I am so sick of magic math. "What's magic math?" you ask. The administration's account of "jobs created or saved", officially released today is a prime example of magic math.
Government officials claim that the $787 Billion stimulus package released earlier this year has saved or created approximately 640,000 jobs across the country, with the vast majority of those jobs being in construction and education. This claim is based on reports filed by recipients of the $160 Billion or so that has actually been spent so far. Though the administration only gets angry if you mention it, though, these numbers are highly contested by analytical experts.
It has been well-documented that there were numerous errors in initial reporting, but the administration claims that they caught and corrected for all of them. If you believe that, I have a bridge I'm looking to sell. We're talking about the same people who have admitted that our healthcare system wastes about $800 Billion a year, with nearly half of that waste being directly attributed to Medicaid and Medicare. If this is the way those people count, you try believing that they caught every error in reports from more than 100,000 recipients. I'm not buying it.
The reality is, this kind of counting can never use anything but magic numbers. Sure, you can count jobs that were created by the stimulus, assuming you're not looking in areas where the creation of new jobs was already being considered, but how do you verify jobs saved by the stimulus? How many of those recipients actually reported, "I was going to fire this many people but, thanks to the stimulus package, I didn't"? It's guessing, plain and simple. Some of it is scientific guessing, guesswork that actually has some verifiable relationship to reality, but much of it is just wishful thinking. History states clearly that there is no rational reason to assume that politicians didn't wish up some higher numbers than reality supports in order to make themselves look and feel better. Remember, the same people who claim confidence in these numbers were the people who claimed confidence in the fact that their stimulus package would prevent the unemployment rate from hitting double digits. How's that confidence working out for you?
If these fictional numbers were all there was to the story, it would be disgraceful, but it would be the same disgraceful story we see every time some politician starts spouting numbers. That isn't all, though. Fairy dust didn't make their number big enough, so they blew on it and made it even bigger.
White House officials are actually claiming that they get to count 1 million jobs, when you add in things that can't actually be measured. Things like the unmeasurable guy who didn't lose his job went to eat at Burger King and that unmeasurably saved the job of some kid serving fries. I'm not kidding. They actually used a stimulus-saved worker spending money at a restaurant as an example of how they came up with that 1 million magic number. They took numbers that can't be verified and added them to numbers that can't be verified and threw out a bigger number that can't be verified that they get to pat themselves on the back for. Magic math.
It's enough to make your head spin, but it's business as usual for the clowns we have in Washington. When they got called out a few weeks ago for pork and bloat-spending in a defense bill - wasting money that's supposed to help our soldiers and using it to make them look good in the home district instead - a spokesman for Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, had the gall to say, "Anyone who suggests this clearly doesn't understand the appropriations process." Mind you, the pork is there and documented, so the only English translation for this statement is, "We do this all the time. Nothing unusual here."
I wish I could say vote them all out and install some people who know how to count, but the odds don't look good for that either. Take a look at this comment I found on the New York Times website the other day, introducing some organizations brainstorm for how to solve the economic crisis:
"First and foremost it calls for the Fed to print a lot more money and pay off the federal debt. It then calls for taking the $400 billion saved on interest payments and using that money to give everyone on Social Security a 20% raise and lowering the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare to age 60. This would create an army of young retirees looking to volunteer at the charity of their choice. At the same time it would open up jobs for younger workers."
Print all the money you want to pay off the debt and triple (at least) the number of people collecting Social Security benefits instantly. Do I really need to explain the real world consequences to such an idea? How are you going to pay all those benefits when the value of our dollar crashes to the point where it's only worth will be as an historical exhibit?
Wasn't there a time when we taught math as part of our basic educational system? I seem to recall such a time, though I am beginning to think it was just a hallucination. Lying about your numbers doesn't make you right. It just lets you steal more before the average person catches on. Keep that in mind the next time you see a highly-educated politician spouting figures that are obviously fabricated.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Entertainment Mafia Now Runs The Legal System?
In the 90s, the recording industry went after Napster and tried a case in the media that had no standing in the courts. There was, at the time, no law that declared the downloading of songs to be illegal - it was, at most, a murky gray area waiting for court or legislative clarification - but the recording industry, along with their criminal colleagues in the movie and television industries, hammered the public with the claim that there was until the court of public opinion was so solidly on their side that they could roll right over any opposition. This was followed in 1998 by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), written almost entirely by industry insiders and one of the greatest legal travesties ever foisted upon the American public. The DMCA upended decades (at least) of legal precedent and handed unimaginable power to the entertainment industry, power that is abused on a daily basis with bullying, unjustified "take down" notices and "civil" trials that fine average citizens more for downloading music than corporations get for causing grievous bodily harm. In the middle of this end run around all common sense, copyright ownership, which was intended by the nation's founders to be for a short time and for the benefit of public interests, was extended to "life of the creator plus 75 years". There is not one of these legal changes that benefits We the People, but everyone of them is tailor-made to benefit the recording, movie, and television industries at the expense of We the People.
And it keeps getting worse.
The entertainment mafia has been whining for so long about piracy cutting into their profits that people have stopped listening. (It couldn't have anything to do with poor quality product and the entertainment industry's adamant refusal to adapt to modern business realities, could it?) Now they're complaining about movie rentals cutting into their profits. Rather than attempt to come up with a new business model that addresses this so-called issue, the movie industry's plan is to pressure major rental outlets into accepting a new scheme where movies do not become available for rent until after they have been available for sale for one month. The rental outlets would probably make money on this deal because the only way they would play along is if the movie studios cut them in on a major bulk rate deal for their movie purchases. The only people who would lose out on this price fixing scam would be the rental customers. You don't actually believe the rental outlets would pass along those savings, do you?
The thing is, price fixing is exactly what it would be. If any other industry were colluding in this manner, they would be pounded with the anti-trust hammer. So why is the entertainment mafia immune from such considerations? Never mind the fact that this is one of the dumbest business ideas ever. There is zero chance that making rental customers wait an extra month is going to cause any noticeable increase in movie sales. Rental customers are already used to waiting and most of them will just wait a little longer. For that small percentage that absolutely must see the movie the day it hits DVD? The only logical conclusion is to expect an increase in piracy, the exact opposite of what those geniuses in the industry want.
Of course, maybe it isn't stupid. Maybe a measurable increase in piracy actually is what they want. Then they could use that excuse to flex their muscle and demand laws like the ones currently causing all the rage in Europe. You know, the ones that say that, if you are accused three times of copyright violations, you lose your internet connection for life. Yes, you read that right, "accused" and "for life". How's that for a nice, happy due-process thought?
What's that? You say it can't happen here because we have laws to prevent that? So do they. The European Convention on Human Rights - which, for human rights issues, functions for them much the way the Bill of Rights is supposed to function for us - states categorically in Article 6.2, "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." I'm not sure whether or not they have "punishment fit the crime" provisions but, since much of our law was based in British Common Law, I'd bet they do. It doesn't stop them any more than it stops us, in some states, from locking up people for life for stealing a pack of bubblegum.
The entertainment industry, as it exists today, is a criminal organization that strives to use force to maintain their profits because they are too lazy to try to run a business. They will continue to do so as long as we let them. Stand up and make your voice heard. Just Say No to organized crime running our legal system.
And it keeps getting worse.
The entertainment mafia has been whining for so long about piracy cutting into their profits that people have stopped listening. (It couldn't have anything to do with poor quality product and the entertainment industry's adamant refusal to adapt to modern business realities, could it?) Now they're complaining about movie rentals cutting into their profits. Rather than attempt to come up with a new business model that addresses this so-called issue, the movie industry's plan is to pressure major rental outlets into accepting a new scheme where movies do not become available for rent until after they have been available for sale for one month. The rental outlets would probably make money on this deal because the only way they would play along is if the movie studios cut them in on a major bulk rate deal for their movie purchases. The only people who would lose out on this price fixing scam would be the rental customers. You don't actually believe the rental outlets would pass along those savings, do you?
The thing is, price fixing is exactly what it would be. If any other industry were colluding in this manner, they would be pounded with the anti-trust hammer. So why is the entertainment mafia immune from such considerations? Never mind the fact that this is one of the dumbest business ideas ever. There is zero chance that making rental customers wait an extra month is going to cause any noticeable increase in movie sales. Rental customers are already used to waiting and most of them will just wait a little longer. For that small percentage that absolutely must see the movie the day it hits DVD? The only logical conclusion is to expect an increase in piracy, the exact opposite of what those geniuses in the industry want.
Of course, maybe it isn't stupid. Maybe a measurable increase in piracy actually is what they want. Then they could use that excuse to flex their muscle and demand laws like the ones currently causing all the rage in Europe. You know, the ones that say that, if you are accused three times of copyright violations, you lose your internet connection for life. Yes, you read that right, "accused" and "for life". How's that for a nice, happy due-process thought?
What's that? You say it can't happen here because we have laws to prevent that? So do they. The European Convention on Human Rights - which, for human rights issues, functions for them much the way the Bill of Rights is supposed to function for us - states categorically in Article 6.2, "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." I'm not sure whether or not they have "punishment fit the crime" provisions but, since much of our law was based in British Common Law, I'd bet they do. It doesn't stop them any more than it stops us, in some states, from locking up people for life for stealing a pack of bubblegum.
The entertainment industry, as it exists today, is a criminal organization that strives to use force to maintain their profits because they are too lazy to try to run a business. They will continue to do so as long as we let them. Stand up and make your voice heard. Just Say No to organized crime running our legal system.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Why We Don't Trust The News
If you like your "news without a perspective" (hint hint jab jab) then this should tickle your funny bone. The other day, the group 350.org promoted climate change protests around the world and these protests were, of course, much talked about in virtually every news source available (contrary to the claims of The Nation, which tried to claim they were the only ones giving the subject any play - sound familiar?). In fact, for a couple days, it was more than a little difficult to get away from news sources falling over themselves to see who could praise this group the highest. So much for news without a perspective.
That's not my point here, though, but it does play into it. I have two quotes from two different news sources, both making the same basic claims. I want you to pay attention here and see if you can play Spot What's Wrong With This Picture.
The Nation quoted 350.org founder Bill McKibben: "Glaciers and sea ice are melting, drought is spreading, and flooding is on the increase because our planet has reached a proven unsafe level of CO2 emissions," while The Christian Science Monitor quoted Rose Braz of the Center for Biological Diversity: “The Arctic is already melting, sea level is already rising, and polar bears are already dying.”
Isn't that cute? They both said the same thing, though Ms. Braz apparently forgot to mention those pesky droughts and floods. (How exactly do you have increased flooding and increased droughts at the same time with the same cause?) They wouldn't be parroting talking points, would they? Of course not. Liberals hate it when you parrot talking points, don't they?
Both of these "independent thinkers", however, get points removed for making the highlights of their respective speeches items that are patently and demonstrably false. That polar bear story was debunked the day after it came out (out of approximately 20 distinct polar bear communities, the "researchers" only counted 2 and claimed that this was representative of the whole). There has been zero documentation of increased flooding or droughts attributable to climate change anywhere in the world (the computer models predict these increases but that is not the same thing as claiming they are already happening). There has been zero documented increase in the rate of sea level rise (the global sea level has been rising for thousands of years - computer models predict that it will rise faster but, again, this is not the same thing as showing that it is already happening). In short, the only part of these two remarkably similar speeches that actually relates to the real world is melting arctic sea ice and even that is a case of it's melting over here but not over there.
To put it bluntly, both of these people made major claims that are not currently supported by evidence or facts. Yet neither news source so much as mentioned that these claims were controversial. They printed them as fact and didn't offer even a hint of corroboration or fact checking. But these are real news sources, right?
While doing some research for this one, I came across an interesting little factoid that should make you scratch your head. Those people who are talking about sea level increases state that, when the glaciers were melting at the end of the last ice age, the sea level increase rate was approximately one meter per century. According to their predictions, they expect this same sea level increase rate as a result of global warming. Keep in mind that, during the ice age, Manhattan was under one of those glaciers and try to figure out how melting ice sheets less than a tenth the size they were then are going to cause the same sea level increases they caused then.
That's not my point here, though, but it does play into it. I have two quotes from two different news sources, both making the same basic claims. I want you to pay attention here and see if you can play Spot What's Wrong With This Picture.
The Nation quoted 350.org founder Bill McKibben: "Glaciers and sea ice are melting, drought is spreading, and flooding is on the increase because our planet has reached a proven unsafe level of CO2 emissions," while The Christian Science Monitor quoted Rose Braz of the Center for Biological Diversity: “The Arctic is already melting, sea level is already rising, and polar bears are already dying.”
Isn't that cute? They both said the same thing, though Ms. Braz apparently forgot to mention those pesky droughts and floods. (How exactly do you have increased flooding and increased droughts at the same time with the same cause?) They wouldn't be parroting talking points, would they? Of course not. Liberals hate it when you parrot talking points, don't they?
Both of these "independent thinkers", however, get points removed for making the highlights of their respective speeches items that are patently and demonstrably false. That polar bear story was debunked the day after it came out (out of approximately 20 distinct polar bear communities, the "researchers" only counted 2 and claimed that this was representative of the whole). There has been zero documentation of increased flooding or droughts attributable to climate change anywhere in the world (the computer models predict these increases but that is not the same thing as claiming they are already happening). There has been zero documented increase in the rate of sea level rise (the global sea level has been rising for thousands of years - computer models predict that it will rise faster but, again, this is not the same thing as showing that it is already happening). In short, the only part of these two remarkably similar speeches that actually relates to the real world is melting arctic sea ice and even that is a case of it's melting over here but not over there.
To put it bluntly, both of these people made major claims that are not currently supported by evidence or facts. Yet neither news source so much as mentioned that these claims were controversial. They printed them as fact and didn't offer even a hint of corroboration or fact checking. But these are real news sources, right?
While doing some research for this one, I came across an interesting little factoid that should make you scratch your head. Those people who are talking about sea level increases state that, when the glaciers were melting at the end of the last ice age, the sea level increase rate was approximately one meter per century. According to their predictions, they expect this same sea level increase rate as a result of global warming. Keep in mind that, during the ice age, Manhattan was under one of those glaciers and try to figure out how melting ice sheets less than a tenth the size they were then are going to cause the same sea level increases they caused then.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
A Rose By Any Other Name
The White House has declared war on Fox News. It would be funny if it weren't disgusting. The arrogance of this administration is without parallel. For the President of the United States to not just believe, but to publicly state that he gets to unilaterally declare a major news source to be "not news" is sickening, but for the cheering section on the left to go along with this outrage is terrifying.
The excuse, according to administration officials, is that news should not have a "perspective" and Fox News has a perspective, therefore Fox News isn't news. Seriously? Let me get this straight. A major news program giving up an hour of its programing to promote the administration's policies is news without perspective? A prominent reporter openly insulting conservative protesters during his report is news without perspective? A major news program "fact checking" a comedy skit (a skit performed by liberals, no less - there should be a joke in that, shouldn't there?) is news without perspective? Multiple major news sources running with a fabricated story that smears a conservative pundit for days before they bother to fact check and find out it's false (and even then almost none of them offer an apology or a retraction) is news without perspective? Is anyone seriously claiming to buy this twisted logic?
This isn't about perspective. It's about the perspective people like and don't like. If you have a perspective that approves of the administration, you get a free pass. If you have a perspective that disapproves of the administration then you're "not really news". Don't you love how that works?
Does Fox News have a perspective? Of course they do! Here's a news flash for you: every major news source since Ben Franklin rolled off his first newspaper has had a perspective and an editorial policy of pushing that perspective. They all do it. Fox News is nowhere near unique in this regard. The only thing that makes Fox News unique is that their perspective leans conservative.
If you can't tell the difference between the commentary section and the news section, you should probably turn the TV off. If you don't know that every network has an agenda and that they all filter things through that agenda, you should probably turn the TV off. If you don't know that the White House doesn't get to declare who is and who isn't a news source ... Of course they know that. They were just counting on you not knowing that.
It is at least gratifying to see that, maybe this time, the administration has overreached itself in its arrogance. Kudos to the other major networks for refusing to play along. They knew that this behavior was wrong and they stopped it, even though it could have helped them in the short term. Now if only we could get more Americans to realize that short term benefits do not trump long term damage.
The excuse, according to administration officials, is that news should not have a "perspective" and Fox News has a perspective, therefore Fox News isn't news. Seriously? Let me get this straight. A major news program giving up an hour of its programing to promote the administration's policies is news without perspective? A prominent reporter openly insulting conservative protesters during his report is news without perspective? A major news program "fact checking" a comedy skit (a skit performed by liberals, no less - there should be a joke in that, shouldn't there?) is news without perspective? Multiple major news sources running with a fabricated story that smears a conservative pundit for days before they bother to fact check and find out it's false (and even then almost none of them offer an apology or a retraction) is news without perspective? Is anyone seriously claiming to buy this twisted logic?
This isn't about perspective. It's about the perspective people like and don't like. If you have a perspective that approves of the administration, you get a free pass. If you have a perspective that disapproves of the administration then you're "not really news". Don't you love how that works?
Does Fox News have a perspective? Of course they do! Here's a news flash for you: every major news source since Ben Franklin rolled off his first newspaper has had a perspective and an editorial policy of pushing that perspective. They all do it. Fox News is nowhere near unique in this regard. The only thing that makes Fox News unique is that their perspective leans conservative.
If you can't tell the difference between the commentary section and the news section, you should probably turn the TV off. If you don't know that every network has an agenda and that they all filter things through that agenda, you should probably turn the TV off. If you don't know that the White House doesn't get to declare who is and who isn't a news source ... Of course they know that. They were just counting on you not knowing that.
It is at least gratifying to see that, maybe this time, the administration has overreached itself in its arrogance. Kudos to the other major networks for refusing to play along. They knew that this behavior was wrong and they stopped it, even though it could have helped them in the short term. Now if only we could get more Americans to realize that short term benefits do not trump long term damage.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Speaking Out Of Both Sides
The public Option. According to some, it is a cost-cutting measure where the strength of the plan and the power of government work to lower healthcare costs thus, through market competition, forcing other insurance providers to also lower their prices. According to others, it is a back door attempt to push through a government takeover of healthcare where government subsidies keep prices and costs below the market thus preventing other insurance providers from being able to compete and forcing them out of business. In a partial attempt to combat the latter idea, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that they estimate such a public option would only receive about 12 million enrollees, far below any amount that could possibly lead to a government takeover, but doesn't that present another question?
If the public option will only attract about 12 million people and one of the stated goals of healthcare reform is universal coverage (we'll ignore for the moment the fact that not one of the plans on the table even claims to be coming close to this original goal) and the US population is roughly 300 million people ... Can anyone else do the math here? 12 million people isn't even a blip on the radar. The same figure used to defuse fears of a government takeover also clearly demonstrates that the public option wouldn't do a thing to cut costs. At that size it would be virtually invisible in the larger healthcare market. The only way a single provider could have a significant impact on overall pricing is if it were large enough to potentially take over the market. You can't have it both ways and government officials are talking out of both sides of their mouths hoping that people won't notice they are blatantly contradicting themselves. If there is no risk of government takeover through this plan then there is also no possibility of government price controls through this plan. The two are inextricably tied together.
What's most amusing about this, though, (aside from the lies and hypocrisy that are just par for the course) is that pro public option people keep talking about interjecting competition into the insurance market place? Inserting one provider is supposed to increase competition? Do you people know anything about business?
First of all, there is competition in the insurance marketplace. It's stifled, corrupt, and lame, but it's there. Adding a single provider to the mix will do absolutely nothing to increase that competition, even if that provider is the government. "But there are some states that only have one major insurance provider!" You're right. There are. And why is that? Because the law, as it currently exists blocks other providers from other states from entering those markets. If you are serious about increasing competition then strike down stupid laws that interfere with competition. No one on the left will talk about that possibility, though, because "increasing competition" is not really what they want. They're just using a catchphrase to try to lure people to their side. What they really care about is government force - they want the government to use its might to force prices down - but they can't say that because that would be a takeover and saying it would be admitting that the accusations from the other side are correct. The use of such concealing language, however, is an admission that they know they do not have the mandate they claim and they know that a significant percentage of the American population is opposed to the idea of a government takeover. Everything you say, even when you're lying, says something about you. Pay attention and you'll know what they think and why they're doing what they do.
We need reform, but nothing in that nonsense those idiots in DC are writing is about reform. Maybe it started out that way, but it's just political tug-of-war now. They're just trying to score points by looking like they're doing something without paying any attention to whether or not what they're doing is right. Business as usual. And you, the voting public, are eating it up like you always do. That's why it works. If a Democrat promises to spend money to fix a problem then democrats will cheer and vote for him without paying any attention to whether or not the fix was needed or whether or not the expense actually addressed the problem. If a Republican promises to block such an expenditure then republicans will cheer and vote for him without paying any attention to whether or not the fix was needed or whether or not the expense actually addresses the problem. Can you honestly not see what's wrong with this system? No, most of you can't, and that's exactly why we're in the mess we're in.
If the public option will only attract about 12 million people and one of the stated goals of healthcare reform is universal coverage (we'll ignore for the moment the fact that not one of the plans on the table even claims to be coming close to this original goal) and the US population is roughly 300 million people ... Can anyone else do the math here? 12 million people isn't even a blip on the radar. The same figure used to defuse fears of a government takeover also clearly demonstrates that the public option wouldn't do a thing to cut costs. At that size it would be virtually invisible in the larger healthcare market. The only way a single provider could have a significant impact on overall pricing is if it were large enough to potentially take over the market. You can't have it both ways and government officials are talking out of both sides of their mouths hoping that people won't notice they are blatantly contradicting themselves. If there is no risk of government takeover through this plan then there is also no possibility of government price controls through this plan. The two are inextricably tied together.
What's most amusing about this, though, (aside from the lies and hypocrisy that are just par for the course) is that pro public option people keep talking about interjecting competition into the insurance market place? Inserting one provider is supposed to increase competition? Do you people know anything about business?
First of all, there is competition in the insurance marketplace. It's stifled, corrupt, and lame, but it's there. Adding a single provider to the mix will do absolutely nothing to increase that competition, even if that provider is the government. "But there are some states that only have one major insurance provider!" You're right. There are. And why is that? Because the law, as it currently exists blocks other providers from other states from entering those markets. If you are serious about increasing competition then strike down stupid laws that interfere with competition. No one on the left will talk about that possibility, though, because "increasing competition" is not really what they want. They're just using a catchphrase to try to lure people to their side. What they really care about is government force - they want the government to use its might to force prices down - but they can't say that because that would be a takeover and saying it would be admitting that the accusations from the other side are correct. The use of such concealing language, however, is an admission that they know they do not have the mandate they claim and they know that a significant percentage of the American population is opposed to the idea of a government takeover. Everything you say, even when you're lying, says something about you. Pay attention and you'll know what they think and why they're doing what they do.
We need reform, but nothing in that nonsense those idiots in DC are writing is about reform. Maybe it started out that way, but it's just political tug-of-war now. They're just trying to score points by looking like they're doing something without paying any attention to whether or not what they're doing is right. Business as usual. And you, the voting public, are eating it up like you always do. That's why it works. If a Democrat promises to spend money to fix a problem then democrats will cheer and vote for him without paying any attention to whether or not the fix was needed or whether or not the expense actually addressed the problem. If a Republican promises to block such an expenditure then republicans will cheer and vote for him without paying any attention to whether or not the fix was needed or whether or not the expense actually addresses the problem. Can you honestly not see what's wrong with this system? No, most of you can't, and that's exactly why we're in the mess we're in.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Zero Tolerance For Zero Tolerance
School district zero tolerance policies are in the news again this week after two boys (both Scouts, coincidentally) in two different school districts were suspended from school after bringing "dangerous weapons" onto school property. In one case, a 6-year-old Cub Scout got overly excited and brought his new camping utensil (an eating tool that combines a fork, knife, and spoon into one devise) to school to use on his lunch. In the other case, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout and U.S. Army soldier (I assume he's a Reservist or Guardsman, but I have yet to find a source that makes this clear) kept a survival kit that happened to include a 2-inch pocket knife locked in his car. In both cases, the boys received the maximum punishment available though, also in both cases, neither boy had anything resembling a disciplinary record before this incident.
In the case of 6-year-old Zachary Christie, the school board did bow to public pressure and lift the suspension, admitting that they needed to rewrite their policy to take into consideration the age and cognizant ability of the student. In the case of 17-year-old Matthew Whalen, however, things are much different and much more appalling.
Whalen did not have a knife on him which, by the way, was the lie told by an unnamed source that started this problem in the first place. Apparently, along with the absence of all common sense, Whalen doesn't get the right to confront his accuser either. The knife was locked in his car inside a survival kit, and it was two inches long. Are you kidding me? I can grab half-a-dozen things in the average car more dangerous than that knife without trying! And every one of them would be perfectly legal.
How many of you keep a toolbox in your car? How many of those toolboxes contain items that would be in violation of this ridiculous zero tolerance policy?
But wait. It gets better.
Despite the claim from Lansingburgh Central School District Superintendent George J. Goodwin, who added 15 days to Whalen's suspension without even bothering to show up for the disciplinary hearing, this school's policy doesn't even have a zero tolerance clause, and it's available online (you have to do a little digging - apparently they don't like having their policies too much in plain sight) for anyone to see for themselves. What was I just saying the other day about how easy it is to catch people in lies in the internet age? The school's policy actually says "may be subject to disciplinary action". May be. Might be. Could be. Nothing about will be. It is completely at the discretion of the man who couldn't be bothered to attend the hearing and who has lied to the press and public about the reason for the suspension. The same man, by the way, who has still refused to meet with Matthew Whalen or his family. I guess Whalen doesn't get to face his judge either.
This case is bad enough with just the above-mentioned details, but we're also talking about an honors student with a spotless record whose goal is to attend West Point. We're talking about a young man with a bright, promising future who is watching that future potentially get flushed away by a man who is making up his own policies and refusing to even discuss them. This high-handed, dictatorial behavior should make you angry. If you live in this district, you should be demanding an explanation and, when Goodwin cannot provide a satisfactory explanation (as I suspect he can't), you should be demanding his resignation!
We put these people in these offices to protect our children, not to destroy their futures based on arbitrary bias. A judge hearing a murder trial is required to hear and consider context. Do our children deserve less? Zero tolerance policies are sucker's games intended to keep lazy bureaucrats from actually having to make real world decisions. I say if you're too incompetent to make real world decisions then you shouldn't be holding such jobs in the first place. Get rid of these lazy bureaucrats and their self-serving rules and maybe we can actually start doing something to improve our education system.
In the case of 6-year-old Zachary Christie, the school board did bow to public pressure and lift the suspension, admitting that they needed to rewrite their policy to take into consideration the age and cognizant ability of the student. In the case of 17-year-old Matthew Whalen, however, things are much different and much more appalling.
Whalen did not have a knife on him which, by the way, was the lie told by an unnamed source that started this problem in the first place. Apparently, along with the absence of all common sense, Whalen doesn't get the right to confront his accuser either. The knife was locked in his car inside a survival kit, and it was two inches long. Are you kidding me? I can grab half-a-dozen things in the average car more dangerous than that knife without trying! And every one of them would be perfectly legal.
How many of you keep a toolbox in your car? How many of those toolboxes contain items that would be in violation of this ridiculous zero tolerance policy?
But wait. It gets better.
Despite the claim from Lansingburgh Central School District Superintendent George J. Goodwin, who added 15 days to Whalen's suspension without even bothering to show up for the disciplinary hearing, this school's policy doesn't even have a zero tolerance clause, and it's available online (you have to do a little digging - apparently they don't like having their policies too much in plain sight) for anyone to see for themselves. What was I just saying the other day about how easy it is to catch people in lies in the internet age? The school's policy actually says "may be subject to disciplinary action". May be. Might be. Could be. Nothing about will be. It is completely at the discretion of the man who couldn't be bothered to attend the hearing and who has lied to the press and public about the reason for the suspension. The same man, by the way, who has still refused to meet with Matthew Whalen or his family. I guess Whalen doesn't get to face his judge either.
This case is bad enough with just the above-mentioned details, but we're also talking about an honors student with a spotless record whose goal is to attend West Point. We're talking about a young man with a bright, promising future who is watching that future potentially get flushed away by a man who is making up his own policies and refusing to even discuss them. This high-handed, dictatorial behavior should make you angry. If you live in this district, you should be demanding an explanation and, when Goodwin cannot provide a satisfactory explanation (as I suspect he can't), you should be demanding his resignation!
We put these people in these offices to protect our children, not to destroy their futures based on arbitrary bias. A judge hearing a murder trial is required to hear and consider context. Do our children deserve less? Zero tolerance policies are sucker's games intended to keep lazy bureaucrats from actually having to make real world decisions. I say if you're too incompetent to make real world decisions then you shouldn't be holding such jobs in the first place. Get rid of these lazy bureaucrats and their self-serving rules and maybe we can actually start doing something to improve our education system.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Dishonest Criticism
I have already commented on the Nobel Peace Prize and I'm not really going to do so again. If you are rabidly opposed to Obama then you are probably opposed to this award. If you are thrilled with Obama then you are probably thrilled with this award. If you fall somewhere in the middle then your opinion on this award probably falls somewhere in the middle as well. See how that works? It is somewhat amusing to note that more of those middle voices seem to be having a Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot moment with this award than not, but that's a different matter than I want to discuss today.
Today I want to comment on some of the comments, more specifically the loud, screeching chorus on the Left who are insisting that those opposed to this award are just Republicans being obstructionist or the radical Right being opposed to everything Obama-related. There are a number of liberal pundits who are all about, "Why can't the Right keep from screaming about such a relatively small issue?" Fair enough. I have a question for you: Why can't the Left keep from lying about such a relatively small issue?
Those pundits who are trying to dismiss the complaints as nothing more than more screeching from the right-wing hate chorus are either lying or they are ridiculously oblivious to their own industry. How do I know this? Because it takes nothing more than ten minutes on google to find more than a dozen prominent left-leaning or openly Leftist pundits who are also saying that the award was either premature at best or flat out wrong at worst.
Richard Reich (Huffington Post), Maureen Dowd (New York Times), Thomas Friedman (New York Times), Michael Russnow (Huffington Post), Richard Kim (The Nation), David Sirota (Huffington Post and Salon), Mickey Kaus (Slate), Peter Beinart (New Republic), Nicholas Kristof (New York Times), Ruth Marcus (Washington Post), Ezra Klein (Washington Post), Richard Cohen (Washington Post), Gabriel Rachman (Financial Times).
Everyone of these people is either a prominent liberal pundit or a writer who has been known to take the Left side of issues more often than not and everyone of them has publicly denounced this Nobel Peace Prize as wrong, premature, or a bad joke. You cannot convince me that those other paid pundits are so oblivious to their own profession that they don't know what these people have said. That leads to one inevitable conclusion: Those trying to dismiss the criticism of this award as just right-wing smear tactics are blatantly lying. They know there is nothing right-wing about these complaints. Almost every news story on this subject has gone out of its way to mention the fact that liberals are just as confused as conservatives about this award. These people know this and are lying about it, plain and simple.
Why would they lie about Republicans and conservatives in such a public manner and over such a laughable issue? Well, we are talking about the same people who have spent the last eight months flat out lying to the public by claiming that Republicans have done nothing but obstruction on healthcare, all the while ignoring or hiding the multiple bills and amendments the Republicans have put forward. Is this really such a stretch?
The internet age makes it almost impossible for those in the public eye to get away with these lies, yet the lies are parroted all across the internet. Nothing will improve as long as this is the way things are done, but it is up to you to stand up and demand that they tell the truth.
Today I want to comment on some of the comments, more specifically the loud, screeching chorus on the Left who are insisting that those opposed to this award are just Republicans being obstructionist or the radical Right being opposed to everything Obama-related. There are a number of liberal pundits who are all about, "Why can't the Right keep from screaming about such a relatively small issue?" Fair enough. I have a question for you: Why can't the Left keep from lying about such a relatively small issue?
Those pundits who are trying to dismiss the complaints as nothing more than more screeching from the right-wing hate chorus are either lying or they are ridiculously oblivious to their own industry. How do I know this? Because it takes nothing more than ten minutes on google to find more than a dozen prominent left-leaning or openly Leftist pundits who are also saying that the award was either premature at best or flat out wrong at worst.
Richard Reich (Huffington Post), Maureen Dowd (New York Times), Thomas Friedman (New York Times), Michael Russnow (Huffington Post), Richard Kim (The Nation), David Sirota (Huffington Post and Salon), Mickey Kaus (Slate), Peter Beinart (New Republic), Nicholas Kristof (New York Times), Ruth Marcus (Washington Post), Ezra Klein (Washington Post), Richard Cohen (Washington Post), Gabriel Rachman (Financial Times).
Everyone of these people is either a prominent liberal pundit or a writer who has been known to take the Left side of issues more often than not and everyone of them has publicly denounced this Nobel Peace Prize as wrong, premature, or a bad joke. You cannot convince me that those other paid pundits are so oblivious to their own profession that they don't know what these people have said. That leads to one inevitable conclusion: Those trying to dismiss the criticism of this award as just right-wing smear tactics are blatantly lying. They know there is nothing right-wing about these complaints. Almost every news story on this subject has gone out of its way to mention the fact that liberals are just as confused as conservatives about this award. These people know this and are lying about it, plain and simple.
Why would they lie about Republicans and conservatives in such a public manner and over such a laughable issue? Well, we are talking about the same people who have spent the last eight months flat out lying to the public by claiming that Republicans have done nothing but obstruction on healthcare, all the while ignoring or hiding the multiple bills and amendments the Republicans have put forward. Is this really such a stretch?
The internet age makes it almost impossible for those in the public eye to get away with these lies, yet the lies are parroted all across the internet. Nothing will improve as long as this is the way things are done, but it is up to you to stand up and demand that they tell the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)