“Imagine education wholly managed by the market economy. The variety! The choice! The innovation! All the features we’ve come to expect in so many areas of life — groceries, software, clothing, music — would also pertain to education. But as it is, the market for education is hobbled, truncated, frozen and regimented, and tragically, we’ve all gotten used to it.”
Read more: Is School Like Jail? http://dailyreckoning.com/is-school-like-jail/#ixzz1poIzOTqy
Comments Off
Filed under Education
Re: Here’s an idea for rich school reformers: Listen to teachers, The News Tribune, 3-11-12
Patricia Drake is certainly correct in her summary statement that “We can do better”. Other than that, there are several issues with the positions she takes in her article.
Siding with the Washington Education Association (WEA) President Mary Lindquist against Nick Hanauer, the “millionaire… theorizing from behind locked doors of high-rise buildings”, Mrs. Drake seeks to dismiss his reform agenda as inferior to her 44 years as an educator. She bemoans the fact that she has no voice when compared to the millionaire, and yet, if education reform were going to come from the WEA and the over 53,000 teachers they represent, and the millions of dollars they have to spend from teacher’s union dues on influencing public policy, shouldn’t it have happened by now? They’ve certainly had enough time!
Mrs. Drake then asserts that we need to become like the Euro-socialist Finland, a country the size of Montana with about 1.6% of the population of the U.S. I suspect something will be lost in translation when attempting to transform our system into theirs. I could be wrong.
Mrs. Drake then goes on to point out the school principal as the next most influential factor, and their need to build a more “positive” environment. Then it’s “administrative support”, then it’s “workplace conditions”, then it’s the cost of “standardized tests”. Sounds like the usual laundry list of union complaints. “We can do better”, but there’s really nothing new there. I’d use the word “innovative”, but every time a bureaucrat sneezes, it’s proclaimed “innovative”.
Mr. Hanauer’s reform agenda, while far from innovative, is certainly better than anything coming out of Olympia. I would like to suggest that the WEA, Washington State legislators, teachers, and civic leaders look up the word “innovate”. To quote a famous movie line, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Comments Off
Filed under News and politics
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. – Joseph Sobran
Comments Off
Filed under Quotes
The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are. – H.L Mencken
Comments Off
Filed under Quotes
photo by Peter Kaminsky
If you’re new here, you should probably read my biography just to give you a better sense of who I am. In short: I do a lot of stuff. I’m curious. I love learning. I take risks. I speak my mind. I dare.
The risks I take are reinforced by a belief that I owe it to myself to at least try.
Comments Off
Filed under Uncategorized
Image via Wikipedia
Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn’t invest their money. As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going.
Next thing you know, Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail. Some of you know this. but not enough of you.
Madoff did to his investors what the Congress has been doing to us for over 70 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.
Do you need a side-by-side comparison here? Well here’s a nifty little table:
|
BERNIE MADOFF |
|
|
Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later. |
Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a “Trust Fund” and made available later. |
|
Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in theHamptons and yachts. |
Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying. |
|
When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors. |
When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers. |
|
When Madoff’s scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won’t give him any more cash. |
When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them some more. |
|
Bernie Madoff is in jail. |
Politicians remain in Washington. |
“The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.” - Ronald Reagan
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five
years there’d be a shortage of sand.” Milton Friedman
PASS THIS ON
AND REMEMBER THAT AS ABORTION CONTINUES, SO CONTINUES THE EVER SHRINKING TAX BASE. EVEN IF YOU DON’T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE RELIGEOUS ASPECTS OF THIS ISSUE (WHICH YOU SHOULD), IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THESE TERMS AT THE VERY LEAST…
Comments Off
Filed under Economics, News and politics
(This message thread was spawned by a question posted on Analytic News back in April ‘09.)
Brad:
NO. Farming aborted humans is evil.
Stephen: Response to Brad, 04-21 @ 10:06 PM:
What about IVF embryos being disposed of, which is where most of them come from?
Brad: Response to Stephen, 04-21 @ 10:21 PM:
"…embryonic stem cell research is not–and never has been–about getting some use out of leftover IVF embryos that are due to be destroyed anyway. See: here and here
Anna: Response to Brad, 04-28 @ 05:29 PM:
I am not trying to be crude but seriously are you against sex for no reason? Do you only support sex if it is to create a child? Are you against birth control? I think those are important questions because otherwise I don’t see at all where you are coming from but I think Stephan states my exact argument.
Brad: Response to Anna, 04-29 @ 03:51 PM:
Anna, this question seems a bit out of left field. Are you making some kind of connection between the destruction of human embryos used in scientific experiments with sex for pleasure? I don’t get it.
Anna: Response to Brad, 04-30 @ 03:04 PM:
My point is that the embryos used for IVF don’t all get used and are often tossed out. So the only way I can understand not supporting using those embryos for tests since they won’t be used to make children no matter what happens is if you are against IVF. If you are against IVF then I would think you would be against sex for pleasure. Does that make sense? I am just wondering how you can be against research on embryos that are thrown away or not used. I would think that if you were really prolife you would support putting use to those embryos so their "lives" (of whatever you want to call it) weren’t for nothing.
Brad: Response to Anna, 05-02 @ 02:22 PM:
I never said I was against IVF. I’m against creating multiple embryos then using them in experimentation:
" …The research contradicts the widely-held view that implanting multiple embryos during in-vitro fertilization (IVF) is more cost-effective, and improves a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant. "At a time when there is an intense debate in many countries about how to reduce multiple pregnancy rates and provide affordable fertility treatment, policy makers should be made aware of our results," said the study’s lead researcher Hannu Martikainen of the University of Oulu in Finland. "These data should also encourage clinics to evaluate their embryo transfer policy and adopt elective single embryo transfer as their everyday practice for women younger than 40," she said in a statement…
The study, published by the reproductive medicine journal Human Reproduction, found that the live birth rate was five percent higher for women who had only one embryo implanted at a time."
Another reason:
Just like using food for fuel, once you start using humans (at whatever stage of gestation) as raw material the unintended consequences are huge. Moral relativism sets in, and eventually you can justify any "practical" application. One can sacrifice anything if it’s done in the name of the "greater good", or just your own selfish ambitions.
One example of a "practical" application: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918296.stm
Comments Off
Filed under Health and wellness
Libertarian Christians
Liberty Classroom