 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought November 26, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
The midterm elections were held on November 7th and by November 10th the Associated Press reported that California Senator Barbara Boxer was promising “major policy shifts on global warming, air quality and toxic-waste cleanup as she prepares to lead the U.S. Senate’s environmental committee.” “Time is running out,” said Sen. Boxer about global warming, “and we need to move forward on this,” during a conference call with reporters. Noticeably missing from her Chicken Little pronouncement was any scientific evidence that (1) there actually is a global warming threat and (2) why any of the draconian proposals to deal with it would have the slightest effect. “Boxer said she intends to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gases, strengthen environmental laws regarding public health and hold oversight hearings on federal plans to clean up Superfund hazardous waste sites across the country.” I call this the “Californication” of the economy because Sen. Boxer would model federal legislation on a new California law that imposed the first statewide limit on greenhouse gases, seeking to cut that State’s emissions by 25 percent in an effort to return them to 1990 levels by 2020. The National Center for Public Policy Research recently noted that, “Despite ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union is on track to miss its Kyoto emissions reduction target of 8% below 1990 levels by 2012. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the CO2 emissions for the l5 original member nations of the EU increased an average of 9% between 2000 and 2004.” Industrialized societies that require economic growth should never place a meaningless obstacle like “greenhouse gas emissions” in the way, but that’s exactly what the United Nations Kyoto Protocol does. The primary greenhouse gas that impacts the Earth’s climate is nothing more ominous than water vapor. The other greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2). Every living creature on the planet breathes in oxygen and exhales CO2. At the same time, every form of vegetation absorbs CO2 and gives off oxygen. This symbiosis accounts for life on this planet and has worked well for millions of years. Imposing an entirely bogus scheme in which some companies can pay hard cash for greenhouse gas “credits” that would allow them to continue to emit the designated gases has already been tried and the result, as in the case of Europe, is that no reductions have occurred or ever will. Neither California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, nor Sen. Boxer appears to be aware that nations such as India and China are not participating in this nonsense, nor other developing nations, many of whom are still in need of energy sources that will enable their economies to grow. Energy efficiency is a worthy goal, but it is something the marketplace should determine, not the government. There is a growing “cleantech” industry and, for example, truck fleet operators are saving millions of dollars by installing systems that allow drivers to plug into electrical outlets, rather than running truck engines, for auxiliary power at night or during rests. As the cost of oil edges up worldwide, you can be sure that all kinds of industries will seek ways to be more energy efficient. They will not need government mandates to make it happen. Politicians, now calling themselves “progressives” instead of socialists, see global warming as a big club to wield against corporations. In early November, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) wrote a joint letter to Exxon Mobil CEO, Rex W. Tillerson demanding that Exxon Mobil cease funding two dozen organizations and individuals they call a “small cadre of global climate change skeptics.” To put it another way, they want to silence any dissent about “global warming” despite the fact that there is ample scientific evidence that dramatic climate changes are not occurring. Meanwhile Exxon Mobil has announced it will contribute a million Euros to a European research project devoted to carbon capture and storage. The Earth, of course, has been warming since the last Ice Age about 11,500 years ago, but despite the bogus “computer models” on which the “global warming” hoax is based, there is no evidence that anything other than perfectly natural climate cycles are occurring. When oil prices spiked after the temporary impact Hurricane Katrina had on oil from the Gulf of Mexico, two Democrat Senators, Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) were calling for a “windfall profits tax” that would have imposed an excise tax when the price of a barrel is more than $40.00. What better way to deprive oil companies of the profits they need to explore for and extract much-needed new sources of oil or to build new refineries? These enterprises cost billions, but some legislators would rather that money go into government coffers. The new Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, has announced that Democrats intend to move toward greater energy independence “by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.” This is utter nonsense. The government provides a plethora of subsidies for every kind of industry in the nation. How much energy independence does Rep. Pelosi, another Californian, think the U.S. will achieve if Congress attacks energy companies? Political guru, Charles Cook, interviewed in Business Week magazine’s November 20th issue was asked which industries should be worried by a Congress where the Democrat Party is the majority. He named pharmaceutical companies, managed-care companies, and oil companies. A cadre of “progressive”
members of Congress will now attempt to destroy the nation’s latest
spate of economic growth and prosperity. They will do so in the name
of “global warming” and a working class they say is suffering
under the heel of evil capitalists. Karl Marx is dead, but Marxism marches on despite its unbroken record of failure. |
||||||
I guess if I were to try to put a title to the current geo-political occurrences I would have to call it "Win Another One For the Gimper." Ortega wins the election in Nicaragua and Kerry says Ortega is a changed man these days. But of course he is, Kerry. He, like the radical left in this country, has learned to not be so obvious as to what he's really up to. The left has learned that in order for us to swallow their socialist agenda, they will have to smother the entire cow flop in whipped cream and even go so far as to place a nice big cherry on top. The last election has shown them that this works and with enough voters, they can make it work for them. Yummy. But it is interesting to me how this has apparently been taken elsewhere in the world. There have been several assassinations of those critical of Putin and his way of doing things. As Putin has tightened the grip on the media in Russia, our media here is remained for the most part silent. Those who have escaped the grip of the motherland have gotten louder. The latest critic to be "retired" was Litvinenko. It turns out that he was killed with some type of radioactive agent. I guess ex-KGB agents are about as safe as ex-Moslems, so it doesn’t surprise me that Putin is shaking hands with Iran’s icon of virtue and calm, Ahmadajinad, as they celebrate the arrival of the Tor-M1 missile systems in Iran. Part of what I’m saying here is that Putin is still what he always was: A radical KGB agent planning a slow takeover. He’s fortunate enough to live in a country where he won’t have to waste all of those rubles on whipped cream and cherries. He’ll just say, "Bon appetit," and they’ll dig in like they always have. What is it about Litvinenko that would inspire the Russians to kill him out in the open? First they know our media won’t deal with it honestly because they are too busy pushing their appeasement policies along with their socialist agenda. They are in the process of reshaping our society, and the interesting part is how well they are doing it. But that’s just the media, now back to Russia. Litvinenko was guilty of speaking out about the Russians supporting al Qaeda and he wasn’t very quiet about doing so either. The reporter that was telling his story was also "retired." He pointed out that Zawahiri was an FSB trainee, as were many of the al Qaeda operatives in the higher levels of their organization. He was also quite vocal about the Russians creating the separatist movement in Chechnya. One of the reasons for this duplicity was so they would have an excuse to clamp down on their own country. I remember quite well how the Russians were rotating their troops through Chechnya at a rate that ensured they had a lot of seasoned troops for later use. They weren’t trying to finish the Chechen guerrillas off. They were training their own troops and playing the victim card. Now they are supposed to be our partners in the war on terror. Never mind the fact that they vote against us in the UN each and every time we need their vote to accomplish anything. They have done a fine job of reinventing themselves, just like Al Gore. Now they are also boldly getting rid of anyone who will do them damage as they prepare for their next set of moves in the Middle East and elsewhere. They know they won’t be called on it by anyone over here, especially by their friends in the Democratic Party. When you see Putin step down from power, don’t believe it. He will still be up to the same old tricks he’s always been up to, but he won’t be out in the open anymore. The recent assassinations are merely a sign that the Russians are getting ready to ramp up their efforts somewhere. I suspect that their boldness lately has been due to the recent congressional take over by the French party. They know that an American cut and run isn’t that far away. Iraq sits on the edge of a precipice and the Democrats will do what they always do… give them a push. But it is interesting to watch Russia and China as they continue to surround us and our media continues to behave as it alwasy does. It’s always been that way. Hitler was even named "Man of The Year" once. I’m certain we’ll see a lot of foolishness like that over the next few years. I’m expecting to see some liberal get an award for bringing peace after a stupendous act of cowardice ten minutes before a couple of nukes go off in our cities. But what are a hundred million more deaths in the pursuit of mankind’s greatest fantasy…a utopian society? No, leave the cherry off of mine. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
(Author’s Note: I finished this article roughly six minutes before I learned O.J. Simpson’s new book had been canceled. Out of sheer laziness and the mild belief that this news only strengthens my point, I’ve decided not to edit it.) O.J. Simpson has a new book called If I Did It, in which he explains how he would have killed his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. The idea behind this book is not that he killed her — just how he would have, had the need arisen at any particular time while she was alive. Predictably, Americans are outraged over this latest milestone in the history of publishing. Bookstores are refusing to carry the title. TV stations are refusing to air O.J. interviews. As is often the case in the post-O.J. era, people need to calm the hell down. Twelve years ago, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were ruthlessly murdered. Until this book was announced, most people not named Brown or Goldman had long since gotten over it. Instead of getting outraged about Simpson’s book, we should be outraged over our outrage. We’re missing the point of what If I Did It truly represents. Ever since the Trial of the Century ended last century, Americans have eagerly devoured every bizarre news story the media tossed in their direction. From Michael Jackson sleeping with kids and thinking nothing of it to Paris Hilton’s whole career being based on a sex tape she claimed she never wanted released, everything about America’s missing-white-girl culture has stemmed back to O.J. Simpson somehow getting away with murder. If O.J. used this book to confess to the killings, it wouldn’t be a story. Pete Rose wrote a book a couple of years ago in which he confessed to betting on baseball; we already knew this, and the book sold roughly four copies. Instead, for what’s probably the first time in history, O.J. is doing what most free and legally redeemed men would consider unthinkable: He’s asking us to make-believe he’s guilty… even while believing he’s innocent. This is amazing. This turns twelve years of news on its head. O.J.’s theoretical approach to If I Did It is like Michael Jackson finally admitting he understands why people think Neverland Ranch is creepy. It’s like JonBenet’s parents saying they understand why most people don’t dress their daughters like whores. O.J.’s self-seriousness twelve years ago marked the start of a very strange time in American history. And his self-awareness now represents a chance to finally change course. The man who started it all is putting the genie back in the bottle. He’s flying backwards around the Earth to undo the death of Lois Lane. If I Did It won’t bring back Chandra Levy, the kids who died at Columbine, or America’s status as a constitutional republic. It won’t make celebrity marriages last. It won’t make democracy work. And it certainly won’t give us back the year we wasted trying to kick Bill Clinton out of office. In fact, this book will do nothing if we treat it as just another outrageous news story. It will be to the world of print what Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, and Joe Millionaire were to our TVs. But if we treat this book for what it really is — a confession not of guilt but of the fact that the last decade has not been normal — it can be the first step on our long, winding road back to normalcy. Ronald Reagan once said it was morning again in America. Is it morning again, again? You’re behind the wheel of this white Ford Bronco, America. Why don’t you tell me? Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
The death of economist Milton Friedman last week at the age of 94 marks a great loss for advocates of freedom everywhere. He was perhaps the most successful free-market economist of the 20th century, in terms of his real-world impact on politics and policy. Many modern politicians, including Ronald Reagan, considered him a major influence in their careers. Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. He believed not only in laissez-faire capitalism, but also the larger cause of individual liberty in the political sense. I was proud to know Dr. Friedman for many decades, and considered him a friend. I can assure you that he was no ivory tower academic, but rather an engaging and active man who worked very hard to demonstrate the applicability of economics to everyday life. His death only underscores the sad lack of economics knowledge in Washington, however. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them. The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today. Our schools teach children virtually nothing about economics and personal finance, which leaves them woefully unprepared for the working world. It also creates whole generations of young Americans who are incredibly vulnerable to the worst pandering politicians. We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy. The nation would be well-served if Congress spent more time reading the works of Milton Friedman, and less time worrying about petty party spoils. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
||||||
Coaches must produce winning teams or they will be terminated. Managers must make their quotas or they will not be retained. Teachers must ensure that students…oh, wait a minute. Tenured teachers will receive an increase in salary every year based on their level of education and years in the classroom. Mike Antonucci, writing in the Education Intelligence Agency Communiqué says that, “Student enrollment in the United States will grow this school year by a total of 349,452 students (0.7 percent). The number of classroom teachers is expected to grow by 62,443 (2.0 percent).”q This translates to “one new teacher for every 5.5 new students.”2 Although most enrollments will be at the secondary school, “49,965 more elementary school teachers (2.8 percent),” are expected to be hired in our schools.3 "That's one new K-8 teacher for every 1.8 new K-8 students."4 I’m left wondering how this can happen. Antonucci explains that there will be significant teacher turnover in the coming years through retirement and layoff of probationary teachers. Tenured teachers, in all likelihood, won’t be affected.5 Retirements and layoffs cannot be the only way to accommodate all these new teachers. There will have to be additional ways to add more staff. Almost five years ago, Jay Greene, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research co-wrote a piece about the effects of funding incentives on special education enrollment. What he and his colleague determined was that, “schools are increasingly diagnosing students as disabled and placing them in special education for reasons unrelated to those students’ genuine need for special education services.”6 Ample evidence seems to suggest that it is financially advantageous for a school to label a child “special needs” because state and federal funding can then pay the tab –provided the school is located in a bounty system state. In other words, it is all about the money.7“If a school provides extra reading help to students who are falling behind in reading, the school must bear that cost itself. But if the same school redefines those students as learning disabled rather than slow readers, state and federal government will help pick up the tab for those services.”8 In other words, tax payers will cough up more money to support education. The bottom line, “The ever-accelerating growth of special education enrollment is becoming an urgent problem for American education, drawing off more and more billions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on better education for all students.”9 Fast forward to the 2006-2007 school year. Dan Lips, an Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation and a Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow, writes that, “Federal spending on elementary and secondary education has grown dramatically over the past six years, increasing from $27 billion to $38 billion between 2001 and 2006. According to the U.S. Department of Education, annual spending on the Title I program to assist disadvantaged children grew by 45 percent during that same period. In 2007, the department will spend 59 percent more on special education programs than it did in 2001.”10 More and more federal and state money is being funneled to our public schools to help disadvantaged and special education students. How is it possible that there are so many more disadvantaged and special education students in today’s classrooms? Well, the first question is the easiest to answer. Because there are so many children from families who speak a native language other than English; whose income levels reflect below minimum wage; who enter school several grade levels behind; there are more disadvantaged students in our schools. The second question implicates the “progressive education” agenda which places “self esteem” ahead of academic achievement. Progressive educational theory advocates prefer that students be graded subjectively; not compared to other students. This is why standardized tests are considered an anathema to good education. Students are taught to read and do math by teachers using pedagogy based on ideology, not evidence based methods. Most reading and writing in our public schools is narrative and extensively researched papers are almost non existent. This contributes to so many graduates of our public schools needing remediate courses in reading, writing, and math. Teachers utilizing progressive teaching methods are not held accountable for ensuring that each student entering their classrooms makes a year’s academic growth. Of course, if benchmarks are subjective, it’s impossible to measure. Granted, when teachers are faced with students of radically differing ability levels, it is difficult to provide each one of them a sufficient amount of attention unless countless extra hours are put in during their planning time or after school hours to bring these kids up to speed. Even then, it depends on the diligence of the student to be willing to spend extra time in that way. At any rate, efficiency is not part of the progressive agenda. So what do progressive schools do with the students who cannot meet subjective benchmarks of education progress, regardless of the reason? The formula for deciding if a student is eligible for special education is rather simple. There has to be a discrepancy between ability and performance. If it is significant, a child can be labeled as having a learning disability. After this occurs, the child is not expected to accomplish as much learning in a given amount of time. The standards by which this child is to be measured are, in effect, “lowered”. In a school with limited resources, instead of giving the child adequate time and attention to catch up with his or her peers, the child falls further and further behind. In a school district with adequate resources, the child is enrolled in a resource room and given additional support through one on one attention with a specialist or teacher’s aide who helps ensure that homework and tests are understood and completed under less stressful circumstances. Hopefully, as the child learns better study skills and achieves incremental successes, there will be less need for “special education.” Obviously, a severely disabled child will never be able to keep up with peers. So that’s it. As more and more students are labeled disadvantaged or special needs, the federal and state government, I mean taxpayers, will provide additional money to help ensure these students will receive the additional support necessary to achieve an “adequate” amount of learning; “adequate” being subjective. The question that must truly be considered is what is being done to ensure that these “labeled” students will become independent enough to succeed without additional resources? Can they eventually excel in the “real” world? How much and what form of knowledge should be accessible after 12 years of public education? What are the “real” world expectations of these children? Meanwhile, progressive schools of education continue to churn out more and more teachers to meet their bottom line. The students aren’t the only ones hurt by this. Although some “Newbies” will leave school prepared to teach in shortage areas of Math, Science and Special Education, many will enter a market which will not be nice to them. Some will be hired as classroom aides. In effect, they will intern for a few years at salaries which require them to work additional jobs to make ends meet. Others will find jobs, but come to realize that after spending all that tuition money for a specialized education, they really do not care for their chosen profession. Still, more will be bounced around between schools as enrollments wane and they suddenly find themselves without contracts to teach. Too much accumulated experience will make them too expensive to hire. A fortunate few will take positions in schools which offer them tenure. An even smaller amount of them will end up at schools at which they love to work and also be granted tenure. How can this situation be reconciled? One way is to change schools of education to reflect the standards used by medical and law schools. Another way is to make schools compete for taxpayer dollars in a free market. A third possibility is to alter teacher contracts to compensate teacher’s based on students achieving standardized benchmarks, not based on tenure or subjective evaluations. But that is proving an almost impossible row to hoe. Unions benefit the most when substantial numbers of teachers are employed; teachers utilizing them as their sole bargaining agents and paying the requisite union dues to be used to further a progressive political agenda. Therefore, unions benefit from smaller class sizes designed to make it a little easier to manage a heterogeneously grouped classroom and which require more teachers.They benefit when contracts limit instructional time with students and require more teachers. They benefit from a progressive education agenda which emphasizes feelings more than successful teaching strategies; in which kids are expected to learn in cooperative groups and in heterogeneous classrooms. Progressive education virtually guarantees that more students will be labeled “special education” and additional teachers will be needed in non traditional or specialized capacities in order to meet individual student’s learning needs. Therefore, unions will continue to deliver the vote to school board members that implement ideologically based teaching methodology which ensures that many children will never reach their full academic potential. For those not convinced, consider this: a progressive agenda is supposed to be about self esteem; dictating that ability grouping and competition is bad. If that is truly the case, how much worse it must be to be labeled a “special needs” student. At least if you are 3rd string, you are still on the team. 6-9 Effects
of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment
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 Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:52 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
||||||
