Wow! Where has the work ethic of this Nation gone? On this upcoming Thursday's national day of prayer and thanksgiving, the employed seem neither prayerful nor thankful for their plight.
From just watching and reading the national news we see petition drives against employers for opening their stores on the dates and at the times buyers are most ready to spend. One such report, from the Associated Press, and printed in the Idaho Statesman tells the story, with incredible quotes from "working" people. See (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/11/16/1881376/workers-push-back-against-earlier.html)
Evidently a non-thankful part-time Target employee, Anthony Hardwick, slated to work at 11:00 p.m. on Thursday started a poor me petition on the Internet railing against Target's late night work plans, and has been gaining signatures. He simply cannot get enough turkey and family time, and his beauty rest, and be ready for the heady work of corralling carts with the vicious schedule put forth by Target.
While Black Friday shopping is not a new tradition, retailers are listening to customers and continually tweaking their hours for buyer convenience. And "earth to Hardwick," buyer convenience is one of the keys to successful retail operations.
In fact, according to Target, customers have said they would rather have their big meal, and then head out and shop late at night, rather than get up at 3:00 a.m. to fight the good shopping fight. It also stands to reason that for those needing babysitting services the late night time frame is far more friendly than early a.m.
Yet the argument is there - Target is big business and big business is evil. A signer of Hardwick's petition, fellow Target employee John Stankus complains about missing the day with family in order to "get enough sleep before starting work around 11 p.m." Continuing that "I'll just get the crumbs (his family) leaves behind...I won't get any turkey at all."
I feel his pain. Yet from the outside it almost seems Stankus has a "stinkus" family that would eat all of the good stuff and no one would think nor care to set aside a plate for poor John. Maybe employment is just not for him.
Others get it, though. Twenty-one year veteran Walmart employee Mary Huskey says hey, "Retail is retail." And if you want people to shop "we have to be there for them. I'm just thankful that I have a place to work..." Yes. And I am thankful this year for Ms. Huskey and her work ethic. Thank you.
My fear is that there is a generation problem leading to all this. Note that Huskey is a 21-year worker, while Stankus is 22 years-old. Not exactly scientific research - but noted just the same.
2011 has been a hard year on my family and our income has taken hits. Yet we soldier on. It is what we do in America. As a young boy I saw my dad always working two jobs. He had a regular 8-5 job, and then several nights a week and most weekends and holidays he hopped on a bus and rode to his part-time job. We planned dinners and holiday activities around when dad could be home from work. None of us dared complain about his work. Jobs were good.
I know many Americans still embrace that ethic, but stories like the one cited above are troubling. We just celebrated Veterans Day, and Hardwick, Stankus, and their ilk might think about troops in war zones not getting their sleep either, or time with family. And just maybe be thankful for their employment and families. I know my family and I will be.
God bless.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Idaho's Best Preschool is the Home
According to the Associated Press and Idaho Statesman, the state has decided it will not be tempted by federal dollars to put unsustainable preschool programs in our communities and further erode Idaho families. Millions of dollars were at stake in the U.S. Department of Education's "Race to the Top" contest, millions of federal dollars with the underlying purpose of intruding into states' educational responsibilities and creating a dependence on the federal government.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Luna, rightly said no thank you to the feds for the one-time funding opportunity.
It is always difficult to look education money in the eye and walk away. But this money was not for technology infrastructure, or AP science and math enhancements. It was for social programs that preceded Idaho's fine system of public schooling, and would truly become addictive once put into our financial and educational blood streams.
There are other issues too. First, there is a reason that "1st Grade" is called First Grade. It is the first, initial, beginning, original, foundational, at the start, before any other, start-up grade for a child to become a student and begin formal schooling. It is after all the "First" grade by name and by definition.
Of course children do not need to wait for first grade to begin learning. That is what older siblings are for, grandmothers, and yes, parents themselves. But it is a precious time, those years between birth and ages 5 or 6, when some will elect to attend Kindergarten programs, and most will then enter First Grade. I see it every day, with my 26 month-old grand baby. Oh my. She learns everyday. And yes, some from television, but much from her grandmother and parents. Sometimes I am useful, but I think I am more for her entertainment.
Regardless, small children are the responsibility of their parents and families, and Idaho's fine, free, public education kicks in with first grade, or kindergarten for some. Let the children play. Let them learn and grow with their families. They will certainly be in our schools soon enough, and eroding money off of our Constitutionally mandated education, for preschool would be unwise.
Make no mistake about it, the free federal money will leave and we would be expected to maintain programs that like an elixir endrunkened us to continuing expectation, we would be hooked on the convenience of non-familial responsibility, and one day cry with pains of withdrawal for more funding.
Better to just say no from the get go. Keep babies in their homes, or in day-care or with nannies or even private preschools for the wealthy - they will buy what they want anyway. No funding program will ever level the disparities between poor and wealthy. Our educators and legislature must keep its eye on our Constitutional charge and not be distracted by easy money from a desperate White House.
This was the right call by Idaho, and its educator-in-chief.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Luna, rightly said no thank you to the feds for the one-time funding opportunity.
It is always difficult to look education money in the eye and walk away. But this money was not for technology infrastructure, or AP science and math enhancements. It was for social programs that preceded Idaho's fine system of public schooling, and would truly become addictive once put into our financial and educational blood streams.
There are other issues too. First, there is a reason that "1st Grade" is called First Grade. It is the first, initial, beginning, original, foundational, at the start, before any other, start-up grade for a child to become a student and begin formal schooling. It is after all the "First" grade by name and by definition.
Of course children do not need to wait for first grade to begin learning. That is what older siblings are for, grandmothers, and yes, parents themselves. But it is a precious time, those years between birth and ages 5 or 6, when some will elect to attend Kindergarten programs, and most will then enter First Grade. I see it every day, with my 26 month-old grand baby. Oh my. She learns everyday. And yes, some from television, but much from her grandmother and parents. Sometimes I am useful, but I think I am more for her entertainment.
Regardless, small children are the responsibility of their parents and families, and Idaho's fine, free, public education kicks in with first grade, or kindergarten for some. Let the children play. Let them learn and grow with their families. They will certainly be in our schools soon enough, and eroding money off of our Constitutionally mandated education, for preschool would be unwise.
Make no mistake about it, the free federal money will leave and we would be expected to maintain programs that like an elixir endrunkened us to continuing expectation, we would be hooked on the convenience of non-familial responsibility, and one day cry with pains of withdrawal for more funding.
Better to just say no from the get go. Keep babies in their homes, or in day-care or with nannies or even private preschools for the wealthy - they will buy what they want anyway. No funding program will ever level the disparities between poor and wealthy. Our educators and legislature must keep its eye on our Constitutional charge and not be distracted by easy money from a desperate White House.
This was the right call by Idaho, and its educator-in-chief.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Idaho GOP finds proper balance in Education funding
[PROPER CREDIT: This column by the Blog author originally appeared in the Idaho Statesman - September 6, 2011]
Larry Grant recently wrote (Idaho Statesman - 8/21/2011) about paying a “Republican-imposed ‘Family Tax,’” referring to student and activity fees for his grandson as he registered him in one of Idaho Tom Luna , and Republicans in general for the costs of non-essentials in our state’s schooling. Grant simply does not understand the purpose of public education.
Throughout the World’s history it was the sons and daughters (sons primarily) of the aristocracy who were given the benefit of education. They learned to read and write, and studied history and government, literature, science and mathematics. They had to, for as the reigning heirs they one day would govern and must be prepared.
In this country a great and bold experiment was put forth by our Founders – the common man was the heir to power in a government by the people. The common child could grow up to become President, as evidenced by William Jefferson Clinton, of Arkansas
Thus our common or public schools were born. To prepare the sons and daughters of our aristocracy of commoners as no other nation before, prepare them to lead in civic responsibility. Able to read and write, and educated in math and science, history, government, and literature; ready to govern commonly.
And so through Idaho ’s Constitution that charge is made, establishing as “the duty of the legislature of Idaho
Mr. Grant would have us believe that the Idaho Constitution requires every school to provide at taxpayer expense every conceivable opportunity for every talent or interest brought by every child. No nation and certainly no state can afford such, nor would it be good “common” government.
For special talents and special interests it is well and good that our schools provide special programs and activities. But with special programming outside the thoroughness of our required “general” public education comes the need for special funding. – not by increasing the taxes of the common man and woman.
Meanwhile, missed by Mr. Grant, and perhaps the Idaho Democratic Party he represents is the opening this very year of three new public charter schools just in the Treasure Valley – more choices, more specialized interests and talents, without increased tax burdens on working men and women. This is responsible government, and government as demanded by our citizen aristocracy.
Yet if blame need be given for reductions in Idaho
We can blame runaway and irresponsible spending by a President and Congress not willing to keep us living within our national means. We can blame the highest corporate tax rates among comparator nations for stifling the economic growth this nation could produce.
There is much to “blame,” but Idaho’s elected leadership rejecting additional tax burdens on its citizens and at the same time balancing our State’s budget are not on the list.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Problems with the FLDS church raid in Texas
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)." Congress didn't in this case but Texas did. And a guaranteed, bonafide debacle is ensuing in the Lone Star state. Too many lawyers have descended upon the location for order to last.
Understand, I do not believe in the FLDS sect's religion, and I find abhorrent what I believe they find important to the practice of their faith. But another person's religion is not about me. Just as mine is not about someone else. If I do not support their "right" to practice their religion who can I expect to support mine?
Yes, problems abound in the Texas case. There are 416 children taken from their mothers and homes. None implicated in whatever the law-breaking was - just a class action government kidnapping of people privately living their lives. There are reportedly thirteen residences at the ranch, and all were raided. Imagine a crime reported in one dorm building of a college and all dorms raided, emptied and occupants held in police compounds.
If the charges that prompted the raid are true, there is still no justification to house in government compounds all of the children, or to simply give them away to foster families - keeping them all from their mothers. No justification. Period. We should be outraged.
It also is a bit oxymoronish that the sect members are being accused of polygamy - when there are no certificates of marriage, and in fact Texas would only recognize such a marriage between any two persons as "common law." How can you be guilty of violating a law that the state does not recognize you under?
While I do not like the "religious" practices of the FLDS people it appears the children were not in homes where their parents smoked, none lived in meth labs, they did not spend their days playing computer games or texting porn on their cell phones. It seems they had healthy diets, hard work and exercise...so what again was the problem?
Most likely young girls were being mistreated and abused. We probably needed to address it...but how do we not look the bully when we take small children from their mothers, by the hundreds, to investigate one reported crime? If the Chinese raided a strange (to others of us) religious sect settlement in Tibet the world would be in an uproar.
So how is it that we do this in the most free nation in the world...?
Understand, I do not believe in the FLDS sect's religion, and I find abhorrent what I believe they find important to the practice of their faith. But another person's religion is not about me. Just as mine is not about someone else. If I do not support their "right" to practice their religion who can I expect to support mine?
Yes, problems abound in the Texas case. There are 416 children taken from their mothers and homes. None implicated in whatever the law-breaking was - just a class action government kidnapping of people privately living their lives. There are reportedly thirteen residences at the ranch, and all were raided. Imagine a crime reported in one dorm building of a college and all dorms raided, emptied and occupants held in police compounds.
If the charges that prompted the raid are true, there is still no justification to house in government compounds all of the children, or to simply give them away to foster families - keeping them all from their mothers. No justification. Period. We should be outraged.
It also is a bit oxymoronish that the sect members are being accused of polygamy - when there are no certificates of marriage, and in fact Texas would only recognize such a marriage between any two persons as "common law." How can you be guilty of violating a law that the state does not recognize you under?
While I do not like the "religious" practices of the FLDS people it appears the children were not in homes where their parents smoked, none lived in meth labs, they did not spend their days playing computer games or texting porn on their cell phones. It seems they had healthy diets, hard work and exercise...so what again was the problem?
Most likely young girls were being mistreated and abused. We probably needed to address it...but how do we not look the bully when we take small children from their mothers, by the hundreds, to investigate one reported crime? If the Chinese raided a strange (to others of us) religious sect settlement in Tibet the world would be in an uproar.
So how is it that we do this in the most free nation in the world...?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Schools' Role in Child Fitness
Every legislative year (it seems) some state figures out that kids are fat and the lawmakers attempt to legislate skinnyness through fitness report cards to the parents, more rigorous physical education, better school lunches, and/or restocking school-based vending machines with "healthy" products.
This year in my state it's vending machines.
Schools stand to lose candy bar and soda pop revenues, big-government conspiracy watchers will shout the alarm, and the debate will take to the newspapers. My local paper this time has it right - this not a "nanny-state" power grab, or the end of local control; the state has simply encouraged its schools to go healthy in stocking vending machines.
Wow, "encouraged." That'll skinny the kids right up!
First off, local control is a myth in public schools. Show me a public school district willing to run on solely local money and I'll give a bit on the "control." But by-and-large our public schools are state funded and state mandated institutions, actually requiring attendance by the state's children. The teachers typically have state curriculum guidelines, state approved text books, and required state examinations of the children - so what local control?
The truth is that as state schools they should always model good practices. They should be safe and civil places of learning and work, they should conserve resources and use them intelligently, they should recycle what is reasonable, landscaping should be attractive, smart, easy to maintain and frugal, and yes - meals and snacks should be healthy. How hard is that?
The education community often rails against standardized testing, arguing that learning is soooo much more. And it is. So let's have the schools be better models of good lifestyles. Hire fit and active employees, no overweight PE teachers or school nurses, work hard, take frequent breaks, go for brisk walks instead of playing badminton, and eat (serve) good, healthy food to include the supplemental snack and drink choices in vending machines.
Modeling is often the best teaching and this is a great way to start. Our legislature has the right not only to encourage such action from our taxpayer supported public schools but to demand it .
This year in my state it's vending machines.
Schools stand to lose candy bar and soda pop revenues, big-government conspiracy watchers will shout the alarm, and the debate will take to the newspapers. My local paper this time has it right - this not a "nanny-state" power grab, or the end of local control; the state has simply encouraged its schools to go healthy in stocking vending machines.
Wow, "encouraged." That'll skinny the kids right up!
First off, local control is a myth in public schools. Show me a public school district willing to run on solely local money and I'll give a bit on the "control." But by-and-large our public schools are state funded and state mandated institutions, actually requiring attendance by the state's children. The teachers typically have state curriculum guidelines, state approved text books, and required state examinations of the children - so what local control?
The truth is that as state schools they should always model good practices. They should be safe and civil places of learning and work, they should conserve resources and use them intelligently, they should recycle what is reasonable, landscaping should be attractive, smart, easy to maintain and frugal, and yes - meals and snacks should be healthy. How hard is that?
The education community often rails against standardized testing, arguing that learning is soooo much more. And it is. So let's have the schools be better models of good lifestyles. Hire fit and active employees, no overweight PE teachers or school nurses, work hard, take frequent breaks, go for brisk walks instead of playing badminton, and eat (serve) good, healthy food to include the supplemental snack and drink choices in vending machines.
Modeling is often the best teaching and this is a great way to start. Our legislature has the right not only to encourage such action from our taxpayer supported public schools but to demand it .
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Al Qaeda in Iraq?
Yes, and by our design.
A recent exchange between Senators McCain and Obama demonstrates how frightfully non-strategic the thinking of Illinois' junior senator. When McCain, while campaigning "informed" Obama that there were in fact Al Qaeda in Iraq at present, Obama responded, also while campaigning that they were not there until the U.S. invaded and drew them to Iraq. Point taken.
But Obama's point exposed his naivete' about what he himself said. One only needs to hearken back to the early boxing days of Cassius Clay, soon to become Mohammad Ali, and remember his "rope a dope" strategy. In boxing, the ropes are a trap. You cannot allow yourself to be backed into them or you'll be pummeled with no escape. Except of course for the "Greatest."
Ali would take punches, lower his hands, appear hurt, back into the ropes, and lure his next victim into his defeat. They would hit Ali, but he would still dance and float and never take a serious blow. When his opponent would begin to tire Ali would come out of the ropes in a flurry and finish off the fight and his hapless opponent.
As it is in Iraq. I have no secret or insider information on whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we opened a battle front there in the Global War On Terror, but I understand there are Al Qaeda there now. Good. We have lured them there, and we can hunt them down and kill them one by one.
Every day that we keep the GWOT battle fronts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other strategic locales on other continents reduces our need or the possibility of fighting them here. It cannot be lost on us that this Nation has not had another major attack since 9/11/01. Credit President Bush, Secretary Rice, the courage of those in the Congress who understand what is at stake, and of course our fighting men and women.
Our very safety and liberty depends on keeping Al Qaeda on the run, and yes, in Iraq.
A recent exchange between Senators McCain and Obama demonstrates how frightfully non-strategic the thinking of Illinois' junior senator. When McCain, while campaigning "informed" Obama that there were in fact Al Qaeda in Iraq at present, Obama responded, also while campaigning that they were not there until the U.S. invaded and drew them to Iraq. Point taken.
But Obama's point exposed his naivete' about what he himself said. One only needs to hearken back to the early boxing days of Cassius Clay, soon to become Mohammad Ali, and remember his "rope a dope" strategy. In boxing, the ropes are a trap. You cannot allow yourself to be backed into them or you'll be pummeled with no escape. Except of course for the "Greatest."
Ali would take punches, lower his hands, appear hurt, back into the ropes, and lure his next victim into his defeat. They would hit Ali, but he would still dance and float and never take a serious blow. When his opponent would begin to tire Ali would come out of the ropes in a flurry and finish off the fight and his hapless opponent.
As it is in Iraq. I have no secret or insider information on whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we opened a battle front there in the Global War On Terror, but I understand there are Al Qaeda there now. Good. We have lured them there, and we can hunt them down and kill them one by one.
Every day that we keep the GWOT battle fronts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other strategic locales on other continents reduces our need or the possibility of fighting them here. It cannot be lost on us that this Nation has not had another major attack since 9/11/01. Credit President Bush, Secretary Rice, the courage of those in the Congress who understand what is at stake, and of course our fighting men and women.
Our very safety and liberty depends on keeping Al Qaeda on the run, and yes, in Iraq.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Will McCain Right "the Right?"
No. And we dare not confuse the "Right" with the Republican Party, nor either with "Conservatism." For some untold reason conservative philosophy has become so convoluted in today's Rightism that it is hard to find...though sometimes spotted cavorting in Libertarian circles.
John McCain is now the Republican nominee for President, pending the Convention, and he is in fact a Republican. He is basically conservative - as opposed to liberal, and while a man of faith is not a "member" of the "Religious Right." Thus, about all the Republican Party's nominee has to offer the Right is that he is not Left. This plays badly with the Right, and equally so with conservatives.
I differentiate these because somewhere in an unknown year AR (after Reagan), conservatism lost its hold on the Right, and the Republican Party. The Right claims to be pro-family, yet wanted to separate the stranded Cuban boy, Elian Gonzolas from his natural father, while "Conservatives" supported the family reuniting - harrumph....enacted by Democratic President W. J. Clinton, and his Attorney General, Janet Reno.
The "Right" was on the wrong side of the Terri Schiavo case, while conservatives supported her liberty to go to God.
A hawkish President George Bush while correctly spending the needed resources in the Global War on Terror, has allowed us to be spent into near oblivion with the growth of government and social programs. Here, a president McCain may set us right as he is a pretty good non-spender of money we do not have.
So should McCain win in November, it will be better than the alternative for Conservatives, Republicans, and the Right, but it will not make everything right with our nation. Perhaps a re-reading of conservative beliefs and how they apply to decisions would be good for those who next wish to stand up and say they are Right.
John McCain is now the Republican nominee for President, pending the Convention, and he is in fact a Republican. He is basically conservative - as opposed to liberal, and while a man of faith is not a "member" of the "Religious Right." Thus, about all the Republican Party's nominee has to offer the Right is that he is not Left. This plays badly with the Right, and equally so with conservatives.
I differentiate these because somewhere in an unknown year AR (after Reagan), conservatism lost its hold on the Right, and the Republican Party. The Right claims to be pro-family, yet wanted to separate the stranded Cuban boy, Elian Gonzolas from his natural father, while "Conservatives" supported the family reuniting - harrumph....enacted by Democratic President W. J. Clinton, and his Attorney General, Janet Reno.
The "Right" was on the wrong side of the Terri Schiavo case, while conservatives supported her liberty to go to God.
A hawkish President George Bush while correctly spending the needed resources in the Global War on Terror, has allowed us to be spent into near oblivion with the growth of government and social programs. Here, a president McCain may set us right as he is a pretty good non-spender of money we do not have.
So should McCain win in November, it will be better than the alternative for Conservatives, Republicans, and the Right, but it will not make everything right with our nation. Perhaps a re-reading of conservative beliefs and how they apply to decisions would be good for those who next wish to stand up and say they are Right.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
