socialized medicine goes to the fair

I took my youngest daughter to the fair last weekend. It was a little cool and overcast for Georgia, but we both had a good time. The first thing that we did when we showed up was take a look around the midway, getting a feel for how many rides we might want to go on and planning our purchase of tickets accordingly. She and I rode together on three or four rides (I can’t do the spinning ones like I used to) and she went on another four or five by herself. We ended up with a few extra, but not so many that we felt cheated.

As we were walking around, we ran into an acquaintance from church. As usual in such places, we talked about the fair, how prices were going up, and the general state of the crowd. It wasn’t that bad really. The longest we waited in any line was about five minutes. I brought up the comment that this wasn’t a “wrist-band” day. On “wrist-band” days, you pay a flat fee per person and ride as much as you want. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

He mentioned that his family went a few years on “wrist-band” day. The place was jam packed, wall-to-wall people. The lines were so long that they only got to ride two rides before it was time to leave, and the crowded conditions made everything less enjoyable. Most people have experienced something much like this. Even if you don’t go to the traveling fairs, most of the major amusement parks work on the same type of structure these days. Pay big in the door and ride all you want. Of course, you soon realize that what this really means is ride what you can.

There’s a lesson here that we would do well to learn.

Everything finite is rationed in some way. If you don’t pay in terms of money, you will pay in terms of quality or availability. It is inevitable. It’s just as true with amusement parks as it is with health care. That’s the reason why people in Canada and Britain are dying between the time of diagnosis and the time treatment is available, or in other cases why the condition has spread beyond treatability. When people can come for any ailment with little or no regard to cost, they do. And they come a lot. And they come when maybe they shouldn’t. And then the system can’t get to the people who really need it, and more of them will die.

A lot of people emphasize the supposed advantages of a universal health care system. Very few have considered the responsibility. Fifteen people in a waiting room that want to talk about their sniffles might discourage someone with early cancer signs from waiting around. Maybe they’ll come back tomorrow. Maybe they won’t come back until it’s too late. It’s something to think about.

The Five-Percent Solution

A while before welfare reform became law under Clinton, there were some earlier attempts that didn’t quite make the cut. One version suggested had a requirement that welfare beneficiaries be available for work 2o hours per week. I rather like the idea of work-fare over welfare myself, but the idea was shouted down pretty quickly. One member of the CBC compared it to a return to slavery. That says a lot about the mentality of some in the CBC, but perhaps there is another way that we could see if there is a place for at least some “work for benefits” in the system.

I propose the following thought experiment and welcome opinions on the subject: Suppose that, instead of paying a fee for government health care (the public option as it is called) people were told they would be required to volunteer two hours of their time weekly to one of several available projects. It might be road work, office work, yard work, etc. Would people scarf it up for the great deal that it is? Or would those who are at the low end of the productivity scale, who are probably assuming (correctly) that the government will give it to them, balk at the idea? Will cries of “slavery” be heard again?

What do you think?

A 1984 moment: Liberal Educators

While I can’t say that 1984 was one of my favorite books, I can say truthfully that it and Animal Farm were quite instructive when it came to spotting the signs of a repressive regime in action. While Animal Farm dealt with the beginnings of repression, 1984 was more about motivations and methods of control after the regime was established. In 1984 there were three mottos (for lack of a better term) that the ruling party kept on display. These were war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. While I picked up on several of the applications during the book, I am still finding new relevance as I go along in life. I had an extended back and forth discussion with a liberal educator this past weekend on his blog, and I have to confess that I now understand the meaning of “ignorance is strength” as never before.

While the primary focus of the post that spurred the discussion was not education, we strayed into that realm when we began discussing unequal treatment due to race. I stated that I thought it was horrible that a white, non-minority male student had to make higher grades and scores on entrance exams to be accepted to many universities than an African American student. The host at the blog immediately replied that he was in education and he was unaware of any such requirement. That in itself amazed me, since so many in the liberal education establishment have been fighting hard to maintain just such preferences for quite a while. He invited me to provide evidence and said that he would stand corrected if I did. I did. He ignored it.

Afterward, we went through similar exercises with regards to English immersion vs. bilingual education and phonics vs. whole language. In each case, I provided the locations of stories listing that the liberal position (support of bilingual ed and whole language) produced inferior results. I invited him to produce evidence to the contrary. He produced nothing, yet continually insisted that this proved nothing. There was an impenetrable wall of first ignorance, real or feigned I’m not certain, followed by disbelief of any evidence contrary to the liberal position. As I continued to press the matter, he stated that he considered my questions nothing but rhetoric. And that is perhaps the most disturbing part of all.

There is nothing rhetorical about these subjects. In fact, I would give the opinion that answers to these questions and many more like them are of vital importance. Surveys show that professors and evaluators of the schools of education identify as liberal by an overwhelming majority. Many of the methods that are currently being pushed emphasize social justice, whatever that means, and activism over content and excellence. It is inconceivable that in an increasingly technical economy that America can maintain any kind of competitive stance without making the best use of educational resources available for our children and young adults. At the rate we are going, we will end up with a new work force demanding action and attention, yet unable to maintain and advance, or in many cases even contribute, to the society they live in. This is a recipe for poverty, frustration, and anger. Whatever steps come after those can only be to detriment of us all. I would encourage every concerned parent and concerned citizen to work to reverse these destructive trends. They began some forty-years ago, and we are now seeing some of the logical results.

Contrary t0 what some may try to tell you, educators really do know what work: Standards without excuses, directed learning, phonics, drill, and content rich curriculum. It may not be exciting for the teachers or the children, and it’s certainly a tougher job then inspiring young activists, but it’s what lead America to technical dominance in the fifties and sixties. Given the chance, it will do so again.

Those Who Will Not See…

My family and I are going through a series of series of videos and discussions at our church called “The Truth Project.” (For those of you who wish to opine that the project might contain very little truth, I would appreciate it if you accompanied such opinions with a specific complaint that would show that you have actually been exposed to the material and found a fact-based complaint or error. I don’t want to make fun of you as bigoted or ignorant, but if you approach without doing the homework you really leave me no choice.) One of our related homework assignments was to watch “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” by Ben Stein. (Same notations apply).

At the very end of “Expelled,” Ben asks Richard Dawkins how he will feel if he goes through his entire life seeking to stamp out religion, expires, and then finds himself face-to-face with God. Mr. Dawkins replies words to the effect of “Why did you take such great pains to hide yourself?”

I’m still trying to get my mind wrapped around the reply. This is hardly the first time I’ve heard that lament. Years ago I watched a Jodie Foster movie called “Contact.” It was fair. Not bad, not great. Jodie plays an atheist scientist, and breaks out the philosophical tool of Occam’s razor which basically states that all other things being equal, the most obvious solution is probably the correct one. That’s a paraphrase, but I think it’s close enough. I can get behind that. It makes sense. The problem is that the possibilities for abuse of the principle are limitless.

In the move, our scientist, Jodie, poses the question as such: “What is more likely? That an all-powerful being creates mankind and then painstakingly removes all evidence of his existence, or that one never existed?” Again, a paraphrase, but one that I believe captures the flavor of the argument. The argument, however, leaves me wondering “Huh?”

Consider if you will that in an age where any fragments of ancient manuscripts are rare simply because of the perishable materials used, copies of ancient scripture are far more common than any other category by several orders of magnitude. The history is there. More of the history and confirming architecture are being discovered all the time. You have a whole race and a country dedicated to the providence of God, for crying out loud! All of this, and they say no evidence.

Christ spoke of this in his parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus the Beggar. He stated that if someone would not accept the testimony of the Scriptures, the Bible as Christians call it, then they would not be persuaded even though a man came back from the dead. It’s as true today as it was in Christ’s time. And it is just as sad.

In the Bible, it states that there are none so blind as those who will not see. I can’t really improve on that.

Uncomfortable Partnerships

I read a story on line several years ago about a school district on the east coast. It seems that there was a controversy about a school accepting money from a major tobacco company to fund various programs. Some people were outraged that schools were actually taking the money even though no strings were attached. I have to say that I was perplexed.

I have no ties to any tobacco company. I used to smoke; now I don’t. That’s as close as we ever got. I am fully aware of the risks of the product, and do not want to see it marketed to children. At the same time, it is a legal product, and that’s pretty much because the people in the US want it that way. The tobacco companies get a lot of condemnation in public, but considering the amount of land and resources it takes to produce, market, and distribute the product in the US, we could outlaw it and reduce output to a tiny fraction of what it is if we wanted to. Of course, if we did that, it would take a lot of money out of the public coffers (no pun intended), and that’s part of what has me so perplexed about the attitude.

I don’t see how so many people think it was perfectly justifiable to force the companies to give their money through lawsuits, who continually take the money through forced taxation, and yet believe there should be a stigma attached to funds the industry gives voluntarily. Realistically, all of the money comes from the same place, and that’s sales of a harmful product. Does the use of force give some people the impression that they are not really partnered with the industry? If so, I believe they are fooling themselves. I can’t see much moral high ground to be had in the issue.

I write about this now because I read about another situation recently that appears similar in nature at least to me. Last week, the people in charge of such things approved lighting the Empire State Building in red to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Communist takeover, or revolution for those who prefer, in China. And again, there was quite a lot of discussion on the situation.

Anyone who knows my political leanings knows that I am much less a fan of communism than I am of tobacco companies. At least to the best of my knowledge, tobacco companies never beat you, kill your family, or send you to concentration camps for not wanting their product. But at this point in our history, how much outrage against China are we really entitled to? We’re buying their products. We’re investing in their companies. We are building, hiring, transacting all forms of business in the country. And we indebted to them. Heavily.

As with tobacco, my purpose is not to praise the Chinese system of governance. I am simply pointing out that we are partnered with them. There are many reasons for this. Some are good reasons. Some are self-serving. Regardless of how you evaluate the reasons, the fact still exists. Those who are angry at the managers responsible for the lighting of the Empire State Building best save a little anger for themselves, and for me, and for most of the rest of the country. Right now, we are all supporting their form of governance as they are supporting ours. The really tragic part of the equation is that current trends in economic policy will want to make them pull out of the arrangement long before we would be able to make such a stand. There is a fact that should genuinely concern all of us.

Notes on Notables

Dave Letterman – One Thumb Up
I’ve never been a “fan” of Dave. I just never got into the late night talk show scene. Early to bed, early to rise. My opinion of him in general took a big nose dive when he started busting on Palin’s daughter. I thought that was a cheap shot, bordering on vicious, and I hope he learned something about class from the event. I never expected him to be disciplined for the incident, though I wouldn’t have shed a tear if he had.

Having said all of that, I will give him at least one thumb up for this past week. I’ll ignore the conduct that left him vulnerable to blackmail, and instead concentrate on the admirable point: He didn’t let himself be owned. It takes courage to come clean on national TV, and thanks to that courage one extortionist is finding it a lot harder to operate. That’s bringing something good out of a bad situation. I wish him good luck resolving the rest.

Whoopi Goldberg
This week’s poster child for “Why Conservatives are Convinced Leftists Have No Principles.” Her on-air parsing on the charges and explanation of how giving drugs and alcohol to a 13 year old so that you can sexually abuse her is not “rape-rape” should turn the stomach of anyone with an ounce of decency. It’s very tempting to wish that she would go through some kind of experience to show just how horrible something like that could be, but I do not. It is my fervent wish that no one ever has to be subjected to that kind of treatment ever again.

Michelle Obama
For a woman who claims to have such an empathy for the poor and downtrodden, she has a pretty skewed idea of what constitutes a “sacrifice.” Flying over to Denmark to mingle, attend parties, and offer goodies that other people will end up paying for is not a sacrifice. Next time you propose taxes and fees on other, make sure you reserve enough out for yourself to buy a clue.

Activism over Ethics

It seems like just a few weeks ago that conservatives were being lambasted for not wanting to have their public school children subjected to speeches and teaching materials related to President Obama. For the record, I raised no objection to my children viewing the speech. I simply told them to take what was good from it, and ignore the rest. Now, had the “supplemental teaching materials” been kept as part of the deal, that might have made a difference. Frankly, I don’t think it is or should be the purpose of any public institution to encourage loyalty to an individual. Goals and ideals, perhaps, depending on exactly what is being promoted.

After the howling and catcalling from the left about rightest “paranoia” toward the president, you can imagine my surprise (and a bit of smugness, I’ll confess) when the “Obama Rap” video started making the net circuit. Continuing the sentiments expressed above, I consider the judgment of the principal in that school a gross violation of the ethics. Were my children in that school, I would have worked very diligently for her dismissal. Failing that, I would do whatever was required to get my child or children out of there. The trust would be gone.

That’s no small complaint. My wife and I consider our children as our greatest treasures and greatest responsibilities. The idea of placing them in an environment where we had grave doubts about the judgment of the administration would be unthinkable. I’m fairly certain that when I was growing up the idea of such a lapse would have been unthinkable to the overwhelming majority of educators as well. Now I am not so sure.

While not completely abandoned, it would seem that the prospect of simply educating our youth has moved way down the priority ladder of schools of education. The major emphasis these days seems to be “instilling activism” and “promoting social justice.” It doesn’t seem to matter that these goals were never really assigned to public schools or their promoting their own visions could put them at odds with the people who are actually responsible for the children.

The progression really was logical when you look at it. The people running the schools now have had a chance to go through the entire program. These were the children who were told that their every thought and action was golden to promote their esteem in elementary school. They were sold, and bought, the line that they were society’s victims in high school, and discouraged by hustlers from any decision to take responsibility for their lives. In college, they were the ones shouting down conservative speakers and faking hate crimes against minorities. And now they are in charge and want to give the benefit of the same upbringing to a whole new generation. For anyone who’s truly interested in where that road leads, I invite you to check out the blog Education Watch. It seems that Britain is a few years ahead of us on this education track. It isn’t a pretty sight.

I understand that this blog is couched in very broad terms. I know a great many teachers at my church. They are fine and dedicated people. I love them as friends and as brothers and sisters in Christ. But if they were to start pushing a particular politics in their classes, I would ask them to stop. If they refused, I would go as far as I lawfully could to make them stop. If it has been determined that children are so impressionable that a teacher leading a prayer can be considered coercion, I see no reason why espousing any kind of politics should be less so. Let teachers teach, and let parents worry about upbringing. It’s our job, not yours.

theory to practice

One of the frequent criticisms that many on the left made against President Bush was his lack of diplomatic engagement. Specifically, it was often commented that he was too hesitant to try direct diplomacy with countries or leaders he perceived as unfriendly to the U.S. and he was too likely to act unilaterally without the full support of allies.

Quite honestly, I don’t believe that those charges were really fair under the circumstances that Bush was presented. My opinion is that, while diplomacy has its uses, it also has its limits. One of the biggest limitations is that diplomacy cannot achieve a lasting agreement between two parties with mutually exclusive goals.

We have been and continue to be in such a situation with Iran. The government of Iran has been pursuing nuclear capability for quite some time. Now, we find out that not only our they further along than was generally believed but our government and several of our allies knew of this for some time. (I can’t say that I blame them for withholding the information. I’ve always believed that there at least can be legitimate reasons for keeping that type of information under wraps for a while, and I’m willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt on that one.) The position of the U.S., and to different extents the rest of the international community, is that such a capability in Iran is unacceptable.

To my way of thinking, these are two mutually exclusive goals, hence I think that there is little that diplomacy to accomplish. I remember a similar attempt with North Korea under the Clinton administration. As I recall, they agreed to accept a substantial aid package in exchange for ending their program and then continued it anyway.

We now have a president who has expressed a great faith in the ability of diplomacy to handle situations such as this. While I am skeptical, I am more than willing to be proven wrong. I will be watching the situation with great interest. The parameters I’ve set are quite simple. If Iran can be persuaded to cancel its program without military action or financial or technical aid for an indefinite time (which would amount to extortion), then I will consider it a win for diplomacy and I will have learned something. If Iran completes its program and begins weapon production due to lack of military action or one or more countries take military action (Israel comes to mind), then I will consider it a loss for diplomacy. I wish our President the best of luck.

The Forgotten Slaves of Genesis

One of my favorite movies when I was growing up was The Ten Commandments. I always did love the big epics, though I was shocked (shocked I say!) to learn later on that they weren’t always true to the Biblical stories in every respect. Young people tend to make assumptions based on what they see in the small screen. Sometimes we never get over them. For example, from similar movies or listening to a rough outline of the Passover story, you might get the impression that all of the slaves of Egypt were freed. That would be a mistake.

To preserve the lives of the Hebrews, God crafted an elaborate plan to make one man, Joseph, governor over the land of Egypt, second only to the king. Joseph, being a Hebrew, was used to preserve not only the lives of his own people during the great famine, but the people of Egypt as well. The eventual cost to the Hebrews is often discussed, but the cost to the Egyptians tends to be forgotten.

In Genesis 47, the writer (assumed by most scholars to be Moses) details how as the famine worsened the people of Egypt first sold their animals for food. Later on, they sold their land and themselves, becoming slaves to the king. Only the priests were exempted from this requirement. Under the protection of Joseph and God, the Hebrews also prospered and retained their property during the famine, and while not specifically discussed in the scriptures, it seems likely that this might have bred resentment between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, and may have made the idea of placing them under bondage later on a bit more palatable.

However the specifics went down, it’s worth noting a few points that might be relevant to today. When the news of the impending famine spread across the land, the people had a choice to make. They could conserve and save and act wisely, or they could rely on the government to take care of them when the time came. Most of them placed their faith in the government. As a result, an entire nation became little more than serfs. When Moses finally came to free the Hebrews, there was no freedom for the slaves of pharaoh. They had placed their trust in men, and they remained in bondage until they were able to free themselves. It seems to me that a lot of people are in a similar situation these days. I hope that they act with more wisdom than the Egyptians of Genesis.

Taking a Stand Against Racism

In the past, I have always done my best on a personal level to support equal opportunity. I’ve tried to treat each person I contacted as an individual worthy of respect and given them same type of courtesy that I would appreciate myself. I say “tried” because there have been at least a few occasions where I have missed the mark, but the effort has been there and it’s an effort I continue to this day. Events this week have convinced me, however, that I have not been doing enough in the area of standing against racism. To that end, I have made a personal commitment to up my efforts and I now share that commitment with you.

I am going to make a campaign contribution to Joe Wilson.

It won’t be that much. Times are tough, as I’m sure most of realize, but I’ll do something, and here’s the reason why: This week, I heard about an event that happened three weeks ago. A white man got taunted an beaten up for daring to date an African American girl. This case went a lot against convention. For starters, the attackers were African American males, and it didn’t happen in the South. This was in Buffalo, NY. Needless to say, it didn’t get much press. Jessie Jackson did not make a speech and come to comfort the victim and Rev. Al Sharpton was nowhere to be found. So I guess there was a bright side after all…

There was at least one other episode that I heard about. This was a white male on a school bus beaten up for trying to sit down. Again the beating was by African American kids. Again, the same lack of note.

With all of this going on, it is easily verifiable that racism is not dead in America. Oddly, the Congressional Black Caucus ignored both of these issues so that they could equate Joe Wilson’s expression of “You lie!” to President Obama with the resurgence of the KKK.

Admittedly, I have mixed feelings about my contribution. Mr. Wilson was definitely rude, and that’s not something that I generally reward. I guess that I have just had it with the endless pronouncements of “racism” when high profile minorities are end the receiving end of criticism. I’ll be quite honest with you. I know very little about Joe Wilson. For all I know, he might be a racist. But with nothing else to go on, I don’t think a reasonable person would make that assumption. For perhaps a decade or more now this type of accusation has been used to silence criticism and stifle debate. It’s been used on politicians, in the courtroom, and on college campuses as a terrible weapon. As disgusting a usage of freedom of speech as I can imagine.

I thought that eventually people would come to their senses, but it hasn’t worked out that way, so now I’m taking action the only way I know how. From now on, I’m going to make a contribution in some manner to any personage I see as unfairly targeted by claims of racism, and I will do this regardless of the race of the victim or accuser. It may be cash, it may be a note of support, it may be prayer. And I will encourage everyone I know to do the same. I will encourage anyone who reads this to do the same. And perhaps, if the idea catches on, the people making these baseless claims will see their targets profiting and rethink their words. And maybe when that happens, we really will be ready for that discussion on race that the president says that we need so badly, because with the antagonistic use of racism threats right now that discussion will go nowhere at all.