of this law coming in to being. In fact, there was a stellar one: youth obesity had quadrupled over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, legislators chose the easy path of regulating what food stuffs may be sold as fundraiser for various school needs.
The best (at least better) solution would have been much more complicated, and it would have upset certain segments of people. The real reason that there is more obese children in this nation now than there was in 1984, or 1994, or likely 2004 has nothing at all do with what types of foods children are eating, and everything to do with how much time they spend playing. Actual real, live playing, not electronic device playing.
There are many reasons that children play less: little to no time for recess, ditto physical education, less money for school sports, parents more fearful of the dangers that are presented in the world today, and on and on. There is some genuinely good reasons within that list, particularly if you're family happens to live in a high crime area.
The biggest reason, outside of schools refusing to lengthen their school day so that there is time for play is family. It is far easier for parents or guardians to encourage their children to play on their electronic devices than it is to go out in the yard and play with their children or take them to the park to do the same. That would take genuine effort, and let's be honest, there's simply no time for that in today's helter-skelter world. Parents have many things to do, including playing with their own electronic devices.
Listen: I have no problem at all with technological advances. I don't even have a huge problem with parents abandoning their children to these devices. In some instances, it's probably a step forward, parenting wise. The big problem that I have is government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. It's not the government's responsibility to legislate what people can and cannot eat, or what (legal) food products may be sold, even at schools.
The government's job in situations such as these should be to provide opportunities for those that are most effected. In this instance, the solution is simple one that will prove difficult to implement. Short of lengthening the school day which many (not all) educators would be opposed to, schools can redistribute the time they are allotted. I'd immediately eliminate all 'study' sessions for high stakes testing. This would be easy to do, because two seconds before that, I'd eliminate all high stakes tests. As I've previously noted, they're absolutely useless in terms of educating students, and just as importantly, they're useless in assessing student learning.
Of course, government solutions are never common sense ones. Unless the government is able to interfere with people's lives, or steal more of the citizenry's money, it's a wasted day from their point of view.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Defending Pearl Jam Against an Uneducated Attack
Today's argument is an attempt to refute this article (please don't read the article. I'll hit the highlights for you, I promise.) by an author who is so beneath contempt I won't even list his name. The rally cry of his article is this: Pearl Jam is the most boring band of the last 20 years.
For those who have never had the pleasure of listening to Pearl Jam, you simply cannot understand what a ridiculous statement this is. Even if you haven't been living under a rock for the last 20 years, and it's just never tickled your fancy to make your way to a Pearl Jam show (or the exponential rise in ticket price has kept you away), you still could not fathom what a tremendous band they are.
I've seen Pearl Jam 6 times live in my life, and I've never once regretted it. Not even the time I drove to Montreal to scalp a ticket, and spent most of the show getting bear hugged by an overly enthusiastic (and less than sober) fan. Who also was twice as big as I was. I like Pearl Jam so much that I even overlook their political views, which clash with my own, to say the least. They create and perform brilliant music, and that is what I look to them for.
When the moron who wrote the article linked to above (although not that I consider it, he's actually somewhat of a mad genius. He tapped into a rabid fan base who has spent many collective hours reading his worthless article, increasing his view count, and making it appear as if he has much broader influence than he actually does.) penned his thoughts, he could only have been thinking two separate thoughts: 1.) I want to show the world exactly how stupid I am or 2.) I'm going to be famous (infamous is the word he was actually looking for) when all of those die-hard Pearl Jam fans find out what I wrote.
I believe he succeeded on both fronts, if the comments section of the article is any indication.
The author of the article closes out his introductory paragraph with this "brilliant" zinger:
Sure, Eddie Vedder may not throw himself willy-nilly into the hands of his adoring fans, nor he necessarily climb to the rafters each time the band plays "Porch", but those aren't necessary. What is necessary is the music, and few have excelled for as long a period of time, as consistently, as Pearl Jam has.
For many musical 'fans', including the author of the anti-PJ diatribe we're discussing today, Pearl Jam ceased making music following the release of Vitalogy. What it is about this album that engendered so many people to dislike not only the album, but the band, but it is what occurred. Of the 14 tracks on the album, I can think of only 4 that might be slightly off-putting for those who "loved" Ten and Vs. and they are: 'Pry, To' (and it only last one minute and three seconds), 'Bugs' (a hilarious accordion-based tune), 'Aye Davanita' (a quirky jam with no real lyrics to speak of), and 'Hey Foxymophandlemama, That's Me' (a song, which I have no shame in admitting, frightens the heck out of me. I stopped listening to it whenever I listen to Vitalogy after about the 3rd time I listened to the disc all the way through. I'm not smart enough to figure out what's going on in this song, nor do I care.) The other 10 tracks on the album are awesome, as long as you like music, and in particular rock music.
Since Vitalogy, Pearl Jam has released 7 studio albums (plus a "B" sides album, along with a greatest hits compilation) and countless hundreds of live 'bootleg' albums. Each and every one of them is as brilliant as the next, and unlike the author of the article, I've listened to them. They're not boring, they rock. As to the charges that Pearl Jam stole their act from bigger, better bands: It's ludicrous. History shows that tens of bands followed in Pearl Jam's footsteps, to the point of mimicking lead singer Eddie Vedder's vocalizations whilst singing. Pearl Jam, nor any serious music fan would not say that the band has not been influenced by bands that came before them, but such is the cycle of music. What they've done is make the influences their own, and they have always, always made sure to pay homage to their musical forebears, which is all that anyone can ask.
Whether or not someone likes Pearl Jam is irrelevant, but for someone to claim they are 'boring' is offensive to me, first as a fan of the band, but further, as a fan of good music.
For further proof of the band's brilliance, check out their Unplugged performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdr6eF2kVow
For those who have never had the pleasure of listening to Pearl Jam, you simply cannot understand what a ridiculous statement this is. Even if you haven't been living under a rock for the last 20 years, and it's just never tickled your fancy to make your way to a Pearl Jam show (or the exponential rise in ticket price has kept you away), you still could not fathom what a tremendous band they are.
I've seen Pearl Jam 6 times live in my life, and I've never once regretted it. Not even the time I drove to Montreal to scalp a ticket, and spent most of the show getting bear hugged by an overly enthusiastic (and less than sober) fan. Who also was twice as big as I was. I like Pearl Jam so much that I even overlook their political views, which clash with my own, to say the least. They create and perform brilliant music, and that is what I look to them for.
When the moron who wrote the article linked to above (although not that I consider it, he's actually somewhat of a mad genius. He tapped into a rabid fan base who has spent many collective hours reading his worthless article, increasing his view count, and making it appear as if he has much broader influence than he actually does.) penned his thoughts, he could only have been thinking two separate thoughts: 1.) I want to show the world exactly how stupid I am or 2.) I'm going to be famous (infamous is the word he was actually looking for) when all of those die-hard Pearl Jam fans find out what I wrote.
I believe he succeeded on both fronts, if the comments section of the article is any indication.
The author of the article closes out his introductory paragraph with this "brilliant" zinger:
it seems that mediocre rock bands, like ugly buildings, become respectable if they stick around long enough.To the best of my knowledge, in one form or another, I've listened to every song that Pearl Jam has released or performed at some in time or another. I'll grant there may be some obscure live covers that I haven't had the opportunity to hear yet, but I've heard their catalog in its entirety either via a studio release, seeing the songs performed live, or listening to recorded versions of their live performances. That band, in a word, rocks, and age hasn't taken anything off of their fastball.
Sure, Eddie Vedder may not throw himself willy-nilly into the hands of his adoring fans, nor he necessarily climb to the rafters each time the band plays "Porch", but those aren't necessary. What is necessary is the music, and few have excelled for as long a period of time, as consistently, as Pearl Jam has.
For many musical 'fans', including the author of the anti-PJ diatribe we're discussing today, Pearl Jam ceased making music following the release of Vitalogy. What it is about this album that engendered so many people to dislike not only the album, but the band, but it is what occurred. Of the 14 tracks on the album, I can think of only 4 that might be slightly off-putting for those who "loved" Ten and Vs. and they are: 'Pry, To' (and it only last one minute and three seconds), 'Bugs' (a hilarious accordion-based tune), 'Aye Davanita' (a quirky jam with no real lyrics to speak of), and 'Hey Foxymophandlemama, That's Me' (a song, which I have no shame in admitting, frightens the heck out of me. I stopped listening to it whenever I listen to Vitalogy after about the 3rd time I listened to the disc all the way through. I'm not smart enough to figure out what's going on in this song, nor do I care.) The other 10 tracks on the album are awesome, as long as you like music, and in particular rock music.
Since Vitalogy, Pearl Jam has released 7 studio albums (plus a "B" sides album, along with a greatest hits compilation) and countless hundreds of live 'bootleg' albums. Each and every one of them is as brilliant as the next, and unlike the author of the article, I've listened to them. They're not boring, they rock. As to the charges that Pearl Jam stole their act from bigger, better bands: It's ludicrous. History shows that tens of bands followed in Pearl Jam's footsteps, to the point of mimicking lead singer Eddie Vedder's vocalizations whilst singing. Pearl Jam, nor any serious music fan would not say that the band has not been influenced by bands that came before them, but such is the cycle of music. What they've done is make the influences their own, and they have always, always made sure to pay homage to their musical forebears, which is all that anyone can ask.
Whether or not someone likes Pearl Jam is irrelevant, but for someone to claim they are 'boring' is offensive to me, first as a fan of the band, but further, as a fan of good music.
For further proof of the band's brilliance, check out their Unplugged performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdr6eF2kVow
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Birth Control Is Not a Constitutional Right
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.
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.
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%.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Assistive Technology Embedded Within Windows 7
The assistive technology embedded within a computer's OS is not something that many people may take in to consideration when purchasing a PC, but for those who need it, it is a wonderful resource.
I began my exploration of the different options that Windows 7 provided by looking to this Microsoft page which explained just how easy it was to access the technology. By simply pressing the windows key and the letter "U", I was brought to the screen below:
The options for different assistive technology within Windows is quite impressive. In the section at the top, a simple mouse click allows for any one of the options to be chosen. When I selected the magnifier, it doubled the size of the text on the screen, which makes it easier for those who may have vision problems but are not blind to be able to see the screen. The narrator option was just as easily activated, and it serves to read text as you mouse over it. This could help vision-impaired persons, or it could be a benefit to those who suffer from dyslexia, or any disability that makes reading problematic. The on screen keyboard allows for users to utilize their mouse on a pop-up keyboard, which will assist anyone who might suffer from a disorder such as cerebral palsy to still manipulate a keyboard and put their thoughts down on a page. The last option up top to "set up high contrast" seems like something that may be useful to all users if the glare from the screen is causing eye strain, but it doesn't seem like it provides any particular benefit to those suffering from a disability or disorder.
For those that would like to utilize it, speech recognition software can be activated. This could be useful to someone who is a quadriplegic, or who suffers from a disorder that affects motor control in their hands. There are also options to make the keyboard or mouse easier to use, settings to help readers focus on the screen more easily, and an option to use text or visual cues as a substitute for sounds. Overall, the AT that is available within the OS is fairly inclusive for a large segment of the population that may suffer from any of the disorders/disabilities discussed, and many more that were not touched upon.
The options for different assistive technology within Windows is quite impressive. In the section at the top, a simple mouse click allows for any one of the options to be chosen. When I selected the magnifier, it doubled the size of the text on the screen, which makes it easier for those who may have vision problems but are not blind to be able to see the screen. The narrator option was just as easily activated, and it serves to read text as you mouse over it. This could help vision-impaired persons, or it could be a benefit to those who suffer from dyslexia, or any disability that makes reading problematic. The on screen keyboard allows for users to utilize their mouse on a pop-up keyboard, which will assist anyone who might suffer from a disorder such as cerebral palsy to still manipulate a keyboard and put their thoughts down on a page. The last option up top to "set up high contrast" seems like something that may be useful to all users if the glare from the screen is causing eye strain, but it doesn't seem like it provides any particular benefit to those suffering from a disability or disorder.
For those that would like to utilize it, speech recognition software can be activated. This could be useful to someone who is a quadriplegic, or who suffers from a disorder that affects motor control in their hands. There are also options to make the keyboard or mouse easier to use, settings to help readers focus on the screen more easily, and an option to use text or visual cues as a substitute for sounds. Overall, the AT that is available within the OS is fairly inclusive for a large segment of the population that may suffer from any of the disorders/disabilities discussed, and many more that were not touched upon.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Assistive Technology in the Classroom
(graphic courtesy of http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/at/at_02.html)
Classrooms across the country have become far more inclusive in recent years, and a lot of that is due to the usage of assistive technology that has become far more common. Resources that can be utilized vary nearly as much as the ways they can be put to use by educators for students that need assistance.
Websites such as enablemart.com now exist with a plethora of solutions for each student. One fairly expensive piece of equipment that is available there is the QiCare Page Turner, which allows students to be able to read books in a more independent manner. The device (or a less expensive alternative) allows the child to read a book or magazine in a "hands free" manner, which lets them focus solely on reading the material in front of them. The pages are turned by the student pressing a button or switch, or in the case of the QiCare product, by using a foot pedal.
Not every solution has to be a high-tech or expensive process. Prince George County in Maryland has put together this site that offers many low-cost or no-cost solutions for students and teachers. Some of the solutions offered for issues with perception include the use of large print books/magazines, the use of headphones, and the use of manipulatives amongst many others. For those students that struggle with fluency and/or communication, they suggest word banks, using procedural checklists, and blocks or 3D models.
To bookend the thought of the expensive technology that may be available at specialty sites such as EnableMart, this site that many products that are available at local stores, or may already be in the classroom waiting to be used. One low-tech option, low-cost option is a specialized rubber pencil grip, which allows students that need assistance grasping their pen or pencil to have better use of their writing utensil.
Whether it is a PDA, an iPad (or other type of tablet), or a simple pair of headphones, the range of assistive technology is nearly endless, and the benefits to the students are as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)