Educators and administrators who accept financial compensation for improving their school’s test performance should be ashamed.Back in the real world, improving a school's test performance means better education for those children. Apparently, that's a bad thing.
Mary Ogden Condeff
Santa Rosa, Calif., June 11, 2010
The writer has worked in special education in public schools.
Monday, June 21, 2010
What's wrong with public schools?
In a nutshell, this:
Friday, June 11, 2010
Don't run, fight
Rand Paul has been pilloried for stating a perfectly reasonable philosophy:
Trying to do good, or what we think of as good, at the expense of principles is injustice. For while blacks were the supposed beneficiaries of this act, the reality is that they too belong to the mass whose rights were violated. When they open a business, and choose whom to serve, the government can dictate those terms. Nothing was gained except the reduction of everyone's freedom.
From a political standpoint, trying to muzzle charges of racism is futile. You are conservative, therefore you are racist in the eyes of all liberals regardless of your actions. It's always a mistake to counter insanity with rational argument, and only a man of guilty conscience runs around pleading his innocence. You are not racist, no need to repeat it over and over. Address the issues, ignore the drama.
Attack their implicit beliefs; white people are inherently racist; had the civil rights act not been not passed, blacks would not have made any progress; without whites to do business with, blacks would fall on their face, blacks cannot stand on their own. The bottom line is that their position is offensive. This is not the soft bigotry of low expectations, but the depiction of a race of people as sub-human.
Liberals are inherently racist. They live in segregated and gated communities where they breathe white guilt. To diffuse their uncomfortableness with themselves, they level charges against everyone else.
The next time Rand Paul is asked whether private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. His answer should be an unequivocal yes. And then he should press the question: Do you believe that such a law is necessary today? And why is it necessary that with people like you in positions of power, when progressives have power at every level of government and private business, that such a law is necessary? Are you a racist?
And if it sounds harsh, asking someone point blank if they are a racist, understand that that's exactly what they are asking you.
Private individuals have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they want. Government does not.There is absolutely nothing objectionable in this statement. Freedom of association means the freedom not to associate. What the hub-bub is about has to do with the fact that that government overstepped its bounds by forcing private businesses to engage in commerce it didn't want to. The civil rights act prevented private businesses from discriminating against blacks. The government was wrong.
Trying to do good, or what we think of as good, at the expense of principles is injustice. For while blacks were the supposed beneficiaries of this act, the reality is that they too belong to the mass whose rights were violated. When they open a business, and choose whom to serve, the government can dictate those terms. Nothing was gained except the reduction of everyone's freedom.
From a political standpoint, trying to muzzle charges of racism is futile. You are conservative, therefore you are racist in the eyes of all liberals regardless of your actions. It's always a mistake to counter insanity with rational argument, and only a man of guilty conscience runs around pleading his innocence. You are not racist, no need to repeat it over and over. Address the issues, ignore the drama.
Attack their implicit beliefs; white people are inherently racist; had the civil rights act not been not passed, blacks would not have made any progress; without whites to do business with, blacks would fall on their face, blacks cannot stand on their own. The bottom line is that their position is offensive. This is not the soft bigotry of low expectations, but the depiction of a race of people as sub-human.
Liberals are inherently racist. They live in segregated and gated communities where they breathe white guilt. To diffuse their uncomfortableness with themselves, they level charges against everyone else.
The next time Rand Paul is asked whether private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. His answer should be an unequivocal yes. And then he should press the question: Do you believe that such a law is necessary today? And why is it necessary that with people like you in positions of power, when progressives have power at every level of government and private business, that such a law is necessary? Are you a racist?
And if it sounds harsh, asking someone point blank if they are a racist, understand that that's exactly what they are asking you.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Leaving - Idealism versus Reality
I saw this independent movie called "Leaving" and the implicit subtext was fascinating. Here's the story in a nutshell: Housewife falls in love with another man; leaves husband to pursue true love; husband objects and makes new life impossible; goes back to husband; shoots husband; Fin.
If that synopsis doesn't whet your appetite, maybe this will. The movie is really about the notion that normal life is unbearable. It's a liberal shot across the bow declaring the terribleness of a content life and raising the unreasonable expectation that life is always a bowl of cherries.
What I find most interesting is that this idealized version of life was not intended; the movie was intended as a love story or some other nonsense, but the director couldn't hide his true feelings. They come out in every scene and they are loud and clear to anyone listening.
Initially, the wife doesn't seem discontented with her life. She has a successful husband who apparently cares about her, and kids who love her. While redesigning her home, she meets Ivan but there is little hint of potential romance. As a result of an (contrived) accident, the wife and Ivan must spend time together to see his daughter in Spain. It's on that trip that she "falls" for him and realizes just how much life she is missing. Why she loves this man is somewhat of a mystery, other than a song he sings to her, there is little to suggest that they are truly compatible. Nonetheless, the sex is fantastic and she can't get enough. She's made the decision, her husband and her former life must go.
Life with Ivan is depicted as continual bliss, every action connotes their eternal true love. But would life with Ivan really be so wonderful? Would the magic last forever? Isn't it possible, that over time, Ivan would become like her husband? After all, Ivan had a daughter with a woman who does not want to be with him? Perhaps he has a few flaws, perhaps they would eventually come out? But that would be three dimensional, real.
In fact, the husband is depicted as the only obstacle to their Eden. It's his actions which prevent Ivan and the wife from being together. The implication could not be more clear, eternal bliss is possible if it weren't for the man keeping the wife down.
I would love to make a movie called "Meeting" where the wife and husband first meet. It could show how they were in love, and how their love and infatuation was going to last forever. Instead of shooting her husband, she could have stayed with Ivan. That ending would be more tragic; life with Ivan would become real, just like the one she left.
If that synopsis doesn't whet your appetite, maybe this will. The movie is really about the notion that normal life is unbearable. It's a liberal shot across the bow declaring the terribleness of a content life and raising the unreasonable expectation that life is always a bowl of cherries.
What I find most interesting is that this idealized version of life was not intended; the movie was intended as a love story or some other nonsense, but the director couldn't hide his true feelings. They come out in every scene and they are loud and clear to anyone listening.
Initially, the wife doesn't seem discontented with her life. She has a successful husband who apparently cares about her, and kids who love her. While redesigning her home, she meets Ivan but there is little hint of potential romance. As a result of an (contrived) accident, the wife and Ivan must spend time together to see his daughter in Spain. It's on that trip that she "falls" for him and realizes just how much life she is missing. Why she loves this man is somewhat of a mystery, other than a song he sings to her, there is little to suggest that they are truly compatible. Nonetheless, the sex is fantastic and she can't get enough. She's made the decision, her husband and her former life must go.
Life with Ivan is depicted as continual bliss, every action connotes their eternal true love. But would life with Ivan really be so wonderful? Would the magic last forever? Isn't it possible, that over time, Ivan would become like her husband? After all, Ivan had a daughter with a woman who does not want to be with him? Perhaps he has a few flaws, perhaps they would eventually come out? But that would be three dimensional, real.
In fact, the husband is depicted as the only obstacle to their Eden. It's his actions which prevent Ivan and the wife from being together. The implication could not be more clear, eternal bliss is possible if it weren't for the man keeping the wife down.
I would love to make a movie called "Meeting" where the wife and husband first meet. It could show how they were in love, and how their love and infatuation was going to last forever. Instead of shooting her husband, she could have stayed with Ivan. That ending would be more tragic; life with Ivan would become real, just like the one she left.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Paintball kills people
As a jew I really dislike my people. They are extremely smart on average, yet they are ridiculously stupid when it comes to common sense. Hence, they are liberals and their liberalism is going to get them killed.
First, bullies don't respect weakness and nuance, they respect strength. This isn't rocket science, it's common sense. Most people secretly want to impose their will on others, most don't because they don't want their ass kicked. If they think you are going to kick their ass (or at least make a fight unpleasant enough), they won't f*** with you.
But only liberal jews board a flotilla with PAINTBALL guns. What the f*** were they thinking? They were trying to be nuanced and respectful to people whose entire purpose was to be blunt and disrespectful. Nine people got killed because they weren't scared, because they saw paintball guns and thought they could be a bad ass and attack the commandos. I bet had the Israeli's had real guns, pointed directly at the protesters heads, and the protesters knew it, their bad assness would have gone away. How many of those nine would have done what they did if they knew that was their last day on earth. I'm betting less than nine.
All nuance and proportional force does is make it less costly for your enemies to continue to fight and in the long run, there will be more conflict and more death because of it. You want to prevent violence, you want peace, then you have to kick some serious ass. Unfortunately the Israeli's are a bunch of liberal jews and they are going to get themselves (and others) killed.
First, bullies don't respect weakness and nuance, they respect strength. This isn't rocket science, it's common sense. Most people secretly want to impose their will on others, most don't because they don't want their ass kicked. If they think you are going to kick their ass (or at least make a fight unpleasant enough), they won't f*** with you.
But only liberal jews board a flotilla with PAINTBALL guns. What the f*** were they thinking? They were trying to be nuanced and respectful to people whose entire purpose was to be blunt and disrespectful. Nine people got killed because they weren't scared, because they saw paintball guns and thought they could be a bad ass and attack the commandos. I bet had the Israeli's had real guns, pointed directly at the protesters heads, and the protesters knew it, their bad assness would have gone away. How many of those nine would have done what they did if they knew that was their last day on earth. I'm betting less than nine.
All nuance and proportional force does is make it less costly for your enemies to continue to fight and in the long run, there will be more conflict and more death because of it. You want to prevent violence, you want peace, then you have to kick some serious ass. Unfortunately the Israeli's are a bunch of liberal jews and they are going to get themselves (and others) killed.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Random rant
When the government can force you to buy insurance and penalize you when you don't, what can't it make you do? There are no hard and fast limits any more, our law is no longer founded on any principles, the constitution is meaningless, and government will do what it deems is best for you. Get used to it and get your bribe money handy.
On a brighter note, part of me is happy about all this. Sometimes it can be fun to watch the world burn, especially by its own doing.
In other news...
Democratic ads claim Republican opponents want to raise your taxes. The attacks by Democrat Mark Critz are blatantly false. Yes, his opponent is in favor of raising income taxes, to OFFSET other taxes, leaving on net everything UNCHANGED. To claim his opponent is for raising taxes is a blatant misrepresentation and an outright lie. Not surprisingly, when I was in Texas I saw the exact same attack by a democrat against another republican.
Speaking of liars...
Obama and the liberals' health care plan is the biggest of them all but conservatives ought to be careful in their line of attack. Saying we can't afford another entitlement as the justification for rejecting Obamacare implies that if we could afford it, it would be OK. Here's a better line of attack:
On a brighter note, part of me is happy about all this. Sometimes it can be fun to watch the world burn, especially by its own doing.
In other news...
Democratic ads claim Republican opponents want to raise your taxes. The attacks by Democrat Mark Critz are blatantly false. Yes, his opponent is in favor of raising income taxes, to OFFSET other taxes, leaving on net everything UNCHANGED. To claim his opponent is for raising taxes is a blatant misrepresentation and an outright lie. Not surprisingly, when I was in Texas I saw the exact same attack by a democrat against another republican.
Speaking of liars...
Obama and the liberals' health care plan is the biggest of them all but conservatives ought to be careful in their line of attack. Saying we can't afford another entitlement as the justification for rejecting Obamacare implies that if we could afford it, it would be OK. Here's a better line of attack:
Only charlatans and liars need 2,700 words to tell the truth. Learn how to save your health care at: www.newliberaldemocrat.blogspot.com
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Taxes aren't so bad after all?
Here is a fascinating letter to the editor from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
The assumption in this letter is that employing people is some sort of public service, it is not. The only reason businesses hire anyone is to profit off of their labor, and taxing that profit is a sure fire way to guarantee less job creation.
Tax hike plan reflective of taxable incomeThe letter is completely correct in the technical sense but if you read carefully, you'll realize that what he is really saying doesn't make any common sense. Taxes on small business profits (or as this person calls them - taxable income) is indeed no different than taxes on a wage earner. In fact, a wage earner is nothing more than a very small business owner with 1 employee, selling his product - labor - for a profit. What would happen if you confiscated his profits? He would work less of course.
As a tax preparer, I am compelled to correct a common misconception held by state politicians, by a May 12 letter writer and now by the Wall Street Journal ("Democrats always want higher taxes," Opinion Exchange, May 13).
The misconception is usually a variation of this thought: "It would be unwise to raise taxes on incomes over $200,000 because that would include most farmers and small businesses. Because small business creates most jobs, to raise their taxes would be a jobs killer."
Taxpayers do not pay taxes on their income. Taxes are paid on taxable income, or income after tax deductions. A small business may have income of $500,000, but taxable income of less than $75,000. By the time a small business arrives at taxable income, it has already taken deductions for all business expenses, which include employee wages and all payroll expenses. If a small business has a taxable income of more than $200,000, that taxable income is no different from that of a wage-earner employee who has a taxable income above $200,000. By the time a small-business taxpayer arrives at taxable income, he or she has already hired (and will receive a tax deduction for) every employee needed. To reduce taxes at this point will neither encourage nor discourage small businesses to hire additional employees.
There is no rational explanation why a small-business owner should pay a lower tax rate on taxable income than a wage earner or investor or any other taxable income earner.
JOHN DEITERING, HOWARD LAKE, MINN.
The assumption in this letter is that employing people is some sort of public service, it is not. The only reason businesses hire anyone is to profit off of their labor, and taxing that profit is a sure fire way to guarantee less job creation.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Your employer wants to pay you more!
There are issues, many of them, which are winners for our side. Not only winners, but no person in good conscience (even liberals) could truly be against them. They are intuitively good and they happen to support our cause. These are the issues we should advocate. These are the issues we should bludgeon our opponents with. And these issues will make a difference.
Payroll taxes. Every day, as loud as we can, we should advocate changing Federal law so that an employer cannot pay taxes on an employees behalf. We are for transparency and we think people should be aware of how much they are actually paying in taxes. Currently, Social Security and Medicare (known as FICA) taxes are withheld from your pay at a rate of 6.2% and 1.45% respectively. This is a lie. Let me repeat, THIS IS A LIE and anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is a liar and should be labeled as such. The real figure everyone pays in taxes (except ironically the very rich) is 12.4% in Social Security and 2.9% in Medicare for a total of 15.3%. This applies to anyone who works for a living no matter how small their paycheck is.
Why the deception? Because if you never see the money taken from you, you won't protest. It's just that simple. Government wants your money and they don't want to ask you, more importantly, they don't want you asking questions. So they have your employer give them your money without your knowledge. This is immoral and no one should support it. If the government wants your money then they should at least have the decency to ask you for it. That's a winning argument for us and every working person in this country.
Payroll taxes. Every day, as loud as we can, we should advocate changing Federal law so that an employer cannot pay taxes on an employees behalf. We are for transparency and we think people should be aware of how much they are actually paying in taxes. Currently, Social Security and Medicare (known as FICA) taxes are withheld from your pay at a rate of 6.2% and 1.45% respectively. This is a lie. Let me repeat, THIS IS A LIE and anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is a liar and should be labeled as such. The real figure everyone pays in taxes (except ironically the very rich) is 12.4% in Social Security and 2.9% in Medicare for a total of 15.3%. This applies to anyone who works for a living no matter how small their paycheck is.
Why the deception? Because if you never see the money taken from you, you won't protest. It's just that simple. Government wants your money and they don't want to ask you, more importantly, they don't want you asking questions. So they have your employer give them your money without your knowledge. This is immoral and no one should support it. If the government wants your money then they should at least have the decency to ask you for it. That's a winning argument for us and every working person in this country.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Liars
Transparency:
I am for transparency, I am for the truth, and I oppose anyone, for any purpose who proposes schemes designed to mislead people, to trick them into believing something that isn't true. Liberals are lying to you, plain and simple and we need to call them liars at every opportunity. Exposing hypocrisy is not enough, pointing out logical flaws in their arguments is not enough; these tactics presume your opponents aren't deliberately lying to achieve their aims: they are.
When your opponent fights dirty, you call them out. You tell the truth about what their plan will do and that they KNOW it. You call them the liars they are and let the public decide. They will make the right choice.
- a : free from pretense or deceit : frank
- b : easily detected or seen through : obvious
- c : readily understood
- d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices
I am for transparency, I am for the truth, and I oppose anyone, for any purpose who proposes schemes designed to mislead people, to trick them into believing something that isn't true. Liberals are lying to you, plain and simple and we need to call them liars at every opportunity. Exposing hypocrisy is not enough, pointing out logical flaws in their arguments is not enough; these tactics presume your opponents aren't deliberately lying to achieve their aims: they are.
When your opponent fights dirty, you call them out. You tell the truth about what their plan will do and that they KNOW it. You call them the liars they are and let the public decide. They will make the right choice.
Monday, May 3, 2010
We know prosperity
I read somewhere that high unemployment is here to stay and I couldn't help but think just how startling and scary that is. I was born in 1977 and throughout my short life I haven't really seen an economic climate as bad as this one. I know there have been worse, the Great Depression, Stagflation of the 1970's, and I am sure others, but to experience this is surreal. I am lucky that I have a job and I don't do well, but I get by. However, 9.7% unemployment is substantial and all I hear is pessimism coming from all sides. It doesn't have to be that way and I think a moment of optimism is in order.
First, to borrow from Rahm Emanuel, let's not let a crisis go to waste. The simple reality is that limited government conservatives and libertarians know the path to prosperity and it's not difficult. Reduce government spending, simplify and reduce the tax code, and stop f*cking with monetary policy and all will be well. Not only will we be well, we will be even richer than we are today and we will unleash a firestorm of future prosperity. It's that simple, the dynamism of the private sector can overcome anything as long as it is allowed to. Conservatives should not sit idly by and allow liberals to escape their fiscal incompetence. They don't know how to create prosperity, they know how to squander it. We know prosperity and let it be our rallying cry this November.
First, to borrow from Rahm Emanuel, let's not let a crisis go to waste. The simple reality is that limited government conservatives and libertarians know the path to prosperity and it's not difficult. Reduce government spending, simplify and reduce the tax code, and stop f*cking with monetary policy and all will be well. Not only will we be well, we will be even richer than we are today and we will unleash a firestorm of future prosperity. It's that simple, the dynamism of the private sector can overcome anything as long as it is allowed to. Conservatives should not sit idly by and allow liberals to escape their fiscal incompetence. They don't know how to create prosperity, they know how to squander it. We know prosperity and let it be our rallying cry this November.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Sinners into saints
I was listening to Rush and he made a great point which I have to pass along. He was talking about the hypocrisy of liberals (no surprise there) and referring to the current treatment of Goldman Sachs employees and how they are portrayed as greedy, selfish, villainous thieves robbing this country blind. Then he openly wondered why it's the case that when these people go from working at Goldman Sachs to working for the government, the very same people are instantly transformed into selfless saints working for the public good, protecting us from the villainous thieves. Good point. For the record, former Goldman employees:
Jon Corzine - Chairman and CEO, Democratic Governor of New Jersey
Henry Paulson - Chairman and CEO, United States Treasury Secretary under Obama
Robert Rubin - 26 years at Goldman Sachs, member of the board and served as Co-chairman, United States Treasury Secretary under Clinton
Jon Corzine - Chairman and CEO, Democratic Governor of New Jersey
Henry Paulson - Chairman and CEO, United States Treasury Secretary under Obama
Robert Rubin - 26 years at Goldman Sachs, member of the board and served as Co-chairman, United States Treasury Secretary under Clinton
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The tax man is coming
The one saving grace of the income tax is that there is a natural counterweight to excessive taxation. The more progressive the tax rate, the more you penalize the productive, the so called "rich", the more incentive you give these people to just stay home.
As a result, a progressive income tax is a very poor way to collect revenue. The marginal income which is taxed the most is also the very same income which can be most easily forgone. What's the difference really between $400,000 and $500,000, or better yet $1,000,000 and $1,100,000? People who earn these wages place a lower value on each marginal dollar and this means that they are more willing than most to give that dollar up, especially when the government takes a bigger and bigger bite out of it.
In order for government to raise a lot more revenue, it cannot do it by taxing those who are easily able to live on less (because they will); government must dip into the pockets of those who really need those dollars and cannot afford to just stay home (also known as the middle class). Excessive government spending means excessive taxes and anyone who thinks only the rich will finance it are sorely mistaken.
As a result, a progressive income tax is a very poor way to collect revenue. The marginal income which is taxed the most is also the very same income which can be most easily forgone. What's the difference really between $400,000 and $500,000, or better yet $1,000,000 and $1,100,000? People who earn these wages place a lower value on each marginal dollar and this means that they are more willing than most to give that dollar up, especially when the government takes a bigger and bigger bite out of it.
In order for government to raise a lot more revenue, it cannot do it by taxing those who are easily able to live on less (because they will); government must dip into the pockets of those who really need those dollars and cannot afford to just stay home (also known as the middle class). Excessive government spending means excessive taxes and anyone who thinks only the rich will finance it are sorely mistaken.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
It's the environment stupid!
One thing striking to me, is that as society progresses we become more and more liberal. Attitudes which would have once been thought unthinkable are now accepted without batting an eye. Tea Party protests aside (and those are in reality very minor), no one is seriously arguing for the dismantling of the welfare state. From its far left perch, the press paints the continuation of the status quo as a vast right wing conspiracy, likening the pausing of the liberal agenda to the reinstatement of Jim Crow. Regardless, the evidence is clear, we are and have been moving leftward and my question is why?
The reason is not reason, logic, or argumentation. Liberalism, it is widely acknowledged, ran out of ideas long ago and what can only be described as twisted irony, the only place it wants to progress is to the 1930's. Liberalism is triumphing because our environment gives rise to liberalism. The free market has succeeded in reducing the cost of liberalism, making it plausible for health care to be a "right", and giving credence to the ridiculous idea that not all work is "dignified".
Each and every one of us came to our beliefs not by rational choice nor deliberation, but because of our nature and the environment which surrounds us. Reason and deliberation came after we already thought the way we do and when we found others whose logic and reason was compelling, we embraced them because they confirmed our existing beliefs. We never needed convincing.
The danger of the welfare state is not that it takes unfairly from some to give to undeserving others. The danger is that the welfare state creates an environment which degrades everyone through perverse incentives. Incentives which degrade work and self reliance as "undignified", implying that living parasitically off your fellow man is dignified.
Altering the current situation requires convincing your fellow man to change, and I argue this cannot be done through logic and reason because you were not convinced through logic and reason. The only successful strategy is to change his environment, to change his incentives, thereby causing him to convince himself.
The reason is not reason, logic, or argumentation. Liberalism, it is widely acknowledged, ran out of ideas long ago and what can only be described as twisted irony, the only place it wants to progress is to the 1930's. Liberalism is triumphing because our environment gives rise to liberalism. The free market has succeeded in reducing the cost of liberalism, making it plausible for health care to be a "right", and giving credence to the ridiculous idea that not all work is "dignified".
Each and every one of us came to our beliefs not by rational choice nor deliberation, but because of our nature and the environment which surrounds us. Reason and deliberation came after we already thought the way we do and when we found others whose logic and reason was compelling, we embraced them because they confirmed our existing beliefs. We never needed convincing.
The danger of the welfare state is not that it takes unfairly from some to give to undeserving others. The danger is that the welfare state creates an environment which degrades everyone through perverse incentives. Incentives which degrade work and self reliance as "undignified", implying that living parasitically off your fellow man is dignified.
Altering the current situation requires convincing your fellow man to change, and I argue this cannot be done through logic and reason because you were not convinced through logic and reason. The only successful strategy is to change his environment, to change his incentives, thereby causing him to convince himself.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Principles or progress?
I think school vouchers are a wonderful idea. Parents, on behalf of their children, ought to be able to send their kids to the school of their choice. This simple act introduces competition into public education, and allows children to escape failing schools. There's a catch however, not all children have loving parents, and some of those parents won't do what's best for their children. These kids will be left behind and that's unfortunate.
What's more unfortunate, is that many of us would sacrifice a better educational system because it doesn't aspire to perfection. Because there are children, who we acknowledge will be left behind, the system is unacceptable. Is it rational to sacrifice a better educational system because it isn't perfect? Of course not, no system will ever be perfect and it's a sad reality that the current system fails too many.
When I talk to fellow liberty minded individuals, they often play into the same fallacy. While I advance school vouchers, their ideal is the federal governments complete retreat from education. To them, the federal government has no business involving itself in your child's education and any involvement is a violation of your liberty. You know what, they may be right, but being right is not all it's cracked up to be.
We don't live in an ideal state, we live in the present, imperfections and all. And in my mind the only judge of progress is whether tomorrow is closer to our ideal than today. Don't let rigid adherence to idealistic principles blind you to a better tomorrow.
What's more unfortunate, is that many of us would sacrifice a better educational system because it doesn't aspire to perfection. Because there are children, who we acknowledge will be left behind, the system is unacceptable. Is it rational to sacrifice a better educational system because it isn't perfect? Of course not, no system will ever be perfect and it's a sad reality that the current system fails too many.
When I talk to fellow liberty minded individuals, they often play into the same fallacy. While I advance school vouchers, their ideal is the federal governments complete retreat from education. To them, the federal government has no business involving itself in your child's education and any involvement is a violation of your liberty. You know what, they may be right, but being right is not all it's cracked up to be.
We don't live in an ideal state, we live in the present, imperfections and all. And in my mind the only judge of progress is whether tomorrow is closer to our ideal than today. Don't let rigid adherence to idealistic principles blind you to a better tomorrow.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Words Matter
We all know the New York Times is nuts, but what is most enlightening about this article are the words used to frame the issue. If you ever had a doubt about liberal bias and how the way something is described indicates that bias, this article is case and point (emphasis mine):
And of course Bush (and conservatives in general) are "fiercely" against any sort of regulation. Didn't you know that eight year olds were working 70 hours a week in the evil reign of Bush? Thank g-d Obama changed all that and brought hope to undocumented toddlers everywhere.
But more striking is that without an once of irony, they cite the laws of this country while implicitly advocating the flouting of our laws. I don't believe in the exploitation of people either, but maybe these people wouldn't be exploited if they didn't live in the shadows because they were here illegally. Just a thought.
Oh, and those "unscrupulous" employers, the ones who provide legitimate work for these "undocumented" workers, the same work which entices people to break our laws, leave their loved ones, and risk everything for a better life, pure evil I tell you. But if you don't believe me, just do a little math and figure the outrageously low wage they are paying: $339/40hrs = $8.47/hr, and the minimum wage: $7.25/hr.
The Department of Labor has begun a long-overdue campaign to protect workers’ rights, a core part of its job that was sorely neglected in the fiercely antiregulatory Bush era...Does it even need to be said that undocumented=illegal. Why it isn't said is because the New York Times supports illegal immigration and they are afraid that by describing these workers as what they are, this might actually put some people off.
...
The workers — many undocumented immigrants — told of employers who ignored the minimum wage, denied overtime, illegally docked their pay for the cost of tools or transportation, or forced them to work without pay before or after their shifts. More than a quarter had been paid less than the minimum wage, often by more than $1 an hour. Violations typically robbed workers of $51 a week, from an average paycheck of $339.
The new campaign rightly points out that all workers, including the undocumented, deserve to be paid for their labor. These are truths too often forgotten. If you work in this country, you are protected by its laws. And if unscrupulous employers can exploit the most vulnerable employees, no workers are safe....
And of course Bush (and conservatives in general) are "fiercely" against any sort of regulation. Didn't you know that eight year olds were working 70 hours a week in the evil reign of Bush? Thank g-d Obama changed all that and brought hope to undocumented toddlers everywhere.
But more striking is that without an once of irony, they cite the laws of this country while implicitly advocating the flouting of our laws. I don't believe in the exploitation of people either, but maybe these people wouldn't be exploited if they didn't live in the shadows because they were here illegally. Just a thought.
Oh, and those "unscrupulous" employers, the ones who provide legitimate work for these "undocumented" workers, the same work which entices people to break our laws, leave their loved ones, and risk everything for a better life, pure evil I tell you. But if you don't believe me, just do a little math and figure the outrageously low wage they are paying: $339/40hrs = $8.47/hr, and the minimum wage: $7.25/hr.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Who's against a little liberty
Why do liberals insist that the entire country, every single American, adopt their version of health care reform? It just seems odd that liberals would not, no could not, be satisfied with socialized medicine in Massachusetts, California, New York, or any other number of liberal bastions. Why can't there be one, ONE state without socialized medicine?
What about education? Why is the federal government involved in education at all? Is not each state capable of educating its citizens? And if the state fails at that task, then cannot the parents move to another state, one better for their children?
What about social security? Social security takes from one set of tax payers (the young) and gives to another (the old). Is a state not capable of this miraculous feat?
What about welfare? Again we take from one set of citizens (the "rich") and give to another (the poor). Are you telling me that only the Federal government can do this? Californians are too stupid?
There is no reason these things must be done at the federal level. The only reason is that if done at the state level, people just might choose not to participate, and that's the real sin. The real sin is giving up control over other people's lives.
I have heard from my liberal friends that if we do things at the state level, then people may be "stuck" and cannot afford to leave. Perhaps the local school is bad, we can't let people stay in that situation, we must impose federal standards and bring them up to par. This is a valid concern, but it weighs a hypothetical concern with a stark reality: you are forcing your views on unwilling people. That immediate immorality doesn't seem to stack up with their hypothetical immorality.
Here's my proposal. Let's move more functions to the state. Functions which in essence take money from one group and give to another don't require the federal Leviathan. And if there are people who wish to move but can't, then let's give them the money to move.
So I ask anyone, liberals included, why can't we adopt a proposal like this? All I'm asking for is just a little bit of liberty and moving costs.
What about education? Why is the federal government involved in education at all? Is not each state capable of educating its citizens? And if the state fails at that task, then cannot the parents move to another state, one better for their children?
What about social security? Social security takes from one set of tax payers (the young) and gives to another (the old). Is a state not capable of this miraculous feat?
What about welfare? Again we take from one set of citizens (the "rich") and give to another (the poor). Are you telling me that only the Federal government can do this? Californians are too stupid?
There is no reason these things must be done at the federal level. The only reason is that if done at the state level, people just might choose not to participate, and that's the real sin. The real sin is giving up control over other people's lives.
I have heard from my liberal friends that if we do things at the state level, then people may be "stuck" and cannot afford to leave. Perhaps the local school is bad, we can't let people stay in that situation, we must impose federal standards and bring them up to par. This is a valid concern, but it weighs a hypothetical concern with a stark reality: you are forcing your views on unwilling people. That immediate immorality doesn't seem to stack up with their hypothetical immorality.
Here's my proposal. Let's move more functions to the state. Functions which in essence take money from one group and give to another don't require the federal Leviathan. And if there are people who wish to move but can't, then let's give them the money to move.
So I ask anyone, liberals included, why can't we adopt a proposal like this? All I'm asking for is just a little bit of liberty and moving costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
