RSS
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut tanggal untuk kueri private enterprise. Urutkan menurut relevansi Tampilkan semua postingan
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut tanggal untuk kueri private enterprise. Urutkan menurut relevansi Tampilkan semua postingan

State of the Union Address 2012 Post: Notes and Comments from A Conservative Teacher

Here are my notes and thoughts as I watched President Barack Obama's 2012 State of the Union address:

  • All of the conversation on the channels prior to the address centered on how this address is going to be used as a way to launch the President's re-election bid and as a taxpayer financed campaign speech. I've been watching these things for years and although past incumbents running for re-election have used this speech to speak about all their accomplishments, President Obama appears to be the most brazenly partisan in using this speech as a campaign speech.
  • I found a list of past 'special guests' who have been invited by the President- Lenny Skutnik in 1982 (saved passanger from drowning plane), Sammy Sosa in 1999 (relief efforts in Dominican Republic and home run chase), Hamid Karzai in 2002 (Afghanistan President), Julie Aigner-Clark in 2007 (founder of Baby Einstein)... and now Warren Buffet's secretary in 2012 (prop to use to try to bring up point of taxing the rich more). Whereas once President's (both Republican and Democrats) celebrated people who had done things, President Obama celebrates someone who has called on other people to do more things (pay more money) and yet has no real accomplishments of her own (no offense- I'm sure she is a fine person).
  • It was amazing and wonderful to see Congresswomen Giffords there- she has made such a great recovery and I wish her the best on her future.
  • President Obama begins with his foreign policy accomplishments, which he can take credit for, although he should share this credit with George W. Bush, who put in place the foundations and background for many of these accomplishments (the pull-out in Iraq, the groundwork for catching Osama, drones and catching terrorists in the War on Terror, etc).
  • Obama next suggests that private citizens should be more like the military and act as soldiers for the state. Citizens should stop fighting one another, stop disagreeing about the direction of the nation, stop pushing for their individual rights and liberties, stop trying to keep their property and the fruits of their labor, and instead citizens should serve the state, citizens should put aside their differences and just follow orders, and people should give up their wealth and property to the state so that it can redistribute it to those people who it favors. This all sounds vaguely familiar and has strong echo's of fascism in it, although I could sugar-coat it if you'd like.
  • In 2008, the 'house of cards collapsed'- banks made loans they shouldn't have (which he pushed for a community activist), regulators didn't do their jobs (which they were not held accountable for), bonuses were paid to these banks and government agencies (to which they were never held accountable for)... he is on the wrong side of the ledger here- he was pushing for the collapse and after the collapse did not hold those people accountable.
  • "State of the Union is getting stronger"- as if the mounting US debt is to be ignored and we're all just to pretend that trillions of dollars in my children's spending is not damaging the foundations of our nation and creating a time-bomb that will destroy America.
  • President Obama says that he can't get anything done without control of every single aspect of our political system- he decries the 'obstructionism' of the GOP controlling one single house of Congress. No one- no one- should ever be elected President who says that he can't get anything done unless he has total power- that is bad for America and bad for democracy.
  • "What is happening in Detroit can happen in other industries"- what happened in Detroit was that the auto companies were bailed out, costing taxpayers $80 billion in loans, debts forgiven, pensions guaranteed, and other loans. GM made $6 billion last year in profits- taxpayers should get that back, plus the next $74 billion in profits, and then we'll claim success in saving a company at no cost. Imagine if he were to bail every unprofitable business out at massive losses to taxpayers- what would that sort of economy look like?
  • Proposes new tax on multi-national companies, to be redistributed to companies that 'hire here in America'- some sort of new loan to be administered by Obama officials based on conditions that he'd set. The increased taxes on MNC's will be sure to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services, causing inflation and hitting the poor especially hard. Why does Obama hate poor people so much?
  • "We brought trade cases against China at over twice the rate as the previous administration"- but the Chinese just laughed at us because Obama bowed to the Chinese President and begged to borrow trillions more of their money so that he could blow it on his wasteful spending. It's nice that he's suing China though- I'm sure that's employing lots of lawyers.
  • President Obama is mystified on why employers don't hire workers- perhaps if he would have had some sort of a job at some point in business or in the private sector or in some sort of productive economic enterprise he'd know that increasing regulations, fees, requirements, red tape, and the such encourage employers not to hire.
  • Obama proposes starting a temp agency company... with taxpayer money. This government financed and supported company will compete with all of these Michigan companies.
  • Obama is right- good teachers like me matter, and also he's right that teachers like me are attacked all the time- I'm bashed by liberals and progressives who call me all sorts of names. The President's other education policies are pretty- they are nice words that mean nothing since the federal government isn't supposed to be involved in education in any way other than making sure that there is equality in education for different races and sexes (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965).
  • It is almost as if the right answer to everything that Obama says is the opposite of what he says. He says that it is wrong for taxpayers to be giving illegal immigrants a paid education and then sending them home at the end- he suggests we should make these people here illegally citizens after investing all that money into them, while I kind of think that taxpayers shouldn't be investing money into people here illegally. Get a work or education visa or something to stay here or pay your own way.
  • President Obama attacks inequality in pay between mean and women in work- that's right Obama, tear this straw man up! That straw man can't fight back- I suggest he go after those who want children to work in coal mines next!
  • I followed this line... "need more bullet proof vests... computers chips... innovations... industries... energy..." what???
  • President Obama claims that our nation needs an "all out all of the above strategy"- it's double-speak though, because in his next line he clarifies that this strategy means less oil, less natural gas, less coal, and less drilling. His 'all of the above' strategy is going to include additional fees, regulations, and rules on companies that he doesn't like. So, in summary, he is pitching a "some of the below strategy".
  • On to exploding batteries discussion... Bryan (the guy Obama referenced) used to build luxury yachts, but when government policies that Obama supported (he wanted a higher tax on yachts) destroyed Bryan's company and industry, Obama was there to throw taxpayer dollars at him to get him restarted building taxpayer subsidized wind turbines, and now Obama is some sort of 'good guy.' He's the bad guy in the story, kiddies. Holland-based Energetx Composites LLC, you just got mentioned by Obama in his State of the Union address- that's the kiss of death.
  • Proposed more small fees and regulations and burdens on businesses... I missed what sort of scheme it was supposed to pay for in order to be 'budget neutral'.
  • I'm caught up now... "we need smart regulations"... "we need rules"... these rules and regulations "make the free market more free"- LOL. Did he just say "I've ordered thousands of federal agents to spend thousands of man-hours to search for useless regulations that waste taxpayer money"- I must have heard this wrong. He's moving on though to proposing new rules and regulations- I guess he was done with the part about getting rid of regulations and rules after he threw the joke out there. Listening to him talk, I feel like he's a joke of a President.
  • Someone add up how much all these regulations, agencies, bureau's, rules, and investments are going to cost America... I'll have to look at the transcript, but I'm pretty sure all he does is to propose these things without any sense of cost. A man (or woman) could spend a hundred years undoing all the damage that this guy is doing to our Republic.
  • "The recovery is still fragile"- but earlier he said the "State of the Union is getting stronger"- let's square this round issue, folks.
  • Did you know that President Obama has cut the deficit $2 trillion? And not raised it $5 trillion like what really happened? BIZARRO WORLD!
  • Let's not forget this people- President Obama hates people earning millions and wants to go after them and confiscate their income redistribute it to people making less. Those who are already wealthy can keep it, those who are on the bottom might like it, but there will be no more moving between classes in Obama's America. This guy wants to slap class systems on us and turn our nation into the rich- those who already made their wealth and who have connections with government- and the rest of us poor. "You can call this class warfare all you want" he says- it's class warfare. It's class warfare. It's class warfare. It's class warfare. It's class warfare...
  • The partisan divide is getting worse every year he says... especially over the past 3 years. It must be George Bush's fault or something, right? Or maybe it's because you President Obama are the most bitterly partisan figure in the history of our nation and is tearing our nation into serfs and masters. President Obama attacks running a 'perpetual campaign'- but yet he is the worst offender in this, running continually for office in a way that no President in history has ever done, running campaign commercials a year in advance of the general election, and even trotting out his wife to make frequent partisan attacks.
  • He just said-"With or without this Congress I will keep implementing laws and putting in place policies that I want, but if Congress went along with what I was already doing it would give me cover and get us all involved." This guy is a bully and a dictator. Maybe I heard him wrong though; I'll go back and re-read the transcript, maybe I got it wrong.
  • The speech must be coming to an end- after spending a couple minutes in the beginning to address our military and veterans, we're now going to end with a couple minutes at the end about the military and veterans- I though think that the military shouldn't just be props in Obama's game of 'we're all in this together' meme; maybe he should talk about military programs in the body of his speech that he wants to cut or increase, about what he's been doing as commander-in-chief, etc. The military is not simply there to make Obama look good. "No one thought about politics on that day" Obama says- but yet the photo of Obama in the war room was staged. Nice words Obama, but in your mouth, they are just words, merely words.
  • President Obama says that as long as we are all commoners, living like peasants on the land, serving our masters like serfs, than our nation will be strong. He said 'common' several times at the end- but private property, liberty, and protection of life wasn't mentioned.
This is not my first State of the Union address. In A Conservative Teacher's Take on the State of the Union Address in 2011, I wrote a bunch of notes down, and looking through those notes now I am struck by how much more moderate Obama was in 2011 (still a liberal, but no way was he the progressive class warfare leader he was in this speech). In many ways, it was closer to what I noted in my Best State of the Union Address Ever in 2010 post- that Obama was divisive and partisan.

Last thoughts on President Barack Obama- he is getting better. His speech was better delivered, he is getting better at not being as obvious with his attacks on straw men, he isn't as bitter or angry, and his vision of the future is a very narrow one. If he sticks to his game- that the Republicans are a bigger threat to our nation than even he is- and he is able to use his billion dollars to unload on Republicans who have negatives in their past, than he is going to win re-election. He's going to go defense, play small-ball, shrink back into his base, and attack savagely against flaws and faults in his opponents- and win power again, this time unrestrained by a second term. The GOP better be really careful who they nominate in the primaries- nominate the wrong person, and we get 4 more years of this kind of speech.

Governor Daniels gave the GOP reply. He talked about the role of the opposition in our nation (I hope he sends a memo to the President explaining this role, since obviously the President doesn't respect minority rights). Daniels argues that the nation has not gotten better under Obama's watch- this is hard to argue with, especially because Daniels points to facts, figures, and data. I wonder though- will facts and information be able to counter rhetoric and personal attacks in this new era of American politics? "Those punished most by the wrong turns of the past three years"- that's a good line. Also, I see Daniels has been reading my blog- see my recent post Unemployment Increases in Young People Under Obama: A New Lost Generation of Youth?.

"2012 is a year of true opportunity, maybe our last, to restore hope and prosperity"- that's a good line too from Governor Mitch Daniels. I'll be honest- the more this guy talks, the more I like him- why again did this guy not run for President? The first thing that Daniels tells a businessman in Indiana- "make money!"- that's great, and the opposite of what Obama would say to him- "let's see your site plan and evaluate it for possible environmental threats" Obama would say. Even Daniels though notices that America is declining- I guess it's now either explode in debt and inflation and collapse under Obama, or decline and manage under the Republicans- that choice sucks and I'm pissed at the generations ahead of me that messed things up for me and my children- you who left the world a lesser place with your voting and policies, you're parasites. I should pay low taxes and get great benefits, like you all got a chance to do, but not only that, I'm going to pay higher taxes and get less benefits, because you all lived beyond your means- I'm a little angry at that.

Opps, back to Daniels speech... Daniels ends strongly fighting for unity, solvency, financial stability, steady economic growth, and responsible reforms- this is a message that only smart, responsible, hard-working people care about, and may not sell anymore in Obama's America. Daniels still believes in us though- he thinks that we can still be great- I got to give it to him for still believing and having hope in the American people and our ability to be free, prosperous, happy, mature, and successful. Let's draft this guy to run for President or something- he's better than Mitt or Newt.

UPDATE I: Let me clarify something- after listening to his speech, I thought that Daniels was better than both Romney or Newt (the two frontrunner's), and for the matter he is better than Santorum or Paul. That being said, it was one speech and in retrospect I'd need to look at his entire body of work and watch him on the campaign trail before truly suggesting that he should be the nominee. After all, I heard Perry give a great speech and thought that he was the best of the bunch running- and then he went out and was unable to communicate the message and stay focused. Besides- almost all states have already finalized their ballots, so Daniels wouldn't even be able to get on the ballots to be the nominee.

It's Mitt or Newt or Santorum, and we'll have to live with those choices- the good news is that all of these people are better than Barry for America, the bad news of which is that none of them is the perfect candidate. I guess Daniels will still be out there in 2016 after Obama's second term, not that it will matter anymore at that point.

To bring it back full circle- what you heard in Obama's speech tonight was a long laundry list of additional spending, and if this wasn't the real world and money grew on trees, it might have been an okay list of things to spend money on. But the thing is our nation is in debt and structurally is going bankrupt. That's the thing. There is no other thing right now. President needed to deliver a speech that spoke to slashing programs and spending and putting in place structural reforms- the kind of real, hard, tough decisions that we all  have made in our private and business finances and that other nations are now being forced to make. But he didn't. President Obama can sing and dance and shoot rainbows and speak about how he has spent trillions saving industries, but all of that is just twisted and wrong, because he is spending my children and grandchildren's money in an irresponsible manner, and that's what matters in 2012. He needs to go, now, before he can do any more damage to the future of our great nation.

UPDATE II: So far, the best summary/review of the President's SOTU is from Nile Gardiner, writing from across the pond. From his editorial Barack Obama is still driving America towards decline:
Two words hardly mentioned in Barack Obama’s 65-minute State of the Union address to Congress: freedom and liberty. President Obama’s fourth and possibly last State of the Union speech was long on big government proposals, but short on the principles that have made America the world’s greatest power. His lecturing tone exuded arrogance, and he failed to present a coherent vision for getting the United States back on its feet after three years of economic decline. It was heavy on class-war rhetoric, punitive taxation, and frequent references to the Left-wing mantra of “fairness”, hardly likely to instil confidence in a battered business community that is the lifeblood of the American economy.

Above all, he remains in denial over the levels of federal debt that threaten the country's long-term prosperity. This was not a speech that was serious about the biggest budget deficits since World War Two. There was no sense at all that America is a superpower on a precipice, sinking in a sea of debt that threatens to undermine America’s power to project global leadership for generations to come. In fact, his interventionist proposals will only make matters worse.

From new federally funded infrastructure projects to increasing regulations on financial institutions, President Obama remains wedded to big government – an approach rejected by a clear majority of Americans, who view it as a millstone around their necks. As Gallup’s polling has found, nearly two thirds of Americans see big government as "the biggest threat" to their country.

This should have been a serious speech addressing the economic problems facing the United States. Instead it was a laundry list of half-baked proposals designed to appease the Left. The president should have been talking about reining in spending, lowering taxes, and fostering greater economic freedom, but he opted for policies that will speed America’s decline, not reverse it....
Read the whole thing- he nailed it.

UPDATE III: Thank you for linking to this article The Western Experience, The Bitter Americans, and others!

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Daily Education and Technology News for Schools 01/02/2012

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The 1936 GOP Platform Gives Clues on How to Battle a Depression-Extending Progressive

Although I am no expert in this, I have always felt that the 1930's were an interesting time period in our nation. The Victorian age had come to a bloody conclusion with World War One, and a whole generation of people were now being raised in a society that saw their parents as failures- their attempts to repress their sexual urges, their attempts to stick to the old ways, their attempts to put in place world peace, their attempts to build multinational nations- all had led to one of the most bloody and brutal and worthless wars of all time. Technology was changing fast- cars and telephones and radio and motion picture- and the children of the 1910's and 1920's thought that they had everything figured out- they thought that where other generations had failed due to their reliance on religion, traditional values, free markets, republicanism, and limited government, they would succeed by figuring out a third way of doing things, a practical way of doing things, a way of doing things that used the power of government to make society a better place to live. This new generation, horrified by WWI and mocking their parents lack of technology skills, had it all figured out, and ushered in an era of fascism and communism and World War Two.

In my post 1930's Are Root of All That is Wrong I cataloged all of the laws that were passed in the 1930's in America that are with us today- such as the Unemployment Compensation Tax (MI, 1936), Oil and Gas Severance Tax (MI, 1929), Social Security Act (USA, 1935), Fair Labor Standards Act (USA, 1938), Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (USA, 1930), Hoover Tax Hike (USA, 1932), National Labor Relations Act (USA, 1935), Private Schools, Act 302 of 1921 (MI, 1921), Roosevelt moves traditional Thanksgiving Day (1939), Regulating Firearms, Act 373 (MI, 1927), US moves off gold standard (1933), Reapportionment Act (USA, 1929), etc. Looking through that list and thinking of how much America was changed by one generation, by one President, by one party, by one decade (mostly), I was always stunned, and wondered how people had let that come to pass.

As it turns out, the Republican Party of 1936 had put together a platform to oppose a lot of these fascist ideas, but people loved their hope and change and returned FDR to the White House instead, and so the Great Depression dragged on for another decade. Via Conservative Hideout, let's take a walk back in history and see just exactly what the GOP was offering as an alternative back then to the high taxes, high regulation, crony capitalism, fascist third way system that FDR was pushing our nation into. Here is a good chunk of the 1936 Republican Party Platform:

1936 Republican Party PlatformAmerica is in peril. The welfare of American men and women and the future of our youth are at stake. We dedicate ourselves to the preservation of their political liberty, their individual opportunity and their character as free citizens, which today for the first time are threatened by Government itself.

For three long years the New Deal Administration has dishonored American traditions and flagrantly betrayed the pledges upon which the Democratic Party sought and received public support. The powers of Congress have been usurped by the President... the rights and liberties of American citizens have been violated... regulated monopoly has displaced free enterprise.... it has intimidated witnesses and interfered with the right of petition... it has been guilty of frightful waste and extravagance, using public funds for partisan political purposes... it has promoted investigations to harass and intimidate American citizens, at the same time denying investigations into its own improper expenditures... it has created a vast multitude of new offices, filled them with its favorites, set up a centralized bureaucracy, and sent out swarms of inspectors to harass our people.... it has bred fear and hesitation in commerce and industry, thus discouraging new enterprises, preventing employment and prolonging the depression.... appeals to passion and class prejudice have replaced reason and tolerance.

To a free people, these actions are insufferable. This campaign cannot be waged on the traditional differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. The responsibility of this election transcends all previous political divisions. We invite all Americans, irrespective of party, to join us in defense of American institutions. We pledge ourselves:

...To preserve the American system of free enterprise, private competition, and equality of opportunity, and to seek its constant betterment in the interests of all.

The only permanent solution of the unemployment problem is the absorption of the unemployed by industry and agriculture. To that end, we advocate: Removal of restrictions on production. Abandonment of all New Deal policies that raise production costs, increase the cost of living, and thereby restrict buying, reduce volume and prevent reemployment. Encouragement instead of hindrance to legitimate business. Withdrawal of government from competition with private payrolls. Elimination of unnecessary and hampering regulations. Adoption of such other policies as will furnish a chance for individual enterprise, industrial expansion, and the restoration of jobs.

Society has an obligation to promote the security of the people, by affording some measure of protection against involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The New Deal policies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in fact, endangered it. We propose a system of old age security, based upon the following principles: 1. We approve a pay-as-you-go policy, which requires of each generation the support of the aged and the determination of what is just and adequate, 2. Every American citizen over sixty-five should receive the supplementary payment necessary to provide a minimum income sufficient to protect him or her from want. 3. Each state and territory, upon complying with simple and general minimum standards, should receive from the federal government a graduated contribution in proportion to its own, up to a fixed maximum....

...Nearly sixty percent of all imports into the United States are now free of duty. The other forty percent of imports compete directly with the product of our industry. We would keep on the free list all products not grown or produced in the United States in commercial quantities. As to all commodities that commercially compete with our farms, our forests, our mines, our fisheries, our oil wells, our labor and our industries, sufficient protection should be maintained at all times to defend the American farmer and the American wage earner from the destructive competition emanating from the subsidies of foreign governments and the imports from low-wage and depreciated-currency countries....

...We recognize the existence of a field within which governmental regulation is desirable and salutary. The authority to regulate should be vested in an independent tribunal acting under clear and specific laws establishing definite standards. Their determinations on law and facts should be subject to review by the Courts. We favor Federal regulation, within the Constitution, of the marketing of securities to protect investors. We favor also Federal regulation of the interstate activities of public utilities...

...We pledge ourselves to the merit system, virtually destroyed by New Deal spoilsmen. It should be restored, improved and extended. We will provide such conditions as offer an attractive permanent career in government service to young men and women of ability, irrespective of party affiliations.

The New Deal Administration has been characterized by shameful waste, and general financial irresponsibility. It has piled deficit upon deficit. It threatens national bankruptcy and the destruction through inflation of insurance policies and savings bank deposits. We pledge ourselves to: Stop the folly of uncontrolled spending. Balance the budget—not by increasing taxes but by cutting expenditures, drastically and immediately. Revise the federal tax system and coordinate it with state and local tax systems. Use the taxing power for raising revenue and not for punitive or political purposes.

We advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards. The first requisite to a sound and stable currency is a balanced budget. We oppose further devaluation of the dollar. We will restore to the Congress the authority lodged with it by the Constitution to coin money and regulate the value thereof by repealing all the laws delegating this authority to the Executive....

...We assume the obligations and duties imposed upon Government by modern conditions. We affirm our unalterable conviction that, in the future as in the past, the fate of the nation will depend, not so much on the wisdom and power of government, as on the character and virtue, self-reliance, industry and thrift of the people and on their willingness to meet the responsibilities essential to the preservation of a free society.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Mass Transit without Massive Government Spending.

G. Pascal Zachary writing in Reason:
Lagos Bus Transit System  courtesy of Wikipedia
Once overwhelmingly rural, Africa is urbanizing at a faster rate than any other region on the planet. With the world’s lowest rates of automobile ownership, urban Africans also have the world’s greatest demand for mass transit. And they are meeting their own needs with enterprise and creativity, largely fueled by private resources. The successes of the continent’s ad hoc urban transit systems are partly due to government neglect. Unable to keep pace with growth, governments are simply staying out of the way and letting private operators assemble inexpensive networks of buses and taxis that can adapt quickly to shifting consumer needs.
More here
Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

$20 Laptops for Students from Google: The Questions to Ask

Google Chrome IconImage via WikipediaGoogle has announced to Forbes that it will begin renting laptops for $20 a month to students. (I cannot find the age of the students, thus some questions below.)

Running the Chrome OS, Google plans to use this as a testbed for enterprise companies.

As General Manager for Cellular One in the 90's - my staff and I knew that the whole future of our company was to get our service in people's pockets. A person has a vested interest in their phone number.
.
You also have a vested interest in your documents, your email, your photos. If Google can capture these interests when a student is "young and broke" (and some would say foolish) they they have the student for life in their cloud.

I wouldn't be surprised if some schools jumped in with this as well.

This isn't a bad thing but free rides don't exist.

Attribution Some rights reserved by Eleaf

Ask questions and get answers before you sign any dotted line, especially on behalf of your students and children.

The biggest issues revolve around disclosure to parents and privacy.

Terms of Service. 
You have to be eighteen to enter into a legally binding contract. Google Terms of Service confirms this in the first paragraph:
"If you don't have the legal authority to bind, please do not click the “I Accept” button below."
Are minors going to be accepting these terms?

Most students and most people aren't reading terms of service. Most parents have their students setting up their own laptops.

Parents need full disclosure about what terms they are accepting on behalf of their child.  There is no place I've seen where we put our age in on Google. If a parent is clicking "I accept" on behalf of their child then, I assume Google assumes that they are 18. We know this is not true.

Privacy.
Do students understand their privacy settings? Privacy rights according to terms of service?

Are parents given oversight into these issues? Are they receiving disclosure?

Capability
Students and parents need to understand school requirements. When netbooks became in "vogue" I had many students bring them to school only to learn that they couldn't really run the Internet and Microsoft Word at the same time. They definitely couldn't make movies.

Understand what you need to do before purchasing.

Ability to lock down and restrict access.
As more devices proliferate, the ability to secure and keep private our data increases.

Monitoring
Do parents know how to monitor? Do they have access to the machine through a userid and password? How about the cloud accounts?

Technically, a child could set up the machine and the parent would have no access to their data. Typically, no one realizes this is an issue until it is too late or until a problem happens.

Access.
Will schools allow students to print from these devices? Access their wifi?

OK, schools, so most parents understand your reasons for banning cell phones. How are you going to justify banning these handy devices?

Are schools ready to set them up for students when they want to bring them to school? Are we going to ban these devices too? (And why should we?)

Antivirus
Viruses are always a problem. With massive numbers of students (who notoriously don't update antivirus and go to sites where viruses and trojans abound) using these, will they become easy targets?

Return and Warranty.
I'm assuming nothing is stored on the hard drive. If it is, however, and the computer crashes, how much is too much? Google will find that certain people always tend to have problems.

The less someone pays for something, the less they care for it. Surely there has to be a penalty for negligence. Parents need to know what it is.

Data Collection.
The ability to opt out of tracking, etc. especially for younger students is very important. This has been ignored on many cell phones but is an issue for all of us on all devices. Google Adsense. Tracking cookies. We have laws protecting young children.

GeoLocation and GeoTagging.
Many cameras, etc. Geotag. This tiny piece of data reveals the exact latitude and longitude where a photograph was taken.

I think services that allow geotagging should turn off the service for photographs as a default until a child is a certain age. This should be disclosed to parents.

Digital Citizenship.
Most schools block everything. You're looking at massive numbers of students going online. Digital citizenship cannot be ignored. It is time to have it in every school. Immersive learning projects such as Digiteen should be in all schools.

Virtual School Infrastructure.
With more students having access, the ability to visit their classrooms and schools virtually is increasing in importance. Online gradebooks, online classrooms, online forums are important as well as the behavior in those spaces.

Bandwidth. Bandwidth. Bandwidth.
Can there ever be enough? You can't get in the cloud if you're stuck on the ground.

Kids in the Cloud
The fact is that kids under 18 are all over the cloud. Kids under 13 are all over Facebook. I've seen 7 and 8 year olds there. We can't pretend it isn't happening. Now that cloud computers are being targeted for children it is time to look this issue square in the eye and grow up about how we treat children on the Internet. They are not mature adults yet.

Sure, some of these are questions that already exist today.

Share Alike Some rights reserved by openDemocracy

When technology gets less expensive and in the hands of more people, we have to know that ignorance is not bliss.

Ignorance is a problem when considering technology. The devil is in the details.
Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Economy of Africa’s Cities

Keith Hart writing in Memory Bank:

When I graduated to the field of development studies, the picture of West Africa’s cities was just as distorted as one you might get from boorowing a Manchester school perspective. Here the emphasis of the economists was on the new states’ ability to pursue a neo-Keynesian development program. How could ‘we’ (the politicians, bureaucrats and their academic advisers) provide the jobs and other needs of the hordes flocking into the cities at the time? It was assumed that such provision had to come through the bureaucracy and conform to state-made laws. My paper on ‘informal income opportunities and urban employment’ pointed to the wide range of economic activities that were invisible to bureacracy. But even I saw them through a statist lens (“seeing like a state”), hence the term ‘informal’, not regulated by the bureaucracy. At that time I assumed that the bulk of economic progress must come though public and private sector enterprise of a corporate type.
The informal economy was never adequately described or defined, but these days it is commonplace to read assertions that African economies are 70-90% ‘informal’. Certainly the deregulation undertaken over the last three decades of neoliberal economic policies have led to a radical informalization of the world economy, not least in Africa. But to label these activities ‘informal’ is to avoid identifying what they are positively for or how they are organized, by which social principles.
I would say that the last half-century has seen a massive transfer of population to the cities, where most people have been left to generate their own forms of commerce. The informal economy in this sense has been a holding operation allowing many people to survive in the city and some to flourish. Whatever is coming up next will draw to some extent on this sprawling self-organized economic activity. Our task is to find out more about the promising sectors spawned by such a development.
More here
Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

A Conservative Teacher's Take on the State of the Union Address

The following are my impressions from Democrat Barack Obama's 2011 State of the Union (SOTU) address. As a social studies teacher, perhaps I will have some comment or analysis that you might think is interesting...

  • Before the President even speaks, I was flipping around the various channels listening to their comments, and what I heard over and over is that this speech will continue Obama's attempt to portray himself as a moderate, or that this would speech would help make it look like he was moving more to the center, or that this speech would help him to court independents... he's been in office for 2 years and is still in campaign mode trying to fake people out and disguise who he really is. I can't believe that voters might fall for it- he is who he has always been, a committed leftist liberal Democrat who believes in government control over our lives, less individual freedom and liberty to you, and abortion on demand to correct for the mistakes of humanity.
  • His first several minutes were pretty good- hopeful, uplifting, and commenting on how great America was and how we were a tough, innovative country. Then he started lecturing me about how he knows better than me about how to innovate and about how I'm so weak so I need a bunch of help- that was less good.
  • About 15 minutes in, and most of this has been some pretty general language about why education is important and why it is important to be smart. I guess this was all to set up that RTTT was a good law (which I disagree with, see earlier post). That's a pretty weak lead-off.
  • Around 20 minutes in, I guess in the spirit of 'bipartianship', he re-proposes amnesty to illegal immigrants and pushing for the DREAM Act, which just was shot down by both parties in Congress.
  • About 25 minutes in, Obama time-travels back to his childhood in Indonesia, when a nation's prosperity was based on the amount of railroads and roads that the nation had. He suggested that this will be done by having the government coerce private investment and then form a Big Government-Big Business-Big Labor partnership to force us to travel on railroads. I'm not a big fan of fascist proposals from the 1930's myself.
  • About 30 minutes in, he begins to lecture Republicans on cutting deficits that he says started "a little over a decade ago" (the election of Bush in 2000?) and lectures the GOP on reforming massive entitlement programs that he has vastly expanded and enlarged and added to over the past 2 years. Is this some sort of Cloven-Piven strategy- wreck everything beyond repair and then talk a good game about unwrecking things? Will voters buy this sort of garbage?
  • About 40 minutes in, Obama brags about a series of successful foreign policy initiatives that were begun under Republican President George Bush and that Obama bitterly opposed and fought against. He then talks about his foreign policy ideas that haven't quite worked out yet (but that is not to say that they won't eventually).
  • About 45 minutes in, Obama gave a good statement of support for Tunisia. Perhaps he read my blog post criticizing him of being too weak on this issue? Although I wouldn't read too much into this statement- he said something last week of a similar nature and then turned around and called another Middle East dictator and said he really didn't mean it, so we'll see.
  • He had a lot of good lines and well-written stuff in there- I really liked the criticism he had for central governments and the defense for our democratic process- that was nice and really jumped out as new and different. I think someone other than him wrote the beginning and end of his speech, but the middle was all his usual liberal hope-and-change nonsense.
  • I really liked the fact that there was not a lot of applause and few delays. He delivered a good summary of what he saw as the 'state of our union', which is still strong, with a few problems he needs addressed. Overall, I generally liked it.
  • Listening to the commentary, a couple things I heard- 1) Obama still picked enemies- oil companies, Wall Street, the rich, etc; 2) Obama really didn't feel like focusing on foreign policy, showing that he is still mainly a 'Legislator-in-Chief'; 3) Obama spoke about a lot of new 'investments', but there is no money for that; 4) Obama seemed to be going 'small-ball'- talking about 'big things' but really proposing only small little tweaks and nothing big, and this likely indicates that he is just going to play defensive from now until the election, simply sitting in the weeds and criticizing any solutions to the problems that he created, rejecting proposals to deal with any of the long-term issues in favor of winning short term political points. Just imagine if this guy gets a second-term and how unrestrained he will be.
  • Republican response thoughts: Ryan delivered one of the best 'reponses' that I have seen. He approached it from the perspective of a calm parent who was non-partisan, and dissected and destroyed Obama's policy responses over the past two years the the challenges that he confronted, from discussing Obama's failed stimulus plan, failed Obamacare, and failed regulations. He was a sound and reasonable voice in response to the empty hope-and-change of Obama. He quoted the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and translated it to the times of today- so sweet! He delivered a fantastic speech that spoke to what makes our nation great- our freedom and liberty and capitalism and businesses and property protection and limited government and free enterprise- that compares favorably to Obama's speech which was about all the things that government can do (poorly). Congressman Paul Ryan for President!
  • Comments from the media about Ryan's response were that he didn't deliver any specifics (neither did Obama), that he didn't show leadership (neither did Obama), and that he wasn't serious enough (neither was Obama).
UPDATE: Comments from Sean Hannity's panel- "I feel like I was taking crazy pills while watching that," "he wants to cut spending and proposed more spending on investments and freezing spending on other items- that isn't 'cutting spending'," "let's look at the facts," and "he's doing his best" (this is a key phrase- his best isn't good enough to be President).

UPDATE II: Saw former Speaker-of-the-House Congresswomen Democrat Nancy Pelosi give her thoughts, and she just said that Obama has created more jobs in our nation in his two years than George W. Bush did his entire eight years as President. She just said that. Really. I think she believes it too. If this is true, give me Bush's unjob creation and unemployment of 4% instead of Obama's job creation and unemployment of 10%- at least under Bush jobs weren't created but we all had them, rather than Obama who creates jobs that no one has (it makes no sense Pelosi- I just ingested crazy pills listening to her).

Pelosi followed this with some Kennedy quote about how it isn't about GOP and Democrat and how it is about rising above differences, but those darn GOPers need to be crushed first and only Democratic policies should be passed (crazy pills).

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Iowa Tea Party Billboard Comparing Obama to Hitler and Marx

Have you all seen this billboard that was put up by a tea party group in Iowa? The billboard was making two points- first, that radical leaders prey on the fearful and naive, and the second, that national socialism (German fascism), Marxist socialism (Leninism), and liberal socialism (liberal fascism) are all similar. Those are very bold points to make, and the billboard was accompanied by images that were bold- images that compared Obama to Hitler and Marx.

Of course, controversy erupted, and the billboard was removed. The Democrats were upset that Obama was compared to Hitler, because Hitler killed all the Jews. Democrats were not upset that Obama was compared to Marx, or that Obama was compared to Hitler in other ways- nope, it was just the Jewish issue that bothered Democrats. Even that is interesting- just how friendly is Obama to Jews and if he were given total power (ie, not blocked by conservatives and Republicans) what might he do to the Jews? I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, I'm just saying this- the poster makes good points, and it is a shame that it was pulled down, because it is provoking and the not that far from the truth.

Let's examine the main point- is Obama and his vision of government a version of socialism or fascism?

In Fascism Healthcare, I wrote:

Under fascism, the government does not overtly take over an industry ("seizing the means of production," in Marxist terms). Rather it leaves ostensibly private institutions in place, at least for the time being, and then subjects those "private" institutions to top-down regulation that turns them into agents of state power. No meaningful competition will be permitted. The federal government runs the system, but will do so behind a facade of private enterprise.
In The Third Way: Obama and Fascism I wrote:

There is a blog out there called "Third Way." It is staffed by Obama supporters and three of its former chairs now serve in the senior ranks of the Obama administration. This is the sort of blog that Obama reads and the sort of blog that Obama takes his marching orders from. This blog is a fascist blog that preaches a fascist ideology.
In State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism, Syndicalism, Corporatism... Obamaism I wrote:
...the Obama administration is putting place a version of fascism that you can nicely called Crony Capitalism or State Capitalism, whereby the government subverts the free market for the good of the 'state' and makes alliances with Big Business to crush smaller companies through regulation and taxation.
In Wikipedia Description of Fascist Sounds Like Someone I Know I wrote:
...the overall description of fascism is curiously close to Obama policies. I loosely quote "Fascism is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence, and seeks to solve such problems by achieving a historic national rebirth, many times by promoting cultish ideas of unity and purity." Other elements of fascism include national socialism, national syndicalism, or economic nationalism (check), class collaboration, economic planning, mixed economy, and third position (check), dictatorship, holism, major social interventionism, and statism (check again), and militarism (Obama is awfully warlike towards everything but Iraq). Apparently fascism also promotes political violence against opponents (check), welfare (check), is fiercely anti-religion (check), and promotes cults of personality (check).
So, is the billboard 100% wrong, or are there are a lot of similarities between Obama, Hitler, and Marx? I think the evidence is clear on this.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Dueling Memes: Building Codes vs Milton Friedman When Comparing Quakes in Chile and Haiti

In January, a 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti and over 230,000 people tragically died. In February, a 8.8 earthquake hit Chile and over 700 people tragically died. Even though the earthquake that hit Chile was nearly 500 times more powerful than the one that hit Haiti (Earthquake magnitudes are measured on a logarithmic scale), Chile's death toll was only a tiny fraction of Haiti's. Why the difference?

The liberals point to building codes, regulation, and strong government involvement in society are the reason for the difference in death and destruction between the two states. On liberal talk radio, callers and hosts praise the communists who ruled Chile in the 1960's and forced business to adopt strict building codes. They praise the government building inspectors who work hard enforcing these regulations. And they point to the strong and active government in Chile that took control of the situation and told people where to go when the quake struck.

The BBC says this to explain the difference:

People in Chile knew the safest places to go to when the earthquake struck. Chile has developed a seismic design code for new buildings, which has made them better able to stay standing in an earthquake.
Huffington Post, where Obama gets his news and views from, explains the difference this way:
Chile was better prepared, with strict building codes, robust emergency response and a long history of handling seismic catastrophes.
Treehugger.com explicitly advocates the liberal view when it says:
Builders cut corners all the time, and are interested in building at the lowest possible cost. They are perfectly happy to shift the burden to the owners and the insurance companies. And occupants don't know risk either, and happily live in old brick unreinforced structures in the middle of earthquake zones. Building codes, and their proper enforcement, are about the only thing protecting them.
Conservatives point to free market and conservative economic policies that brought Chile from being one of the poorest countries in South America in 1970 to being the richest country in South America by 2010. This wealth, generated by liberty and respect to property rights, led to buildings that were built soundly with good materials. The respect for liberty and freedom in Chile led to a respect for rule of law, which meant that building inspectors were not bought off and codes were indeed followed.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal puts it:
It's not by chance that Chileans were living in houses of brick—and Haitians in houses of straw—when the wolf arrived to try to blow them down. In 1973, the year the proto-Chavista government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Chile was an economic shambles. Inflation topped out at an annual rate of 1000%, foreign-currency reserves were totally depleted, and per capita GDP was roughly that of Peru and well below Argentina's.

In March 1975, Pinochet had a 45-minute meeting with Friedman and asked him to write a letter proposing some remedies. Friedman responded a month later with an eight-point proposal that largely mirrored the themes of the Chicago Boys- sharp reductions to government spending and the money supply; privatization of state-owned companies; the elimination of obstacles to free enterprise and foreign investment, and so on.

As for Chile, Pinochet appointed a succession of Chicago Boys to senior economic posts. By 1990, the year he ceded power, per capita GDP had risen by 40% (in 2005 dollars) even as Peru and Argentina stagnated. Pinochet's democratic successors—all of them nominally left-of-center—only deepened the liberalization drive. Result: Chileans have become South America's richest people. They have the continent's lowest level of corruption, the lowest infant-mortality rate, and the lowest number of people living below the poverty line.

Chile also has some of the world's strictest building codes. That makes sense for a country that straddles two massive tectonic plates. But having codes is one thing, enforcing them is another. The quality and consistency of enforcement is typically correlated to the wealth of nations. The poorer the country, the likelier people are to scrimp on rebar, or use poor quality concrete, or lie about compliance.
For all the talk about the morality of liberalism, look at the results of countries where liberal ideas are dominant- when government increases spending, when government takes on more debt, when government owns businesses or heavily regulates private businesses, where tariffs are increased and trade wars are elevated, where corruption and influence buying runs rampant, and when more government is the only solution for all of societies problems. Look at the results! You don't even need to look at other countries- look at what has happened to Michigan under Democrat control- or better yet, look at Detroit, where there are no Republicans to blame.

Conservative policies make the world a better place whenever they are tried. That's the difference between 700 dead and 230,000 dead- liberal policies.

UPDATE: Thank you for linking to this page Newmark's Door! Please look around my site and see what else interests you! And remember- the difference is liberal policies.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Wealth creation is an Active process-Andrew Mwenda

Andrew Mwenda wrote in 2008:

Wealth creation is an active process. If we accept it as Africa’s challenge, it would follow logically to ask: who are the wealth seeking and wealth creating agents in society? The answer is: Private Enterprise! Enterprising people are always a minority, but the rule of capital is that it only survives by multiplying and multiplies by creating jobs and therefore incomes for many and taxes which governments use to provide social services – clean water, health and education to the poor. To be politically incorrect, the solution for Africa may be to invest in the enterprising few and make them richer. That will have laid the foundation to end the misery of the poor majority.
More here

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Fascism Healthcare

Under fascism, the government does not overtly take over an industry ("seizing the means of production," in Marxist terms). Rather it leaves ostensibly private institutions in place, at least for the time being, and then subjects those "private" institutions to top-down regulation that turns them into agents of state power. No meaningful competition will be permitted. The federal government runs the system, but will do so behind a facade of private enterprise.

This is exactly what the Democrats plan is for health care.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Man Who Should Be President Gives Advice

Last year, our nation had a choice for President. On one hand we had a man who sprouted very nice sounding platitudes but lacked experience and had a very extreme voting record. On the other hand we had a man who spoke truthfully about the situation and had a lot of experience and had solid and well thought out policy positions. Sadly, those two were not on the same ballot- the experienced solid conservative lost in the primaries to John McCain. If only we could have had a chance to elect Mitt Romney last election, things might have turned out differently.

That's not to say that there would have been no recession, healthcare would not have been a concern, and Iran would have continued to enrich uranium. If Mitt Romney would have become President instead of Barack Obama, those things would still have happened. But the key question is how would Romney have handled those situations differently than Obama and how those differences might affect our nation.

Some people think there is no difference between the two major parties or think that Romney wasn't really that different than someone like Obama. They are wrong. In many important and key situations Romney would have advocated considerably different policies than Obama, policies that may have led to a shorter and less severe recession, that would have lowered the cost of healthcare, and that would have led to Iran thinking twice about seeking the bomb.

This is not idle thoughts- Mitt Romney wrote an editorial this week in USA Today where he laid out some things he would have done as President differently than Barack Obama. This is why he was and remains my choice for President:

• Repair the stimulus. Freeze the funds that haven't yet been spent and redirect them to immediate, private sector job-creation priorities.
• Create tax incentives that promote business expansion and hiring. For example, install a robust investment tax credit, permit businesses to expense capital purchases made in 2010, and reduce payroll taxes. These will reignite construction, technology and a wide array of capital goods industries, and lead to expanded employment.
• Prove to the global investors that finance America's debt that we are serious about reining in spending and becoming fiscally prudent by adopting limits on non-military discretionary spending and reforming our unsustainable, unfunded entitlements. These are key to strengthening the dollar, reducing the threat of rampant inflation and holding down interest rates.
• Close down any talk of carbon cap-and-trade. It will burden consumers and employers with billions in new costs. Instead, greatly expand our commitment to natural gas and nuclear, boosting jobs now and reducing the export of energy jobs and dollars later.
• Tell the unions that job-stifling "card check" legislation is off the table. Laying new burdens on small business will kill entrepreneurship and job creation.
• Don't allow a massive tax increase to go into effect in 2011 with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The specter of more tax-fueled government spending and the reduction of capital available for small business will hinder investment and business expansion.
• New spending should be strictly limited to items that are critically needed and that we would have acquired in the future, such as new military equipment to support our troops abroad and essential infrastructure at home.
• Install dynamic regulations for the financial sector — rules that are up to date, efficient and not excessively burdensome. But do not so tie up the financial sector with red tape that we lose a vital component of our economic system.
• Open the doors to trade. Give important friends like Colombia favored trade status rather than bow to protectionist demands. Now is the time for aggressive pursuit of opportunities for new markets for American goods, not insular retrenchment.
• Stop frightening the private sector by continuing to hold GM stock, by imposing tighter and tighter controls on compensation, and by pursuing a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Government encroachment on free enterprise is depressing investment and job creation.
These are great points and both Republicans and Democrats should get behind Romney and support his bid for President in 2012.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

No Accountability Mayor Adrian Fenty: Fears Independent Evaluation of Chancellor Rhee

In the latest saga of DC schools- here comes Mayor Adrian Fenty's latest dastardly deed. Fenty has eliminated funding for an independent evaluator assigned to assess the progress of school reform under Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee. Are you surprised ? Well I'm not. Isn't this typical of life under Fenty ? So it seems that General Greenhorn (AKA Adrian Fenty) is afraid of a little accountability. Well afterall accounability is reserved only for us peons (i.e. teachers, principals, vice principals & central office workers). Right ?

General Greenhorn is the title bestowed upon Adrian Fenty by certain journalists early on in his mayoral career.

My email is all ablaze this morning about what should we do next in this latest 'mayhem madness' we call DCPS. You tell me ! Here's the story in its entirety as reported by Wash. Post Staff Writer, Bill Turque and might I add buried back on page B 4.

Latest Fenty Budget Cuts Funds for Schools Evaluation

"Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has eliminated funding for an independent evaluator assigned to assess the progress of public school reform under Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee, according to the revised 2010 budget he submitted to the D.C. Council late Friday.

Fenty (D) also reversed a series of other budget measures, approved by the council in May, that sought to divert some of the mayor's control of education to other agencies. They include the shift of staff and funds from Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso to the D.C. State Board of Education, which would be established as an independent agency. The board would house the office of the ombudsman for public education, which is responsible for investigating complaints and answering questions from parents.

The proposed moves reflect the council's discontent with what some members see as a lack of transparency and accountability in the mayor's efforts to transform the District's struggling public school system. The ombudsman's office, for example, is supposed to file monthly reports but has not done so since March. The ombudsman, Tonya Vidal Kinlow, resigned in December and has yet to be permanently replaced.

Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) and the council are free to restore the funding cut when they vote on the revised budget July 31. But speaking to the council Monday at a hearing on Fenty's plan to close a two-year, $666 million revenue shortfall, city administrator Neil Albert urged that the governance structure established in 2007 remain intact.

"Our education reform efforts are demonstrating real results," Albert said, "and we strongly believe that, rather than changing course with the established structure, we should maintain momentum forward." Albert did not directly address the school evaluation, which Fenty is required to submit annually under the law that established mayoral control. He also has the option to skip the yearly reports and deliver a five-year independent assessment by September 2012.

In May 2008, Reinoso recommended two prominent education scholars for the project, Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute and Kenneth Wong of Brown University. But the plan stalled when Gray raised questions about their independence. Hess wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post in 2007 praising Rhee. Wong testified in favor of the mayoral takeover.

When Reinoso didn't offer other candidates, Gray decided to move on his own. This past May, he included $325,000 to hire the National Research Council, one of four nonprofit organizations that operate under the National Academies umbrella, to conduct the evaluation. The money would cover about 20 percent of the total cost, with the NRC raising the rest from private sources. Fenty spokeswoman Mafara Hobson said Monday that the mayor was still committed to an independent evaluation but did not elaborate.

The council also has attempted to bolster the power of the state board, which does not run school operations but formulates standards for academic programs and teacher qualifications and oversees the school system's standardized tests. Although state board members are elected, the panel is under the control of the state superintendent, who reports to Reinoso.

"We don't believe a set of elected officials should report to a set of appointed officials," Gray said Monday. When Fenty's original budget cut the board's $1 million in funding in half this spring, the council restored the money and added money for two staff members who would answer directly to the panel. D.C. State Board President Lisa Raymond said the group is simply trying to do its job. "We understand this is a very tough time for the entire city, and if we have to reduce our budget to help the city, we are willing to do that," she said. "Cutting it in half is not acceptable. It wasn't acceptable three months ago, and it's not acceptable now."

Posted by The Washington Teacher, story courtesy of The WaPo

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Rural Entrepreneurs as a Political Constituency

From the CIPE Blog:

In Ghana, rural entrepreneurs are gaining presence as a political constituency...With a greater political voice for rural entrepreneurs, the people in poverty can lead the charge to eradicate poverty.The Private Enterprise Foundation (PEF)has several programs designed to bring rural entrepreneurs into the political process.
  • With proper resources and training, farmer-based associations can become an effective voice for rural entrepreneurs.
  • Engaging the private sector in the legislative advisory process provides a vital opportunity for dialogue on reform issues with policymakers.
  • Private sector associations are important for improving Ghana’s business climate and making the broader business community a part of democratic decision-making.

...[continue reading]

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Teachers and Parents Should Run Their Own Schools

Government officials actually had a decent idea in Lansing. Instead of working on raising taxes, letting go dangerous prisoners, or outlawing behaviors they don't like, some senators actually got to work trying to improve a real problem in our state- education. Senators in Michigan introduced a plan today to allow teachers and parents to convert their local schools into independently run schools with more flexible rules.

These new 'neighborhood schools' would still have to comply with strict state standards and would have to be sponsored by a mayor, city, county or township, although they could not be affiliated with a church or religious organization in any way, because apparently that would be bad.

Neighborhood schools could hire non-state certified teachers (like lawyers, businessmen, or doctors) and could offer merit pay to their teachers (like raising MME scores or having a slew of 5's on an AP test). The schools would be funded in the same way current charter schools are funded, with an annual state grant that’s based on enrollment.

As I understand it, these schools would be governed locally and would cut out the many layers of middle-management that make schools so inefficient, and could employ any other innovative practices that they think would help their students out.

This is a good idea- but it won't go anywhere. Other Senators are working on another plan for school improvement that will involve dumping more money into the system and put in place more restrictions on the free-market and parents, and this is a bad plan, and that system is closer to being passed than the 'neighborhood schools' idea.

The good plan is sponsored by Republicans, the bad plan by Democrats. Vote appropriately in future elections.

UPDATE: Some people have emailed me and accused me of selling out to the teachers union with this one- they want to know how this squares away with my usually free-market bent. Well, these types of schools create yet more competition, and they will be run by local companies (composed of teachers and parents), so as I see it, this is a very free-market based approach to education.

UPDATE II: Okay, did a little bit more research on this idea, and I like it more and more. Turns out there is a book out on this very premise: Can Teachers Own Their Own Schools- New Strategies for Educational Excellence, By Richard K. Vedder. Here is a review of it online:

Vedder presents a bold plan in which teachers, administrators and others involved in the educational process would become the owners of schools, acquiring an attractive financial stake in the process. Such privatization reforms could empower those directly involved and affected by school performance and end interest group barriers, paving the way for new, cost-effective means of improving educational outcomes. As a result, schools in which teachers, administrators, and parents have a significant financial stake would foster vibrant school communities with increased parental involvement and the innovation and efficiency essential to produce educational excellence.

Look, there is no way teachers would ever go for any sort of privatization scheme- to them, this is code for job layoffs and lower pay. I don't agree with that mentality- I think privatization can be a useful means of protecting jobs and even increasing teachers pay- but that is the way it is. The key is to put in place free-market schemes that are teacher-friendly.

Selling teachers on competition and privatization by letting them run their own schools and have an ownership stake in them is a great idea. This is not like GM or Chrysler where we are giving unions an ownership stake in a private company to encourage them to work harder and be more efficient- this is giving unions an ownership stake in a government-run enterprise to make them work harder and be more efficient. And that is a great idea.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS