Thursday, January 12, 2012

Piss Off

There's been quite a bit of sturm und drang over the recently posted video of U.S. Marines pissing on the bodies of dead camel-fucking scum taliban. Most of it, as you can imagine, has been a mixture of outrage and condemnation from such notable combat veterans and military experts as Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton. Legitimate military personnel were also quick to condemn the act, although I suspect for different reasons.

Let me make this as clear as I can. I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment underlying the Marines' actions. I understand the visceral feeling towards people who have quite likely killed and/or maimed your buddies, and are trying to do the same to you. But -- and this is a big but -- those Marines are supposed to be professionals. Their job is to dispatch the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible. In other words, in a professional manner. What they did, however understandable, just provides propaganda and motivation for the other side.
"It is difficult to say what long-term impacts this might have, and I would hesitate to get into speculation, but obviously any sort of footage, any sort of activity of this kind ...  are very much working against our cause..." said Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a NATO ISAF spokesman.
Imagine that you're an Afghan who is not necessarily on the taliban's side, but remains unsure about the American presence. Something like this just might be enough to tip the scale and send you over to the other side. At the very least it makes you more leery and suspicious of, and less likely to help, American forces. It just makes everyone else's job that much more difficult, as evidenced by the following.
A Taliban spokesman called the video "barbaric."

"And no religion that follows a holy text would accept such conduct. This inhuman act reveals their real face to the world," Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi said via text message Thursday.

"Islam gives values and respect to every human being," regardless of which religion the individual follows, said Islamic scholar Mawlawi Enayatullah Baligh. "The value and respect is the same for an alive person and a dead body. Even the body of your enemy in the battleground is respectable in Islam."
Yeah, right. Tell it to the innocent women and children killed by suicide bombers, the innocent women and children raped, tortured, and maimed in the name of islamic 'honor.'

I utterly and categorically reject any blather claiming that islam 'values and respects every human being.' I would gladly piss on the bodies of dead islamist extremists.

But -- and here's that 'but' again -- I am no longer a professional member of the armed forces. That's the tragedy of this whole thing. Skilled and motivated U.S. Marines are about to be buried under a ton of shit because one of them was foolish enough to record and then post a video of what I suspect is a relatively mild and common after-action event.

Does anyone think things like this didn't happen in the Pacific Theater during WWII? The Korean War? Or Viet Nam?

Thank goodness they didn't have cell phones or pocket video cameras back then...

Whoever's Doing It Please Don't Stop

A couple of months ago I posted something about the cybersecurity module I teach graduating IS (Information Systems) majors. In that module we talk about the importance of protecting critical infrastructure systems (power and water utilities, pipelines, telecommunications networks, etc.) from malware like viruses and worms. To keep the kids interested we examine how the Stuxnet worm disabled Iranian nuclear facilities.

To make it even more interesting, and to point out the value of 'human infrastructure' - scientists, engineers, technicians - I include the ongoing assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. I frame it like a James Bond movie (nowadays, I guess it should be Mission: Impossible). "Here's an impenetrable target. How can you render it useless without direct military action?"

The kids really get into it. It's one of the more popular modules of the course.

I guess now I'll have to update my notes. Another Iranian glow-in-the-dark mole got whacked yesterday.
An explosion on Wednesday killed Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a top official at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, Iranian officials said.

He is the third man identified as a nuclear scientist to be killed in Iran in a mysterious explosion in the past two years. A fourth survived an assassination attempt.

In each case, someone placed a bomb under the scientist's car.

Iranian officials, on state-run media, blame Israel and the United States.
Of course they do. Who else but Zionists and the Great Satan would do such a thing?

Turns out there are Iranian dissidents who might be involved as well.
"The most likely contender among people who are following this is that the Israelis are doing it, possibly in cooperation with the Iranian mujahedin," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian-American Council and author of the book "A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy with Iran."

"There's almost no downside for Israel," he said. The killings "take out nuclear assets and embarrass Iran" by showing that the regime can't prevent such attacks, Parsi said. And "if Iran retaliates with a violent act, then Israel can point to it as a reason to take military action against the regime."
Gotta give the Israelis credit. They're masters at this sort of thing.
 
Mid-east experts doubt that the U.S. is involved, with one going so far as to say "Frankly, I don't think the United States has the human intelligence knowledge..."

Sadly, I agree with him. I also don't think the obama administration has either the brains or the cojones to pull off something like this.
The killings of Iranian scientists have come up on the campaign trail in the United States among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. Newt Gingrich, at a debate in November, expressed support for the idea of "taking out their scientists." Rick Santorum, at an event in October, referred to the scientists turning up dead as "a wonderful thing."
I might not agree with Santorum on every political and social issue, but I'm with him 100% on this one.

So who's killing Iranian nuclear scientists?

I don't know and I don't care, but whoever it is, I hope they don't stop...

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

True Love

A man escapes from a prison where he's been locked up for 15 years.

He breaks into a house to look for money and guns. Inside, he finds a young couple in bed. He orders the guy out of bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the homeowner's wife to the bed, the convict gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom.

While he's in there, the husband whispers over to his wife, 'Listen, this guy is an escaped convict. Look at his clothes! He's probably spent a lot of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years. I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain... do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is obviously very dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us both. Be strong, honey. I love you!'

His wife responds, 'He wasn't kissing my neck. He was whispering in my ear. He told me that he's gay, thinks you're cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong. I love you, too.'

What First Amendment?

One of the bloggers I follow* is not fond of obama, and is not shy about saying so. I don't think he's crossed any lines in exercising his God-given First Amendment right of free speech ("dissent is the highest form of patriotism"), but the jack-booted thugs masquerading as DHS officials may have a different opinion.

In the past they would have dismissed his posts as the alcohol-fueled rantings of a deranged right-wing extremist hater (translation: freedom-loving conservative), but under a new DHS program they are probably scurrying around busily compiling a dossier on this fine upstanding patriot.
Freedom of speech might allow journalists to get away with a lot in America, but the Department of Homeland Security is on the ready to make sure that the government is keeping dibs on who is saying what.

Specifically, the DHS announced the (National Operations Center) (NOC) and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media... ”
"Social media" includes blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. They'll probably expand the definition to include texting, Instant messaging, and passing notes in class.
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.”
So much for anonymous sources. If this was around in the Watergate days Deep Throat never would have come forward, Richard Nixon would have served his full term, Gerald Ford never would have been president, and Jimmy Carter quite likely never would have been elected, which led to the subsequent election of Ronald Reagan.

Ain't alternative history fun?
...the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency.

The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.
Perhaps because the blogosphere has become a viable alternative to the propaganda arm of the dems/libs - aka the mainstream media.
The website Fast Company reports that the intel collected by the Department of Homeland Security under the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been happening since as early as 2010 and the data is being shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.
WTF? Private businesses and international parties? Yet another example of why I love my country but really, truly, fear and detest the government.

(H/T Jammie Wearing Fools for the link, and also for pointing out that "This program began in 2010, so Bush can’t be blamed.")

*Dedicated to AB (initials have been changed to protect the innocent ... hell, I can't type that last line without laughing).

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

A Learning Experience

In spite of my earlier bitching about public school systems, I'm pretty happy with the one our kids attend. One of the reasons is that the school district provides them ample opportunities to learn outside the classroom. For instance, they have an outdoor academy where the students go off to a rustic camp for most of a week. There's no central air or heat, no TV or internet, they sleep in cabins, and spend the days fishing, taking nature hikes, and learning skills like orienteering.

The outdoor academy takes place during the regular school year. It's primarily for elementary and middle school students. Selected high school students get to go as instructors and counselors, under the supervision of teachers and parents (the kids handle the isolation better than some of the parents, who freak out when they discover that their cell phones don't have reception). It's a plum assignment for the high schoolers who get picked.

We just found out that this spring our 17-year-old son is one of the chosen few. He's thrilled, and we're thrilled for him. But (there's always a 'but,' isn't there) one of the requirements is that he take a course this semester in Child Development. Here's an excerpt:
In order to provide a realistic idea of the demands of parenting, you will be participating in a parenting simulation project. This involves caring for a lifelike, electronic parenting mannequin baby overnight (4:00 p.m. - 8:15 a.m.).

The baby mannequin cries, coos, burps, and needs its diaper changed periodically throughout the day and night. It will be your responsibility to provide proper care as if this were a real baby. The baby should be with you at all times.

(Side note: the technology involved in this thing is fascinating. Check out the link for more info.)

I'm not sure how caring for an artificial baby prepares one to ride herd on a bunch of first graders, but I doubt if the experience will do any lasting harm. I am curious to see if he wakes up in the middle of the night when the baby frankenstein needs changing - the boy could sleep through an earthquake.

He had to take a similar course back in middle school (don't ask). He was given a 10-pound bag of flour that he had to treat like a baby; name it (Walter - again, don't ask), draw a face on it, dress it up, diaper it and change it regularly, take it everywhere with him for a week, and so forth. He got through that ordeal okay, then used Walter as a pellet-gun target. I'm not sure what that bodes for his flesh-and-blood offspring when they come along, but I don't think it's anything good ("I told you to pick up your toys." ... Poof! ... OUCH!!!)

With any luck the combination of Walter and this new electronic version will make him more cognizant of the risks associated with unprotected sex. Getting woken up at 3:00 in the morning by your 'child' will drive that point home more effectively than any number of parental lectures.

Monday, January 9, 2012

FOD 2012.01.09

I don't know who is going to emerge from the flustercluck that is the republican nominating process, but whoever it is should include the following two graphics in every ad and piece of campaign literature. The point is to run against obama's miserable record of colossal failure and incompetence, not against other republicans.


And if whoever the nominee is really wants to drive the point home, he can add the one below.


Sunday, January 8, 2012

Choke On This, Jerry

Roland Martin is a political commentator who usually leans to the left. I don't often agree with him, but IMO he is spot on with this one.

Football power in Texas has shifted to Houston
I hate the Dallas Cowboys.

No, I don't dislike them. I flat out cannot stand anything about the Dallas Cowboys.

That's why I take great pleasure in seeing the transfer of power in the Lone Star State, where the football greatness has moved from Dallas to Houston.

For decades, all of the talk has been about the Cowboys, that damn star, and lately, the monstrosity of a football palace built by owner Jerry Jones. But with the NFL playoffs kicking off this weekend, the only football they'll witness at Cowboys Stadium is Kansas State and Arkansas in the Cotton Bowl.

But 250 miles south of Dallas, the Houston Texans will take on the Cincinnati Bengals in the AFC wild card game.

For Cowboys fans, it's over. No longer can you talk supremacy over Houston. The expansion Texans is the talk of the state, and all the Cowboys fans can do is complain about Tony Romo and Jerry Jones.

And they might as well get used to it. The Cowboys are truly a has-been team. Those five Lombardi trophies? Well, you better keep watching NFL Films. That will be the only way to see Dallas raise that again.
Amen to that last one - at least as long as Jerry Jones runs things.

JJ may be an astute businessman, but he's worse than terrible as a NFL general manager. He is the NFL equivalent of obama, insofar as on-the-field success goes. He surrounds himself with boot-licking yes-men. His opinion of himself is much greater than the reality. He took over an entity that was once the envy of its kind, but under his stewardship has become a shadow of its former self and a laughing-stock.

The bad news for Cowboy fans is that they can't vote the buffoon out of office...



(H/T The Whited Sepulchre for the image.)

Sunday Funnies 2012.01.08

Today's theme is Adam and Eve. New year ... new beginning ... genesis ... get it?




Seems God was just about done creating the universe, but he had two extra things left in his bag of creations, so he decided to split them between Adam and Eve.

He told the couple that one of the things he had to give away was the ability to stand up while urinating. "It's a very handy thing," God told the couple, who he found hanging around under an apple tree. "I was wondering if either one of you wanted that ability."

Adam jumped up and blurted, "Oh, give that to me! When I'm working in the garden or naming the animals, I could just stand there and let it fly. It'd be so cool I could write my name in the sand. Oh, please God, let it be me who you give that gift to, let me stand and pee, oh please."

On and on he went like an excited little boy who had to pee. Eve just smiled and told God that if Adam really wanted that so badly he could have it. It seemed to be the sort of thing that would make him happy, and she really wouldn't mind if Adam was the one given this ability.

And so Adam was given the ability to control the direction of his urination while in a vertical position. And lo, he was happy and did celebrate by wetting down the bark on the tree nearest him, laughing with delight all the while. And it was good.

"Fine", God said, looking back into his bag of leftover gifts. "What's left here? Oh yes, multiple orgasms."





One day the Lord came to Adam to pass on some news. "I've got some good news and some bad news" said the Lord.

Adam looked at the Lord and said, "Well, give me the good news first."

Smiling, the Lord explained, "I've got two new organs for you.  One is called the brain. It will allow you to be very intelligent, create new things and have intelligent coversations with Eve. The other organ I have for you is a called a penis. It will allow you to reproduce your own lifeform and populate this planet. Eve will be very happy that you now have this organ to give her children."

Adam, very excited, exclaimed "these are great gifts you have given me. What could possibly be bad news after such great tidings?"

The Lord looked upon Adam and said with great sorrow, "the bad news is that when I created you I only gave you enough blood to operate one of these organs at a time."


Saturday, January 7, 2012

ABO

ABO = Anybody But Obama.

There's been a lot of commentary about Romney's landslide win in Iowa ("landslide" is defined as an 8 vote margin of victory) and what it all means. McCain's subsequent endorsement of Romney prompted considerable gnashing of teeth among the more conservative members of the GOP.

The combined result has been mutterings that Romney is just another political hack forced down our throats by the republican establishment, and that there is little difference between him and obama. Both are political insiders; both are pro-big government; neither will take the hard steps necessary to eliminate budget deficits and bring the federal regulatory apparatus under control. Some have even said they will sit out the election, or vote for a third party candidate, rather than vote for Romney if he wins the nomination.

My response to those who feel that way is two words: judicial appointments. The President of the United States appoints federal judges not just at the Supreme Court level, but also at the circuit court (aka the courts of appeals) and the district court levels. These appointments are for life. This gives a president an enormous opportunity to leave his stamp on this country for decades, or even longer. (The president also appoints 'specialty' judges, such as bankruptcy and tax court judges, but these are appointed for a specific term, not for life.)

The two most obvious examples of obama's record in this matter are his selections for the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor, the so-called 'wise latina;' and Elena Kagan, obama's former Solicitor General.

(Side note: as Solicitor General, Kagan ruled that obamacare was constitutional. Now she's sitting on the Supreme Court that is scheduled to hear arguments challenging that ruling. Think she'll be objective...?)

Say what you will about Romney, but IMO his choices for federal judgeships would be infinitely preferable to obama's (Chief Justice Eric Holder, anyone?).

So those of you who are thinking about not voting, or casting a protest vote for a third party candidate, please reconsider. Romney may not be your first choice, or even second, or third, or ... but he's better than that SCOAMF currently ruining this country. We simply cannot survive another four years with obama in power.

Repeat after me ... ABO ... ABO ... ABO ...

Rules For Conquering The Gym

Jason Gay of the Wall Street Journal has some advice for people whose New Year's resolution is to lose weight. Jason set forth 27 rules for conquering the gym, but as a service to my busy readers I'm only reporting the Top 10. If you want to know the rest you'll have to visit the link.
1. A gym is not designed to make you feel instantly better about yourself. If a gym wanted to make you feel instantly better about yourself, it would be a bar.

2. Give yourself a goal. Maybe you want to lose 10 pounds. Maybe you want to quarterback the New York Jets Dallas Cowboys into the playoffs. But be warned: Losing 10 pounds is hard.

12. Nope, that's not a "recovery energy bar with antioxidant dark chocolate." That's a chocolate bar.

15. If you're motivated to buy an expensive home exercise machine, consider a "wooden coat rack." It costs $40, uses no electricity and does the exact same thing.

17. If you see an indoor rock climbing wall, you're either in a really cool gym or a romantic comedy starring Kate Hudson.

19. If a gym class is going to be effective, it's hard. If you're relaxed and enjoying yourself, you're at brunch.

22. Fancy gyms can be seductive, but once you get past the modern couches and fresh flowers and the water with lemon slices, you're basically paying for a boutique hotel with B.O.

25. Fact: Thinking about going to the gym burns between 0 and 0 calories.

26. A successful gym membership is like a marriage: If it's good, you show up committed and ready for hard work. If it's not good, you show up in sweatpants and watch a lot of bad TV.

27. There is no secret. Exercise and lay off the fries.
Jason overlooked my personal favorite:
Rehydrating with Shiners defeats the purpose of going to the gym in the first place.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Friday Follies Happy Hour 2012.01.06

I've got a physical coming up next week. I don't know why I bother going. I know what the doctor is going to say.

"If you dig it, don't do it
And if you like it, better leave it alone"

Sigh...

Quick Hits

Random quotes from the Friday Jan. 6 issue of the San Antonio Express-News.
"I understand a rich man from the Philippines wants to buy the Dallas Cowboys. He'll change the name to the Manilla Folders."
-- David Plylar, letter to the editor

"Romney remains the electable one, Santorum the acceptable one; then there's Ron Quixote."
-- Micheal Gerson, columnist
"So Mitt Romney 'won' Iowa by eight votes ... What happened to Rick Santorum's surge? Did a Dodge Caravan full of supporters break down on the way (to vote)?
-- Froma Harrop, columnist

A Welcome Trend

It's a little early to declare two recent events a trend, but one can hope.

A couple of days ago a teen mom shot one of two men who broke into her house and threatened her and her new-born daughter.

The incident described below happened two days prior to that one, but authorities didn't release any information until yesterday.
Police in North Carolina revealed a 14-year-old boy shot dead an intruder attempting to break into his home while he and his sister were alone.

... police said the 14-year-old and his sister were at home in the rural town of Henderson when four men tried to break into the house.

The teen opened fire with a shotgun while his 17-year-old sister hid in a closet as a gang of men attempted to smash their way into their home.

Michael Anthony Henderson Jr, 19, was shot dead.

He staggered away from the house and collapsed where he was found by police.

His brother Seneca, 20, and one other man Andrew Terry, 23, have already been charged in the case.

Police are still searching for a third man named as 21-year-old Jatwaun Davis.
Vermin that tried to invade the North Carolina home.
 In the call, the teen, says: 'I just shot the man. He came around the corner. I shot him. He broke the whole glass out (of the back door).'
He continues: '... I got one more in the chamber. I'm going to shoot again,' the boy said.

Police said the teen will not face any charges...
He damn well shouldn't face charges. If anything, he should get a medal for protecting his sister. (I especially liked the part where he said " I got one more in the chamber. I'm going to shoot again.")

Both cases have two things in common. One, the people defending themselves were not just outnumbered, but at a physical disadvantage; a young woman, and a 14-year-old boy vs. grown men. Two, in both cases the weapon used was a shotgun.

A shotgun is a great weapon for home defense. It requires less fine motor skills to operate and aim than a handgun, something to keep in mind as adrenalin surges through the system. If loaded with shot rather than slugs, it is also less likely to penetrate interior walls and threaten other family members.

Plus it's just so damn intimidating...


Hopefully these recent events will give pause to the scum who prey on the (supposedly) weak and helpless, but somehow I doubt it. But at least we taxpayers won't have to foot the bills for an endless series of trials and appeals, followed by room and board (and cable TV and exercise facilities and all the other benefits that criminals shouldn't be allowed).

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Do You Really Get What You Pay For? Update

In my earlier post I left out one additional step to take to improve our public education system: parental involvement.
Kenya Parents Attack Teachers Over Exams Results

The chairman of the Kenyan teachers' union says angry parents are attacking teachers nationwide after their children's dismal performance in a national exam.
Okay, physically attacking teachers might be a little extreme, but the underlying concept is valid. Institute some form of individual accountability to hold teachers and administrators responsible for student performance.

And while we're at it, let's hold the little darlings and their parents responsible as well. After all, there's enough blame for this mess to go around...

Do You Really Get What You Pay For? - Part II

Yesterday we commented on some of the causes and effects of the disaster our public school systems have become. Today we'll extend that thought into the higher education arena. First, some figures to support the argument that public schools are graduating students who are unprepared for college.
Three out of four graduates aren’t fully prepared for college and likely need to take at least one remedial class, according to the latest annual survey from the nonprofit testing organization ACT, which measured half of the nation’s high school seniors in English, math, reading and science proficiency.

Only 25 percent cleared all of ACT’s college preparedness benchmarks, while 75 percent likely will spend part of their freshman year brushing up on high-school-level course work... Students are most likely to need remedial classes in science and math.
Even more damning, "...80 percent of college students taking remedial classes had a high school GPA of 3.0 or better."

Take it from one who has to teach classes full of unprepared students - students who can't write a simple complete sentence, much less a full paragraph; students who have little to no grasp of basic grammar; students who can't solve elementary math problems - it is beyond frustrating. I can handle the frustration. But can we as a society handle the more serious consequences?

And what are some of those consequences?

If I as the professor dumb down the class to accommodate those less prepared, the better prepared students feel like they're just repeating high school. They get bored, distant, and develop bad study habits. Even worse, they are being held back from reaching their full potential.

(Side note: state universities receive government funds based on a complex formula that in large part is based on admission, retention, and graduation rates. If reasonable standards are enforced, less prepared students aren't admitted or later drop out, decreasing the government funds funneled to that particular school.)

Taxpayers, of course, also suffer. They are in essence paying twice for students to learn: once in high school, a second time in remedial college classes.

And of course taking remedial courses means the students themselves take longer, and pay more, to graduate.

Which leads to another problem: mounting student loans, and a so-called 'higher education bubble.'
It’s officially a crisis. Student loan debt has hit the $1 trillion mark, exceeding Americans’ total credit card indebtedness.

The real problem is that we’ve been running a higher education bubble, one that -- like the real-estate bubble -- has been pumped up by cheap government money. Since 1999, student loan debt has increased by 511%, while disposable income has increased by only 73%.

That’s because when the government subsidizes something, producers respond by raising prices to soak up as much of the subsidy as they can. College is no exception. Tuition has been increasing much faster than disposable income, and families -- believing that a college education is a can’t-lose investment, much as they used to think houses were -- have been making up the difference with debt. After all, we’re told, student loan debt is “good debt,” because a college degree guarantees more earnings.

The problem is, “college” isn’t an undifferentiated product. Companies can’t hire enough mechanical engineers, but there’s no bidding war for majors in Fine Arts or Women’s Studies, degrees that cost just as much, but deliver a lot less in terms of employment. In an economically rational market, it would be harder to borrow money to finance fields of study that were unlikely to produce enough income to pay back the loans. But since the federal government subsidizes everything ... there’s no incentive for lenders to care, and even less incentive for colleges and universities to care. They get their money up front, after all -- just like the people who wrote the subprime loans that fueled the housing crisis.
So what's the solution? Well, like most complex problems, there is no simple solution. But there are a few simple steps to take that would put us on the road to a solution. The steps are not exciting or glamorous. Nor are they easy. But nothing worthwhile is.

First, improve how we measure and reward (or punish) the job public schools do in preparing their students. Standardized tests have their place, but they are limited. Other, less objective measures also have a role. The trick is determining how to blend the two in assessing student preparedness. One way might be to increase or decrease funding to K-12 school districts based on the number of remedial courses their students have to take in college.

A second step would be to reemphasize the value of vocational education. It is not feasible, or even desirable, for every student to go to college. There are plenty of available, good-paying entry level jobs in the trades that do not require a college degree. We need to send a strong message to high-school students that there is value and honor in vocational careers.

Third, reduce the cost of a college education. It's absurd that kids are graduating from college with six-figure debts that they have no chance of repaying. Insisting that students meet reasonable standards before they are admitted (I've worked at universities where the only admission requirement was a high school diploma) would be a start. Eliminating unnecessary and 'feel good' programs would also help. (The university I'm currently at has an administrative department for freshman success, and another one for sophomore success. Presumably juniors and seniors can succeed on their own.) Furthermore, tenure reform is long overdue (I could write a book on the disadvantages and abuses of the tenure system).

There's lots more that can be done, and lots of detail work involved in these three steps that goes way beyond the bare bones put forth here, but we need to get started ASAP.

Not acting just means we'll get more of the same. More unprepared students, more unaffordable college education, and more failure on a broad front. Let's stop kicking the can down the road and fix the problem now.

In other words, let's not be like congress...

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

The Great Equalizer

As the old saying goes, "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal." That old saying applies to women as well.
A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
Two men armed with knives tried to break into Sarah McKinley's home on New Year's Eve. Ms. McKinley called 911, then grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun and a pistol.
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher.

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.
When seconds count the police are minutes away.
When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.

McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.

"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."
Except maybe an armed woman with a child.

It's too much to hope that the anti-gun nuts will learn anything from this. Without those weapons, an 18-year-old woman is no match for two men with knives. If this took place in California, New York, or any other place with restrictive gun controls, this story would have had a much different ending. And no one in the media would be lamenting "If only she were armed."


All snark aside, what a terrible holiday season for that young lady. I hope and pray that she and her child find peace and happiness for the rest of their holidays.

Do You Really Get What You Pay For?

As my regular readers (thanks, Mom and Dad) know, I believe that our public school systems are doing society a huge disservice by graduating students who are not prepared for either college or employment. While I could, if I had the time and inclination, provide a formal literature review documenting this failure, let me instead offer two arguments in support of my point.

The first is a chart that compares public school expenditures per student with test scores over time. It quickly becomes shockingly obvious that we are spending more - much, much more - and not gaining any improvement.


What's driving the growth in expenditures? IMO two things. First, teachers unions. Unions in general must force employers to pay above market wages. Otherwise there is no justification for the existence of the union. Unions also protect their own, at the expense of quality. Union contracts specify that teachers are laid off on the basis of seniority, not merit (or lack thereof). Thus we have situation like the ones in Milwaukee, Houston, Las Vegas, and Parsippany (NJ), where Teachers of the Year were laid off in 2011 in place of some old fossil longer tenured union member.

The second factor in growing school expenditures is the increasing emphasis on special programs and non-core subjects, driven by special interest groups. As these special programs grow, so also does the need for non-classroom staff to administer and monitor them. Case in point: New York state.

In New York, the number of administrators grew from 31,000 in 1997 to 42,000 in 2011 – a 33% increase. During that same time the number of teachers increased by 10%. Meanwhile, the number of students dropped by 5%.

It's not just the number of administrators, it's also their bloated salaries. One-third of NY school superintendents earn over $175,000 per year.

As a result, overall public-school expenditures more than doubled, from $26 billion to $58 billion statewide.

It wouldn't be so bad if the taxpayers received value for their dollar, but that hasn't been the case in New York. The state's graduation rate has hovered between 65 - 70%, ranking it around 40th in the country. More money spent, no improvement - a situation that is mirrored at the national level, as seen in the above chart.

A specific example of special interest-driven public school agendas is a new 2012 California law that requires California students to receive mandatory classroom instruction about the contributions of gays and lesbians to the development of the United States. I have nothing against gays or lesbians, and I don't deny they have contributed to this country's development. But by placing emphasis on every single group (gays, lesbians, blacks, Hispanics, left-handed redheads, etc.) we are losing sight of the forest for the trees. And by fragmenting learning into an endless series of lectures on diversity we are most definitely not preparing students to succeed in college and beyond. Does anyone really think that injecting gays and lesbians into history classes will increase test scores?

The second segment of my argument that public school systems are failing us is grounded in the now-global nature of the workforce. Multinational employers are increasingly turning their backs on American workers not because of wage scale differential (although that does play a role), but because of a quality differential. Earlier this year the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness invited the heads of foreign companies that invest in the United States to discuss why they don't hire more U.S. workers.
“The issue that we have is finding skilled workers,” said Christian Turnig from ThyssenKrupp, a German company.

According to Turnig, his company had to send hundreds of employees from its new plant in Alabama to Germany for several months of training.

Martin Daum, the head of Daimler Trucks North America, told the gathering that he felt he had better skilled workers at his plants in Mexico than in the United States, where some workers have to be taught proper math and writing skills.

... According to Daum, the better skill sets of Mexican workers makes it easier to ramp up production at his company’s factories in Mexico than those in the United States.

“We have to bring in educators,” he said.

Peter Solmssen of Siemens said “it’s a skills issue.  We’re having to train them ourselves.”
Unprepared public school graduates. Unions that protect the administrators and teachers responsible for the graduates' lack pf preparedness. Special interest groups that get in the way.

And it gets worse. More unintended consequences tomorrow...

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Corruptisima Republica Plurimae Leges

As David Martosko notes, translated from the Latin, the title of this post means ”The more corrupt the state, the more plentiful its laws." (H/T to Curmudgeonly & Skeptical for the link)
Laws are like technology. Over time, they become one of two things: indispensable or obsolete. It’s beyond me why most state and federal laws don’t have 15- or 20-year sunset clauses, so we could periodically dispense with the obsolete ones like so many floppy disc drives and 8-track tape decks.
For the record, Texas has a Sunset Commission that does just that, albeit on a limited basis. Still, it's a start. Now if we could just elect congresscritters with enough common sense and backbone to implement a similar panel on a national level we might have a fighting chance. Better yet, pass legislation stating that all laws passed by congress expire in three years unless they are specifically and individually extended.
In 1925 it would have taken you 12 days to read all the United States’ federal laws and regulations if you plowed through about 200 pages per day. Today that same task would take you three years.
obamacare and the Dodd-Frank bill alone account for 5000 of the new pages.

That's just at the federal level. At the state level there are approximately 40,000 new laws. Most of them are unnecessary, of course, but since when did that ever stop politicians from passing something to make some potential campaign contributor or voter happy. For example, one of California's new state laws prohibits the awarding of goldfish as a carnival prize. I'm sure goldfish and goldfish lovers across the state are sleeping easier tonight.

Of course, with all those new laws and regulations there's plenty of room for conflict and overlap. Case in point:
New environmental regulations, coming amid warnings that Texas might not meet its electricity needs next summer, could set up a legal dilemma for regulators, grid operators and generators.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which takes effect Sunday, requires plants in 28 states including Texas to cut smog- and soot-forming emissions that cross state lines.

... power plant operators and their political supporters say the rule will force shutdowns of power plants needed to keep U.S. grid capacity safely above demand.
Here in Texas, at least one utility - Dallas based Luminant Generation Co. - will shut down two coal-fired generating units to comply with the EPA rule. Other state utilities are considering similar moves. As a result, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state's main electric grid, has projected power reserves will fall below its desired minimum next year.

So we have an agency of the federal government creating regulations - not legislation passed by our elected representatives, but rules thought up by bureaucrats to justify their existence - that will shut down existing power plants, eliminate jobs, and cause rolling blackouts throughout the state in the foreseeable future.

But just when you think all is lost, here comes a knight in shining armor riding to the rescue.
Another federal agency, the Energy Department, says it has the legal authority to require power plants to maintain grid reliability.
If you see a dilemma here - one agency saying stop, another saying go - you're not alone.
U.S. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, said generating companies could be in an untenable position if the department orders operation of plants idled because of EPA rules: By complying with one of the federal agencies, they may defy the other one.

He cited incidents over the past decade in California and Virginia, where Mirant Corp., now GenOn Energy Inc., was ordered to run generating units for reliability purposes, but faced legal action for environmental violations.

“It's not fair, when these companies do exactly what regulators ask them to do — keep the lights on — and then they're penalized for it,” Olson said in an interview.

Gina McCarthy, an EPA assistant administrator, said the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the cross-state rule, never has caused reliability problems and has mechanisms to prevent local reliability issues.

But EPA permission didn't protect Mirant from lawsuits when it faced conflicting federal mandates, GenOn lawyer Debra Raggio told federal energy regulators in a memo last month.
Gee, confusion and lies misleading information from federal agencies.

What a surprise...

Monday, January 2, 2012

Don't Blame Me

I'm out of town half the time...

San Antonio makes ‘Drunkest Cities’ list
For those who’ve sipped a margarita or a cold beer at one of San Antonio’s many watering holes or reveled in the alcohol-friendly Fiesta, it’s likely no surprise that media outlet The Daily Beast has ranked the city fifth on its list of “Drunkest Cities” in the U.S.
San Antonio staggered to fifth place this year after ranking 19th on last year’s list...
We're aiming for #1 next year.
Ranked first, with an average of 15.5 average monthly drinks consumed by person, is Boston. Other Texas cities that ranked were Austin, at No. 7, and Houston, at No. 25, the list states.

The Daily Beast in February ranked San Antonio as the best U.S. city for love, and previously the Alamo City was listed next to last among 55 U.S. cities for intelligence.
I know correlation isn't causation, but still, that last sentence makes one wonder...

FOD 2012.01.02

Hopefully everyone is alive and well this morning, even if you're not feeling at the top of your game. Let's all hope that we have a better 2012 than 2011.

On this, the first FOD of 2012, it is illustrative and amusing to look back on obama's 2011 performance. For your entertainment and amusement, here's a list of "The Obama administration’s top 10 foolish quotes of 2011."
10. Barack Obama refers to the “English Embassy” in Tehran

9. Hillary Clinton refers to Syrian dictator Assad as a “reformer”

8. Hillary Clinton calls the Mubarak regime “stable”

7. The US Ambassador to Belgium blames Israel for some forms of anti-Semitism

6. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper calls the Muslim Brotherhood "secular"

5. White House adviser touts Obama’s “leading from behind”

4. Joe Biden on the Taliban: “not our enemy”

3. Barack Obama calls France America’s strongest ally

2. Joe Biden compares the Tea Party to terrorists

And the Number One most foolish quote of the obama administration in 2011 is...

1. Barack Obama calls himself the fourth best president in US history
There's more at the link. Enjoy...