Giuliani criticizes GOP on spendingGood. Another a fiscal conservative who'll stand up to the more dishonest elements of the GOP.By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential contenders on Friday scolded Congress for extravagant spending of taxpayer dollars, and Rudy Giuliani blamed the issue for losses in last year's elections.
"We lost control of Congress because we were just like the Democrats as far as spending is concerned — shame on us," Giuliani told the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Conservatives VS Republicans
Rudolph Guiliani takes a necessary shot at the wolves in sheep clothing that have infiltrated the Republican Party, which, overall, has been far, far, far too fiscally irresponsible in recent times:
Thursday, October 04, 2007
The Only Real Path to Health Care Reform
Democrats would have you believe that there is something horribly wrong with health care in this country, and that the only real solution is higher taxes and a massively ineffective government bureaucracy taking over the medical system of this nation. Theirs is a socialist agenda - theft via taxation from the bank accounts of hard-working American citizens, redistribution of other people's money, and totalitarian control over the medical profession. They believe it is the responsibility of each citizen to fund the health care of other people's children, and they think they have a right to force you to do this, as you do their education. As in so many other arenas, in their eyes parents should no longer be responsible for their own children, a fascist-socialist state should be. Government paid teachers, administrators, after-school program directors, counselors, and even doctors and nurses, are the ideal proxies for the actual parent, all under the control of a leftist state - a state appropriating untold amounts of citizens' incomes to pay for its expanded power. In the view of the left, individual citizens cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, and thus the state should control choice, including how each person's income is spent (and on whom).
Democrats like uber-idiot Harry Reid would have you believe that anyone that dares questions, or in George W. Bush's case vetoes, seriously flawed socialist legislation like an unnecessary expansion of SCHIP is "heartless." Heartless we are seen for expecting individuals to take responsibility for themselves and their own children. Heartless for favoring liberty. Heartless for expecting legislation which is fair and effective. But Reid and his ilk are truly the heartless, for they advocate federal thievery, they wish to diminish personal liberty, and they support an uncaring government which would steal the money of its citizens - money which individuals could use on their own health care in a free market as they see fit. How can Reid call anyone "heartless" for expecting the government not to be wasteful, or for expecting it not to fund the undeserving?
As always, rather than have any sort of rational discussion on "reform," the liberals in this country turn to their favorite method of debate: name-calling. Bush and anyone who agrees with his rare act of fiscal conservatism is a big meanie-weanie that hates little kiddies and wants them all to get sick and die. There was never a discussion of whether or not an expansion of SCHIP was good or improved policy, and no exploration of the real causes of the high cost for medical care. It is far easier to paint opponents to their plan - not opponents of treating sick children, but opponents of one particular plan - as baby-slaying ogres. But for some reason they ignore the fact that perhaps empowering parents and doctors, rather than tying their hands with taxes and governmental red-tape, might be less cruel than their bloated "tax and spend more" plan of action. Bush did not outlaw health care for children, he merely vetoed a plan to make some of us pay for someone else's.
So, what then, is the solution the Democrats in Congress have missed? The single most useful, albeit complex, thing the government could do to improve the affordability and quality of health care in the United States would not be more governmental interference in or control of the health care system, it would be to instead improve the "state" itself, on the federal and state levels. In other words, here is my two word solution to the health care crisis in this country:
Or, to put it another way:
Before you start wondering if I've accidentally combined two different blog entries, let me explain. The cost of civil litigation in America is astronomical, both directly to those caught in lawsuits and indirectly to the nation overall. And, even worse, there is absolutely no attempt to ensure that the outcome of any particular case is in any way fair or reasonable, leading to a colossal amount of unchecked abuse. The government, through its ineffective legislation allowing civil litigation exploitation, and through the seemingly out-of-touch-with-reality judicial branch, has, through its own poor law-making choices and inaction, been a major cause FOR the health care crisis. Of course, the corrupt, unethical lawyers and litigants that seek to profit unfairly from the broken system have been a major contributor to the crisis as well. But, the government itself - its laws and its representatives - has allowed this incredibly out-of-control crookedness to occur. In fact, it has even encouraged it by passing laws which make it easier to victimize businesses and individuals and by appointing worthless judges too squeamish or dishonest to put a foot down and block the rampant injustice within our system of "justice."
Not surprisingly, the deep pockets of well-paid doctors and health care providers have been a particularly easy target for the legal parasites. And, to oversimplify a bit, since those in need of health care can be, well, really "sick" (obviously) when they go to a doctor, failure to cure or diagnose, failure to be impossibly perfect and superhuman, will result in "sick" or dead patients. Thus, there is often a major envisioned "harm" to claim. Whether or not the responsibility should rationally fall in the hands of a doctor or nature itself, the medical professional will be blamed.
Sharks go for blood, and there are a lot of wounded, floating sources of meat out there. Outrageous lawsuits against medical professionals directly drive up medical and insurance costs. And this of course applies to most other businesses as well, and even agencies of our own government which we fund through tax revenues - all targets of civil litigators. It is not just medical costs which are effected. Civil litigation inflates the price of just about everything. But why on Earth have we allowed -heck, placed - sharks into our swimming pool, to feed on us while we do the breast stroke? We have let our legislators, many who have been greased by trial lawyer lobbies, make laws that have left reason, freedom and common sense at the door.
Sweeping reforms are necessary. We must make it safe to swim in the pool again.
Unfortunately, because of the way the legal system, the way our government, has evolved, it has become more cost effective to settle lawsuits rather than to go through a reasoned process of determining actual liability. It is now more costly to defend oneself from bogus or malicious claims than to just give in to legalized extortion. Rational assessment of the facts through a trial has become far too expensive, but big out-of-court settlement victories merely encourage other unscrupulous individuals to attempt similar suits. The system must be restructured so that it is not cost prohibitive to go to trial and show that no wrong-doing occurred. Or, at the very least, legislation must be revised so that the burden of proof falls back upon the claimant and it is not so easy to "win" a big settlement with so very little justification or real proof.
More must be done to prevent and dismiss frivolous lawsuits - those bringing them to the courts must be punished, claimants and lawyers alike, and should be held responsible for all the unnecessary costs of the fraudulent lawsuit, both to whomever is being sued and to the taxpayer for court expenses. The judicial system must evaluate claims on some deeper level than it currently does - simply hiring a lawyer should not be enough for a suit to go forward.
Our government has legislated into existence insanely unjust burdens of liability. Individuals are no longer personally responsible for their own well-being or common sense - instead this responsibility falls on the shoulders of other individuals and businesses. In today's legal world, if you're too stupid to realize that hot coffee is hot, and if you cannot personally prevent yourself from spilling your order on yourself, then the person making the coffee, not you, is obviously responsible because they didn't adequately warn you that (a) the hot coffee is hot, and (b) that you're a fucking moron. Businesses are also now responsible for catering to other people's disabilities (oh, sorry, differently special ABILITIES, like NOT being able to walk) and must spend inconceivable amounts of money on making businesses they own accessible and even comfortable for people that they should logically in no way be responsible for. Just as the liberals see the community (all of us) as responsible for other people's children, the liberally-corrupted government sees all of us as responsible for other people's actions AND for acts of nature. For example, according to sexual harassment decisions of the past, employers can even be held liable for the actions of third parties their employees come across. What the holy fuck? Of course, these inane, impossible-to-fulfill burdens of "liability" leave plenty of opportunities open for the legal snakes to commit ample amounts of civil litigation abuse.
Liability must be legally redefined. The doors must be shut on the serpent lawyers and their cold-blooded clients. Personal responsibility must be emphasized in reformed legislation. No one should be punished or financially burdened for other people's actions, failings and decisions. Nor for the results of nature. For example, it should not be the burden of businesses or government agencies or other people to provide "access," in other words, spend THEIR funds, on accommodating the disabled. Why should they provide funds for expensive software, translators, elevators, and such? If they WANT the business, sure, they have every right to make their institutions more disabled friendly. But the burden of responsibility should really fall not on taxpayers or businesses who are in no way responsible for these people's disabilities - it should fall on the disabled themselves. People must be responsible for themselves. Compliance with ADA-type legislation has become an incredible financial hardship upon businesses and taxpayers. But this is just one example of how we've allowed near-fascist leftist control over individuals and privately owned companies. The "workplace" and the realm of financial interaction (be it buying something, or paying for a medical service, or whatever) has become a totalitarian state. Doctors are being held liable for not being to heal the healable, or not knowing the unknowable, or not guessing correctly. Perfection is expected in impossibly imperfect situations.
This is not to say that civil litigation is always unnecessary or unjustified. Malpractice and other forms of intentional abuse or unintentional neglect do occur, and people should be held accountable for their actions. But we need to end the idea that all claims of negligence or abuse hold equal weight. We need to RATIONALLY EVALUATE; that was how the system was intended to work.
Another extremely important path to reform would be to limit financial awards in cases where people are reasonably found to be liable for some injustice or harm. Outrageously high awards are allowed by law and are far too commonplace. Given how easy it is to "win," it's no surprise to see more and more folks jumping on the cash-cow bandwagon. The health care system, and just about everyone else, is being crushed by unreasonable, excessive awards. And these costs are obviously passed along to the consumer. And yet somehow the industry itself is blamed for growing costs when they have no other choice but to raise prices to keep up with growing insurance rates and big civil litigation payouts.
On a side note, it is odd how "assumption of innocence" has become utterly ignored in civil cases, yet on the criminal side, the idea of "reasonable doubt" is beyond the grasp of too many moronic, modern juries. No substantial proof is needed in a civil case to prove "guilt" and then "fine" millions. But juries ignore facts and hard evidence in criminal cases far too often, finding murderers and thieves not guilty for the silliest of reasons.
Some might argue that lawyers are simply businessmen, hired for a service. This is certainly true - assuming they do not work for the state. They're taking advantage of business opportunities in an environment many of them had no hand in creating. But the law itself could never be considered a private, free enterprise realm. Legislation itself is the will of our state, or theoretically the will of the majority imposed by its representatives. The law, unlike say the acts of healing or teaching, is by definition an aspect of the government. Tort reform would be a form of self-improvement for the state. In fact, it is the government's responsibility to ensure laws are followable without the need of lawyer interpretation, and that defending oneself and deriving a rational conclusion about a situation does not represent a financial hardship. The legal system should be there to protect us when necessary, and not be a vampire feeding off our population.
Rather than allow liberalism to attempt to consume another aspect of the free market, like health care services, the government would be better off fixing itself. Doing so will improve the environment of the marketplace and of personal interaction. If doctors no longer fear unjustified and unreasonable civil suits, and insurance companies no longer need pay disproportionate settlements, the health care market will eventually adjust, as would numerous other markets. Society and human interaction overall would be improved, and personal liberty would again be more important than state nanny-ism.
Democrats like uber-idiot Harry Reid would have you believe that anyone that dares questions, or in George W. Bush's case vetoes, seriously flawed socialist legislation like an unnecessary expansion of SCHIP is "heartless." Heartless we are seen for expecting individuals to take responsibility for themselves and their own children. Heartless for favoring liberty. Heartless for expecting legislation which is fair and effective. But Reid and his ilk are truly the heartless, for they advocate federal thievery, they wish to diminish personal liberty, and they support an uncaring government which would steal the money of its citizens - money which individuals could use on their own health care in a free market as they see fit. How can Reid call anyone "heartless" for expecting the government not to be wasteful, or for expecting it not to fund the undeserving?
As always, rather than have any sort of rational discussion on "reform," the liberals in this country turn to their favorite method of debate: name-calling. Bush and anyone who agrees with his rare act of fiscal conservatism is a big meanie-weanie that hates little kiddies and wants them all to get sick and die. There was never a discussion of whether or not an expansion of SCHIP was good or improved policy, and no exploration of the real causes of the high cost for medical care. It is far easier to paint opponents to their plan - not opponents of treating sick children, but opponents of one particular plan - as baby-slaying ogres. But for some reason they ignore the fact that perhaps empowering parents and doctors, rather than tying their hands with taxes and governmental red-tape, might be less cruel than their bloated "tax and spend more" plan of action. Bush did not outlaw health care for children, he merely vetoed a plan to make some of us pay for someone else's.
So, what then, is the solution the Democrats in Congress have missed? The single most useful, albeit complex, thing the government could do to improve the affordability and quality of health care in the United States would not be more governmental interference in or control of the health care system, it would be to instead improve the "state" itself, on the federal and state levels. In other words, here is my two word solution to the health care crisis in this country:
Tort Reform
Or, to put it another way:
Massive Motherfucking Tort Reform
Before you start wondering if I've accidentally combined two different blog entries, let me explain. The cost of civil litigation in America is astronomical, both directly to those caught in lawsuits and indirectly to the nation overall. And, even worse, there is absolutely no attempt to ensure that the outcome of any particular case is in any way fair or reasonable, leading to a colossal amount of unchecked abuse. The government, through its ineffective legislation allowing civil litigation exploitation, and through the seemingly out-of-touch-with-reality judicial branch, has, through its own poor law-making choices and inaction, been a major cause FOR the health care crisis. Of course, the corrupt, unethical lawyers and litigants that seek to profit unfairly from the broken system have been a major contributor to the crisis as well. But, the government itself - its laws and its representatives - has allowed this incredibly out-of-control crookedness to occur. In fact, it has even encouraged it by passing laws which make it easier to victimize businesses and individuals and by appointing worthless judges too squeamish or dishonest to put a foot down and block the rampant injustice within our system of "justice."
Not surprisingly, the deep pockets of well-paid doctors and health care providers have been a particularly easy target for the legal parasites. And, to oversimplify a bit, since those in need of health care can be, well, really "sick" (obviously) when they go to a doctor, failure to cure or diagnose, failure to be impossibly perfect and superhuman, will result in "sick" or dead patients. Thus, there is often a major envisioned "harm" to claim. Whether or not the responsibility should rationally fall in the hands of a doctor or nature itself, the medical professional will be blamed.
Sharks go for blood, and there are a lot of wounded, floating sources of meat out there. Outrageous lawsuits against medical professionals directly drive up medical and insurance costs. And this of course applies to most other businesses as well, and even agencies of our own government which we fund through tax revenues - all targets of civil litigators. It is not just medical costs which are effected. Civil litigation inflates the price of just about everything. But why on Earth have we allowed -heck, placed - sharks into our swimming pool, to feed on us while we do the breast stroke? We have let our legislators, many who have been greased by trial lawyer lobbies, make laws that have left reason, freedom and common sense at the door.
Sweeping reforms are necessary. We must make it safe to swim in the pool again.
Unfortunately, because of the way the legal system, the way our government, has evolved, it has become more cost effective to settle lawsuits rather than to go through a reasoned process of determining actual liability. It is now more costly to defend oneself from bogus or malicious claims than to just give in to legalized extortion. Rational assessment of the facts through a trial has become far too expensive, but big out-of-court settlement victories merely encourage other unscrupulous individuals to attempt similar suits. The system must be restructured so that it is not cost prohibitive to go to trial and show that no wrong-doing occurred. Or, at the very least, legislation must be revised so that the burden of proof falls back upon the claimant and it is not so easy to "win" a big settlement with so very little justification or real proof.
More must be done to prevent and dismiss frivolous lawsuits - those bringing them to the courts must be punished, claimants and lawyers alike, and should be held responsible for all the unnecessary costs of the fraudulent lawsuit, both to whomever is being sued and to the taxpayer for court expenses. The judicial system must evaluate claims on some deeper level than it currently does - simply hiring a lawyer should not be enough for a suit to go forward.
Our government has legislated into existence insanely unjust burdens of liability. Individuals are no longer personally responsible for their own well-being or common sense - instead this responsibility falls on the shoulders of other individuals and businesses. In today's legal world, if you're too stupid to realize that hot coffee is hot, and if you cannot personally prevent yourself from spilling your order on yourself, then the person making the coffee, not you, is obviously responsible because they didn't adequately warn you that (a) the hot coffee is hot, and (b) that you're a fucking moron. Businesses are also now responsible for catering to other people's disabilities (oh, sorry, differently special ABILITIES, like NOT being able to walk) and must spend inconceivable amounts of money on making businesses they own accessible and even comfortable for people that they should logically in no way be responsible for. Just as the liberals see the community (all of us) as responsible for other people's children, the liberally-corrupted government sees all of us as responsible for other people's actions AND for acts of nature. For example, according to sexual harassment decisions of the past, employers can even be held liable for the actions of third parties their employees come across. What the holy fuck? Of course, these inane, impossible-to-fulfill burdens of "liability" leave plenty of opportunities open for the legal snakes to commit ample amounts of civil litigation abuse.
Liability must be legally redefined. The doors must be shut on the serpent lawyers and their cold-blooded clients. Personal responsibility must be emphasized in reformed legislation. No one should be punished or financially burdened for other people's actions, failings and decisions. Nor for the results of nature. For example, it should not be the burden of businesses or government agencies or other people to provide "access," in other words, spend THEIR funds, on accommodating the disabled. Why should they provide funds for expensive software, translators, elevators, and such? If they WANT the business, sure, they have every right to make their institutions more disabled friendly. But the burden of responsibility should really fall not on taxpayers or businesses who are in no way responsible for these people's disabilities - it should fall on the disabled themselves. People must be responsible for themselves. Compliance with ADA-type legislation has become an incredible financial hardship upon businesses and taxpayers. But this is just one example of how we've allowed near-fascist leftist control over individuals and privately owned companies. The "workplace" and the realm of financial interaction (be it buying something, or paying for a medical service, or whatever) has become a totalitarian state. Doctors are being held liable for not being to heal the healable, or not knowing the unknowable, or not guessing correctly. Perfection is expected in impossibly imperfect situations.
This is not to say that civil litigation is always unnecessary or unjustified. Malpractice and other forms of intentional abuse or unintentional neglect do occur, and people should be held accountable for their actions. But we need to end the idea that all claims of negligence or abuse hold equal weight. We need to RATIONALLY EVALUATE; that was how the system was intended to work.
Another extremely important path to reform would be to limit financial awards in cases where people are reasonably found to be liable for some injustice or harm. Outrageously high awards are allowed by law and are far too commonplace. Given how easy it is to "win," it's no surprise to see more and more folks jumping on the cash-cow bandwagon. The health care system, and just about everyone else, is being crushed by unreasonable, excessive awards. And these costs are obviously passed along to the consumer. And yet somehow the industry itself is blamed for growing costs when they have no other choice but to raise prices to keep up with growing insurance rates and big civil litigation payouts.
On a side note, it is odd how "assumption of innocence" has become utterly ignored in civil cases, yet on the criminal side, the idea of "reasonable doubt" is beyond the grasp of too many moronic, modern juries. No substantial proof is needed in a civil case to prove "guilt" and then "fine" millions. But juries ignore facts and hard evidence in criminal cases far too often, finding murderers and thieves not guilty for the silliest of reasons.
Some might argue that lawyers are simply businessmen, hired for a service. This is certainly true - assuming they do not work for the state. They're taking advantage of business opportunities in an environment many of them had no hand in creating. But the law itself could never be considered a private, free enterprise realm. Legislation itself is the will of our state, or theoretically the will of the majority imposed by its representatives. The law, unlike say the acts of healing or teaching, is by definition an aspect of the government. Tort reform would be a form of self-improvement for the state. In fact, it is the government's responsibility to ensure laws are followable without the need of lawyer interpretation, and that defending oneself and deriving a rational conclusion about a situation does not represent a financial hardship. The legal system should be there to protect us when necessary, and not be a vampire feeding off our population.
Rather than allow liberalism to attempt to consume another aspect of the free market, like health care services, the government would be better off fixing itself. Doing so will improve the environment of the marketplace and of personal interaction. If doctors no longer fear unjustified and unreasonable civil suits, and insurance companies no longer need pay disproportionate settlements, the health care market will eventually adjust, as would numerous other markets. Society and human interaction overall would be improved, and personal liberty would again be more important than state nanny-ism.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Catch the Left Wing Media Bias in this Story
Hint, it's EVERYWHERE:
Blame Dallas, not the criminals.
How on Earth is this any sort of indication of racism in Dallas?
WOLF! WOLF! WOLF! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Of course, of course, if 12 black people are caught committing crimes, it must be RACISM on the part of the law enforcement enforcing the laws. Let's condemn the fact that they're out there protecting society and ignore that fact that the REASON these people were investigated in the first place was not skin-color, but, gee, the fact that they were engaged in suspicious behavior and very likely took bribes and kick-backs. But no, holding African Americans to any sort of standard akin to everyone else, and expecting them not to break the law - gee, that's prejudice.Dallas indictment raises race issues
By PAUL J. WEBER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
DALLAS - A sweeping City Hall corruption probe that has produced federal charges against a dozen black civic and political leaders is renewing suspicions of racism in a city with a long history of combative minority relations.
"It makes Dallas looks bad," said Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, who is black, "because people just have the general sense of the city being unfair to people of color."
Sixteen people — 12 of them black — were named in corruption indictments unsealed this week. Most of them were charged in what the FBI said was a kickback and bribery scheme involving the awarding of contracts to white developers to build affordable housing, mostly in black neighborhoods.
The two-year investigation — and the spectacle of some of Dallas' most influential black leaders arriving at the federal courthouse to face charges — dealt a blow to a minority community still struggling to find its political footing.
Some blacks said they suspect the case is an attempt to dismantle Dallas' black political leadership.
Among the blacks indicted are a former City Council member, a former city planner, businessmen, state Rep. Terri Hodge of Dallas, and former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill, who was considered a front-runner for mayor in June but was hurt by the investigation. He was defeated in the first round of elections. Four white developers were also charged.
The ethnic makeup of those indicted has not gone unnoticed in Dallas, a city of 1.2 million that is nearly 25 percent black and has been beset by racial tensions over the years.
"I refuse to subscribe that this was racially motivated," said Michael Sorrell, president of the city's historically black Paul Quinn College. "But given all the factors, what is the statistical likelihood of producing that ratio?"
U.S. Attorney Richard Roper and the FBI strongly denied that the probe was racially motivated. Federal investigators made their case not by setting up a sting operation but by raiding City Hall, removing boxes of documents and following the paper trail.
"I always in my career base my decisions not on race but what the facts and the law show," said Roper, who has not ruled out the possibility of more indictments.
...Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, said the fact that three-fourths of those indicted are black doesn't give him reason for pause. "Unfortunately, all the actors who were in a position to make a decision ... were black," he said.
Although Dallas more recently has broken the political color barrier with its first black mayor, police chief and district attorney, some say that is deceptive.
"Our progress here is cosmetic," said Rufus Shaw, a black political analyst.
Blame Dallas, not the criminals.
How on Earth is this any sort of indication of racism in Dallas?
WOLF! WOLF! WOLF! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Friday, September 14, 2007
Corruption & Lies: Typical at the University of California & Amongst Champions of "Diversity"
Anyone familiar with the University of California is probably quite aware that the system has been plagued by examples of dishonesty, corruption and anti-white/anti-American bias in recent years. Fairness, responsibility and integrity have taken a backseat to personal gain, political correctness and special privilege by the UC administration through various scandals and policies.
Top administrators have been basically stealing tax-payer money and lining their own pockets. Professors are allowed to insult patriots by burning American flags in classrooms and are protected by administrators under the guise of "academic freedom," but student newspapers printing satires and criticisms of Islamic jihadism are labeled "hate speech" and "bias incidents." Caucasians are currently under-represented in the student population in comparison to California population proportions, so the admissions and outreach officers stopped using "under-representation" as a justification for racial bias and special privilege based on ethnicity and began using the phrase "traditionally under-represented" (ie, historically rather than currently) so that they could continue their programs aimed at non-whites and completely ignore both the new statistics and the fact that the system was anything BUT biased against "minorities." Admissions policies have shifted away from quantifiable and verifiable criteria like SAT scores and High School GPA and moved into the realm of the "holistic," where students are awarded points for "community service" and "personal disadvantage," all of which goes utterly unchecked, so that application fraud cannot be caught and combated. California voters passed a law ending racial bias in the state admissions policies, yet UC administrators circumvent this by aiming special outreach programs at targeted ethnic groups, completely ignoring the letter of the law.
In light of all the unethical behavior and hypocrisy, is it any surprise that a charter school on the University of California, San Diego campus, the Preuss School, has been accused of handing out false grades to students in order to falsely inflate their own statistics and reputation? It should not be. When voters in California passed Proposition 209, the University of California, frustrated and angered that the California citizens who pay for the campus's existence and their salaries, dared to choose fairness and colorblindness over race-based affirmative action programs and special privileges for minorities, altered their admissions policies, but at the same time sank more energy into reaching pre-college minorities. This was at first done with "outreach" programs targeting specific races, completely ignoring the fact that voters called for the UC and the state to "not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race." But somehow the preferential treatment in outreach policies was OK to college administrators, because the will of the voter was suspect. Then, an institution charged with providing HIGHER EDUCATION decided to get into the business of 6th-12th grade education, working with the San Diego Unified School District to establish a charter school focusing on low-income children in the hopes that this would lead to greater "diversity" at the college level.
On the surface, Preuss seemed a model of educational excellence, proving that when you do away with many of the rules, statues and regulations forced upon other forms of public schools by a liberal and intrusive government, you can more successfully provide a top-notch education. In a nutshell, rather than the socialistic idea that you provide the same education to all students, you provide a high-end education only to those willing and capable of doing the work. As noted in the linked article, though, "a 2005 study by UCSD showed that Preuss students earned state test scores and grade-point averages that were no higher than their peers who applied to the charter school but weren't chosen in the admissions lottery. " Here's the simple secret of this charter school - it selects, by lottery, those students who are already college-bound in their outlook. Those students in low-income neighborhoods that don't already have an intention to go to college don't bother applying. Isn't it amazing how great your school looks if you don't have to play by the same rules as other public institutions and basically get a top-notch batch of students hand picked for you?
In any case, Newsweek named Preuss one of the top 10 high schools in the United States. But now, with these allegations of grade tampering, which if true puts their entire grading system in doubt, we are now left to wonder if Newsweek was being hasty in its evaluation. If administrators were willing to give out grades for classes not even attended, then grade inflation could be a serious problem as well - especially for a school whose administration is more concerned with promoting the image of the school rather than the business of actual education.
In principle, the charter model is a decent one - one more closely aligned to the ideal model, a privatized system, where tax-payers are no longer held responsible for funding the education of other people's children, and where merit and individual achievement is rewarded rather than thwarted. If we are to have private education funded by our taxes, we should expect a less socialist system, and one based more on rewarding success and hard work. The idea of education being a "right" should be dismissed, and we should remind ourselves that education is a privilege. Those that abuse that privilege, or fail themselves to take full advantage of it, should be removed from the system - or at least provided with an education that suits their particular skills and talents (trade schools for instance), and those that succeed should be rewarded and it should be recognized that they have earned access to the next step. A tiered education system, where 6-12 students who have proven themselves successful move on to college-preparatory schools, and those who are not move on to others sorts of training, would be highly preferable to the unmanageable mish-mash system we have now, where kids on the track to universities are paired with losers and gang-bangers.
The important thing in any system is accountability. The flaw with the charter system it seems is that is still open to the same piss-poor management and underhandedness we see in other public institutions and bureaucracies. But, hopefully, the trend of holding students responsible for their own successes and failures will eventually work its way to educators and administrators as well.
Top administrators have been basically stealing tax-payer money and lining their own pockets. Professors are allowed to insult patriots by burning American flags in classrooms and are protected by administrators under the guise of "academic freedom," but student newspapers printing satires and criticisms of Islamic jihadism are labeled "hate speech" and "bias incidents." Caucasians are currently under-represented in the student population in comparison to California population proportions, so the admissions and outreach officers stopped using "under-representation" as a justification for racial bias and special privilege based on ethnicity and began using the phrase "traditionally under-represented" (ie, historically rather than currently) so that they could continue their programs aimed at non-whites and completely ignore both the new statistics and the fact that the system was anything BUT biased against "minorities." Admissions policies have shifted away from quantifiable and verifiable criteria like SAT scores and High School GPA and moved into the realm of the "holistic," where students are awarded points for "community service" and "personal disadvantage," all of which goes utterly unchecked, so that application fraud cannot be caught and combated. California voters passed a law ending racial bias in the state admissions policies, yet UC administrators circumvent this by aiming special outreach programs at targeted ethnic groups, completely ignoring the letter of the law.
In light of all the unethical behavior and hypocrisy, is it any surprise that a charter school on the University of California, San Diego campus, the Preuss School, has been accused of handing out false grades to students in order to falsely inflate their own statistics and reputation? It should not be. When voters in California passed Proposition 209, the University of California, frustrated and angered that the California citizens who pay for the campus's existence and their salaries, dared to choose fairness and colorblindness over race-based affirmative action programs and special privileges for minorities, altered their admissions policies, but at the same time sank more energy into reaching pre-college minorities. This was at first done with "outreach" programs targeting specific races, completely ignoring the fact that voters called for the UC and the state to "not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race." But somehow the preferential treatment in outreach policies was OK to college administrators, because the will of the voter was suspect. Then, an institution charged with providing HIGHER EDUCATION decided to get into the business of 6th-12th grade education, working with the San Diego Unified School District to establish a charter school focusing on low-income children in the hopes that this would lead to greater "diversity" at the college level.
On the surface, Preuss seemed a model of educational excellence, proving that when you do away with many of the rules, statues and regulations forced upon other forms of public schools by a liberal and intrusive government, you can more successfully provide a top-notch education. In a nutshell, rather than the socialistic idea that you provide the same education to all students, you provide a high-end education only to those willing and capable of doing the work. As noted in the linked article, though, "a 2005 study by UCSD showed that Preuss students earned state test scores and grade-point averages that were no higher than their peers who applied to the charter school but weren't chosen in the admissions lottery. " Here's the simple secret of this charter school - it selects, by lottery, those students who are already college-bound in their outlook. Those students in low-income neighborhoods that don't already have an intention to go to college don't bother applying. Isn't it amazing how great your school looks if you don't have to play by the same rules as other public institutions and basically get a top-notch batch of students hand picked for you?
In any case, Newsweek named Preuss one of the top 10 high schools in the United States. But now, with these allegations of grade tampering, which if true puts their entire grading system in doubt, we are now left to wonder if Newsweek was being hasty in its evaluation. If administrators were willing to give out grades for classes not even attended, then grade inflation could be a serious problem as well - especially for a school whose administration is more concerned with promoting the image of the school rather than the business of actual education.
In principle, the charter model is a decent one - one more closely aligned to the ideal model, a privatized system, where tax-payers are no longer held responsible for funding the education of other people's children, and where merit and individual achievement is rewarded rather than thwarted. If we are to have private education funded by our taxes, we should expect a less socialist system, and one based more on rewarding success and hard work. The idea of education being a "right" should be dismissed, and we should remind ourselves that education is a privilege. Those that abuse that privilege, or fail themselves to take full advantage of it, should be removed from the system - or at least provided with an education that suits their particular skills and talents (trade schools for instance), and those that succeed should be rewarded and it should be recognized that they have earned access to the next step. A tiered education system, where 6-12 students who have proven themselves successful move on to college-preparatory schools, and those who are not move on to others sorts of training, would be highly preferable to the unmanageable mish-mash system we have now, where kids on the track to universities are paired with losers and gang-bangers.
The important thing in any system is accountability. The flaw with the charter system it seems is that is still open to the same piss-poor management and underhandedness we see in other public institutions and bureaucracies. But, hopefully, the trend of holding students responsible for their own successes and failures will eventually work its way to educators and administrators as well.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Just How Stupid Are You?
According to this article, a full
So I wonder - do you still think that the jury system is still a workable or useful one? At the very least, one-third of our "peers" have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of even discerning what "proof" or "reason" IS! How on Earth can we trust them to figure out if a person has or has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm amazed they can tie their own motherfucking shoes. Or even know what shoes are for. Maybe they sometimes manage to get their shoes on their feet, but I'm sure the footwear is covered in drool by the end of the process.
Not only are these people morons (42.6% of Democrats - that number is surprisingly low), they are despicable to the very core of their beings - only vile human beings would think that their fellow Americans could or would stoop to such a level. Or, more importantly, think this based upon the wild speculation and complete misinformation of the 9/11 Truth campaign.
One can disagree with Bush on a number of issues, but it's outrageous to even suggest he would commit such atrocities based on such flimsy "reasoning." Goodbye fact, hello imaginary fantasyland. A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And guess what? All the reasonable facts point to full doubt. Bush was not responsible for 9/11 - your friendly crazy Islamo-fascists were.
I could put a suit and tie on a tree, and it'd still be ten times smarter than anyone who thinks that "9/11 was an inside job." Jesus, these 9/11 Truther idiots make Muslim extremist-terrorists look positively sane.
31 percent of Americans do not accept the official explanation for Sept. 11 -- that "19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught U.S. intelligence and military forces off guard."Yes. That's right. Almost a third of all Americans lack the basic reasoning skills, intelligence, empathy, and capacity for logic to be able to differentiate between verifiable evidence and the shitload of toadshit that makes up the "9/11 Truth" conspiracy theories.
So I wonder - do you still think that the jury system is still a workable or useful one? At the very least, one-third of our "peers" have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of even discerning what "proof" or "reason" IS! How on Earth can we trust them to figure out if a person has or has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm amazed they can tie their own motherfucking shoes. Or even know what shoes are for. Maybe they sometimes manage to get their shoes on their feet, but I'm sure the footwear is covered in drool by the end of the process.
Not only are these people morons (42.6% of Democrats - that number is surprisingly low), they are despicable to the very core of their beings - only vile human beings would think that their fellow Americans could or would stoop to such a level. Or, more importantly, think this based upon the wild speculation and complete misinformation of the 9/11 Truth campaign.
One can disagree with Bush on a number of issues, but it's outrageous to even suggest he would commit such atrocities based on such flimsy "reasoning." Goodbye fact, hello imaginary fantasyland. A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And guess what? All the reasonable facts point to full doubt. Bush was not responsible for 9/11 - your friendly crazy Islamo-fascists were.
I could put a suit and tie on a tree, and it'd still be ten times smarter than anyone who thinks that "9/11 was an inside job." Jesus, these 9/11 Truther idiots make Muslim extremist-terrorists look positively sane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
