Muda69

13 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

You are putting words in my mouth.

Then why your statement "Leave the pay issue alone."?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/betos-constitutional-folly/

Quote

Yesterday, Beto O’Rourke made news. In her Washington Post article yesterday on O’Rourke’s immigration stance, Jenna Johnson made the rather interesting point that he often favors proposing debates and raising questions rather than proposing policies. “O’Rourke says he is being open-minded, as he wishes more politicians would be,” Johnsons writes. Exhibit A in her lengthy interview with him: He raised a question about the Constitution. In a quote that’s already flown through Twitter and conservative media, he said this, when pondering whether the United States is now, in Johnson’s words, “incapable of implementing sweeping change”:

"Does this still work? . . . Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?"

This is a variation on a theme I’ve heard countless times on the left — often in response to arguments over originalism and (more recently) in response to anger at the very structure of our government itself. Why shackle ourselves to the wisdom of the distant past? How could the Founders have foreseen the challenges of the present?

It’s worth taking these questions seriously. After all, the Constitution isn’t the Bible. It’s not the holy and inspired Word of God, and if its terms and structure are hurting our Republic, they can and should be amended. But I’d submit that, when one examines the United States and considers the failings that render our politics so dysfunctional, we in fact do have 18th-century answers to our 21st-century challenges and that many of our dysfunctions are the result of abandoning the Constitution, not of embracing it.

We’ve failed because we’ve refused to be managed by the “principles that were set down 230-plus years ago.”

Let’s take, for example, the issue O’Rourke raises about our nation’s military presence around the globe. The vast majority of Americans can’t possibly list all the nations where we’re engaged in actual combat. To the extent that some of those operations are classified, I can’t list all those nations — and following American combat operations is a key part of my job.

We’ve reached this point in large part because Congress has utterly abdicated to the president its constitutional responsibility and authority to declare war. It’s simply handed over one of its most important powers, and it stubbornly refuses to take it back. And that’s not the only power it’s given to the president. Donald Trump has lately been able to make sweeping, unilateral decisions about immigration (the travel ban, for example) and tariffs (our trade war with China) precisely because of previous congressional acts delegating an enormous amount of authority to the executive branch

These issues are symbolic of the larger constitutional challenge of a diminished Congress, where the branch of government intended to be the most powerful is now thoroughly subordinate to the executive and the judiciary. Congress is now — to use Jonah Goldberg’s excellent phrase — largely a “parliament of pundits.” They serve mainly as critics of or cheerleaders for the president and judges who make the truly significant national decisions.

One result of a diminished Congress is a profound sense of political alienation. If you live in a safely blue or red state, then, in a federal election, you may well never cast a single vote of true significance. The leadership of the two most potent branches will be decided by other men and women, the subset of Americans who live in our few truly swing states.

Moreover, our national government’s decades-long rejection of federalism has immense consequences during a time of profound geographic division and negative polarization. Even after 2018’s blue wave, Republicans entirely control 31 state legislatures, and Democrats control 18. That means there’s only one state (Minnesota) that has divided control of the legislature. A modern record of 37 states have “trifecta” governments, with one party controlling both houses of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion.

But if you combine this level of geographic division with the continued growth of the federal leviathan, then you reach the intolerable point where citizens of Texas understand that Nancy Pelosi may have more political influence over their lives than their own governor. Conversely, citizens of San Francisco face a reality where Kentucky’s Cocaine Mitch may well have more real power in their state than Gavin Newsom.

A return to constitutionally mandated congressional supremacy places the federal government closer to the people, as the Founders intended. A restoration of true constitutional federalism would allow progressives and conservatives greater flexibility to build communities that reflect their values, without exacerbating negative polarization by imposing their values on unwilling, resistant cities and states all across the country.

An imperial president legislating through regulation, running myriad wars without congressional approval, and appointing federal judges who even at the lowest level are more powerful than any Senator is not the government the Founders intended. We are most assuredly not governed by the 230-year-old principles of the past but rather by the foolishness of the present.

There’s a path forward for America, but it requires us to look back and rediscover the wisdom of a political generation far wiser than our own.

Here! Here!  The answers are in the Constitution,  our Congress is just too cowardly to accept and take back it's responsibilities.

41 minutes ago, swordfish said:

https://apnews.com/d90578a1687049e9a67db01582ce4278

SF wonders - how does the shutdown slow growth in an economy like the US?  Except for the 800,000 employees, who will receive back pay after the shutdown, how does the growth of a capitalist based economy slow down because of a shutdown?

I would guess that those 800,00 employees aren't creating invoices to private companies for materials ranging from toilet paper to .50 caliber ammunition.  Unfortunately many private companies biggest customer is the US federal government.

11 minutes ago, TRCJunkie said:

Just saw the enrollment post. Ironic they're one student apart. 

Yeah, they have been pretty close for decades.  Even when Maconaquah's overall enrollment plunged due to the closing of Grissom AFB,  Peru seemed to slowly bleed students as well.

Of course what matters is the the Braves have all the quality students.  :)

http://reason.com/archives/2019/01/16/deregulate-the-pill/

Quote

If you live in the United States, you can't obtain birth control pills without a prescription from a doctor. This federal requirement means that the roughly 10.6 million American women on oral contraception must accept regular, invasive, and unnecessary medical care as part of preventing pregnancy.

When the pill first came to the U.S. in 1960, such prescription-only status made some sense. Medical professionals were uncertain how many women would react physiologically. And hormone levels in the first commercially available brand were incredibly high—10,000 micrograms progestin and 50–150 micrograms estrogen, compared to 50–150 micrograms progestin and 20–50 micrograms estrogen on average recently.

But in the nearly 70 years since then, pill formulations have become at least as benign as your average drugstore-aisle offering. Decades of research favors the idea that over-the-counter (OTC) oral contraceptives are safe. They're sold without a prescription in nations across the world, and high-dose emergency contraception has been sold over-the-counter in the U.S. for years. Safety isn't the issue.

 

Nor is there an obvious political impediment. Republicans believe (at least sporadically) in individual rights and deregulation, and a number of GOP lawmakers have recently supported ending the prescription requirement. Democrats often wax on about a woman's right to take control of her reproductive destiny, and in the past many have pushed for freeing the pill, too. So legalizing OTC contraception should represent common policy ground.

Yet the prescription requirement remains on the books. Why?

For years, blame could be cast on the traditional villains of progressive politics: social conservatives who opposed the pill, the Bible thumpers in the Republican Party who pandered to them, and drug companies with no incentive to do anything that might puncture their profits.

But recently, thanks to Obamacare, Democrats have become the primary impediment to freeing up rules around the sale of contraception. In 2019, it's liberals, not conservatives, who are holding the pill hostage for political gain.

..

Since taking office, President Trump has tried to expand the list of organizations that can be exempted from the contraception mandate. A new set of rules were set to take effect this month, but the details are still being fought over in court. This week, a federal judge has blocked them from taking effect in 18 states and Washington, D.C.

Perhaps now is the time to once again leave old birth-control battle lines behind. January 2019 ushered in a new Congress, and left-right alliances in the Trump era are still being rewritten. Political conditions could finally be right for achieving OTC sales of standard birth control pills.

Under Trump, the left has begun to look for ways to allow for undocumented access to medical care. Social conservatives, meanwhile, have embraced a more libertarian approach to these policy battles, fighting to be free from forced participation in things like birth control coverage or gay weddings but not against others' ability to participate.

Today's Republican leaders largely want to be seen as anti-abortion and pro–religious liberty, but not as religious ideologues, prudes, or people standing in the way of pregnancy prevention—which makes embracing OTC pills a pretty safe bet for them if it's built up as a bipartisan affair. Democratic lawmakers could stand out as both champions of women's rights and bipartisan problem solvers. Instead, the left seems content to remain mired in counterproductive Obamacare politics, at the expense of the women they claim to support.

It's time to leave all that behind. Rather than endless rounds of religious freedom vs. women's health care and partisan posture vs. partisan posture, advocates should be concentrating on making it legal to sell birth control pills over the counter. It's the one thing that could truly ensure widespread access, untethered to a person's ability to afford insurance or ability to make it to the doctor on a regular basis, and unassailable by the whims of pharmacists, physicians, employers, and political administrations.

Women deserve better than politically motivated paternalism, but until birth control can be obtained without permission, that's what we're stuck with.

Government trying to control individuals,  color me shocked.

28 minutes ago, TRCJunkie said:

Coach Prescott had well below average success at Peru, especially considering their enrollment in comparison to everyone else's. 

 

He was 3-5 against in county rival Maconaquah, which is a good thing.  :)

https://mises.org/library/socialism-doctrine-aristocrats

Quote

Among the infinity of fallacious statements and factual errors that go to form the structure of Marxian philosophy there are two that are especially objectionable. Marx asserts that capitalism causes increasing pauperization of the masses, and blithely contends that the proletarians are intellectually and morally superior to the narrow-minded, corrupt, and selfish bourgeoisie. It is not worthwhile to waste time in a refutation of these fables.

The champions of a return to oligarchic government see things from a quite different angle. It is a fact, they say, that capitalism has poured a horn of plenty for the masses, who do not know why they become more prosperous from day to day. The proletarians have done everything they could to hinder or slow down the pace of technical innovations — they have even destroyed newly invented machines. Their unions today still oppose every improvement in methods of production. The entrepreneurs and capitalists have had to push the reluctant and unwilling masses toward a system of production that renders their lives more comfortable.

Within an unhampered market society, these advocates of aristocracy go on to say, there prevails a tendency toward a diminution of the inequality of incomes. While the average citizen becomes wealthier, the successful entrepreneurs seldom attain wealth that raises them far above the average level. There is but a small group of high incomes, and the total consumption of this group is too insignificant to play any role in the market. The members of the upper middle class enjoy a higher standard of living than the masses but their demands also are unimportant in the market. They live more comfortably than the majority of their fellow citizens but they are not rich enough to afford a style of life substantially different. Their dress is more expensive than that of the lower strata but it is of the same pattern and is adjusted to the same fashions. Their bathrooms and their cars are more elegant but the service they render is substantially the same. The old discrepancies in standards have shrunk to differences that are mostly but a matter of ornament. The private life of a modern entrepreneur or executive differs much less from that of his employees than, centuries ago, the life of a feudal landlord differed from that of his serfs.

It is, in the eyes of these pro-aristocratic critics, a deplorable consequence of this trend toward equalization and a rise in mass standards that the masses take a more active part in the nation's mental and political activities. They not only set artistic and literary standards; they are supreme in politics also. They now have comfort and leisure enough to play a decisive role in communal matters. But they are too narrow-minded to grasp the sense in sound policies. They judge all economic problems from the point of view of their own position in the process of production. For them the entrepreneurs and capitalists, indeed most of the executives, are simply idle people whose services could easily be rendered by "anyone able to read and write."1 The masses are full of envy and resentment; they want to expropriate the capitalists and entrepreneurs whose fault is to have served them too well. They are absolutely unfit to conceive the remoter consequences of the measures they are advocating.

Thus they are bent on destroying the sources from which their prosperity stems. The policy of democracies is suicidal. Turbulent mobs demand acts that are contrary to society's and their own best interests. They return to Parliament corrupt demagogues, adventurers, and quacks who praise patent medicines and idiotic remedies. Democracy has resulted in an upheaval of the domestic barbarians against reason, sound policies, and civilization. The masses have firmly established the dictators in many European countries. They may succeed very soon in America too. The great experiment of liberalism and democracy has proved to be self-liquidating. It has brought about the worst of all tyrannies.

"If the supremacy of these modern doctrines is a proof of intellectual decay, it does not demonstrate that the lower strata have conquered the upper ones. It demonstrates rather the decay of the intellectuals and of the bourgeoisie."

Not for the sake of the elite but for the salvation of civilization and for the benefit of the masses a radical reform is needed. The incomes of the proletarians, say the advocates of an aristocratic revolution, have to be cut down; their work must be made harder and more tedious. The laborer should be so tired after his daily task is fulfilled that he cannot find leisure for dangerous thoughts and activities. He must be deprived of the franchise. All political power must be vested in the upper classes. Then the populace will be rendered harmless. They will be serfs, but as such happy, grateful, and subservient. What the masses need is to be held under tight control. If they are left free they will fall an easy prey to the dictatorial aspirations of scoundrels. Save them by establishing in time the oligarchic paternal rule of the best, of the elite, of the aristocracy.

These are the ideas that many of our contemporaries have derived from the writings of Burke, Dostoievsky, Nietzsche, Pareto, and Michels, and from the historical experience of the last decades. You have the choice, they say, between the tyranny of men from the scum and the benevolent rule of wise kings and aristocracies. There has never been in history a lasting democratic system. The ancient and medieval republics were not genuine democracies; the masses — slaves and metics — never took part in government. Anyway, these republics too ended in demagogy and decay. If the rule of a Grand Inquisitor is inevitable, let him rather be a Roman cardinal, a Bourbon prince, or a British lord than a sadistic adventurer of low breeding.

The main shortcoming of this reasoning is that it greatly exaggerates the role played by the lower strata of society in the evolution toward the detrimental present-day policies. It is paradoxical to assume that the masses whom the friends of oligarchy describe as riffraff should have been able to overpower the upper classes, the elite of entrepreneurs, capitalists, and intellectuals, and to impose on them their own mentality.

Who is responsible for the deplorable events of the last decades? Did perhaps the lower classes, the proletarians, evolve the new doctrines? Not at all. No proletarian contributed anything to the construction of antiliberal teachings. At the root of the genealogical tree of modern socialism we meet the name of the depraved scion of one of the most eminent aristocratic families of royal France. Almost all the fathers of socialism were members of the upper middle class or of the professions. The Belgian Henri de Man, once a radical left-wing socialist, today a no less radical pro-Nazi socialist, was quite right in asserting, "If one accepted the misleading Marxist expression which attaches every social ideology to a definite class, one would have to say that socialism as a doctrine, even Marxism, is of bourgeois origin."2 Neither did interventionism and nationalism come from the "scum." They also are products of the well-to-do.

The overwhelming success of these doctrines that have proved so detrimental to peaceful social cooperation and now shake the foundations of our civilization is not an outcome of lower-class activities. The proletarians, the workers, and the farmers are certainly not guilty. Members of the upper classes were the authors of these destructive ideas. The intellectuals converted the masses to this ideology; they did not get it from them. If the supremacy of these modern doctrines is a proof of intellectual decay, it does not demonstrate that the lower strata have conquered the upper ones. It demonstrates rather the decay of the intellectuals and of the bourgeoisie. The masses, precisely because they are dull and mentally inert, have never created new ideologies. This has always been the prerogative of the elite.

The truth is that we face a degeneration of a whole society and not an evil limited to some parts of it.

When liberals recommend democratic government as the only means of safeguarding permanent peace both at home and in international relations, they do not advocate the rule of the mean, of the lowbred, of the stupid, and of the domestic barbarians, as some critics of democracy believe. They are liberals and democrats precisely because they desire government by the men best fitted for the task. They maintain that those best qualified to rule must prove their abilities by convincing their fellow citizens, so that they will voluntarily entrust them with office. They do not cling to the militarist doctrine, common to all revolutionaries, that the proof of qualification is the seizure of office by acts of violence or fraud. No ruler who lacks the gift of persuasion can stay in office long; it is the indispensable condition of government. It would be an idle illusion to assume that any government, no matter how good, could lastingly do without public consent. If our community does not beget men who have the power to make sound social principles generally acceptable, civilization is lost, whatever the system of government may be.

It is not true that the dangers to the maintenance of peace, democracy, freedom, and capitalism are a result of a "revolt of the masses." They are an achievement of scholars and intellectuals, of sons of the well-to-do, of writers and artists pampered by the best society. In every country of the world dynasties and aristocrats have worked with the socialists and interventionists against freedom. Virtually all the Christian churches and sects have espoused the principles of socialism and interventionism. In almost every country the clergy favor nationalism. In spite of the fact that Catholicism is world embracing, even the Roman Church offers no exception. The nationalism of the Irish, the Poles, and the Slovaks is to a great extent an achievement of the clergy. French nationalism found most effective support in the Church.

It would be vain to attempt to cure this evil by a return to the rule of autocrats and noblemen. The autocracy of the czars in Russia or that of the Bourbons in France, Spain, and Naples was not an assurance of sound administration. The Hohenzollerns and the Prussian Junkers in Germany and the British ruling groups have clearly proved their unfitness to run a country.

If worthless and ignoble men control the governments of many countries, it is because eminent intellectuals have recommended their rule; the principles according to which they exercise their powers have been framed by upper-class doctrinaires and meet with the approval of intellectuals. What the world needs is not constitutional reform but sound ideologies. It is obvious that every constitutional system can be made to work satisfactorily when the rulers are equal to their task. The problem is to find the men fit for office.

Neither a priori reasoning nor historical experience has disproved the basic idea of liberalism and democracy that the consent of those ruled is the main requisite of government. Neither benevolent kings nor enlightened aristocracies nor unselfish priests or philosophers can succeed when lacking this consent. Whoever wants lastingly to establish good government must start by trying to persuade his fellow citizens and offering them sound ideologies. He is only demonstrating his own incapacity when he resorts to violence, coercion, and compulsion instead of persuasion. In the long run force and threat cannot be successfully applied against majorities. There is no hope left for a civilization when the masses favor harmful policies. The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.
...

Wise words.

Frankfort High School:  5 different coaches over the last decade, 4 different coaches in the last 4 seasons alone.

Results over that decade:  Last over .500 season:  2009.    2 0-10 seasons ( 2011 & 2018).  2 1-9 seasons (2008 & 2017).  2 2-8 seasons (2014 & 2016)

Points scored vs. points allowed over those last 10 seasons:

2009:  ps: 292 pa: 220  (season record: 7-5)

2010:  ps: 321 pa: 325 (season record: 4-7)

2011: ps: 106 pa: 370  (season record 0-10)

2012: ps: 176  pa:  237 (season record 3-7)

2013: ps: 250 pa:  287 (season record 5-6)

2014: ps: 151 pa: 284 (season record 2-8)

2015: ps: 248 pa: 324 (season record 4-6)

2016: ps: 177 pa: 332 (season record 2-8)

2017: ps: 86 pa: 449 (season record 1-9)

2018: ps: 54 pa: 513 (season record 0-10)

W-L records vs opposing schools over the last decade (includes regular season and tournament).  * Indicates Sagamore Conference opponent: 

Clinton Central: 0-1 

Logansport:  1-3

Tri-West*:  1-9

Southmont*: 2-8

Lebanon*: 0-10

Western Boone* : 1-9

Danville*: 3-7

North Montgomery*: 1-9

Crawfordsville: 8-2

Mississinewa: 0-1

Yorktown: 0-1

Western: 5-4

Greenwood: 0-1

Roncalli: 0-1

Norwell: 0-1

New Haven: 0-1

Delta: 0-2

Peru: 2-0

West Lafayette: 0-2

Frankfort High School:  5 different coaches over the last decade, 4 different coaches in the last 4 seasons alone.

Plus Nick's Kitchen has one of the best tenderloins in the state!

http://reason.com/archives/2019/01/16/the-lessons-of-the-government-shutdown

Quote

This government shutdown is now longer than any in history. The media keep using the word "crisis."

"Shutdown sows chaos, confusion and anxiety!" says The Washington Post. "Pain spreads widely."

The New York Times headlined, it's all "just too much!"

But wait. Looking around America, I see people going about their business—families eating in restaurants, employees going to work, children playing in playgrounds, etc. I have to ask: Where's the crisis?

Pundits talk as if government is the most important part of America, but it isn't.

We need some government, limited government. But most of life, the best of life, goes on without government, many of the best parts in spite of government.

Of course, the shutdown is a big deal to the 800,000 people who aren't being paid. But they will get paid. Government workers always do—after shutdowns.

Columnist Paul Krugman calls this shutdown, "Trump's big libertarian experiment." But it's not libertarian. Government's excessive rules are still in effect, and eventually government workers will be paid for not working. That makes this a most un-libertarian experiment.

But there are lessons to be learned.

During a shutdown when Barack Obama was president, government officials were so eager to make a point by inconveniencing people that they even stopped visitors from entering public parks.

Trump's administration isn't doing that, so PBS found a new crisis: "Trash cans spilling... (P)ark services can't clean up the mess until Congress and the president reach a spending deal," reported NewsHour.

But volunteers appeared to pick up some of the trash.

Given a chance, private citizens often step in to do things government says only government can do.

The Washington Post ran a front-page headline about farmers "reeling... because they aren't receiving government support checks."

But why do farmers even get "support checks"?

One justification is "saving family farms." But the money goes to big farms.

Government doesn't need to "guarantee the food supply," another justification for subsidies. Most fruit and vegetable farmers get no subsidies, yet there are no shortages of peaches, plums, green beans, etc.

Subsidies are a scam created by politicians who get money from wheat, cotton, corn, and soybean agribusinesses. Those farmers should suck it up and live without subsidies, too.

During shutdowns, government tells "nonessential workers" not to come to work. But if they're nonessential, then why do we pay 400,000 of them?

Why do we still pay 100,000 American soldiers in Germany, Japan, Italy, and England? Didn't we win those wars?

We could take a chainsaw to so much of government.

 

The New York Times shrieks, "Shutdown Curtails FDA Food Inspections!"

Only if you read on do you learn that meat and poultry inspection is done by the Department of Agriculture. They're still working. And the FDA is restarting some inspections as well.

More important, meat is usually safe not because of government—but because of competition.

Food sellers worry about their reputations. They know they'll get bad publicity if they poison people (think Chipotle), so they take many more safety measures than government requires.

One meat producer told me that they employ 2,000 more safety inspectors than the law demands.

Lazy reporters cover politicians. Interviewees are usually in one place—often Washington, D.C. Interviewing politicians is easier than covering people pursuing their own interests all over America. But those are the people who make America work.

While pundits and politicians act as if everything needs government intervention, the opposite is true.

Even security work is done better by the private sector. At San Francisco's airport, security lines move faster. Passengers told me, "The screeners are nicer!" The TSA even acknowledged that those screeners are better at finding contraband. That's because San Francisco (Kansas City, Seattle, and a dozen smaller airports) privatized the screening process. Private companies are responsible for security.

Private contractors are better because they must compete. Perform badly, and they get fired.

But government never fires itself.

Government workers shout, "We are essential!" But I say: "Give me a break. Most of you are not."

Rack this post.  This government shutdown only goes to show how unessential a lot of the federal government is.

Yes, due to Canada's socialism.  I'm surprised you haven't moved there yet.  Surely someone with your teaching chops would have no problem finding gainful employment.  And then everything your hold dear would be FREE!

https://www.shouldice.com/faqs/

Quote

Ontario Patients
Ontario’s Hospital Insurance Plan (OHIP) covers all costs to Ontario residents for public ward rate hospital accommodation and physician services.

Semi-private rooms are available at an additional cost. Patients with private insurance may be eligible for reimbursement on submission of paperwork we provide to you on discharge. We do not bill insurance companies directly on your behalf.

All charges are payable on admission by credit card, bank draft or cash.

Non-Ontario Canadian Resident Patients
Provincial health insurance plans cover all costs to Canadian residents for public ward rate hospital accommodation and physician services. Hospital ward charges are billed directly to respective provincial health ministries, with applicable physician services subject to payment by patients on admission. These fees may be submitted to provincial health plans for reimbursement based on paperwork provided to you on discharge. The amount you will be reimbursed will be dependent on your provinces applicable schedule of medical fees.

All qualifying patients will receive an admission letter with a breakdown of fees specific to their surgical procedure and related hospital stay.

Semi-private rooms are available at an additional cost. Patients with private insurance may be eligible for reimbursement on submission of paperwork we provide to you on discharge. We do not bill insurance companies directly on your behalf.

All charges are payable on admission by credit card, bank draft or cash.

US and International Patients
All patients who have submitted their medical questionnaire for assessment and have been qualified for surgery will receive a letter outlining our estimated fees specific to their stated surgical procedure and related hospital stay. Patients with private insurance coverage may be eligible for reimbursement on submission of paperwork provided to you. We do not bill insurance companies on your behalf, however, Shouldice Hospital has no-cost consultants trained to help you with your claim (as foreign insurance coverage is complicated we encourage all patients to pre-approve their coverage prior to admission).

All charges are payable on admission by credit card, bank draft or cash.

8 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

You basically have to be a vet to get a federal job. Leave the pay issue alone.

Hmm, I used to a civilian employee of the department of defense, and therefore the federal government,  and I was not a veteran.

So you agree that federal employees should always get paid more than their public counterparts? Why?

8 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Bad curriculum and biased teachers, perhaps? Although your stories of Mr. Beal indicate that the problem is a very old one.

Surely a bad curriculum and biased teachers can't happen in government schools with union teachers.  All they care about is the very best for the children, right?

2 hours ago, Punttheball said:

Wow! This is shocking.  

Agreed.  I guess being the coach of an offensive line that  allows 3 sacks in a playoff game is enough to get you fired.

54 minutes ago, DK_Barons said:

Our discussion in the admin forum on the topic predates your registrations, let alone your 'rant'. 😉

A moot point since not all of us are privy to your super secret admin forum.  What is it's secret handshake?

1 hour ago, DT said:

He was influenced by my anti OOB ranting.  It worked

I'm pleased to claim a small victory.  1-0 always a good way to start the season.  😀

Want an invite to the OOB 'club'?

37 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Unfortunately a myriad of laughable legislation, not the least of which the governor campaigning for hate crime legislation. 

Agreed.  Not needed.  There are already laws on the books,  a "hate crime" designation is just feel good claptrap.

39 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 

NPR - Really? 

I thought NPR News was the last bastion of non-partisan news reporting?  

56 minutes ago, DK_Barons said:

A perfectly legitimate option. That or don't travel by air... I have the North American Passport Card and carry it all the time only getting the passport booklet out if leaving the US.

I had a passport card, circa 2009,  for a cruise we went on that made ports of call in Mexico.  Long expired now though.  

1 hour ago, DK_Barons said:

It is not necessary that one see the reasoning for one to exist. One must have faith. 

Faith in what, exactly?

55 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I kinda like being in a "club". I'll volunteer to be the "Keeper of the Flame". ( Sorry Keeper of the Flame episode of TAGS was on last night) 

Can we also have a secret handshake?

Sure. Here it is:

http://reason.com/archives/2019/01/15/america-where-you-need-internal-passport

Quote

This month marks a year since a milestone in the adoption of what are effectively internal passports in the United States—a date that went unnoticed by most Americans. Starting last January, only residents of states that signed on to the federal government's REAL ID scheme were permitted to fly or enter federal buildings using their state ID.

Because every state ultimately surrendered to federal demands and agreed to issue standardized identification (though under a façade of local design and color), the ID cards in your pocket continue to work—at least until the full program kicks in during 2020.

"Starting January 22, 2018, travelers who do not have a license from a compliant state or a state that has been granted an extension...will be asked to provide alternate acceptable identification," warned the Department of Homeland Security. "If the traveler cannot provide an acceptable form of identification, they will not be permitted through the security checkpoint."

 

For years, amidst arguments over privacy and local control, many states remained defiant, with 32 states and territorieshesitating to turn their driver's licenses into glorified federal identification documents as recently as 2016. But federal pressure, including the prospect of many Americans being turned away from airports and office buildings, caused them to cave one after another. Some, like Arizona, made compliant documents voluntary, so that people willing to forego passage through TSA checkpoints or access to federal buildings and facilities could also skip the new ID standards. That was enough to satisfy the feds and keep existing documents acceptable until 2020.

After that time, everybody who wants to travel by air or enter a Social Security office will have to have REAL ID-compliant documents in-hand. Or, they could just embrace the new reality and use U.S. passports for domestic travel as well as international trips. That would also make the feds happy.

"Starting October 1, 2020, every state and territory resident will need to present a REAL ID compliant license/ID, or another acceptable form of identification, for accessing Federal facilities, entering nuclear power plants, and boarding commercial aircraft," DHS adds. "The card, itself, must be REAL ID compliant unless the resident is using an alternative acceptable document such as a passport."

Like so much of what has changed about the laws and governance of the United States since the turn of the millennium, we have overwrought post-9/11 fears of terrorism to thank for REAL ID requirements passed in 2005.

"All but one of the Sept. 11 hijackers carried government IDs that helped them board planes and remain in the country illegally," huffed then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in a 2008 op-ed. He brushed off concerns that they could have purchased the new IDs from the same corrupt officials who sold them many of the old ones. Prior to passage of the law, any sort of discussion was brushed-off.

"Signed into law in May 2005 without meaningful debate the Real ID Act states that drivers licenses will only be accepted for 'federal purposes'—like accessing planes trains national parks and court houses—if they conform to certain uniform standards," notes the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "The law also requires a vast national database linking all of the ID records together."

Actually, the feds carefully insist that "REAL ID does not create a federal database." But the law does require that states "provide electronic access to all other States to information contained in the motor vehicle database of the State" and specifies what is contained in each database. That almost certainly involves participation in the State-to-State service run by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), which represents Canadian and American officials who issue driver's licenses.

"For those states (i.e. states choosing to comply with REAL ID), the Department of Homeland Security has indicated that participation in S2S will be required for the state to be REAL ID compliant… the law and regulations governing REAL ID include requirements for state licensing agencies to connect their databases in a way that improves identity security as part of the licensing issuance process," says the AAMVA in a handout about the program.

So, no, not one big database—just a bunch of smaller ones linked together to act like one big database. And those linked databases contain the amassed, hacker-bait details of millions of identification documents necessary for air travel and access to government facilities.

Yes, hacker-bait. "The IDs and database will simply create an irresistible target for identity thieves" cautions EFF.

REAL ID "harms national security by creating yet another 'trusted' credential for criminals to exploit," warns the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Other critics point out that identification documents are incapable of catching terrorists who haven't already been identified as threats. And, they say, such systems inevitably develop system-creep.

"The day would not be far off when a national ID is required for picking up prescriptions, purchasing guns and ammunition, paying by credit card, booking air travel, and reserving hotel stays, to name just a few types of transactions the federal government might regulate," says the Cato Institute's Jim Harper.

In fact, Secretary Chertoff boasted in that op-ed, "by embracing REAL ID, we can indeed cash a check, hire a baby sitter, board a plane or engage in countless other activities with confidence."

So far, REAL ID-compliant documents aren't as restrictive as the internal passports required to get anything done in Russia. Without such ID, Russians "cannot open or close a bank account, receive medical care at a state clinic, buy a cellphone, return a purchase to a store or enter into a contract," wrote Masha Gessen in The New York Times. Nor are REAL ID documents comparable in intrusiveness to the hukou system of household registration that "is used to actively limit where a person is allowed to live" in China, according to The Diplomat.

...

The slippery slope continues.  I'm holding off; when I had to renew my state driver's license in 2018 I opted out of having the REAL ID designation on it.  No thank, guess I'll just have to renew my passport.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/gillette-commercial-toxic-masculinity-debate/

Quote

On Monday, Gillette — the razor and shaving-cream company — joined the chorus of cultural forces decrying so-called “toxic masculinity.” The company ran an online commercial suggesting that the history of American masculinity is rife with sexual harassment, bullying, and cruelty — and that the new masculinity must overcome all of these influences.

Now, it’s not new to see corporations pursuing accolades from various social groups — monetizing virtue signaling. It’s a profitable method, since it inoculates your corporation from the woke scolds of the Left. We’ve seen more and more corporations kowtowing to leftist social priorities, knowing that conservatives generally don’t threaten boycotts while leftist activists are happy to do so at the drop of a hat.

But there’s a broader question here: Is Gillette right?

The American Psychological Association seems to think so. Last week, it released a new set of guidelines slamming “traditional masculinity.” According to the APA, “traditional masculinity ideology” helps limit “males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental and physical health.” According to the APA, “traditionally masculine” men have built a system of masculinity around bullying rather than civilizing, around stolidity rather than emotional maturity. Thus, it is the fault of men that young boys are growing up to become toxic males.

But is that true? If we truly believe that young men are growing up inculcated into a toxic vision of masculinity, is that from too much traditional male influence or too little? Today, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 23 percent of American children live with a single mother. That percentage has tripled since 1960. As of 2012, 55 percent of black children and 31 percent of Hispanic children lived with one parent, predominantly the mother.

How about other male influences? Teachers are predominantly female in the United States, particularly in primary education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 76 percent of public-school teachers were female. Over 80 percent of social workers are female.

In other words, more and more young boys lack male influence altogether. This isn’t to suggest that  toxic male influence doesn’t exist — of course it does. But that toxic male influence has always been generated by peers rather than parents. For decades, we’ve known that the vast majority of criminals grew up without a father in the home — as of 1987, 70 percent of inmates grew up in a one-parent home. The Center for Children and Families has reported that 70 percent of “gang members, high school dropouts, teen suicides, teen pregnancies, and teen substance abusers come from single mother homes.”

If you want to raise a generation of men who will treat women well, act as protectors rather than victimizers, and become the bedrock for a stable society, you need more masculinity, not less. In fact, a recent study from Stanford, Harvard, and the Census Bureau found that high levels of father presence in local communities may matter even more than having a father in the home directly; the study explained, “black boys who grow up in areas with high father presence are also significantly less likely to be incarcerated.”

We’ve maligned masculinity as a society because men are likely to do the greatest harm to others. The vast majority of violent criminality comes from males; the vast majority of sexual misconduct comes from males. But we’ve made a mistake in blaming the presence of males for that issue. It’s a massive mistake to blame “toxic masculinity” rather than recognizing that toxic masculinity is often the result of a dearth of genuine masculinity — the kind of masculinity that leads men to stick around and father their children in the first place. The alternative to masculine presence is no masculine presence — and lack of masculine presence leads to toxic masculinity, deprived men acting out of hurt and anger.

Agreed.