Monday, May 11, 2009

"In Education, 100 Days of Rhetoric and Not a Minute of Real Reform" by Neal McCluskey (Cato Institute: Commentary)

"In Education, 100 Days of Rhetoric and Not a Minute of Real Reform" by Neal McCluskey (Cato Institute: Commentary): "Instead of giving tax dollars to public schools, let parents control the cash. Enable parents to choose schools, and force school employees to respond to them. It's real reform that's been shown to work

Unfortunately, in his first one-hundred days Obama failed to fight for just such meaningful reform. The president did nothing to defend Washington DC's school voucher program, which provides real school choice for 1,700 education-starved kids. Indeed, what his administration did was worse than nothing: it buried a report showing vouchers' success just as Congress was debating the program's fate, and barred 200 children who had won vouchers from using them in the coming school year.

'It didn't make sense to me to put more students in the program,' explained Secretary Duncan.

But here's what really doesn't make sense: spending unprecedented billions to save a hopeless system while letting real reform die."

What Is “Hate” Crime?

Officer.com Police Blogs & Podcasts � What Is “Hate” Crime?:
Group A disagrees with the outlook of Group B, and since Group A is comprised of people from a previously identified minority, they claim that the mere existence of Group B comprises a hate crime or promotes hate speech. I take HUGE issue with this.

Why is it illegal or hateful for the members of one historical culture to celebrate their history but not illegal for another? What makes the history and culture of one group of people any more important that the history and culture of EVERY group of people?


Reality, and this is just MY opinion, is probably that ALL crime is hateful. Murdering someone is pretty hateful. Raping someone is pretty hateful. It doesn’t matter what race, religion, nationality, gender, age, etc of the intended victim is: crime is hateful. If we must label these crimes as different from “regular” crimes because they target a minority, then how about if we call them “minority crimes”? Or does that make too many people think that a member of a minority committed the crime? It has always bothered me that one crime is considered more serious than another crime simply because of the protected status of the victim. Robbery is robbery no matter what protected group (or not) the victim is a part of. Murder is murder the same way.

Eliminating a corporate tax loophole or hamstringing American companies?

If you put tomfoolery into a computer

Quote Details: Pierre Gallois: If you put tomfoolery... - The Quotations Page: "If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.
Pierre Gallois"