Issue 76 Education: Attacking the main problem May 14, 2013

  The main problem with education in the United States is social promotion.  Social promotion moves children up a grade even if they are not academically capable of understanding the material at the higher grade level.  Thus, the student is unprepared to meet the new challenges and this begins spirals until the student graduates with them leaving school incapable of meeting society’s educational demands.

 Its original purpose:  Social promotions purpose was to speed students through school and to prevent children from being left back.  It was felt that by doing this that these students would not suffer ridicule from their peers, therefore preserving their self-esteem.  Problem is it leaves students unprepared, sometimes dangerously so, to enter the working world.  Not to mention how embarrassing it is for some of these socially promoted students not even knowing how to read.

 Kill the idea:  A real change for education would be the abolishment of this ridiculous idea that robs children of a successful career which is always founded on a good education.  In other words, the more educated you are the higher paying job you can achieve.  Let’s face it; employers want educated workers who innovate to improve business, not mindless drones.  Look at the State of Florida; they along with several other States got rid of both social promotion and tenure.  As a result within ten years grades improved significantly. 

 Conclusion:  It is time to end this stupidity of protecting a student’s self-esteem at the expense of their education and future.  Hold students back if they are not academically prepared to meet the standards that are set for success.  End social promotion now.

Issue 75 Education: correcting some errors May 13, 2013

 We have all heard the quote “The foundation of every State is the education of its youth.”  Well duh, a dumb nation cannot progress.  A dumb nation means we cannot compete intellectually with other nations because jobs are created by smart people who invest their income wisely.  International businesses not only look at how cheep it is for it to establish itself and produce its products, but also the education of workers because smart labor equals skilled labor equals profits.  We are in a race for the most highly skilled workers on the planet, an education arms race if you will.  Problem, our education system has some major malfunctions inhibiting our, your, Americas future, from getting the best quality education.

The first problem is when school elections are held:  Have you noticed that school elections are not held on the same day as a general election, the very same general election where we as citizens cast our vote for our President, and federal, State and local representatives?  The reason is because the school boards want a lower voter turnout.  Some are thinking why the heck would they want a lower turnout?  Simple, with less people voting, officials are more likely to be elected or re-elected.  Budgets are almost guaranteed to pass even if that budget is flawed, or clearly does nothing to enhance the education of the students and line the pockets of the education bureaucracy.  In other words, the members of the education bureaucracy only have to be responsible to the segment of the community who actually gets out and votes and not the entire community. 

 Next is the problem with the Lemons:  No, not the fruit or the cars, I mean bad teachers.  Usually, these bad teachers can’t be fired due to tenure or contract, so schools have an alternative solution.  They trade off bad teachers with other schools hoping the newer one was better than the last.  This of course means that the new teacher can be as bad as or worse than the one traded away.  Other teachers go into what the people of New York State call rubber rooms.  This is where bad teachers go while they wait for there hearings to take place, all the while getting paid to do nothing.  Some might say remove tenure, which is something I am in favor of, but here I will discuss alternatives.  In the case of the rubber rooms, a teacher who is not in the classroom teaching should not be paid.  That’s right, if your not working you should not be paid and the fear of being placed into one of these rubber rooms will put the fear of God into that select minority of bad teachers.  This also eliminates the need to trade off bad teachers because they can simply threaten to send poor performing teachers, and those who commit worse acts than failing their students, into a rubber room.  Thus, the number of bad teachers should drop.

Another Approach:  An alternative that can be combined with the first is to make tenure renewable.  In other words it will expire after a certain period of time and teachers’ records will be used to justify its renewal.  This is a very simple solution, because their application for renewal may be denied and that bad teacher will then be let go.  I suggest every five to eight years for a renewal of tenure.  I chose these numbers because it’s long enough to evaluate a teachers performance under “safe” circumstances and at the same time give the teacher the ability to enjoy the original intention of tenure, the freedom to discuss points of view in the classroom.

But, what happens to the bad teachers who do manage to be fired.  Why they can simply get another teaching job.  Your saying how does that work aren’t you?  Well, it’s because unlike the majority of professions, teacher’s records are sealed.  The new employer can’t look into the reason why the teacher no longer has their original teaching job, or even the fact that they were fired.  So why is it that a teacher has their records sealed and not other professions?  Why inhibit employers in schools from insuring that America’s children are getting the best of the best?

This leads me to another question: Why are we only giving special attention to the best students?  This is due to the track system which was developed during the industrialization of America.  The original intent was to give the top performers in schools the most attention because they were perceived as the next generation of politicians and lawyers.  The next group was expected to be accountants, and secretaries who aid the top group while the final group (the majority) was to be factory workers and farmers.  This system has always worked by giving attention to students based on performance.  However, performance is based on test scores that are factored in with other factors which inflate grades like behavior.  So good students academically are given less attention because of poor behavior such as obedience or the number of times they raise their hand while others are given higher grades because they might behave better than the rest of the class.  This is not fair and nor is it equal treatment.  This is biased education from a bygone era.  The track system must end for all students who must all be held to the same standards.  They must be given the exact attention they need to succeed and above all treated like the next Albert Einstein. 

 We are still left with inflated grades based on behavior though.  So make academic performance and behavior two separate grades.  Academic performance and behavior do not correlate which is why grades get inflated or even deflated, so there is no reason to not make this change for teachers are already accounting for a student’s behavior.  This will make grading fair and equitable and allow both parents and teachers to identify what areas a student is week in whether it is academically, respecting others, group work, attention to detail, all of which is important in the working world   

 Conclusion: These are some simple fixes, though some are harder to achieve than others i.e. elections and tenure.  We can make America’s system of education the best in the world and a model for all to follow.  Our 50 States, each with their own separate and independent education systems, are competing to be the best.  Each State is in an education arms race with each other and the rest of the world, each a powerful force in education reform. 

Issue 74 Over Licensed May 10, 2013

            I was originally inspired by John Stossel to write this chapter.  I was watching his program on Fox Business Network and he was discussing how over regulated society is.  In this particular episode it was about licenses.  Licensing is a quality control device to ensure that a person is capable of performing a certain type of job or task such as a driver’s license or a plumber’s license.  According to Stossel licenses do more than protect us from bad plumbers, but also dead flowers!  That’s right, I said dead flowers.  Some States in the United States license florists to ensure the quality of the flowers you buy.  They license hair stylists and other occupations as well.  States will require these people to pay fees, sometimes in upwards of a thousand dollars or more, and job training just to be able to cut someone’s hair.  Some times they even have people get a license even if the training for that license has nothing to do with the job or service they wish to perform.  An example of this comes from Stossel’s episode where a woman wanted to provide a service in the form of Jamaican hair braiding.  She was forced to get a license and go to a class on how to cut hair and at no time was she ever instructed on how to braid hair.  In other words she had to get a license on a service she was never going to perform, hair cutting, just so she could braid hair.  Money and hours wasted.

The situation with licensing gets worse:  Imagine some kids who want to open a lemonade stand on a street corner or even right in front of there own home.  The government shuts them down because they did not get a license to open up a business (which is used for tax purposes).  Well it happened, and not just to kids with lemonade stands.  It happened to kids who wanted to sell pumpkins (compliments of their parents) and to kids trying to sell cookies.  Just search the internet and you’ll find this kind of foolishness everywhere.  It’s no wonder it’s so hard to open a business.

Why do governments license these things so excessively?:  Well I can only give my opinion, but I think its government greed.  For one the States get revenue when only licensed businesses sell there products and not from the untaxed street corner lemonade stand.  This is especially true when it can take over $1,000 just to get a license from the government, and that’s not including the training costs.  The other reason is to remove competition.  For instance a New York cabby can only get a medallion to own a cab by paying anywhere from $100,000 to $600,000 depending on what the New York City taxi and limousine commission decides.  It only takes $600, classes and a drug test to drive though.  It is a system designed to suppress the competition by pricing them out of the market, thus it is almost impossible to be an independent operator.  Lobbying at its best, government sponsored monopoly at its worst. 

 The Alternative: So rather than licensing people arbitrarily to protect people dead flowers (mind you, who would shop at a florist if there flowers are just going to die the very next day) lets be smart about it.  Let’s decide what is absolutely necessary to be licensed.  Police and Firefighters come to mind.  Doctor’s, plumbers, electricians, and architects are another.  No one wants a bad doctor, so let’s make sure they have a certificate confirming that they have been trained to heal the sick.  Plumbers and electricians need to be licensed to ensure our homes don’t become money pits.  Architects need a license to ensure buildings won’t fall down upon its occupants.  It should not stop a non-architect from designing a building; it will just need an architect to give it a pass before it is built.  So those jobs that provide specialized construction all need some form of license.

I can only think of only one other occupation, a trial lawyer. I do not mean law professionals in general, but only the lawyers who become advocates for the defense and prosecuting attorneys. A legal letter or other such services do not require a lawyer’s expertise as there is instructions to write such things on the internet and your write to defend yourself should not be infringed because you yourself are not a lawyer. I say this because some one was actually arrested for writing a legal letter on behalf of an elderly man who designed a church for his community which was built. The elderly gentleman did not have a license to be an architect, and to try and keep him out of jail a friend wrote a legal letter on his behalf. This friend was arrested for writing a legal letter without having a license to be a lawyer, in which he was incarcerated for a month until he apologized to the court. Take note that he could have been out sooner, but he was trying to maintain his rights as a citizen and that his incarceration was a court order and he was not convicted of a crime.

 

Conclusion: I question why it is a crime to help your fellow man and why government wishes to corrupt itself by maintaining monopolies on chosen businesses. By the way monopolies can only exist if governments let them. We have this at the federal level with health insurers having monopolies in particular States. So I say lets end the arbitrary corruption of government licensing. To learn more on this and other issues you may simply watch more of John Stossel on the Fox Business network.

Issue 73 Who should not have a gun May 9, 2013

As my post yesterday was about the people who want to and possibly need to own a gun I thought it appropriate to examine who should not have one. So here it goes.

Convicted Criminals: The most obvious are convicted criminals. We do not want or need these people being released just to return to a life of crime. However, not all criminals should be banned from owning guns. Those criminals who should never be allowed to own a gun in my opinion are rapists and child molesters. Additionally, people convicted of other violent crimes already involving a gun or deadly weapon such as a person who committed armed robbery or a murder. That sums of the list of who should not own a gun when it comes to criminals. People who have been in bar fights, petty theft are small time criminals who chose the least violent rout possible and thus should not be considered as dangerous upon release. Those who commit victimless crimes like insider trading also should be exempted from the ban. If they already own a gun (that was not used in the crime in question) obviously it should be seized, but it should be returned upon their release. Like I said earlier, those who commit violent criminal acts should never be allowed to own a gun again, but those who do not commit such acts should be allowed the trust of society once again. But if you want to be safe, repeat offenders will be banned from owning fire arms as well.

Mentally ill: People in this category also should not be allowed to own guns. Wait, forget what I said, some people in this category should not be allowed to own guns. You are probably thinking why on earth some people who are mentally ill should be allowed to own a gun. Well, it is very simple, members of both the police and the military are considered to be mentally ill. These members of law enforcement and our troops suffer from depression, anxiety, bi-polarism, extreme stress and other such mental disorders which would classify them as mentally ill. These men and women have access to some of the most powerful arsenals on earth, and you know what, we trust them. So people with mental illness should be allowed to own a gun, but who amongst people in this category should not.

Those in this category that should not be allowed to own a firearm are those who would seek to harm themselves or others. You will need a trained professional to diagnose such cases and even then exceptions can me made based on how severe someone’s condition is, i.e. a person who is prone to suicide due to post traumatic stress should not be allowed to own a gun. Even if these people are not allowed to own a gun in the short term, this should not prohibit them from owning a gun once their condition is under control. Just remember, if we just out right banned people with such disorders then we would be disarming almost everyone. Face it; we are all a little nuts.

Conclusion: Yes there are exceptions to every rule. Some of you may agree with me, while others may want even tighter restrictions and I welcome the conversation. However, I would like to bring to your attention a more pressing concern, the way mentally ill people in the U.S. are treated medically. There are instances where doctors are not allowed to take on there case if these people do not show any signs of wanting to harm themselves or others. As a result, these people go untreated. Before we really want to fix gun laws (let alone actually enforce ones that work) we have to fix the mental health care system so we can help to prevent things like school shootings. There are other little things we can do to prevent good citizens from becoming murderers to, like addressing issues with school bulling which can drive kids to kill their peers. We can address issues with criminality by adjusting laws to stop ruining peoples live in victimless crimes like abusing a drug, and even prevent repeat offenders by finding ways to show employers that these former criminals are trustworthy so they don't turn back to a life of crime. Laws can only react to a problem, but what I’m talking about here helps to reduce such issues from occurring, and that is all we can do.

Issue 72 Guns: why have them? May 8, 2013

Lets face it people both fear and respect people who have a gun. It is a weapon and at the same time, a tool. But is it truly needed in civilian hands. I say yes.

Hunters: Hunting at its core requires guns. Without the gun how would a hunter hunt for the animal he/she is tracking? Some may wonder why people hunt when we have farms to get our food from. Is not hunting all just fun and games? Well, you would be wrong to think it is all fun and games. For one, hunters play a vital role in controlling animal populations. Some of the animals like dear lack enough predators to cull the population and thus many may find there way into suburban communities and even cities. Also, if a large population of dear or other animal goes unchecked, they may eat all the food in their environment and thus die out. Part of why these populations explode is due to past human interference like killing the predators that eat them or trying to revive a dying and endangered species in a very successful and unexpected way (such as the American Alligator). We cannot expect hunters to maintain those populations with bows and arrows as getting close to such creatures risks both failure to make a kill, or the creature in question attacking the hunter. Guns have the range necessary to keep hunters at a safe distance while also being powerful enough to kill the animal as painlessly as possible.

Life style: There are those who cross the boundary of hunter, farmer and traditionalist. These people are Outdoors Men and Outdoors Women. These people live a very simple hunter gatherer lifestyle out in the countryside and rural areas. They care not for most traditional amenities, but they hunt to survive. These men and women need guns for food and protection from wild and dangerous animals like bears. Like wise, small farming operations require guns to prevent wild animals from eating their crops and other animals like wolves from coming to eat them.  Don’t bother trying to understand why these people live the way they do, as it is their choice and that is all that really matters.

Self Defense: In some places in America, it can take up to 15 or more minutes for police to arrive if there is a breaking. Thus, these people in these dispersed communities need some form of first response to anyone trying to do them harm. It is just as likely that that perpetrator coming into their home is armed and thus the gun acts as an equalizer.

Women need guns as well. Let’s face it; while women are strong and very independent in general, but a 200 pound man is much stronger than a 100 pound female. They need to equalize the situation and a gun does just that.

Some may think why not a taser or pepper sprays to try and fend off attackers? Problem, are you afraid of such weapons, weapons that do not kill unless there is an accident? Guns however, people are very afraid of due to there lethality.

What if those guns are taken from you and used against you? Simple, you’re out of luck. There is always a chance that your weapon will be taken away from you, but in the encounters where this has happened is rare. Most people who own guns have a basic knowledge on how to use a gun and defend themselves. These people are very responsible and have for the most part, never committed a violent crime. In America, about 48% are believed to own guns legally and there are approximately 300 million guns in the United States in total. Culturally speaking, America is gun country.

Radical Defense: Yes there are those who fear a dooms day scenario like a foreign invasion, or the government collapsing and chaos taking over. But, these people hurt no one. They like the safety and security they get from feeling prepped for the worst that can happen like the government needing to be rebelled against. (Note: I don't own a gun and probably never will, but I will not take away your right to protect yourself).

Conclusion: People want security and guns aid in that. Women want to protect against rapists, parents in dispersed communities want to defend their homes in case of an assailant and hunters need to protect themselves from their pray. Did people not think that people in the witness protection program and those who are being stalked might want to be able to defend themselves? We cannot all afford high priced body guards like some celebrity mom and dad. Has no one thought of the need to protect the families of law enforcement and military personnel from people who might hold a grudge? I know police who have had people they arrested and incarcerated placing bounties on their heads and their families. Are they not entitled to some protection? Guns are a very serious matter and trying to weed out a collector of guns from those who actually need some form of protection is down right stupid. Trying to justify a fear or a possibility to a government official is like talking to a wall. Not to mention it would make it impossible to try and obtain guns for those who may need protection as the arbitrator who decides if you can have one is not in the position you’re in. Fact is that the idea of a basic background check is fine, but you should not have to justify yourself to anyone when it comes to protecting yourself and your family. This is my view and understanding of how the world of guns works outside of a war zone and a law enforcement capacity. I just hope you read this and find that the issue of guns is not a black and white issue, but a very big gray line.

 

Issue 71 Do we need Tanks? May 7, 2013

In the world today the way wars are fought have changed dramatically, or so we thought. We still have large armies smashing against each other in some conflicts, while we have guerilla fighters in others. There are even cases where traditional war and insurgents mix to form a complex war front that can only be a field commander’s nightmare. At current, there is a debate due to the changing face of war about how useful the battle tank is. So do we still need tanks?

Those against keeping tanks: Surprisingly, the ones wanting to get rid of tanks are the U.S. military. Well, let me correct my self, they wish to reduce the force by approximately 1/3. The reasons for their thinking are the budget cuts and the altered war front. They feel that the battle tank in future of war is a lumbering war machine that while useful is burdensome to transport, labor intensive and a waste of fuel. If you study the militaries tanks in most Army's including the American military you will know that the tank is generally a gas guzzler. Also, it takes a lot of time to train troops to use tanks effectively. America has a crew of 4, while other armies have a crew of 3 due to an auto reload system and teaching them how to be a team and then how to fight with allies is very costly. Militarized video games help, but even that is not enough.

Keep the tanks part 1: The group that wants to keep tanks is the politicians in America. Through various dealings the manufacturing process includes contracts with multiple companies to make parts all before being shipped to be assembled. Literally almost every politician has some company in their districts building something and they don't want them to loose their jobs. For if that person or company looses the contract, then that politician looses a vote. A little political corruption goes along way.

Keep the tanks part 2: Another group who wants to keep the tanks is those who see that the lumbering behemoths of the battlefield still play a role. They cite that despite the disadvantages, tanks, particularly the U.S.'s M1A1 Abrams, is still a very effective combat vehicle. The Abrams is used in situations where lighter vehicles would be easily destroyed by man portable anti-vehicle weapons (something that is becoming more common with insurgents and terrorists). A tank like the Abrams can shrug off most of such weaponry. Also, currently the Abrams tank outranges most other tanks with its main gun and is highly maneuverable with a top speed of around 60 miles and hour. A tank on an active battle field can reposition and provide line of sight firepower to targets directed by infantry (less risky than calling in artillery further away). Tanks when employed properly can change an entire battle.

Conclusion: My opinion is as follows. The tank is going to evolve again. It is going to be able to provide direct and indirect fire support for troops. They will be used as mobile communications links and surveillance tools. And they will change from being gas guzzlers to fuel efficient power houses (they need to because a fuel truck is a very tempting target and no fuel means the tanks can't move). They will use new engines and fuels to be more fuel efficient, new targeting and tracking systems to hit harder and faster and new munitions that may even be guided by GPS to their target. Also, tanks may become lighter, as the heavier a vehicle is the harder it is to transport. As to armor, they may get lighter more advanced materials, but they may also get active protection systems that intercept incoming rounds before they hit (the Israelis have this technology already). I will even predict that the tank may eventually replace traditional artillery systems save the furthest reaching of that class of vehicle. The tank no matter what its incarnation may fade, but will reappear when needed to due battle and do the job it was designed to do, support the troops on the active battlefield.


This issue is my reaction to a Huffington post article and a journal entry in Foreign Affairs.

Issue 70 What is a Constitution May 6, 2013

"Constitution" has become a sacred word for the people of the world. To people it means freedoms guaranteed by and from the government. It is essentially the law that governs all law in a given country. But what exactly is it?

What it is: A constitution is a legally binding document that acts as a contract between the people of the country and their government. Enshrined in such documents is rules governing how elections are run, what requirements are mandated so a person may serve in public office and even (like the U.S. Constitution) enshrining the basic rights that are required to maintain freedom. Essentially, what rules a people want a government to follow and abide by are placed in a constitution. It is the law that governs the government and tells them where and how they may govern the people.

Can it be used against us?: Well the answer to that question is yes. If a constitution is altered or written in a way where government may seize power from the masses then it will be used against the people. Constitutions are made to limit governments’ ability to do things and force them to respect the rule of law, but a poorly written constitution leads to turmoil. For example, not placing a limit on what forms of taxation could lead to abusive tax policies. Cronyism may develop if the equal treatment under the law is not enforced through a constitution. You are now beginning to see the big picture. Governments are made of people, and once those people get power, they corrupt themselves and constantly seek all power they can get their hands on.

Can a constitution be ignored by government: If we don't watch what the government is doing.  People must constantly be vigilant or else the government will take advantage of our not paying attention. My own government (America's Federal Government) has taken advantage of the situation to provide benefits to corporations while ignoring others. They have violated the equal treatment under the law principle under the 14th amendment to the constitution (that is because corporations are run by people and thus may be considered people). Other forms of abuse may occur, such as pocketing money, or even inflating budgets for pet projects to later be used by government employees. Government can make people rich.

Does a Constitution have to be written?: No, it does not have to be written. For example, the British (one of America's closest allies) has no written constitution. Instead they have a series of documents that do the same thing as a constitution like the Magna Carta and other official laws and court decrees. Israel on the other hand also has no constitution, but they also don't have any written documents like Britons either. They have basic rules and moral restraints that society places on them to maintain their rights. This is not to say that countries do not need a constitution, it just happens to be easier to look up what can and can't be done if all the rules are in one place.

Conclusion: A constitution is a document that gives the people comfort. It makes us feel that are rights and our voice matter in a government. It is designed to keep government from grabbing too much power and also tells them to protect the people’s rights. I know I am lucky to live in America and that is because of the laws that protect us and preserve my precious rights, the rights we all share. So all I can say is thank God for the Constitution for without it, who knows what America would be like.