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 .
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
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.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The Teacher Merit Pay Mistake
Another state (Idaho) just folded in its attempt to legislate a process for "rewarding" excellent teachers. On Friday last the state senate voted to kill a teacher merit-pay bill championed by the elected state superintendent, and opposed by the teacher union. The local paper has called for the superintendent and the union to begin work on a plan for 2009 they both can agree to and will pass legislative muster.
While I support teacher merit pay, the problem is that it is the third leg of needed pay reforms, and the only one reformers are willing to address.
First and foremost we must admit that not all teaching jobs are alike, and thus do not have the same financial value. There is simply no justification for a $30,000 science teacher and a $50,000 physical education teacher in the same school - the difference being the age of the teachers.
Teachers who teach tested subjects that lead to a ranking of a state's schools should be on a higher pay scale from day one than those who teach the supporting subjects. This differentiating of pay into two strata - tested, and non-tested, would also serve to encourage the best and brightest teacher candidates to seek their degrees in the critical and higher paying subjects.
The second "leg" of needed pay reform is "overtime." It is a strange union indeed that allows its members to take 150 English themes, math exams, science labs, or history research papers home over the weekend and grade them without consideration of payment, while other teachers' subjects seldom if ever require homework or grading.
Setting aside a budget for "state tested subjects" that would cover reasonable grading overtime pay for those teachers would again differentiate the earnings of teachers in line with the value of their work.
Once we fix these two legs of teacher compensation we will indeed be ready to layer on a system of recognized merit reward for our best of the bunch...of those teachers who teach the most important (read "tested") subjects.
While I support teacher merit pay, the problem is that it is the third leg of needed pay reforms, and the only one reformers are willing to address.
First and foremost we must admit that not all teaching jobs are alike, and thus do not have the same financial value. There is simply no justification for a $30,000 science teacher and a $50,000 physical education teacher in the same school - the difference being the age of the teachers.
Teachers who teach tested subjects that lead to a ranking of a state's schools should be on a higher pay scale from day one than those who teach the supporting subjects. This differentiating of pay into two strata - tested, and non-tested, would also serve to encourage the best and brightest teacher candidates to seek their degrees in the critical and higher paying subjects.
The second "leg" of needed pay reform is "overtime." It is a strange union indeed that allows its members to take 150 English themes, math exams, science labs, or history research papers home over the weekend and grade them without consideration of payment, while other teachers' subjects seldom if ever require homework or grading.
Setting aside a budget for "state tested subjects" that would cover reasonable grading overtime pay for those teachers would again differentiate the earnings of teachers in line with the value of their work.
Once we fix these two legs of teacher compensation we will indeed be ready to layer on a system of recognized merit reward for our best of the bunch...of those teachers who teach the most important (read "tested") subjects.
Monday, March 3, 2008
"Supremes" to Rule on Gun Ownership
On March 18th, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments that could affect Second Amendment interpretations and thus gun laws for a generation or more. Not only is the Second Amendment to the Constitution the most poorly written, but writers and interpreters of the Amendment tend to get their language wrong as well.
The headline in my local paper, the same as the article originally appeared in USA Today, was "Do you have a legal right to own a gun?" That is a different issue than whether I have a Constitutional right to own a gun. Case in point - the Constitution grants me the "free exercise" of religion, but laws restrict free exercise if my religion calls for drug use, polygamy, human sacrifices, etc.
So the argument the Supreme Court "should" hear is whether the Constitution grants the ownership of arms to individual persons, or not. It's a simple argument really, and indicative of why Justice Clarence Thomas asks few questions - strangely an issue of late. Justice Thomas is a pretty good reader and he knows his job is not to rule on what is fair, or good, or best for people, but rather on what the Constitution says.
Arguers against personal gun ownership often state the Second Amendment applies to state militias, "such as the National Guard." How can anyone not note that a "state" militia would not be a "national" guard? If our present National Guard was solely a state militia the President could not deploy the troops, they would not wear U.S. military uniforms, they would all be on the individual state payrolls. The truth is that most states have no militia - so that argument fails from word one.
No, the operative phrase in the Second Amendment is "...the right of the people to keep..."
Like it or not it really is no more difficult than that. And I suspect Justice Thomas will again have no questions.
The headline in my local paper, the same as the article originally appeared in USA Today, was "Do you have a legal right to own a gun?" That is a different issue than whether I have a Constitutional right to own a gun. Case in point - the Constitution grants me the "free exercise" of religion, but laws restrict free exercise if my religion calls for drug use, polygamy, human sacrifices, etc.
So the argument the Supreme Court "should" hear is whether the Constitution grants the ownership of arms to individual persons, or not. It's a simple argument really, and indicative of why Justice Clarence Thomas asks few questions - strangely an issue of late. Justice Thomas is a pretty good reader and he knows his job is not to rule on what is fair, or good, or best for people, but rather on what the Constitution says.
Arguers against personal gun ownership often state the Second Amendment applies to state militias, "such as the National Guard." How can anyone not note that a "state" militia would not be a "national" guard? If our present National Guard was solely a state militia the President could not deploy the troops, they would not wear U.S. military uniforms, they would all be on the individual state payrolls. The truth is that most states have no militia - so that argument fails from word one.
No, the operative phrase in the Second Amendment is "...the right of the people to keep..."
Like it or not it really is no more difficult than that. And I suspect Justice Thomas will again have no questions.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Non-Coercion of Abortion Law?
In my own private Idaho a House Committee passed a bill making it a crime to "violently coerce a woman into getting an abortion" (Idaho Statesman.com).
The newly proposed non-coercion bill is to prevent the use or threat of physical harm to provoke a woman into having an abortion she otherwise might not have. I'm good with that.
The rub is that this is an unnecessary micro-law, it covers too little...of what is already against the law. So we outlaw coercion to get an abortion, but it is okay to coerce a woman to get a tattoo, or body piercing, or laser eye surgery or to get pregnant in the first place? I think not.
The liberty guaranteed by our Constitution and countless other laws cover this already. But if we want a new law how about the following? "An emancipated and free person cannot be coerced by use or threat of force to do any damned thing." Now there's a law that makes sense. Men and women alike, regardless of the issue at hand can make their life choices and be free to do so. I like it.
Whenever we pass these specialty one-problem laws they invariable result in expensive lawsuits and are often overturned. All we need is better thinking on the front end, and a conservative reticence to making everything a new law.
The newly proposed non-coercion bill is to prevent the use or threat of physical harm to provoke a woman into having an abortion she otherwise might not have. I'm good with that.
The rub is that this is an unnecessary micro-law, it covers too little...of what is already against the law. So we outlaw coercion to get an abortion, but it is okay to coerce a woman to get a tattoo, or body piercing, or laser eye surgery or to get pregnant in the first place? I think not.
The liberty guaranteed by our Constitution and countless other laws cover this already. But if we want a new law how about the following? "An emancipated and free person cannot be coerced by use or threat of force to do any damned thing." Now there's a law that makes sense. Men and women alike, regardless of the issue at hand can make their life choices and be free to do so. I like it.
Whenever we pass these specialty one-problem laws they invariable result in expensive lawsuits and are often overturned. All we need is better thinking on the front end, and a conservative reticence to making everything a new law.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
