Friday, May 20, 2016

Blind Ideology

Perhaps all of us are guilty of this at times, maybe frequently.  Perhaps it's a natural order, inevitable in some instances.  But it seems that an adherence to a blind ideology is dangerous, counterproductive, and inefficient.  I hope I'm not speaking of principles here.

In this AM's newspaper, an opinion article talked of Lansing Republicans' "determin[ation] to purge organized labor from the public square--even if it means producing a generation of dunces."  The reference is to the Republicans' incessant efforts to kill the teachers' unions.  I've written about the teachers' unions before; they are a dual-edged sword.  There are some good things about them, which they've done, but there are some rotten things, too.

Yet, is this blind ideology "to purge organized labor from the public square," and I'd submit the Republicans would like "to purge" all unions in all sectors, worth "producing a generation of dunces?"  Of course unions have some bad things about them, but what the Republicans apparently haven't realized is that the unions never have acted unilaterally.  Anything they have managed to achieve has been done with the cooperation (OK, maybe it hasn't been voluntary cooperation.) of management/businesses.

One might argue that the unions have stood in the way of quality education, of steps to improve the schools.  (From what I've seen, any attempts put forth by politicians to improve education have been counter-productive, if not downright stupid.)  And, have the non-union schools (e.g., the charters) been any more effective at producing quality education?  The evidence seems to suggest not.

The article demonstrates the precipitous drop in Michigan student rankings among the 50 states.  That is distressing.  But, first of all, the rankings are based on standardized tests.  I have serious issues with them and the blind reliance upon them.  Second, the fall seems to have come from about the time the politicians became involved, that is, sticking their noses into areas where they know little or nothing (but, of course, think they do because, after all, they went to school, didn't they?).

It took a while, but George Washington in warning us about "factions" more than 200 years ago, was right.  Democrats?  Republicans?  "A pox on both of their houses!"

Mitch Albom had a relevant opinion article in last weekend's newspaper.  It was about the airlines and their ridiculous profits at the expense of customers.  Have you flown lately?  Go ahead, try to fit into one of the seats.  Everything costs now--fees, fees, fees.  For refreshments, there's half a can of soda and a thumbnail-size bag of peanuts or two cookies.  Need to check a bag? There's a fee for that, too.

According to US Dept of Trans figures, the airlines in 2015 made the highest profit in four decades, more than three times what they did in 2014.  But we keep hearing cries of poverty from the flying folks.  "Tighter security."  "Fuel prices."  and on and on.  But, wait a minute,  Aren't fuel prices the lowest they've been in years?  Yep,  Have airline tickets gone down at all?  Nope.  And fees keep multiplying.

Yeah, but what about the free market?  Demand is up, so prices go up.  Government should realize that and continue to stay out of the way.  Bologna/Baloney.  Fifteen years ago, the airlines were all over the federal gov't for bailouts after 9/11.  As Albom notes, the airlines insisted "flying was a vital national issue."  How many billions of US taxpayer dollars went to the airlines then?  Oh, that's a different story.

And exactly what "free market" is that?  The one that has, what, three or four major carriers in this country thanks to the myriad "mergers" of the past 30 or 40 years, mergers that must have federal gov't approval.  Why would the feds approve of mergers that reduce competition, that destroy or at least inhibit the "free market?"

Methinks it's the lobbyists.  Flying customers don't have lobbyists, with their fat check books, in DC.  The airlines must have oodles of them.  Once again, our elected officials and bureaucrats aren't there to represent us.  Nope, not at all.  It's the monied interests.

Stretch out and enjoy your peanuts and half can of soda.

1 comment:

guslaruffa said...

I have a serious question because I just don't know the answer. Who is the best to lead the school system. To teach what needs to be taught. To act fiscally responsible. To create a system that can measure success, just not teach to a test. I would value your opinion