Of Geese and Ganders

Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374393/leland-yee-kochs-and-press-jonah-goldberg
http://freebeacon.com/columns/gas-attack/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314025/how-did-harry-reid-get-rich-betsy-woodruff

Vouchers

Warren Has a Problem With a Rigged System

You see this graphic floating around them interwebs:

But, it works equally as well with a few adjustments:

And, yeah, she never said the stuff in the second graphic, but hey, Lincoln hasn't said half the stuff attributed to him either.

Does Capitalism Work?

Excerpts (with minor edits for clarity) of an interview that Mike Rosen had with Kevin Williams about his book "The End Is Near and It's Going to Be Awesome: How Going Broke Will Leave America Richer, Happier, and More Secure":

When talking to students, I often like to use a visual from the movie "Wall Street". Remember Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko? In the movie he's talking on a cell phone; a Motorola cinder block, that when adjusted for inflation, cost about $10,000 and about $1,000 a month to operate with 30 minutes of talk time. You couldn't give the thing away.

So I ask students to pull out their phones and show me what's in their pocket. They've got iPhones, Droids and whatnot. Rich kids, middle class kids, working class kids, they pretty much all have cell phones. Some have nicer ones; some less nice ones. Compare what you have in your pocket to what Michael Douglas had in that movie 25 years ago – and you had to be a millionaire to have that. Now everybody has one.

This thing has gotten better and cheaper, better and cheaper, better and cheaper. Now what do your schools look like? You can see the little light bulbs coming on over their heads. If you can figure out why your cell phone has gotten so much better and so much cheaper over time but your school still looks like something that was from the 1950s, 1960s – or in many cases the 1930s – then you'll have an idea about why this system doesn't work.

The problem with education is that we are a country of 300 plus million people. We are an extraordinarily diverse and complex country with an extraordinarily diverse and complex economy. We've got basically one model of K-12 education that comes from 19th century Prussia and Otto von Bismark. It’s a kind of factory model of education where the students are widgets and the schools are factories; they turn them out and they fit into various places in the economy. That is not a model for the 21st century.

The question isn't what kind of system to we replace our current education system with, it is what kind of systems, plural, do we replace it with.

Profit can act as a catalyst for advancement and is not necessarily evil.  As with most things, in and of itself, it is morally benign. Much like a gun, profits can be used for good or evil.

The audio of this portion of the interview:

The entire interview can be found at Mike Rosen's webpage.

Obama Administration to Teachers: You're All Racist

Heather Mac Donald's article in City Journal examines the discipline problem in schools. Because the Department of Education uses the disparate impact standard, any disproportionate incidence of discipline is thought to be the result of racism. This from the group that self-congratulates for their uncanny ability to sniff out nuance. Mac Donald writes:

Under disparate-impact theory, even if a school applies its discipline code fairly and in a color-blind fashion, it can still be liable for civil rights violations if minorities are disproportionately affected and it cannot demonstrate the absolute necessity of its disciplinary practices.

But when a black teacher said that the “achievement gap / suspension gap is a black issue. My community must take the lead in correcting our children’s behavior,” he was predictably dismissed by Victoria Davis, an education advocate with St. Paul’s NAACP chapter, who said, “People who think like that are like the people who believe that [black people] are . . . less than civil or human."

The reality is that she is treating the students as inferiors. She apparently doesn't think they are capable of rising to the same standards as their white peers. It is the soft bigotry of lower standards.

Mac Donald continues:

That rhetoric is irresponsible and dangerous, only serving to alienate blacks in general further from society and black students in particular from those institutions that are their best hope for success.

It cannot be that culture plays a role in this discipline problem. We know that to suggest such a thing would constitute a gaffe. So if not culture, then what? The old standby: racism. Of course this all assumes "that teachers and school administrators are a racist bunch." This is a little odd since:

Teachers also constitute one of the most liberal occupation groups, as a visit to any education school will confirm. Yet if we’re to believe the Obama administration, when they enter the classroom or become administrators, these eager proponents of white-privilege theory suddenly become retributive bigots, favoring fractious white students over pacific black students.

When you want see racism everywhere, you see it everywhere. Even your supporters can be thrown under the bus by besmirching their reputations and dignity in the pursuit of the racism meme.

The bigger question is why would teachers vote for the party that calls them a bunch of racists? Could it be the ever increasing compensation and benefits bestowed by the unions? And if that is the case - that they are looking out for their own interests by choosing money, compensation and benefits over all else including their dignity - doesn't that make them just as greedy as those nasty Wall Street fat cats?

Shouldn't the teacher's unions stick up for their rank and file? Shouldn't they defend their member's good name and speak truth to the powers that are smearing them with the despicable charge of racism? That the rank and file do not force the leadership to do so suggests that they are more interested in padding their pocketbooks than pursuing truth. And in the end it doesn't matter what the administration says about teachers, the teachers will lend their support.

Greed trumps personal dignity.

BTW, no word on how the obvious sexism is to be corrected:

Job Killer

Is there ever a condition where laying off staff is a good decision? What if you owned a company and the market changed and you had to lay off people? Could we all point to you and blame you for firing people for your own gain? After all, saving the business would accrue to your benefit. Heck, you might even be paid a bonus for keeping the company afloat so that it can hire again some day.

Should buggy whip companies still be employing people? Should Kodak not be able to adjust workforces because their share of the market has diminished? Do you have the same level of anger for the lost jobs at places like Solyndra? And do you ascribe those cuts as Obama slashing jobs for his own gain? Was giving Trade Adjustment Assistance money to each employee buying votes or could it in any way improve his political aspirations? Should elected government officials be giving money out to potential voters? Did Obama gain by getting $1.09 Million worth of lobbying out of Solyndra? Since money allocated to the company from government loans was paying the bills, did Obama and fellow Democrats gain from the campaign contributions of Solyndra employees?

We could tit-for-tat all day long. No policy or plan will be perfect. That is where spiritual people who believe there is an afterlife have an advantage over the secularist. The believer postpones utopia to the afterlife. A person of the left and secularists are compelled to create Utopia here on earth. Everything will not turn out perfect for everybody. Sometimes companies have to lay off staff. There are many left-wing Obama-philes who lay off people all the time.  And sometimes they are not very nice about it.  Heard of Hollywood anyone? It is just that they don't get demonized and drug out in front of the world by the right because the right act like grown ups and understand that sometimes businesses have to adjust to real life conditions.

The left's paper of record, The New York Times, is struggling with this right now. The company is having to make hard decisions about whether they can afford to continue with their current pension scheme. Of course, the dogmatic Utopians are wailing about how this means the management is a pack of wolves that is trying to make a killing on the backs of the proletariat. So not only is Romney a job slashing dog, but so is the NYT when they are faced with the financial realities of running their business.

Heated Rhetoric

After the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in January, President Obama encouraged everyone to be nice.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

This came on the heels of many lectures about the consequences of actions such as the use of crosshairs to identify districts targeted by the Tea Party for the elections. This use of crosshairs and statements made by the Palin campaign - as well as the general tone and rhetoric of the Tea party - were, if not directly, implied as the motivating cause of the violence against Ms. Giffords.

A lot of hand wringing occurred because of the potential for violence that might take place as a result of the rhetoric on the right. We were told that it was time to finally engage in a long overdue conversation about the violent rhetoric and imagery polluting national political discourse. Even Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik weighed in with some heated rhetoric about the heated rhetoric. There was a lot of rhetoric back then.

I'd just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they are - 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 country is getting to be outrageous.

Time asked, "Is Violent Rhetoric Behind the Attack on Giffords?"

The Salt Lake Tribune condemned "violent rhetoric that crosses all lines of decency and adds nothing to political debates," and that "The words and deeds of Sarah Palin... are examples of this trend."

Joe Scarborough commented that

Just because the dots between violent rhetoric and violent actions don't connect in this case doesn't mean you can afford to ignore the possibility -- or, as many fear, the inevitability -- that someone else will soon draw the line between them." "Despite what we eventually learned about the shooter in Tucson, should the right have really been so shocked that many feared a political connection between the heated rhetoric of 2010 and the shooting of Giffords?

Rachael Maddow took Scarborough's query to the next level with her twist on the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" line of reasoning:

As several commenters have noted, there's no indication that the alleged shooter was politically motivated. Even if the perpetrator turns out to have been seriously involved in political causes, which again there's no evidence of, his actions will likely remain senseless. What we can say is that today's shooting, whatever its motivation, comes after an election season that was marked by the language of violence...

One expects Maddow to ask her readers to "disregard the statement" after ringing the bell with the statement above. But statements such as this were commonplace across the media landscape at the time.

Only a small child would equate crosshairs on a district map signifying political battlegrounds as a mandate to commit violence against the current office holder. Apparently metaphors are beyond the pale if they include any references to battles, fighting or contentiousness and politics should never escalate further than a pillow fight.

Well, maybe not so fast with that pillow talk. Jimmy Hoffa fomented the "army" of "working people" who "like a good fight" who are "ready to march" because they "got a war" with the Tea Party and that there will "only be one winner" because "we're gonna win that war." And to the cheering approval of the crowd, with his fist raised, he said "And, let's take these son of a bitches out..."

SIDEBAR: Why are union members the only people deserving of the moniker "working people"? Do non-union people work? Is everybody else lazily sitting at home on their hands?

Hoffa made these introductory remarks prior to President Obama's Labor Day address. And the response?

Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn't find it in herself to condemn the toxic language.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said "Can we move on?"

CNN's John King couldn't seem to squeeze a question about the heated rhetoric into his six minute interview with Hoffa.

Apparently Rep. Andre Carson and Hoffa are of like mind on matters of civility. And is this the civility we are to embrace?

Or is it as Krauthammer said, "Civil discourse is a one-way street if you’re a Democrat."

---

Jay Carney also noted:

I understand that there is a ritual in Washington that, you know, somebody says something, and you link the associations, and then everybody who has an association with him or her has to avow or disavow. The President wasn’t there, he wasn’t on the stage, he didn’t speak for another twenty minutes, he didn’t hear it. I really don’t have any comment beyond that.

There is a striking similarity here to the William Ayers distance policy. One of the responses given to distance candidate Obama from his recent associations with Ayers was:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.

It may be true that Senator Obama condemns violence and the acts of Bill Ayers. But why argue that because something occurred 40 years ago that it is irrelevant or that therefore no connection is possible? The Holocaust happened some 50+ years ago, but there are still those - even some who may have only been eight years old at the time - who feel it was appropriate to gas Jews. Distance isn't the issue. Condemnation and separation from those who performed and condone the acts is.

In Obama's defense, one cannot be held accountable for the actions of every acquaintance one has. And an idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. So to make Obama responsible for the foibles of every fellow sojourner on the left is a bit silly. But terrorism and Hoffa's behavior at a presidential speaking engagement - although widely separated by degree - rise above a mere foible.

But it is the time element used to dismiss any association that is disturbing. And the recent kerfuffle over Hoffa's statements re-exposed this oddity. Carney offered the argument that the President wasn't there and that Hoffa's comments occurred twenty minutes prior to his arrival as though it somehow relieves the President of his moral obligation to chastise Hoffa for the offensive comments.

The comments occurred. The President spoke from the stage where the comments were made. However tenuous, that puts him at the scene of the crime. Whether they occurred twenty minutes - or forty years - prior, once he is aware that they were made, should he not forcefully condemn them? Why not simply state

Although I am a supporter of unions, Mr. Hoffa's comments were vulgar and inappropriate. I hope that he will temper his remarks in the future and use language that elevates, rather than debases, even when he has strong disagreements with those on the other side of the aisle. His language, in that setting, not only denigrates those he disagrees with, it sullies and disgraces the gathering, the participants, his office, his movement and the office of the Presidency. We should seek to elevate the participants and the discourse in political debate. Attacking the dignity of those we disagree with is not up to the standard of character that we should all strive for. We should do better than personal attacks. Mr. Hoffa should have done better. And I am confident that in the future he will.

Something similar could have been said regarding the boorish behavior of many during the Wisconsin budget battle. (Examples here, here, and here.)

Or is this a case of pas d'ennemis à gauche?

Union Hysteria

President Obama called the bill an “assault on unions.” Democratic state senator Lena Taylor compared Scott Walker to Hitler. But the results of the changes in Wisconsin were not nearly so terrible.

From the Weekly Standard:

On June 29 at 12:01 a.m., Koczela could finally breathe a sigh of relief. The budget repair bill​—​delayed for months by protests, runaway state senators, and a legal challenge that made its way to the state’s supreme court​—​was law. The 27 teachers on the chopping block were spared.

With “collective bargaining rights” limited to wages, Koczela was able to change the teachers’ benefits package to fill the budget gap. Requiring teachers to contribute 5.8 percent of their salary toward pensions saved $600,000. Changes to their health care plan​—​such as a $10 office visit co-pay (up from nothing)​—​saved $200,000. Upping the workload from five classes, a study hall, and two prep periods to six classes and two prep periods saved another $200,000. The budget was balanced.

In Brown Deer and school districts across the state, Walker’s budget repair bill, known as Act 10, is working just as he promised.

Were the unions and their supporters who stormed the capitol and those senators who left the state simply overwrought in their rhetoric, incapable of understanding the proposed fixes or stumping for their special interest? Will there be any apologies and realizations that the anger was all on one side on this issue?

From the Washington Examiner

But after the law went into effect, at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn that $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. And it's all because of the very provisions that union leaders predicted would be disastrous.

In the past, teachers and other staff at Kaukauna were required to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health insurance coverage and none of their pension costs. Now, they'll pay 12.6 percent of the cost of their coverage (still well below rates in much of the private sector) and also contribute 5.8 percent of salary to their pensions.

But when the Milwaukee teachers’ union president Bob Peterson was asked “You have a choice: layoffs or pension contributions. Do you see that choice? Why did you make a choice of layoffs?” when collective bargaining resulting in layoffs, the union president said, "I didn’t lay off anybody,”

Who was it in Wisconsin that kept teachers employed, pensions in place and the fiscal house in order? The union assaulting Hitlarian governor? Or the union?