Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Illinois - Genius with a "J"
So our governor, realizing that state needs to reduce its spending, and not wanting to go after any entitlements or anything like that, seems to have proposed the following cuts to education:
1) We must consolidate school districts because we have too many and having fewer will reduce costs. This will mean closing schools, of course.
2) We will cut funding to the districts for their transportation budgets. They will have to pay for that themselves.
MY ISSUE: Having grown up rural, I know that if you close schools, you will necessarily force MORE and LONGER bus routes to get the kids to schools. Thus, consolidating school districts means you will see your bus costs go up, and buses already are a huge MANDATORY expense for rural districts. This strikes me as an unfunded mandate or at least an increased mandate coupled with decreased funding. Double wammie. The school districts will have to cut program and teaching to accommodate these new costs; that or ask for tax levies.
1) We must consolidate school districts because we have too many and having fewer will reduce costs. This will mean closing schools, of course.
2) We will cut funding to the districts for their transportation budgets. They will have to pay for that themselves.
MY ISSUE: Having grown up rural, I know that if you close schools, you will necessarily force MORE and LONGER bus routes to get the kids to schools. Thus, consolidating school districts means you will see your bus costs go up, and buses already are a huge MANDATORY expense for rural districts. This strikes me as an unfunded mandate or at least an increased mandate coupled with decreased funding. Double wammie. The school districts will have to cut program and teaching to accommodate these new costs; that or ask for tax levies.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Democratic assumptions
With all the protests in Egypt right now and the talk of democracy, I feel obliged to point out a couple of things:
We ASSUME that a democracy will provide fair, just, human right conscious government. We assume it is better than an autocracy. We assume that democracies are more friendly to the Western democracies than other governments. This is not necessarily so. A democracy with no protection for the minorities can be a terrible thing. A democracy in a place that is majority anti-West is not in our interest.
We ASSUME that a democracy will provide fair, just, human right conscious government. We assume it is better than an autocracy. We assume that democracies are more friendly to the Western democracies than other governments. This is not necessarily so. A democracy with no protection for the minorities can be a terrible thing. A democracy in a place that is majority anti-West is not in our interest.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Sarah Palin
It's two years since we elected Obama and I'm still reading headlines about Sarah Palin.
Query: Why is Sarah Palin even relevant to anything anymore? She was the governor of Alaska and basically a political nobody when McCain (McCane?) picked her as his VP candidate. (My opinions on that are documents elsewhere in this blog, I believe.) Together, they went down in one of the worst Republican presidential defeats in recent memory. As a political commentator, she says nothing new, unique, or even particularly insightful. Indeed, as far as I can tell, all she has done is make periodic statements and endorse various candidates. In Alaska, where they know her best, the candidate she endorsed lost to a WRITE-IN. In two other states, Nevada and Delaware, she and the Tea Party cost their party the elections and probably control of the Senate. Who the hell cares what she thinks, says, or does? Why is she even relevant to any political discussion in America?
Query: Why is Sarah Palin even relevant to anything anymore? She was the governor of Alaska and basically a political nobody when McCain (McCane?) picked her as his VP candidate. (My opinions on that are documents elsewhere in this blog, I believe.) Together, they went down in one of the worst Republican presidential defeats in recent memory. As a political commentator, she says nothing new, unique, or even particularly insightful. Indeed, as far as I can tell, all she has done is make periodic statements and endorse various candidates. In Alaska, where they know her best, the candidate she endorsed lost to a WRITE-IN. In two other states, Nevada and Delaware, she and the Tea Party cost their party the elections and probably control of the Senate. Who the hell cares what she thinks, says, or does? Why is she even relevant to any political discussion in America?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
My own stupidity...
Just to prove I'm an equal opportunity critic, here's a bit of my own stupidity. Sometime you just don't realize how bad you sound until you read it in print.
Q (by me): Were you aware that XXXX and her husband were having marital problems?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that after he died?
A: Yes.
Q (by me): Were you aware that XXXX and her husband were having marital problems?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that after he died?
A: Yes.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
This just in....
Basic Civil Liberties Threaten People's Security. Details at 11. (This parody of an actual insipid headline brought to you by Common Sense.)
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Because passing regulations is the solution to everything - Euro Stupidity
Heard on NPR today that the Transportation Minister of the EU is outraged at the problems being caused by the heavy snowfall across Europe. If the airports can't handle it, he wants to increase regulation.
'Cause that's the solution to everything. By God, we'll slap a regulation in that limits the amount of snow an airport can experience in any given period. That'll fix 'em.
'Cause that's the solution to everything. By God, we'll slap a regulation in that limits the amount of snow an airport can experience in any given period. That'll fix 'em.
Friday, December 17, 2010
"We compromised on eight."
"The Conservatives wanted six; the Liberals wanted four; we compromised on eight." - Winston Churchill.
I cannot swear to the exact accuracy of the previous quote, but it is more or less accurate. It has to do with the British government's internal arguments on naval spending circa 1909. The Admiralty wanted to build six battleships that year, but Churchill and Lloyd George wanted four. A crisis in the form of a scare about German naval building occurred and when the dust settled, Parliament authorized the building of eight battleships.
This quote is mentioned because it came to mind after reading that the President was going to sign the tax compromise bill this afternoon. Everyone seems to agree that the deficit is a problem and the economy is a problem. The Dems want to expand unemployment to pay benefits for a longer time, costing the tax payer money. They argue this puts money in the hands of people who will spend it and stimulates the economy. The GOP wants to keep taxes low, allowing people to keep more money and hopes they will then spend or invest it. This also costs the taxpayer's money, albeit while avoiding a tax rise that would, excuse the expression, tax the resources of many families. Note that both scheme cost the government money, and in this year of urgency about the growing debt, what do we do? We adopt both.
Doing neither would substantially raise the amount of income the government has. Doing both seems the worst possible thing, so, of course, that's what we did. And it's not the first time. Frequently, in the past, when the two major parties could not agree nor one prevail, they solve the problem by spending more while reducing the government's income at the same time. It's moronic and unsustainable.
I cannot swear to the exact accuracy of the previous quote, but it is more or less accurate. It has to do with the British government's internal arguments on naval spending circa 1909. The Admiralty wanted to build six battleships that year, but Churchill and Lloyd George wanted four. A crisis in the form of a scare about German naval building occurred and when the dust settled, Parliament authorized the building of eight battleships.
This quote is mentioned because it came to mind after reading that the President was going to sign the tax compromise bill this afternoon. Everyone seems to agree that the deficit is a problem and the economy is a problem. The Dems want to expand unemployment to pay benefits for a longer time, costing the tax payer money. They argue this puts money in the hands of people who will spend it and stimulates the economy. The GOP wants to keep taxes low, allowing people to keep more money and hopes they will then spend or invest it. This also costs the taxpayer's money, albeit while avoiding a tax rise that would, excuse the expression, tax the resources of many families. Note that both scheme cost the government money, and in this year of urgency about the growing debt, what do we do? We adopt both.
Doing neither would substantially raise the amount of income the government has. Doing both seems the worst possible thing, so, of course, that's what we did. And it's not the first time. Frequently, in the past, when the two major parties could not agree nor one prevail, they solve the problem by spending more while reducing the government's income at the same time. It's moronic and unsustainable.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Death of a St. Louis Icon
Yesterday marked the last day of the last broadcast of KFUO 99.1 FM, AKA Classic 99, one of the few private classic radio stations. KFUO was owned by the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, LCMS, and had been operating as a classic music station, one of the best in the country, for 62 years. Then LCMS sold it to some funko Jhesus group. (You have to put the "h" in Jesus because it's the first letter of the word "holy.") I guess they did not see it as important to their mission any longer, and I think I heard that they were loosing money on it. As my father noted, I want to hate the LCMS for this, but I wasn't contributing to keep the station going, and they can sell their property if they want to. Still, I will miss it.
So my wife and I sat in the living room last night and listened to the last hour of Classic 99. They went out, flags flying, playing Beethoven's 9th, Ode to Joy.
So my wife and I sat in the living room last night and listened to the last hour of Classic 99. They went out, flags flying, playing Beethoven's 9th, Ode to Joy.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Conflict Metal
Here's another NPR triggered story: NPR today did a piece on conflict metals which are basically like conflict diamonds except that they are precious or industrial metals, not gems. NPR interviewed a bunch of folks who were demonstrating outside Intel in Portland, Oregon, against the use of conflict metals in computer chip manufacturing. Seems they want Congress to pass a law making companies accountable for their supply chains to make sure that no conflict metals are being used in that company's products.
I think my first question is why should a vocal minority be allowed to impose its conscience on the rest of the world?
Right behind that, my next thought was that these people were trying to impose on the company an obligation that they seemed to lazy to undertake themselves. I'll explain. At every step of the supply line, you can look back at the supply line, but that line also runs forward by which I mean the customer is also part of the process and if they sell the product to another customer, like a used car, they are now part of the chain. So, if you don't like a company's manufacturing process, then don't buy its product or even better make yourself, the consumer legally responsible for the origin of the components. And, if your answer is that you don't know if the product is made with materials that make a profit for a group you think is morally repugnant, then think about that for just a second. If you don't know, and, thus, it is not fair for you to have to be accountable for your use, why is it fair to make a company accountable for where the people they buy from get their stuff? If you can't be bothered to go find out, why should you make them do it for you?
Oh I know; I know. It's because you are morally right and true and brave and wise and anointed and all that and that GIVES you the right to create laws like this. And it means that you have the right to use the government to impose your true and noble nature on everyone else when you can't get enough people voluntarily involved in your cause that they would cease to purchase the product based on their own sense of morality. Certainly, it would NEVER mean that if you can't get enough people to voluntarily boycott the product, it is because they don't care enough to find out if it is in the class of evil products or maybe even, gasp, disagree with you. No, you have to do what's best for them. Because you know it far better then they, the poor little things. Onward, Utopia! Huzzah!
I think my first question is why should a vocal minority be allowed to impose its conscience on the rest of the world?
Right behind that, my next thought was that these people were trying to impose on the company an obligation that they seemed to lazy to undertake themselves. I'll explain. At every step of the supply line, you can look back at the supply line, but that line also runs forward by which I mean the customer is also part of the process and if they sell the product to another customer, like a used car, they are now part of the chain. So, if you don't like a company's manufacturing process, then don't buy its product or even better make yourself, the consumer legally responsible for the origin of the components. And, if your answer is that you don't know if the product is made with materials that make a profit for a group you think is morally repugnant, then think about that for just a second. If you don't know, and, thus, it is not fair for you to have to be accountable for your use, why is it fair to make a company accountable for where the people they buy from get their stuff? If you can't be bothered to go find out, why should you make them do it for you?
Oh I know; I know. It's because you are morally right and true and brave and wise and anointed and all that and that GIVES you the right to create laws like this. And it means that you have the right to use the government to impose your true and noble nature on everyone else when you can't get enough people voluntarily involved in your cause that they would cease to purchase the product based on their own sense of morality. Certainly, it would NEVER mean that if you can't get enough people to voluntarily boycott the product, it is because they don't care enough to find out if it is in the class of evil products or maybe even, gasp, disagree with you. No, you have to do what's best for them. Because you know it far better then they, the poor little things. Onward, Utopia! Huzzah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)