OK, Common Sense sometimes just can't help itself. Ms Bachman gave a "Tea Party" response to the President's State of the Union speech. Herewith some common sense observations.
Right off the bat Ms Bachman thanks the Tea Party and declares that her remarks are not competing with the earlier Republican response. Really? It's one thing to say so, quite another to not compete when several leading Republicans have expressed concern and downright displeasure. Common Sense thinks saying something, even saying it many times, just doesn't make it so. When Common Sense wants to know what's real it looks at what people are doing rather more than what they are saying.
Then Ms Bachman proceeds to recite facts in a rather distorted fashion. She notes that when Mr Obama took office unemployment was and the deficit were much lower whereupon Mr Obama spent over a $1 trillion in a "failed stimulus package." But is that true? On the face of it perhaps. But, and this is the important part, the US was on the verge of the largest recession in the last 50 years and facing the immanent collapse of several major US corporations and the financial system. These problems are not ones that Mr Obama created, they are ones he inherited from a previous Republican administration brought on by years of Congressional dismantling of the sensible financial regulation created after the Great Depression. Common Sense thinks that it is not simply deceptive but unconscionable to cherry pick facts to support what is fundamentally an untruth.
Ms Bachman then notes that Mr Obama promised to keep unemployment below 8% and failed. While she's correct on the facts she choose, she ignores the rest of the facts. When Mr Obama made his initial statements about unemployment no one, including the Mr Obama who is, after all not omniscient, knew or could have known just how much trouble the economy was in. Did Mr Obama in fact fail to keep unemployment below 8%? Yes, he did. Was it his falt? No, it wasn't. Rather the fault lies with Congressional action and the Bush administration. Again, distorting the facts to support an argument just doesn't make it true.
She goes on to note that the deficit ballooned under Mr Obama. In fact it did, largely because of spending to moderate the worst economic decline since the Great Depression. Bachman also glosses lightly over the Bush deficits noting simply that they were "to high" while not noting that they followed on the heals of a balanced budget from Mr Clinton. Deficit spending is bad to be sure, but blaming spending caused by Congress and previous administrations on Mr Obama is just distortion of the truth.
Flushed with herself, Ms Bachman then plays the bureaucracy card noting first that we're now told what light bulbs to buy and there are 16,500 IRS agents ready to enforce the Mr Obama's Health Care bill. The light bulb remark is simply silly. Energy consumption is a serious problem. Energy is expensive and energy consumption a significant contributor to trade deficits. So lets see, perhaps Ms Bachman thinks we should use light bulbs that cost the consumer more in electric bills and increase the trade deficit, or perhaps she is just trying to trivialize an altogether sensible step to reduce home electric bills and improve energy efficiency. Perhaps by trivializing she hopes to make Government the problem when in fact in the light bulb case government has done the common sense thing.
The remark about the IRS agents is yet another example of distortions as is characterizing the Health Care law as Mr Obama's. In the case of the IRS, they are not going to come knocking on anyone's door. First of all, those provisions of the law have not gone into effect. Second, the law actually only imposes a tax penalty for failure to conform. The IRS isn't going to force anyone to buy health insurance. It's also worth noting that the health care proposal Mr Obama made is different in many important respects from what Congress passed. Indeed, the law passed is largely one of health insurance reform not health care reform and does not contain several of the most important reforms Mr Obama proposed. The truth is it's not his but rather Congress's.
Ms Bachman then seems to depart for some sort of alternate universe noting that the US enjoys the world's finest health care. Really! Common Sense did a bit of fact checking that goes to that notion. The US ranks 49th among industrialized nations in life expectancy and 44th in infant mortality while spending more on health care per person than any other country in the world! We're not best, we're not even close. But Ms Bachman doesn't really seem troubled by the facts.
Rather full of herself from a profoundly distorted view Ms Bachman goes on to list what Mr Obama should do. No EPA imposed cap and trade, support a balanced budget amendment, energy policy to increase US energy production, support repeal of "Obama care", support medical liability reform, support nationwide policy purchase, and reduce corporate tax rate. So lets check reality. First, the EPA doesn't impose cap and trace, it implements laws passed by Congress. Oh, and by the way, absent some serious reduction in greenhouse gases, we are going to have environmental problems that will be world changing. Second, while a balanced budget is appealing Congress has never shown any willingness to take the tough principled steeps needed to balance the budget. Energy policy, Mr Obama in fact has supported reasonable energy policies that would ween the US from oil in favor of energy national energy sources. Common Sense will be interested to see if Congress has the fortitude to remove big oil's tax giveaways and fund renewable energy. Repeal of "Obama care," the facts just don't support that notion. Medical liability reform - Mr Obama called for just that. Nationwide policy purchase - OK. Reduce corporate tax rates - Mr Obama called for that as well provided that corporate tax breaks are also eliminated. Common Sense notes that Mr Obama in fact supports a number of Ms Bachman's proposals and that other of her notions are profoundly wrong headed.
Ms Bachman closes by playing the "them and us" card and characterizing recent congressional electees as "great men and women." "Them and us" is in Common Sense's view what's wrong with political discourse today. There is no them, there is only us in Common Sense's view. It's time to grow up and realize that we are all in this country together and if we don't act together we will surely fail together. As to "great men and women," greatness will be determined by history, not by those who have yet to do much of anything in Congress.
It's nice that Ms Bachman wants to energize the faithful as she does in her final remarks. It's nice to remember a different time in a simpler world. But Common Sense thinks that remarks like "totalitarian aggressor" are offensive on their face. Common Sense thinks that Ms Bachman, having recently been elected herself, should be keenly aware that as a representative democracy we get the government we elect certainly not a totalitarian proposition.
Ms Bachman has every right to her views. She has every right to speak. Indeed she has a responsibility as a politician to do so. But those rights and responsibilities do not make distortions acceptable. Rather, they impose a higher standard which Common Sense thinks Ms Bachman fails to meet.
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
States’ Lawmakers Turn Attention to the Dangers of Distracted Pedestrians
States’ Lawmakers Turn Attention to the Dangers of Distracted Pedestrians
By: SUSAN SAULNY & MATT RICHTEL
NY Times Published: January 25, 2011
Many joggers don earbuds and listen to music to distract themselves from the rigors of running. But might the Black Eyed Peas or Rihanna distract them so much that they jog into traffic?
That is the theory of several lawmakers pushing the latest generation of legislation dealing with how devices like iPods and cellphones affect traffic safety. The ubiquity of interactive devices has propelled the science of distraction — and now efforts to legislate against it — out of the car and into the exercise routine.
Consider that common sense dictates that, as we instruct our children, one should look both ways before crossing the street. Presumably, joggers and the like are not children but rather adults. As adults they hopefully have adult judgment and can thus be held to adult responsibility and consequences. Should such adults be forbidden by law from doing something stupid? Where does societies' interest in lay?
There is a certain disposition to "nanny law" in the US. For example we place a major burden for safe conduct while engaging in dangerous activities such as skiing not just on the participant but also the venue. Sometimes this passes the common sense test. Rather to often it doesn't. This proposal seems to Common Sense as in the latter category. Really, if you aren't bright enough and engaged enough while walking, hardly a dangerous activity, to look before crossing the street and you get injured it really is your problem not societies!
One might argue that this is like laws concerning cell phone use while driving. But is it? Common Sense thinks not. Driving is a very dangerous activity involving controlling several thousand pounds of high speed machinery able to do damage not just to the operator but to many other innocent bystanders. Walking, not so much. Common Sense thinks there is a fundamental qualitative difference between walking and operating a vehicle.
Of course one must recognize that there is some societal interest insofar as there is social cost associated with the injury but is that any different than the many other foolish actions that as a society we accept? Common Sense thinks that perhaps this is a Darwin Award sort of issue and that the good legislature of NY must surely have other rather more important business to attend to.
By: SUSAN SAULNY & MATT RICHTEL
NY Times Published: January 25, 2011
Many joggers don earbuds and listen to music to distract themselves from the rigors of running. But might the Black Eyed Peas or Rihanna distract them so much that they jog into traffic?
That is the theory of several lawmakers pushing the latest generation of legislation dealing with how devices like iPods and cellphones affect traffic safety. The ubiquity of interactive devices has propelled the science of distraction — and now efforts to legislate against it — out of the car and into the exercise routine.
Consider that common sense dictates that, as we instruct our children, one should look both ways before crossing the street. Presumably, joggers and the like are not children but rather adults. As adults they hopefully have adult judgment and can thus be held to adult responsibility and consequences. Should such adults be forbidden by law from doing something stupid? Where does societies' interest in lay?
There is a certain disposition to "nanny law" in the US. For example we place a major burden for safe conduct while engaging in dangerous activities such as skiing not just on the participant but also the venue. Sometimes this passes the common sense test. Rather to often it doesn't. This proposal seems to Common Sense as in the latter category. Really, if you aren't bright enough and engaged enough while walking, hardly a dangerous activity, to look before crossing the street and you get injured it really is your problem not societies!
One might argue that this is like laws concerning cell phone use while driving. But is it? Common Sense thinks not. Driving is a very dangerous activity involving controlling several thousand pounds of high speed machinery able to do damage not just to the operator but to many other innocent bystanders. Walking, not so much. Common Sense thinks there is a fundamental qualitative difference between walking and operating a vehicle.
Of course one must recognize that there is some societal interest insofar as there is social cost associated with the injury but is that any different than the many other foolish actions that as a society we accept? Common Sense thinks that perhaps this is a Darwin Award sort of issue and that the good legislature of NY must surely have other rather more important business to attend to.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Obama to call for five year spending freeze
Obama to call for five year spending freeze
By:CNN White House Correspondent Dan Lothian
Washington (CNN)– In a move aimed at tackling the bulging federal deficit, a senior administration official said President Obama will call for a "five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending," during his State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Sounds good, doesn't it. So Common Sense thought a bit of fact check might be in order. The discretionary spending federal budget for FY 2010 was $1.39 trillion, or 38% of total spending. So the first Common Sense observation is that a significant majority of the federal budget, some 62%, is off the table. In case you're wondering that includes principally social security, medicare, and medicaid. Note that I'm not suggesting that these programs should be cut, just pointing out the obvious.
Of the discretionary spending that is on the table, more than half ($844 billion) is security related including DOD and Homeland Security. What remains, $546 billion or roughly 15% of total federal budget, is what is to be frozen!
Think about that for a bit. Our elected representatives are going to have a fight over 15% of the total budget. While you're thinking about it bear in mind that budgeted spending is only a portion of real total spending.
So when the facts are available just how good is a freeze on "non-security discretionary spending?" Common Sense thinks this is more of the politics of the usual. It sounds good but doesn't really pass the smell test.
By:CNN White House Correspondent Dan Lothian
Washington (CNN)– In a move aimed at tackling the bulging federal deficit, a senior administration official said President Obama will call for a "five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending," during his State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Sounds good, doesn't it. So Common Sense thought a bit of fact check might be in order. The discretionary spending federal budget for FY 2010 was $1.39 trillion, or 38% of total spending. So the first Common Sense observation is that a significant majority of the federal budget, some 62%, is off the table. In case you're wondering that includes principally social security, medicare, and medicaid. Note that I'm not suggesting that these programs should be cut, just pointing out the obvious.
Of the discretionary spending that is on the table, more than half ($844 billion) is security related including DOD and Homeland Security. What remains, $546 billion or roughly 15% of total federal budget, is what is to be frozen!
Think about that for a bit. Our elected representatives are going to have a fight over 15% of the total budget. While you're thinking about it bear in mind that budgeted spending is only a portion of real total spending.
So when the facts are available just how good is a freeze on "non-security discretionary spending?" Common Sense thinks this is more of the politics of the usual. It sounds good but doesn't really pass the smell test.
Who's Congress is it anyway?
Tonight will be President Obama's second State of the Union address to the 535 members of the United States Congress. As of now some 60 members of congress, 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans have agreed to sit together in an effort to show some sort of common cause concerning the nation's business. If you're math challenged that's roughly 6% of our elected congressmen!
Common Sense wonders does the other 93% of our elected congressional employees think that they work not for the citizens of the United States but rather for their respective political parties? If that is so is it any wonder that the nation's business doesn't get done?
Common Sense thinks it's time for our elected representatives to grow up and understand that they don't work for a political party or for the major corporate contributors that got them elected, they work for the citizens of their congressional districts and the country as a whole.
Just a common sense POV.
Common Sense wonders does the other 93% of our elected congressional employees think that they work not for the citizens of the United States but rather for their respective political parties? If that is so is it any wonder that the nation's business doesn't get done?
Common Sense thinks it's time for our elected representatives to grow up and understand that they don't work for a political party or for the major corporate contributors that got them elected, they work for the citizens of their congressional districts and the country as a whole.
Just a common sense POV.
American's don't read our newspaper
Atlanta (CNN) -- A Spanish-language newspaper in Georgia has drawn bipartisan criticism for publishing a doctored photograph depicting the state's new governor as a Nazi.
El Nuevo Georgia Editor Rafael Navarro said the picture was meant to call attention to Hispanic issues -- and grab the attention of residents and politicians who often ignore the Hispanic community.
"Americans don't read our paper because they can't read Spanish. They don't read our news, our editorials and the opinion of the community. But if they see a picture, they'll get it," he said.
The photo illustration, published in the paper's January 6 edition, shows Republican Gov. Nathan Deal wearing a Nazi uniform, a swastika armband and a Hitler-like mustache.
The accompanying story, entitled "Repression in the Age of Deal," recaps an ethics investigation against Deal and talks about the governor's past financial troubles. The full-page article also quotes local community leaders forecasting tough times ahead for illegal immigrants in the state.
Common Sense is troubled by this in several ways.
First, characterizing Deal as a Nazi in the context of an article about alleged financial improprieties is not only offensive, it's raciest in that it seeks to inflame Hispanics when in fact Mr Deal hasn't done anything.
Second, asserting as an excuse that "Americans don't read our paper because they can't read Spanish" begs several questions. Is this paper published in Georgia, a state in the United States of America, somehow exempt from being part of America? Does the paper exist in some sort of extraterritorial sovereign land where it exist apart from the rest of the country? What about the many Americans who are multilingual and do read Spanish? Are they not Americans?
This kind of inflammatory to trash is in fact protected speech even if the paper declares itself as non-American. But it is not helpful or civil. It does not in any way address Hispanic issues or interest. Rather it seeks to divide and inflame, one assumes for financial gain.
Just a bit of common sense.
El Nuevo Georgia Editor Rafael Navarro said the picture was meant to call attention to Hispanic issues -- and grab the attention of residents and politicians who often ignore the Hispanic community.
"Americans don't read our paper because they can't read Spanish. They don't read our news, our editorials and the opinion of the community. But if they see a picture, they'll get it," he said.
The photo illustration, published in the paper's January 6 edition, shows Republican Gov. Nathan Deal wearing a Nazi uniform, a swastika armband and a Hitler-like mustache.
The accompanying story, entitled "Repression in the Age of Deal," recaps an ethics investigation against Deal and talks about the governor's past financial troubles. The full-page article also quotes local community leaders forecasting tough times ahead for illegal immigrants in the state.
Common Sense is troubled by this in several ways.
First, characterizing Deal as a Nazi in the context of an article about alleged financial improprieties is not only offensive, it's raciest in that it seeks to inflame Hispanics when in fact Mr Deal hasn't done anything.
Second, asserting as an excuse that "Americans don't read our paper because they can't read Spanish" begs several questions. Is this paper published in Georgia, a state in the United States of America, somehow exempt from being part of America? Does the paper exist in some sort of extraterritorial sovereign land where it exist apart from the rest of the country? What about the many Americans who are multilingual and do read Spanish? Are they not Americans?
This kind of inflammatory to trash is in fact protected speech even if the paper declares itself as non-American. But it is not helpful or civil. It does not in any way address Hispanic issues or interest. Rather it seeks to divide and inflame, one assumes for financial gain.
Just a bit of common sense.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Political retoric and Ms Palin
(Reuters) - Prominent Republican Sarah Palin on Wednesday accused critics of "blood libel" by blaming her rhetoric for contributing to the shooting rampage in Tucson that killed six and wounded 14, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," the conservative Tea Party favorite and former Alaska governor said in her first major response to critics.
"Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
Yet another example of "people unclear on the concept." Ms Palin after briefly noting the "monstrous criminality" of the shooting goes to some length to defend her own and others rhetoric in, sadly, inflammatory terms such as "blood libel". What troubles Common Sense here is that Ms Palin, a purported future presidential candidate, doesn't simply condemn the shootings and disagree with others who cite the contribution of inflammatory and divisive speech. Rather she chooses to turn once again to vitriolic language. Shame on you Ms Palin. Shame on others on the left and right that also contribute to the confrontational politics.
Common Sense thinks that it's time we start electing grownups interested in addressing our country's real problems with realistic policies and reasoned civil discourse.
"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," the conservative Tea Party favorite and former Alaska governor said in her first major response to critics.
"Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
Yet another example of "people unclear on the concept." Ms Palin after briefly noting the "monstrous criminality" of the shooting goes to some length to defend her own and others rhetoric in, sadly, inflammatory terms such as "blood libel". What troubles Common Sense here is that Ms Palin, a purported future presidential candidate, doesn't simply condemn the shootings and disagree with others who cite the contribution of inflammatory and divisive speech. Rather she chooses to turn once again to vitriolic language. Shame on you Ms Palin. Shame on others on the left and right that also contribute to the confrontational politics.
Common Sense thinks that it's time we start electing grownups interested in addressing our country's real problems with realistic policies and reasoned civil discourse.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Civility 101 for those that are having a hard time getting it.
From youtube Megyn Kelly Asks Pima Co. Sheriff Why Are You Politicizing This Tragedy
Common Sense thought the video interesting if a bit fluffy. More interesting still though are comments. Consider this pair:
How is civil discourse advanced by 1) accusing the reporter of saying "stupid shit, non stop" or 2) accusing 88texasman of sounding like "Whoopi's tampon?" The point here is that this kind of exchange is part of what's broken! Name calling doesn't advance civil discourse.
While Common Sense comments on the failings of our political leaders, it seems that at least to some degree they are just a reflection of us. For our society to prosper we all need to be better than this or at least require that our politicians, politicos, and news agencies conduct themselves civilly.
Oh, btw, I'm not as old as the sheriff but I to remember that we used to be better than this and think that we need to return to those values if we're to work together and address the real problems we as a nation face.
Just a bit of Common Sense.
Common Sense thought the video interesting if a bit fluffy. More interesting still though are comments. Consider this pair:
Why is she still on the air?! she constantly says stupid shit, non stop. shes so one sided. if she had a show like hannity or glen beck id understand, but shes a damn news reporter. what happend to a non partisan view?! 88texasman
How is civil discourse advanced by 1) accusing the reporter of saying "stupid shit, non stop" or 2) accusing 88texasman of sounding like "Whoopi's tampon?" The point here is that this kind of exchange is part of what's broken! Name calling doesn't advance civil discourse.
While Common Sense comments on the failings of our political leaders, it seems that at least to some degree they are just a reflection of us. For our society to prosper we all need to be better than this or at least require that our politicians, politicos, and news agencies conduct themselves civilly.
Oh, btw, I'm not as old as the sheriff but I to remember that we used to be better than this and think that we need to return to those values if we're to work together and address the real problems we as a nation face.
Just a bit of Common Sense.
Monday, January 10, 2011
CNN: Adviser: Linking Palin to shootings 'appalling'
CNN: Adviser: Linking Palin to shootings 'appalling'
BY: CNN Senior Political Editor Mark Preston
Sarah Palin's political aide removed a controversial web post Saturday after a gunman attempted to assassinate an Arizona congresswoman in a mass killing that left, among others, a 9-year-old girl dead.
But a Palin aide Saturday denied the web posting from the 2010 congressional campaign - featuring gun sights over the congressional districts of 20 Democratic candidates – was designed to incite violence. Rebecca Mansour told conservative host Tammy Bruce that it was a political tool and noted it should have been removed after the November election.
Common Sense says that the radical right/Tea Party/Palin just don't get it! Now I've never met Ms Palin, but it seems stunningly unlikely that she or her staff intended to incite violence with any of their rhetoric. If the complaint is "incitement to violence" she is clearly innocent. But does that make such posting OK? Are they reasonable civil conduct? Are they an acceptable way to campaign? Are they politically acceptable?
Common Sense says no! The lunatic fringe on both the left and right view vitriolic politics as an invitation to act. Is Ms Palin responsible for the act of a deranged man? No, she's not. But is she responsible for contributing to the environment that encouraged him? Yes, she is. So to are many many other politicians and commentators. However, the fact that others are involved does not excuse her contribution.
Common Sense says that it is long since past time that politicians and commentators grew up and began to conduct themselves in a civil manner. It's time to stop demonizing those that disagree with us. It's time to stop treating politics as a game between two teams. The issues that we face are much to important to continue to tolerate uncivil behavior from either politics or commentators.
Just a Common Sense POV.
BY: CNN Senior Political Editor Mark Preston
Sarah Palin's political aide removed a controversial web post Saturday after a gunman attempted to assassinate an Arizona congresswoman in a mass killing that left, among others, a 9-year-old girl dead.
But a Palin aide Saturday denied the web posting from the 2010 congressional campaign - featuring gun sights over the congressional districts of 20 Democratic candidates – was designed to incite violence. Rebecca Mansour told conservative host Tammy Bruce that it was a political tool and noted it should have been removed after the November election.
Common Sense says that the radical right/Tea Party/Palin just don't get it! Now I've never met Ms Palin, but it seems stunningly unlikely that she or her staff intended to incite violence with any of their rhetoric. If the complaint is "incitement to violence" she is clearly innocent. But does that make such posting OK? Are they reasonable civil conduct? Are they an acceptable way to campaign? Are they politically acceptable?
Common Sense says no! The lunatic fringe on both the left and right view vitriolic politics as an invitation to act. Is Ms Palin responsible for the act of a deranged man? No, she's not. But is she responsible for contributing to the environment that encouraged him? Yes, she is. So to are many many other politicians and commentators. However, the fact that others are involved does not excuse her contribution.
Common Sense says that it is long since past time that politicians and commentators grew up and began to conduct themselves in a civil manner. It's time to stop demonizing those that disagree with us. It's time to stop treating politics as a game between two teams. The issues that we face are much to important to continue to tolerate uncivil behavior from either politics or commentators.
Just a Common Sense POV.
RI turnto10.com: Controversial diploma plan moves forward
RI turnto10.com: Controversial diploma plan moves forward
The proposal would require students to score "partially proficient" on a standardized test in 11th grade. If they don’t, they would get extra help and take the test again during their senior year.
At that time, the student would need to show sufficient improvement to graduate. The plan would also create a three-tiered diploma system.
Critics argue that the testing is biased in favor of students in wealthier communities and that most students in poorer communities would not graduate under the proposed system.
Under the Constitution and most state law, government has a responsibility to "promote the general welfare." Many communities troubled by failing school systems have turned to standardized testing as a way of objectively measuring school performance. Such testing is oftentimes controversial with frequent complaints about teaching to the test or bias toward wealthy communities. Such criticisms strike Common Sense as both disingenuous and silly.
Consider first the complaint of "teaching to the test." What exactly is wrong with teaching to an objective measure of minimum knowledge? Is it wrong to require a certain proficiency in reading, math, understanding writing, or history? Common Sense argues no, it's not. When students leave school they will have to live in the real world where such skills determine their ability to succeed.
While it is doubtless true that testing results are better in wealthy communities is that a problem? Should we not test because wealthy schools do well? Should we not test because such communities have a culture that promotes education? Common Sense argues no.
Both these criticisms fail an objective notion of the purpose of public education in Common Sense's view. Consider that the purpose of school is to produce an educated citizen able to function in today's society. Failing that, school has little purpose or claim on the public purse. Testing tells us how schools are performing. It identifies schools and communities that need help. That many public schools fail such test clearly demonstrates that they need to improve or, in extreme cases, be replaced by schools that can educate. Failing that schools and the governments that run them fail both their citizens and the larger city, state, and nation in that they simply babysit young people and release them to largely fail. It is not enough to warehouse future citizens who are unable to succeed in today's society.
Just a bit of Common Sense.
The proposal would require students to score "partially proficient" on a standardized test in 11th grade. If they don’t, they would get extra help and take the test again during their senior year.
At that time, the student would need to show sufficient improvement to graduate. The plan would also create a three-tiered diploma system.
Critics argue that the testing is biased in favor of students in wealthier communities and that most students in poorer communities would not graduate under the proposed system.
Under the Constitution and most state law, government has a responsibility to "promote the general welfare." Many communities troubled by failing school systems have turned to standardized testing as a way of objectively measuring school performance. Such testing is oftentimes controversial with frequent complaints about teaching to the test or bias toward wealthy communities. Such criticisms strike Common Sense as both disingenuous and silly.
Consider first the complaint of "teaching to the test." What exactly is wrong with teaching to an objective measure of minimum knowledge? Is it wrong to require a certain proficiency in reading, math, understanding writing, or history? Common Sense argues no, it's not. When students leave school they will have to live in the real world where such skills determine their ability to succeed.
While it is doubtless true that testing results are better in wealthy communities is that a problem? Should we not test because wealthy schools do well? Should we not test because such communities have a culture that promotes education? Common Sense argues no.
Both these criticisms fail an objective notion of the purpose of public education in Common Sense's view. Consider that the purpose of school is to produce an educated citizen able to function in today's society. Failing that, school has little purpose or claim on the public purse. Testing tells us how schools are performing. It identifies schools and communities that need help. That many public schools fail such test clearly demonstrates that they need to improve or, in extreme cases, be replaced by schools that can educate. Failing that schools and the governments that run them fail both their citizens and the larger city, state, and nation in that they simply babysit young people and release them to largely fail. It is not enough to warehouse future citizens who are unable to succeed in today's society.
Just a bit of Common Sense.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Health care reform
The Republican House wants to make a show of trying to repeal health care reform knowing full well that it won't pass the Senate. Common Sense thinks that political theater is not a substitute for real governance.
The original so called health care reform bill is certainly flawed in that it principally reforms heal insurance not health care. Consider the altogether typical and mindlessly wrong quote from one of our Democratic Representatives that people die because they don't have health insurance. Think about that for a moment. Common Sense thinks that people die because they don't have health care. Health insurance is simply the way we deal with payment.
That brings the issue into some better focus. Consider that we regard education through high school as a "general welfare" on the theory that an educated populace is good for all Americans. We regard the interstate highway system as a "general welfare" issue on the theory that rapid, convenient, low cost transportation is good for all Americans. Likewise many other benefits.
What then of health care? Is a healthy populace good for us all?
Common Sense says so. An unhealthy population is an enormous risk to society as a whole. It is an enormous drag on the overall economy. Why then is the issue of universal health care so contentious? As many western nations have already discovered, universal health care is practical. It improves health. Live expectancy is longer. Quality of life is better. And health care cost are LOWER!
Just some common sense.
The original so called health care reform bill is certainly flawed in that it principally reforms heal insurance not health care. Consider the altogether typical and mindlessly wrong quote from one of our Democratic Representatives that people die because they don't have health insurance. Think about that for a moment. Common Sense thinks that people die because they don't have health care. Health insurance is simply the way we deal with payment.
That brings the issue into some better focus. Consider that we regard education through high school as a "general welfare" on the theory that an educated populace is good for all Americans. We regard the interstate highway system as a "general welfare" issue on the theory that rapid, convenient, low cost transportation is good for all Americans. Likewise many other benefits.
What then of health care? Is a healthy populace good for us all?
Common Sense says so. An unhealthy population is an enormous risk to society as a whole. It is an enormous drag on the overall economy. Why then is the issue of universal health care so contentious? As many western nations have already discovered, universal health care is practical. It improves health. Live expectancy is longer. Quality of life is better. And health care cost are LOWER!
Just some common sense.
CNN: Shooting throws spotlight on state of U.S. political rhetoric
CNN: Shooting throws spotlight on state of U.S. political rhetoric
"We need to do some soul searching," Dupnik told reporters. "It's the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this county is getting to be outrageous. Unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital," Dupnik continued.
"We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry," Dupnik said.
...
"People tend to pooh-pooh this business about the vitriol that inflames American public opinion by the people who make a living off of that. That may be free speech but it's not without consequences," Dupnik said.
The recent murders in Arizona bring to mind once again the danger associated with radical politics. When we treat politics and governance as a game of winners and losers, when we use inflammatory rhetoric to paint the opposition, when we accuse those who disagree as being evil then we get this kind of fringe behavior.
One might argue that the perpetrator(s) were unbalanced and that the radical right is thus not responsible. This argument strikes Common Sense as sophomoric and entirely specious. Those who seek to inflame for political gain and those that play the "agent provocateur" are responsible for the consequences of their speech. Common Sense thinks that much of what passes for politics and political speech today is dangerously close to screaming fire in a crowded theater. It is not good politics! It is not civil! It should not be acceptable in a free civil society!
Common Sense thinks that the recent election of many who condone and engage in such action is a great risk to the country. It's important that we keep foremost in mind that politics and governance is not a game. It is not about winners and losers. Politics and governance is much more important than that. It's about the welfare, the common good, the general welfare of all Americans.
Common Sense thinks it's time, long since past time, when politicians start behaving like adults. When they take responsibility for their actions. When they turn to the real vital business of governance and stop treating it like a game. Common Sense thinks that those politicians that behave otherwise should be replaced at the earliest possible election.
Think otherwise? Consider that in the last week we've had six politically motivated murders, one congresswomen with a bullet wound to her head, and two incendiary devices sent to government officials. Common Sense thinks Republicans particularly need to grow up and start acting like responsible adults not children playing a game.
"We need to do some soul searching," Dupnik told reporters. "It's the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this county is getting to be outrageous. Unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital," Dupnik continued.
"We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry," Dupnik said.
...
"People tend to pooh-pooh this business about the vitriol that inflames American public opinion by the people who make a living off of that. That may be free speech but it's not without consequences," Dupnik said.
The recent murders in Arizona bring to mind once again the danger associated with radical politics. When we treat politics and governance as a game of winners and losers, when we use inflammatory rhetoric to paint the opposition, when we accuse those who disagree as being evil then we get this kind of fringe behavior.
One might argue that the perpetrator(s) were unbalanced and that the radical right is thus not responsible. This argument strikes Common Sense as sophomoric and entirely specious. Those who seek to inflame for political gain and those that play the "agent provocateur" are responsible for the consequences of their speech. Common Sense thinks that much of what passes for politics and political speech today is dangerously close to screaming fire in a crowded theater. It is not good politics! It is not civil! It should not be acceptable in a free civil society!
Common Sense thinks that the recent election of many who condone and engage in such action is a great risk to the country. It's important that we keep foremost in mind that politics and governance is not a game. It is not about winners and losers. Politics and governance is much more important than that. It's about the welfare, the common good, the general welfare of all Americans.
Common Sense thinks it's time, long since past time, when politicians start behaving like adults. When they take responsibility for their actions. When they turn to the real vital business of governance and stop treating it like a game. Common Sense thinks that those politicians that behave otherwise should be replaced at the earliest possible election.
Think otherwise? Consider that in the last week we've had six politically motivated murders, one congresswomen with a bullet wound to her head, and two incendiary devices sent to government officials. Common Sense thinks Republicans particularly need to grow up and start acting like responsible adults not children playing a game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)