...to be back home!" I know it's a little different context, but S & G had it right. I enjoyed my week in California. I like seeing the differences in that part of the US, esp since it had been 21 years since my last visit there. San Francisco is a wonderful place, an amazing city to see. The weather was just ideal. But most of all I was reminded of how lucky I am to have had such people in my life. I enjoyed it beyond expression.
There's been a lot to catch up on over the past, well, almost two weeks. Let's start by giving someone some credit, lots of it. And, remember, I don't often have anything good to say about EJ Dionne. He wrote in the Wash Post, "We do a disservice to ourselves and the Founders alike if we take them out of history and demand that they settle arguments that we ought to settle on our own." I'm very surprised this came out of his typewriter/computer, but it's very insightful regardless. Thanks to him for the good thought. He's right on the money.
Now, let me get this straight. The Obama Administration was suing Arizona because Arizona was enforcing federal immigration law (when Obama policy is to not enforce it). The Supremes said "No go" to that, but that's not the point here. (That the Obama policy is "logically ridiculous," "mind-boggling," etc. is food for another blog.) So, let's play with this one a bit. The Obama Administration wants a state to not enforce federal law, in this case immigration law. Now, what if states refuse to enforce/enact the provisions of ObamaCare? Isn't that what the President and his Justice Dept want, states not to enforce federal law? What if states (and at least three have already said they will not act to put ObamaCare measures in place) do just that, refuse to enforce the provisions of ObamaCare? Will the Administration then be happy, that federal law isn't being enforced by the states? Of course, I'm just kidding. But isn't it a dangerous proposition to enforce some laws and not enforce others? (That is laws other than those such as "It's illegal to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant in Detroit" and "It's illegal for an elephant to eat peanuts while roller skating in Natchez, MS.")
And what's with this federal judge in Detroit publicly criticizing a juror in a case in his court for speaking after the hung jury? Apparently the judge doesn't believe in free speech? This is, perhaps, more worthy of outrage than that trumped up "Muzzle the Women" episode in Lansing a few weeks ago. And then we wonder why people don't want to serve on juries or perform other public service. Thanks a lot, judge.
I see Gov Snyder has moved forward with his push to get school children's weight data on state records. First and foremost, it's none of his business how fat our kids are. Oh, it's laudable, but not the role of government to watch our kids' weight. Second, since the schools with accumulate the data, it's reasonable to ask, "Don't they have better and more important things to do--such as do a better job of teaching?" Third, instead of getting all this information and then doing what? with it, why not make physical education mandatory in the schools? After all, if the obesity problem is now an education problem...?
Speaking of the schools, I see more than half of the states have already received waivers on No Child Left Behind mandates. And more will receive them before 2014. I guess it's reasonable to ask your members of Congress, what good is passing a law (and a bad, bad law at that) if waivers are given out in such numbers? If the law is so good, worthy of passage, why have so many states, with the number growing, have been given permission to avoid the law? Hmmmm...... No wonder Congress has such a low approval rating. Its members are collective boobs.
OK, lots to write tonight. Out....
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
"Everybody Goes to College!"
More ammunition against the feel-good "Everybody goes to college!" I've been lambasting those of this opinion, esp the former Governor Jennie, for such silliness.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/27/walter-williams-too-much-college/
And how long have some of us been arguing that? I know one guy (me!) who's been arguing that for at least 17 years. Williams cites many of the arguments I've used. College isn't for everyone. Not all jobs require a college education. "Everybody" in college requires a slackening of rigor and quality, to avoid an inordinate amount of failures/dropouts. Such a watering down of rigor dilutes the education of capable students. And the list goes on....
But what are the current trends? "Everybody goes to college." More and more advance placement courses. Elimination of vocational education. Virtual colleges, not to mention "getting four-year degrees in one year." McColleges. We're letting the wrong people dictate what college is...and we are paying the price in far more ways than one. The price promises to increase in the future.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/27/walter-williams-too-much-college/
And how long have some of us been arguing that? I know one guy (me!) who's been arguing that for at least 17 years. Williams cites many of the arguments I've used. College isn't for everyone. Not all jobs require a college education. "Everybody" in college requires a slackening of rigor and quality, to avoid an inordinate amount of failures/dropouts. Such a watering down of rigor dilutes the education of capable students. And the list goes on....
But what are the current trends? "Everybody goes to college." More and more advance placement courses. Elimination of vocational education. Virtual colleges, not to mention "getting four-year degrees in one year." McColleges. We're letting the wrong people dictate what college is...and we are paying the price in far more ways than one. The price promises to increase in the future.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Education
Why are schools failing and getting worse? Several articles in today's newspapers point the fingers at some of the reasons.
First, there was a story about cell phone/texting usage in the schools. Read what the administrators and teachers say!!!!!! "As long as the texting isn't disruptive...." What!?!?!? "We allow individual teachers to set their own classroom rules?" What!?!?!? Why not just say "no!?" There are no cell phones/texting in school during instruction time, say 7:30 AM to 2:30 PM! Period! Oh, that might cause some school teachers and administrators to actually enforce a rule or rules. Sorry, my fault.
Then, I see where the state says "Students need individual instruction." What is this? I won't argue for or against "individual instruction" here, although I could. But isn't this the same state that is cutting money to the schools? Doesn't "individual instruction" mean more teachers? Hasn't "war" been declared on teachers, their benefits, health care, etc.? (Of course, the answer we'd get is, "Oh, no!") So, teachers get less pay, fewer benefits, and a lousier pension. But "individual instruction" requires more teachers. Yeah--"less pay, fewer benefits, and a lousier pension" will attract the cream of the crop to teaching. (Again, I might argue we haven't really attracted the cream of the crop to teaching over the past few decades, but I won't here.) Isn't it funny (dare I say hypocritical?) of these same business-types in state government to talk about "the free market" on everything except education? Why aren't free market principles applied here? Let's see, to attract the best, wouldn't one have to pay the best? (Why did that Prince guy sign with the Tigers?????? Gee, did they offer him the most money? Again, I could argue that good pay hasn't attracted good teachers, but that's an argument for a different time. I have to go trim some trees.)
And last, hurriedly, I see MSU has increased tuition almost 4%, pretty much following other schools' increases. Gee, I thought we were in tough times? I guess not. A lot of folks must be getting raises that I don't know about, you know, to cover the college increases. Maybe I'm the only one not getting any raise? Where's the pressure on these schools to lower costs? C'mon...I get the same pay whether I have 27 or 37 students in each class. Where does that extra money from tuition from ten more students go? It doesn't go to me, although I do a lot more work. It doesn't go for more electricity or heat--rooms still use the same amount of energy with 37 as with 27. I'm guessing more secretaries aren't hired. I'm not picking on my school, but asking what about the big schools that increase tuition each year.
Education is run by foolish people--both the education-types and the politician/businessmen who wrongly think they know what they are doing. And most people let it happen. Hey, who's going to listen to the lone voice in the wilderness, even with 42 years of experience at all levels, being critical of the schools when the vast majority, both administrators and teachers, are shouting accolades or remaining silent? Right...nobody.
Out to trim trees....
First, there was a story about cell phone/texting usage in the schools. Read what the administrators and teachers say!!!!!! "As long as the texting isn't disruptive...." What!?!?!? "We allow individual teachers to set their own classroom rules?" What!?!?!? Why not just say "no!?" There are no cell phones/texting in school during instruction time, say 7:30 AM to 2:30 PM! Period! Oh, that might cause some school teachers and administrators to actually enforce a rule or rules. Sorry, my fault.
Then, I see where the state says "Students need individual instruction." What is this? I won't argue for or against "individual instruction" here, although I could. But isn't this the same state that is cutting money to the schools? Doesn't "individual instruction" mean more teachers? Hasn't "war" been declared on teachers, their benefits, health care, etc.? (Of course, the answer we'd get is, "Oh, no!") So, teachers get less pay, fewer benefits, and a lousier pension. But "individual instruction" requires more teachers. Yeah--"less pay, fewer benefits, and a lousier pension" will attract the cream of the crop to teaching. (Again, I might argue we haven't really attracted the cream of the crop to teaching over the past few decades, but I won't here.) Isn't it funny (dare I say hypocritical?) of these same business-types in state government to talk about "the free market" on everything except education? Why aren't free market principles applied here? Let's see, to attract the best, wouldn't one have to pay the best? (Why did that Prince guy sign with the Tigers?????? Gee, did they offer him the most money? Again, I could argue that good pay hasn't attracted good teachers, but that's an argument for a different time. I have to go trim some trees.)
And last, hurriedly, I see MSU has increased tuition almost 4%, pretty much following other schools' increases. Gee, I thought we were in tough times? I guess not. A lot of folks must be getting raises that I don't know about, you know, to cover the college increases. Maybe I'm the only one not getting any raise? Where's the pressure on these schools to lower costs? C'mon...I get the same pay whether I have 27 or 37 students in each class. Where does that extra money from tuition from ten more students go? It doesn't go to me, although I do a lot more work. It doesn't go for more electricity or heat--rooms still use the same amount of energy with 37 as with 27. I'm guessing more secretaries aren't hired. I'm not picking on my school, but asking what about the big schools that increase tuition each year.
Education is run by foolish people--both the education-types and the politician/businessmen who wrongly think they know what they are doing. And most people let it happen. Hey, who's going to listen to the lone voice in the wilderness, even with 42 years of experience at all levels, being critical of the schools when the vast majority, both administrators and teachers, are shouting accolades or remaining silent? Right...nobody.
Out to trim trees....
Monday, June 18, 2012
Mon Musings
This AM newspaper headlines read, "Graduation rate dip tied to remedial ed programs." Well, no kidding. Why would that be at all surprising, enough to grab readers' attention? According to the article, school districts lure drop-outs and at-risk students to "alternative education programs," get extra state money for these students, and then use the money for programs other than "alternative education programs." Again, who could be surprised at this? I suppose it could be those who pay no attention to what goes on in the name of education or those who buy--lock, stock, and barrel--whatever tripe comes out of the school information ofices. For how many years has this been going on--forever? Who has ever really examined and then challenged the rigor--or, rather, the lack of it--of such programs? Nobody has, because the programs were money makers, any educational progress or not didn't matter. Now, though, it seems, these programs are being held accountable in the form of test scores, which are averaged into district scores. Hmmm.... And they drag down the averages.
OK, so it's Tue now. But I wonder if there will be a protest over MSU giving its AD a 50% pay raise. His salary went from $395,000 to $600,000 (I used my calculator!). That doesn't include a $100,000 longevity payment. Oh, and there's a $50,000 annual bonus tied in there, too. Now, the guy might actually deserve all that money, although I'm not sold on it. Still, with the colleges (you know, students who are part of the "99%") in the financial situation they are, this should rankle quite a few folks. But, no doubt, it won't. After all, it's only certain people who work in certain fields who are "greedy."
In a conversation last weekend, I acknowledged that I rip on Democrats a lot, namely because they deserve it for their bad policies, hypocrisy, and what not. But, I also admitted, I'm certainly not a Republican, not at all. In class, for example, I point out that I think both Nixon and Clinton should have been booted. I don't like crooks, scumbags, etc. from either party--and there are lots of them.
I see Mitt Romney's plan for improving education is remarkable similar to Barack Obama's; they are both seriously flawed and won't attain any improvement. What is so hard to figure out about improving schools?????? Why would either think privatizing schools (they call it by various names, "charters" being one of them) would make them better? Why would either think the private sector could do a better job of educating? (I must admit, though, that those who've been running the schools over the past three or four decades have done a pretty lousy job of it.) Is it that everyone has gone to school, so everyone can be teachers and administrators (which probably isn't far from what many think)? That's sort of like saying everyone played baseball or football as a kid, so everyone is qualified to be a MLB manager or NFL coach. That all seems pretty stupid to me, but, then again, what do I know? The solution isn't that hard. W Bush went to Yale; Obama went to Columbia and Harvard (allegedly!). Now, those schools are pretty close to Amherst, just "pretty close!" I had outstanding professors for the most part, not all, but mostly. And, as I aged they became even better when I realized what they were trying to and actually did teach. Brilliant for the most part. So, didn't W and BO have similarly brilliant professors? If so, then why did/do W and BO turn to those with all those fake degrees in education for the Dept of Edu, as their "experts" in education? To me, that's like turning to some kid who plays video football games to coach the next NFL team. What aren't the best teachers ever asked how to improve things--or, if they are, why are they always ignored? Of course, who determines the "best" teachers? In a discussion with a variety of folks in a variety of professions last weekend, it was determined that administrators who don't have the slightest idea of the rigor required for quality education (OK, so I tendered that opinion, but all agreed) determine who the "best" teachers are--and administrators are frequently wrong, very wrong. You see, they don't know, so how can they judge? How can I judge a dog show or even Dancing with the Stars when I know nothing about dogs or dancing (except after a few La Batts and some good Motown music!)?
Speaking of education, namely current trends, what is this push toward "virtual education" and "online classes?" This was also a topic this weekend. I pointed out the many weaknesses of "virtual" education/classes, using examples I have seen with my own eyes. As an exclamation point, although he didn't intend it that way, a guy who's taken online classes admitted, "I'd be stupid if I didn't cheat!" Yep, one of my points exactly. But who can speak out against them without coming across as some reactionary Luddite or Neanderthal? Remember, in education (and the business community that knows nothing about education, but is increasingly make decisions about it), "technology" is God. The inmates are running the asylum.
I didn't follow the trial at all, but I'd like to hear the comments of the jurors in l'affaire Clemens. Did, he not blatantly lie to Congress, under oath? (Of course, the irony of somebody being accused of lying to Congress, that same Congress filled with people who have taken lying, er, misspeaking, to a higher art, is delicious!) How, then, "not guilty on all counts?" Was the prosecution's case that weak? Was it that the prosecution was inept? And, yet, who was that UCLA (?) recruit who was accused of rape, took a plea and served 6 years in jail (instead of a possible 45 years in the slammer?) Then, the accuser admitted she was "just kidding," but will keep the million dollar payout she received as a settlement from the school district. There's something rotten in Denmark.
And, as a rationale for a lousy program, an Obama administration official was said to have acted on information that was inaccurate. And everybody seems to be accepting that. Hey, isn't that what W. Bush did? But then why is it, still, "Bush lied?" (And he didn't, not if poison gas is a "weapon of mass destruction!")
And EJ Dionne has kept up his track record. (I'm not picking on him because he's a liberal, either. Cal Thomas is equally bad as a conservative.) If you can find his column from this weekend, read it. How can anyone be taken seriously by comparing, favorably, Obama with Truman? They are light years apart--in everything, starting with honesty.
OK, so it's Tue now. But I wonder if there will be a protest over MSU giving its AD a 50% pay raise. His salary went from $395,000 to $600,000 (I used my calculator!). That doesn't include a $100,000 longevity payment. Oh, and there's a $50,000 annual bonus tied in there, too. Now, the guy might actually deserve all that money, although I'm not sold on it. Still, with the colleges (you know, students who are part of the "99%") in the financial situation they are, this should rankle quite a few folks. But, no doubt, it won't. After all, it's only certain people who work in certain fields who are "greedy."
In a conversation last weekend, I acknowledged that I rip on Democrats a lot, namely because they deserve it for their bad policies, hypocrisy, and what not. But, I also admitted, I'm certainly not a Republican, not at all. In class, for example, I point out that I think both Nixon and Clinton should have been booted. I don't like crooks, scumbags, etc. from either party--and there are lots of them.
I see Mitt Romney's plan for improving education is remarkable similar to Barack Obama's; they are both seriously flawed and won't attain any improvement. What is so hard to figure out about improving schools?????? Why would either think privatizing schools (they call it by various names, "charters" being one of them) would make them better? Why would either think the private sector could do a better job of educating? (I must admit, though, that those who've been running the schools over the past three or four decades have done a pretty lousy job of it.) Is it that everyone has gone to school, so everyone can be teachers and administrators (which probably isn't far from what many think)? That's sort of like saying everyone played baseball or football as a kid, so everyone is qualified to be a MLB manager or NFL coach. That all seems pretty stupid to me, but, then again, what do I know? The solution isn't that hard. W Bush went to Yale; Obama went to Columbia and Harvard (allegedly!). Now, those schools are pretty close to Amherst, just "pretty close!" I had outstanding professors for the most part, not all, but mostly. And, as I aged they became even better when I realized what they were trying to and actually did teach. Brilliant for the most part. So, didn't W and BO have similarly brilliant professors? If so, then why did/do W and BO turn to those with all those fake degrees in education for the Dept of Edu, as their "experts" in education? To me, that's like turning to some kid who plays video football games to coach the next NFL team. What aren't the best teachers ever asked how to improve things--or, if they are, why are they always ignored? Of course, who determines the "best" teachers? In a discussion with a variety of folks in a variety of professions last weekend, it was determined that administrators who don't have the slightest idea of the rigor required for quality education (OK, so I tendered that opinion, but all agreed) determine who the "best" teachers are--and administrators are frequently wrong, very wrong. You see, they don't know, so how can they judge? How can I judge a dog show or even Dancing with the Stars when I know nothing about dogs or dancing (except after a few La Batts and some good Motown music!)?
Speaking of education, namely current trends, what is this push toward "virtual education" and "online classes?" This was also a topic this weekend. I pointed out the many weaknesses of "virtual" education/classes, using examples I have seen with my own eyes. As an exclamation point, although he didn't intend it that way, a guy who's taken online classes admitted, "I'd be stupid if I didn't cheat!" Yep, one of my points exactly. But who can speak out against them without coming across as some reactionary Luddite or Neanderthal? Remember, in education (and the business community that knows nothing about education, but is increasingly make decisions about it), "technology" is God. The inmates are running the asylum.
I didn't follow the trial at all, but I'd like to hear the comments of the jurors in l'affaire Clemens. Did, he not blatantly lie to Congress, under oath? (Of course, the irony of somebody being accused of lying to Congress, that same Congress filled with people who have taken lying, er, misspeaking, to a higher art, is delicious!) How, then, "not guilty on all counts?" Was the prosecution's case that weak? Was it that the prosecution was inept? And, yet, who was that UCLA (?) recruit who was accused of rape, took a plea and served 6 years in jail (instead of a possible 45 years in the slammer?) Then, the accuser admitted she was "just kidding," but will keep the million dollar payout she received as a settlement from the school district. There's something rotten in Denmark.
And, as a rationale for a lousy program, an Obama administration official was said to have acted on information that was inaccurate. And everybody seems to be accepting that. Hey, isn't that what W. Bush did? But then why is it, still, "Bush lied?" (And he didn't, not if poison gas is a "weapon of mass destruction!")
And EJ Dionne has kept up his track record. (I'm not picking on him because he's a liberal, either. Cal Thomas is equally bad as a conservative.) If you can find his column from this weekend, read it. How can anyone be taken seriously by comparing, favorably, Obama with Truman? They are light years apart--in everything, starting with honesty.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Debt?
Admittedly, I try to avoid debt like the plague. I don't like to borrow money. I don't like to use the credit card. I paid off my house about 8 years sooner than scheduled. And so on....
Reading about the national government's debt frightens and bothers me. I think even more bothersome is how little it frightens or even concerns most people. At least that's how it seems--most people don't care about federal government spending.
Several observations:
In the recent May, the federal government spent $48,025 per second; yes, that's per second! Oh, and that wasn't what it spent. It's what it borrowed to spend; that is, the national government spent $48,025 that it didn't/doesn't have.
Isn't at all concerning that we borrow we money from the Commies in China or the conniving Saudi Arabians?
The President has the temerity, too, to claim that government spending has slowed to its lowest levels in decades. Wait a minute! The amount the federal government spent with borrowed money in May is more than the entire federal debt accumulated in the first 115 years of the nation's existence. In fact, it's five times more! I suppose there are several explanations why the President would make such a preposterous claim. One, he's not too bright. Two, he's very bright, but is lying. Three..., I'll let you think of a couple other explanations. Besides the outrageous spending, don't people get sick and tired of being lied to all of the time? Apparently they don't.
And what does it say about us, that we are willing to spend so much that we don't have for programs for us, while shackling the payments on our children and grandchildren? In fact, there is some serious doubt they'll be able to make the payments, considering recent economic trends. And so many of us are so quick to cite the "greed" of the wealthy, of Big Oil, of Wall Street, etc. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Of course, few in the "I, Me, Mine" generations are willing to admit their own greed, pay more taxes themselves (note retired teachers's anger and opposition to taxing their pensions), and sacrifice for the good of their children and grandchildren.
Reading about the national government's debt frightens and bothers me. I think even more bothersome is how little it frightens or even concerns most people. At least that's how it seems--most people don't care about federal government spending.
Several observations:
In the recent May, the federal government spent $48,025 per second; yes, that's per second! Oh, and that wasn't what it spent. It's what it borrowed to spend; that is, the national government spent $48,025 that it didn't/doesn't have.
Isn't at all concerning that we borrow we money from the Commies in China or the conniving Saudi Arabians?
The President has the temerity, too, to claim that government spending has slowed to its lowest levels in decades. Wait a minute! The amount the federal government spent with borrowed money in May is more than the entire federal debt accumulated in the first 115 years of the nation's existence. In fact, it's five times more! I suppose there are several explanations why the President would make such a preposterous claim. One, he's not too bright. Two, he's very bright, but is lying. Three..., I'll let you think of a couple other explanations. Besides the outrageous spending, don't people get sick and tired of being lied to all of the time? Apparently they don't.
And what does it say about us, that we are willing to spend so much that we don't have for programs for us, while shackling the payments on our children and grandchildren? In fact, there is some serious doubt they'll be able to make the payments, considering recent economic trends. And so many of us are so quick to cite the "greed" of the wealthy, of Big Oil, of Wall Street, etc. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Of course, few in the "I, Me, Mine" generations are willing to admit their own greed, pay more taxes themselves (note retired teachers's anger and opposition to taxing their pensions), and sacrifice for the good of their children and grandchildren.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Write-In Votes
So, this AM, in an op-ed letter, an Oak Co Republican Executive Committee member wrote, "Write-ins are just wrong." Of course, this guy wouldn't have a vested (conflict of?) interest in this issue, would he? The immediately situation (McCotter's petition snafu) aside, write-ins need to be discussed.
I would submit that not only is "Write-ins are just wrong," but that write-ins can help straighten out the mess we are in--in DC, in Lansing, all over. Surely the political parties, both Dems and Reps, abhor write-ins for obvious reasons. But let's consider what write-in votes can do.
First, a write-in is an alternative to the often rotten candidates both parties throw at voters. Since the parties have rigged the nomination processes, voter are often left with "holding their noses" and voting for"the lesser of two evils," that is, bad candidates. Parties have demonstrated they are much more concerned with holding power than with fixing what is becoming more and more broken in the US. A write-in vote is a vote one of the parties doesn't get, potentially costing an election. Write-ins give voters choices, not the same old garbage.
Second, a write-in vote is a valid way to express dissatisfaction, disgust even, with how the parties are operating government. Many will say that a write-in vote is a "wasted vote." I disagree with that, vehemently. Why should I have to "hold my nose" when I vote? More significant to this point, a write-in vote voices/expresses my dissatisfaction. I think that if more, not fewer, voters resorted to write-ins, better things would happen.
Perhaps, then, the parties would wake up, offering better candidates in hopes of attracted the potential write-in voters. Perhaps they would make better attempts to deal with issues, to speak plainly and honestly.
After all, if many people resorted to write-in votes, the political parties would lose out on potentially deciding votes.
I would submit that not only is "Write-ins are just wrong," but that write-ins can help straighten out the mess we are in--in DC, in Lansing, all over. Surely the political parties, both Dems and Reps, abhor write-ins for obvious reasons. But let's consider what write-in votes can do.
First, a write-in is an alternative to the often rotten candidates both parties throw at voters. Since the parties have rigged the nomination processes, voter are often left with "holding their noses" and voting for"the lesser of two evils," that is, bad candidates. Parties have demonstrated they are much more concerned with holding power than with fixing what is becoming more and more broken in the US. A write-in vote is a vote one of the parties doesn't get, potentially costing an election. Write-ins give voters choices, not the same old garbage.
Second, a write-in vote is a valid way to express dissatisfaction, disgust even, with how the parties are operating government. Many will say that a write-in vote is a "wasted vote." I disagree with that, vehemently. Why should I have to "hold my nose" when I vote? More significant to this point, a write-in vote voices/expresses my dissatisfaction. I think that if more, not fewer, voters resorted to write-ins, better things would happen.
Perhaps, then, the parties would wake up, offering better candidates in hopes of attracted the potential write-in voters. Perhaps they would make better attempts to deal with issues, to speak plainly and honestly.
After all, if many people resorted to write-in votes, the political parties would lose out on potentially deciding votes.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Soda?
Is this true? NYC wants to initiate a ban on large sodas, those in excess of 16 ounces? C'mon....
No one decries our obesity epidemic more than I. But it's none of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's business what I drink or how much of it! (If I consume too many alcoholic beverages and then break law, that's a different matter.) It's my choice to make--that, I think, is freedom.
In attacking obesity, how about some other approaches? Since the NYC gov't seems inclined to ban things (weren't transfats banned there a few years ago, ruining my favorite fried chicken?), I have some other things, rather than large sodas, to ban. How about computer and video games for kids? For that matter, how about a ban on the number of hours of television they can watch?
More seriously (or not), why not mandate at least an hour of physical education/exercise each day for kids in public schools?
Most disturbing is that these arrogant elitists won't stop. They are smarter than we are--just ask them. They may or may not be smarter than we are (although I suspect they aren't). That's not the point, a point that eludes them.
Televisions, light bulbs, transfats, fast food, automobiles, toilets, sodas.... What's next?
No one decries our obesity epidemic more than I. But it's none of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's business what I drink or how much of it! (If I consume too many alcoholic beverages and then break law, that's a different matter.) It's my choice to make--that, I think, is freedom.
In attacking obesity, how about some other approaches? Since the NYC gov't seems inclined to ban things (weren't transfats banned there a few years ago, ruining my favorite fried chicken?), I have some other things, rather than large sodas, to ban. How about computer and video games for kids? For that matter, how about a ban on the number of hours of television they can watch?
More seriously (or not), why not mandate at least an hour of physical education/exercise each day for kids in public schools?
Most disturbing is that these arrogant elitists won't stop. They are smarter than we are--just ask them. They may or may not be smarter than we are (although I suspect they aren't). That's not the point, a point that eludes them.
Televisions, light bulbs, transfats, fast food, automobiles, toilets, sodas.... What's next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
