 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought July 2, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
Are you bored with hearing about global warming all the time? Me, too. The din of asinine predictions, warnings, and claims that global warming is real, i.e. a rapid increase in the overall temperature of the Earth, always seems to occur just as summer arrives when—surprise—it gets warmer. It must have been a slow news day on June 23 because my daily newspaper ran the following headline at the very top of the front page: “Global warming is real, scientists warn.” Since the 1980s, environmentalists have been telling us that the next Ice Age—due any day now—has been cancelled and, instead, the Earth will suffer sizzling temperatures that will make it uninhabitable. Then, on June 25, Parade, the Sunday newspaper insert, arrived with a cover article, “How Climate Change Affects You Right Now” and the photo of a man dabbing his sweaty brow with his tie. Everything including poison ivy was attributed to the dreaded, but fictitious global warming. The occasion for the latest claim was yet another report by a yet another panel. This time it was one convened by the National Academies of Science whose twelve incredibly distinguished members concluded that, “the planet warmed more rapidly over the past 25 years than at any other period in the past 400 years.” Pay no attention to the fact that actual temperature records only go back 200 years. Indeed, the panel members “were asked to summarize temperature records going back 2,000 years and were urged to pinpoint any areas of uncertainty.” Let’s see, that leaves about 1,800 years of uncertainty based on what scientists call “proxy” evidence. This is data teased out of ice cores, tree rings, and anything else scientists can think to measure. Any discussion of the role of the SUN is always ignored by these reports, but I assure you that the Sun has a lot to do with the temperature of the Earth. What the distinguished members of the panel managed to ignore was a 350-year “Little Ice Age” from 1500 to 1850. After that, the Earth warmed up about one degree Fahrenheit until about 1950 and, since then, there has been no conclusive evidence of any significant eminent or long-term warming. That is to say, any unusual warming because, as noted, in the summer, the Earth gets warmer. Ever since the last big Ice Age, with the usual fluctuations, the Earth’s temperature been warmer and we should all be very thankful for that. Conversely, in the winter, it gets colder, and for some reason, we do not get distinguished panels issuing “scientific” reports on any warming or predictions of an imminent Ice Age. The Earth is actually closer to the sun, though tilted away sufficiently so its rays do not provide as much heat. Indeed, global warming has become such a boring topic that ABC News, desperate to keep the hoax alive, has actually asked viewers to email “interesting examples” of how their lives have been “directly affected by global warming?” This is what passes for science in the newsrooms of America. In May, a coalition of the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, the Sierra Club of New Jersey and the New Jersey Audubon Club warned of “a 2-to-4 foot rise in the level of the Atlantic Ocean due to the melting of the polar ice caps…that would put 1 percent to 3 percent of the Garden State under water and leave 6 percent to 9 percent vulnerable to chronic flooding.” Moreover, “37 species of wildlife would be either greatly reduced in numbers or gone from the state.” This kind of nonsense is repeated state by state and the claims are changed depending on the local climate conditions. Out west the claims feature wildfires such as occur every single year. If the state is subject to hurricanes, than global warming gets attached to that annually reoccurring natural phenomenon. Meanwhile, the polar ice caps are not melting. Indeed, the ice pack is growing. Inevitably, we get to the true agenda of these kinds of environmental scare campaigns. For example, the New Jersey coalition made it clear that our lifestyles have to be changed by “dramatically reducing energy consumption in homes, businesses and schools; shifting to clean renewable sources of energy generation; making cars go further on a gallon of gasoline; ensuring that people drive less and use mass transit more, and making the energy industry pay for every pound of global warming pollution they emit, with that money invested in solutions.” You only need solutions when you have a real problem. The latest distinguished panel report is largely contingent on a much disputed and discredited mathematical computer model that was first published in 1998 by a climatologist Michael Mann of the University of Virginia. It provided “a hockey stick” scenario in which the Earth dramatically heated up in the twentieth century, providing a curve on a diagram that resembled a hockey stick. If the “Little Ice Age” was a nuisance for Mann, you can imagine the bother of the subsequent “Medieval Warm Period.” As Tom Bethell, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science”, points out, Mann was determined that “The twentieth century was going to be the warmest, regardless of the data.” Suffice it to say, Mann’s hockey stick has drawn a lot of criticism such as that of Canadian economist Ross McKitrick who, in 2003, published an article stating that Mann had “used flawed methods that yield meaningless results.” Global warming is the current version of the famed Piltdown Man whose skull was found in England in 1909, proving to many of the distinguished scientists back then that modern man began his journey in the British Isles and not somewhere like Africa. The skull was a total fraud, but a lot of scientists of the time were convinced it was the real thing and the media had a field day with the story. All of which brings me back to the utter boredom induced whenever some government panel, newspaper, television program, or Al Gore’s new movie, reminds us that “Global warming is real, scientists say.” Note: For a hilarious list of all the things attributed to global warming, visit http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm. |
|||||
I wonder at times how many of us have stopped to consider that everything we do is an act of war in one way or another. When I take or buy something, I have diminished the available quantity by whatever number I have taken. To some that could be considered an act of war. Usually, however, it doesn't turn into war unless I perform some obnoxious act, such as lock the doors to the store on the way out or threaten everyone in the vicinity should they consider also diminishing the available quantity. War occurs when people fail to be diplomatic and as has been said many times, diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" while you're looking for a bigger stick. But it really drives me nuts when I see there are so many people that just don't seem to be able to grasp the true nature of our world. It's as though they feel this deep-seated need or desire to slap a happy face on everything they can find. I’m certain that this desire/need comes from viewing all of those stupid motivational posters in the workplace. I suspect that those posters as well as corporate sponsored classes cause harm not only to the psyche of those that are required to attend the classes, but also to the families of those attending the classes. I can't help but wonder if it isn't this one industry that is causing our inability to deal with things rationally. We can't even articulate unpleasantness anymore, not as well as we used to be able to do it. It is as though we've become sterile, "personality-challenged" individuals because of these posters and this industry. It is a proven fact that we all need a little stress in our lives now and then, and these poster-making clowns are trying to take even that away from us. Not only do we need a little stress, we also need to vent after having dealt with stress. These experts are trying to convince us that there is no stress. Some of those happy posters are so obnoxious as to rile your ire the moment you see them, especially when you find out they are meant to be taken seriously. However I discovered an island of sanity in all of this warm and fuzzy happy-face foolishness. It is a place that is selling something, but I have always enjoyed what they are selling because it is so honest and therefore wonderfully dark. The CEO of this corporation has even written a book and offers podcasts of his special demotivational techniques. Anyone who has ever had a real job has experienced everything he gets into. If one has the time one can sit over there and watch him as he explains how he has managed to cow all of his employees into being the perfect slaves. The funny part is that he has taken all of this and turned it into a full time job. And it can be located at despair.com. I found that what they had at that website was far better and the antithesis to all of these ridiculous happy face posters we have to stare at so much of the time. Some may feel that this type of humor is too dark and unhealthy. I disagree. One of the most critical survival skills in this world of ours is having the ability to laugh at yourself. If you’ve done something stupid that didn’t result in death or serious injury and you can’t ultimately look back at it and laugh then there’s probably something wrong with you. As a for instance, you might be a liberal. I guess I would never be able to laugh again if that happened to me either, so I guess there is one thing that could happen that you might not be able to laugh at. Back to despair.com. The world isn’t a children’s story where your ‘happy thought’ will make you fly. It is a harsh place, and isn’t for the faint of heart. The only thing you have going for you, or against you, is your own attitude. How is it healthy for a person to have some unrealistic feeling of well being that is based on infantile misperceptions? Sooner or later the truth will come out between employer and employee and there will be a symbolic spilling of blood. The fact of the matter is that the office is also war and politics, and there as well only the strong survive. The relationship between employer and employee can be summed up by one of two words: saprophytic or symbiotic. A saprophytic relationship is one sided where one side is sucking the life out of the other. A symbiotic relationship is balanced and doesn’t happen very often in the real world, or in our minds either for that matter. I suggest you learn to laugh, and that website isn’t a bad place to start. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Do you honk? Do you change lanes? Do you ever have visions of getting to where you’re going while behind the wheel of a moving motor vehicle? If so, you may be one of a growing number of aggressive drivers on America’s highways and byways. Unlike AIDS, date rape, and other largely fabricated causes, aggressive driving is a real and growing epidemic in this nation. “In fact, nearly eight out of 10 motorists say aggressive drivers are a greater danger than terrorists,” according to a public safety group known as the Smooth Operator Program. As a public service to you, I am devoting my column this week to spreading the word on this rampaging woolly mammoth of a problem. Below you will find Smooth Operator’s complete “How To Avoid Being An Aggressive Driver” tip sheet, along with some of the personal wisdom I’ve collected on this subject over the years. Tip No. 1: Allow more travel time to get to your destination. It reduces stress dramatically. Let’s face it. You have all the time in the world. Thousands of years ago, men and women lived in nature, and there was no such thing as a calendar, and people didn’t wear shields over their private parts. Then greedy corporations came along and devised evil schemes to enslave the human species. Those schemes bore interesting names like “time” and “clothing.” Things have been terribly stressful ever since. Don’t let these greasy corporate oppressors oppress you anymore. There’s no reason why a slow, beautiful drive down to the corner deli should only take two minutes. Take it easy. And take off your clothes. You alone have the power to set yourself free. Tip No. 2: Come to a full stop at red lights and stop signs. Never run yellow lights. You would have to be stupid to run a red light. Most people know this. But most folks don’t realize that running a yellow light can be pretty dangerous, too. In fact, even running a green light can be dangerous. Only a suicidal maniac would run a green light. Next time you’re presented with this opportunity, take a deep breath and try to approach the situation rationally. Come to a full stop, look both ways, and make sure your hands are faithfully glued to their posts at two and ten o’clock. If the light changes before you start moving again, don’t sweat it! There will be plenty of time to pass through the intersection when a fresh green appears after that yellow and red combination. Use this time to do something relaxing. Take a warm bath. Sew a sweater. Write a book. Or get your degree: Enroll in a Sally Struthers telecourse, and you can major in business management or accounting. Tip No. 3: Let other drivers merge with you. Two souls becoming one. It’s the only reason any of us drive anywhere to begin with. Don’t resist this transcendent act. Encourage it. Become like the Elliott to other drivers’ E.T. Let them merge with you even when they don’t want to. Tip No. 4: Obey posted speed limits. Speed limit signs are signs from God. He uses these signs to send important messages, such as: “Slow down, Karen. Forty-five’s plenty fast enough here.” And: “What’s the rush, Bob? Where’s the fire and brimstone?” The only way to get into Heaven is to obey the signs God has planted on our highways. That is the reason we use the expression, “Slow the Hell down.” Tip No. 5: Don’t follow other drivers too closely. One hundred percent of multi-car accidents occur when multiple cars hit each other. For this reason, you should never drive on top of other cars. In fact, if possible, don’t use the same roads that other cars are using. Otherwise, always maintain a safe driving distance of at least twelve full car lengths for every one mile per hour that you’re traveling. Also, be sure to separate your car from the others by covering yourself with a freshly washed bed sheet, with a hole cut out for the windshield. Tip No. 6: Resist temptation to teach someone “a lesson.” The last time I tried to teach someone a lesson, someone else came along and taught me a lesson about teaching others lessons. Then another person came along and taught the person who taught me a lesson about teaching others lessons a lesson about teaching others lessons about teaching others lessons. Unless you want this to happen, resist the temptation to teach someone a lesson. On the roads. Tip No. 7: Concentrate on driving - not on the stereo, cell phone, passengers or other distractions. Your car is a car. It isn’t a burger hop. Instead of engaging in conversations with friends or indulging in various different telecommunication devices, use this time as “alone time.” Sit quietly and think about the people you’ve wronged throughout your life. Have you told them you’re sorry? Have you tried to make amends? You would be surprised what a few hardened pieces of macaroni glued to a paper plate can do to restore order to someone’s personal universe. What other fun, creative things can you do to show the people you love that you care? Tip No. 8: Remember that you can’t control traffic - but you can control yourself, your driving, and your emotions. Maybe you can’t control your driving. Maybe you’re just plain incapable of steering heavy machinery. That’s okay. The important thing is to keep your emotions in check. I used to break out in tears for no apparent reason while driving long distances. Next thing you knew, I was checking the mirror to see if I smeared my mascara. Then I realized I was a man, and I wasn’t wearing mascara, and this only made me cry harder. All of a sudden, the car swerved, and I ran over a gibbon. This shouldn’t have happened. They don’t even have any gibbons in Pennsylvania. But that just goes to show the kind of damage you can do when your emotions get the best of you. Take a deep breath and count to 20. Hate is not an alternative fuel. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
On the fourth day of July, in 1776, a small group of men, representing 13 colonies in the far-off Americas, boldly told the most powerful nation on earth that they were free. They declared, in terms that still are radical today, that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights that government neither grants nor can take away. In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers sought to demonstrate to the world that they were rejecting a tyrannical king. They listed the “injuries and usurpations” that contain the philosophical basis for our Constitution and Bill of Rights. One point of consternation to our founding fathers was that the king had been “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” But 230 years later, taxation with representation has not worked out much better. Indeed, one has to wonder how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would react to the current state of affairs. After all, they were outraged by mere import tariffs of a few pennies on the dollar. Today, the average American pays roughly 50 percent of their income in direct and indirect taxes. In fact, most Texans will not start working for themselves for another week. Texans, like most Americans, work from January until early July just to pay their federal income taxes, state and local taxes, and the enormous costs of regulation. Only about half the year is spent working to pay for food, clothing, shelter, or education. It is easy to simply blame faceless bureaucrats and politicians for our current state of affairs, and they do bear much of the blame. But blame also rests with those who expect Washington DC to solve every problem under the sun. If the public demanded that Congress abide by the Constitution and pass only constitutional spending bills, politicians would have no choice but to respond. Everybody seems to agree that government waste is rampant and spending should but cut—but not when it comes to their communities or pet projects. So members of Congress have every incentive to support spending bills and adopt a go-along, get-along attitude. This leads to the famous compromises, but the bill eventually comes due on April 15th. Our basic problem is that we have lost sight of the simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best. When we cut the size of government, our taxes will fall. When we reduce the power of the federal bureaucracy, the cost of government will plummet. And when we firmly fix our eyes, undistracted, on the principles of liberty, Americans truly will be free. That should be our new declaration. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
The Fordham Institute recently released a report, Fund the Child: Tackling Inequity & Antiquity in School Finance, which advocates reforming the current system of school funding. This is a long time coming. A convincing argument is made that schools should not be funded based on number of staff; formulas which do not adequately address local variables; politically savvy local school advocates; or property wealth. Instead, because some students require more resources, a more equitable system of “weighted student funding,” or WSF, would guarantee an appropriate amount of money follow each child to the school he/she attends. The simple facts show that some children begin school behind their peers because of health, nutrition, and parenting differences. Additionally, students might have medical disabilities, speak a foreign language, or have received little formal schooling in their country of origin. Variations, such as those listed, contribute to the achievement gaps highlighted by NCLB. Good schools can meet high need populations by increasing instructional time and hiring more capable teachers. Unfortunately, because of current funding formulas, many schools have been unable to address these special considerations adequately. Current funding formulas have failed for a number of reasons. First, there are inherent problems which result from using school size as a consideration. As it now stands, minimum staffing requirements, based on increments of students, dictate how much money will be distributed. Arbitrary cutoffs determine funds for transportation; food; facilities; security; maintenance; utilities; grounds; and other costs. Discrepancies occur from this practice, best illustrated by the following examples from the report. [Imagine] Two schools in the same district, one with 200 students and one with 800. Each receives funding for one principal ($80,000) and one assistant principal ($60,000), one school counselor ($40,000), and a football team ($20,000). The small school would get $1,000 per student from the district for these four expenses, while the larger school would receive only $250 per student. Due to the district’s insistence on allocating only whole staff members, the small school’s counselor is able to spread her time over 200 students, while the 800 students at the large school are left to fight for time with their one counselor. Now, picture two different schools: one with 450 students and one with 500 students. Imagine that the district assigns a new teacher (with an average salary of $40,000) to a school for every 20 students, and an extra assistant principal ($60,000) and a librarian ($50,000) are both assigned once a school hits the 500 student mark. Despite having just 50 more students, the larger school receives an extra $300 per student, or an additional $140,000, in funding. Although districts allocate similarly sized schools a certain number of staff positions, one might receive considerably more funding because teachers may have years of experience and higher levels of education. (In my opinion, of particular interest is that because tenured teachers have priority over non tenured and new hires, they can work at the best schools in the district even if they are not the best qualified for the position they hold.) States and districts sometimes distribute less money to a school, knowing that it will be receiving federal funding; violating the “supplement not supplant” principle. Even if it costs more to educate a particular child, the school will not receive the necessary funding because of this practice. WSF would addresses the above problems by ensuring that funding received by schools is based on a per-student basis, instead of being based on staffing levels, programs, or number of students. Characteristics of particular children would be weighted, giving special consideration to students with greater needs (poor, disabled, or English language learners, for example), who would be allocated more money. It is important to note that “Weighted Student Funding” addresses equity in funding; it does not call for “adequacy” (an arbitrary amount of local and state education funds to be distributed to each school and deemed necessary to provide an “adequate” education). Proponents for “adequacy” usually argue that by adding more resources to the system, schools would produce higher results. In contrast, WSF advocates that federal, state, and district policymakers allocate existing funds fairly and rationally. Furthermore, individual schools should be allowed to spend their budget to meet the needs of their unique student populations. WSF is about distributing money fairly and enabling schools to change their spending patterns to be more effective. School principals must be allowed the freedom to determine their needs. In the name of transparency, actual teacher salaries must be used in equity calculations to account for true staff costs rather than hiding spending by relying on average salaries. The amount of Title I money a state receives per student must not depend on how much each state spends per student because this unfairly benefits wealthy states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut and unfairly penalizes states such as West Virginia. If Title 1 funding of students was based on a family’s income levels, and whether they exert a high spending “effort” relative to their capacity, this could prevent wealthy states with few low income students from receiving a disproportionate share of Title I money while at the same time ensure that hard-to educate children become desirable students to enroll. At-risk children must be considered an asset to their schools. As of yet, there is no established ‘industry standard’ system of weights. In any case, the money accompanying each child must be sufficient to enable the student to show improvement trends and reach performance levels. Schools must bear the full costs of teachers’ salaries; therefore, they need to be able to decide the optimal mix of senior and junior teachers on their payrolls. Districts should be able to deny senior teachers the right to choose their assignments, and instead, be allowed to select the best candidates for the circumstances. (Here is where I must add my two cents. School boards must be able to approve only the best qualified teacher for the job. In order to ensure this happens, principals must be able to implement merit pay and eliminate tenure. Otherwise, teachers with advanced degrees and experience will become too overqualified to be able to pursue new employment opportunities. Case in point, some school districts impose internal parameters on job searches such as BA with less than two years to meet budget constraints. How can a qualified teacher receive an interview in such a district? Meanwhile, less qualified teachers can keep their jobs by tenure alone. How unfair is that?) It must be emphasized that WSF does not advocate the Robin Hood principle of stealing from the rich and distributing to the poor. Even though local funding, drawn primarily on property taxes, makes up about 43 percent of the school budget, there is a way to be fair to local taxpayers. Here is one way that this potential problem is addressed in the report. [First] Calculate the amount of funding to which each public school is entitled. The state would then require each locality to contribute to his calculated amount by taxing itself at a certain minimum rate. The state provides the remainder of the funds required by districts that did not generate the full amount through local taxes. This state subsidy is larger for poor districts than for affluent districts (which generate more local money at the same tax rate). As a result, every student is fully funded according to his/her needs but the local/state funding mix differs based on the local property base. Some localities may choose to go above and beyond the state’s allocation by assessing a higher tax rate than is required by the state and generating funding above and beyond the calculated state WSF amounts. Some might object to the resulting inequity, but in our view, this is tolerable so long as the poorest localities receive sufficient state funding. I initially approached this report with skepticism; however, my two major concerns were addressed. One, the union should not be able to negotiate contracts which provide tenured teachers the wherewithal to dictate their job assignments. I believe that it should be taken one step further, though; that there should be merit pay and tenure should be taken out of the equation. Two, families with the means to live in a higher income neighborhood should not be subjected to socialist ideas such as Robin Hood funding schemes. The Fordham Institute has put forth a workable plan from which to address current funding inequities in public education. There is no time like the present to work out the kinks and implement this viable solution to help resolve the crisis confronting our nation’s schools. Unless transparency is allowed to expose those who game the system, the status quo will continue unabated by educational reforms such as No Child Left Behind. Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 12:56 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
