Here we go again, with a typical liberal media "news story" about public schools.
This story is a tear-jerker about two of Brevard County's 82 schools closing.
It contains almost no useful information.
It claims the closings are because of $30 million in "budget cuts" but offers no facts to support that contention.
According to the state Department of Education, Brevard County schools had $531 million in revenue in 2009-2010 and the amount has gone up every year to $548 million this year.
Even if the mysterious budget cuts exist, some politicians had to decide to close schools as one way of staying within their budget. Who made the decision and why? There was nothing else that could be cut in the district budget of a half-billion dollars?
Then, why those two particular schools?
Are they old? The story doesn't say. There is one mysterious reference to one of the schools "reopening" in 1997.
Are the schools failing? The story quotes one parent as saying one of the schools is a "No. 1" school, but doesn't tell readers whether that is true or not.
Did politicians close a new school that is doing a good job?
If they did, telling readers why that decision was made would make interesting reading.
Instead, it is a bunch of mawkish baloney about kids being inconvenienced by having to attend a different school. Except that one of the kids is quoted as saying he is looking forward to making new friends.
Apparently, Florida Today has no editors, or this waste of precious news space never would have seen the light of day.
Or, more likely, this was another editor-generated story, where hapless reporters were told to "go out there and write a sob story about schools closing because of budget cuts."
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
The Infernal Revenge Service
When I was an editorial page editor in the 1990s, the head of the IRS came to visit one day.
She swept into our conference room grandly with the usual retinue of about a dozen yes men.
During the conversation, I asked her how many people she employed. I don't remember her answer but my next comment was:
"I'm looking forward to the day when we can put the entire IRS in a room this size."
The jaws of her yes men dropped as if on cue.
But she answered smugly, "I don't think that's going to happen."
I explained my hope that passage of the Fair Tax would make it happen and we moved on to other things.
Since then, the IRS has only grown and with Obamacare it will grow even more. So, maybe she was right.
But it remains an arm of the government that is available, to any president unscrupulous enough to employ it, as a vehicle to punish political opponents.
Saint Franklin of Roosevelt was one of the first to use it for such purposes, as he and his New Deal gang waged a war on capitalism.
It was also FDR who began withholding income tax from paychecks, another disaster for good government. Imagine writing a check to the government each month for your taxes and how that would affect public policy for the better.
In light of recent events, an independent counsel, the likes of Ken Starr, clearly is needed to determine who unleashed the IRS on conservatives this time. It is highly unlikely that the scapegoat who was fired is the instigator.
Only the low-information voter would put any stock in Obama's assurances that "We're going to fix it."
She swept into our conference room grandly with the usual retinue of about a dozen yes men.
During the conversation, I asked her how many people she employed. I don't remember her answer but my next comment was:
"I'm looking forward to the day when we can put the entire IRS in a room this size."
The jaws of her yes men dropped as if on cue.
But she answered smugly, "I don't think that's going to happen."
I explained my hope that passage of the Fair Tax would make it happen and we moved on to other things.
Since then, the IRS has only grown and with Obamacare it will grow even more. So, maybe she was right.
But it remains an arm of the government that is available, to any president unscrupulous enough to employ it, as a vehicle to punish political opponents.
Saint Franklin of Roosevelt was one of the first to use it for such purposes, as he and his New Deal gang waged a war on capitalism.
It was also FDR who began withholding income tax from paychecks, another disaster for good government. Imagine writing a check to the government each month for your taxes and how that would affect public policy for the better.
In light of recent events, an independent counsel, the likes of Ken Starr, clearly is needed to determine who unleashed the IRS on conservatives this time. It is highly unlikely that the scapegoat who was fired is the instigator.
Only the low-information voter would put any stock in Obama's assurances that "We're going to fix it."
Friday, April 19, 2013
Making believers
This story explains a lot about the global warming scam.
The alarmists in the federal government hand out free money to "study" something -- global warming in this case -- and local politicians and bureaucrats fall all over themselves grabbing for the cash.
Of course there is global warming! If there wasn't, they wouldn't get any free money. And, the alarmists say, the studies the taxpayers' money pay for "prove" there is global warming caused by humans.
Except it doesn't.
There hasn't been any warming for about 15 years, a fact alarmists are squirming over. The computer models they rely on are bogus.
In this case, the money is supposed to be used to plan for the flooding that global warming is going to cause in a century or so.
These guys are bureaucrats who already are paid to plan. Why do they need more money to do what they are supposed to be doing every day?
It doesn't cost any more to plan for flooding than it does to plan for increased traffic. None of their plans are likely to have any effect any way, even if they are needed.
Local politicians aren't going to pony up the money for the dikes, or whatever. They will turn to the alarmists in the federal government, who will be only too happy to shovel more money their way.
In a century, when the "threat" has been exposed as a hoax, they won't be around to be held accountable. Meanwhile, your children and grandchildren still will be paying the tab.
The alarmists in the federal government hand out free money to "study" something -- global warming in this case -- and local politicians and bureaucrats fall all over themselves grabbing for the cash.
Of course there is global warming! If there wasn't, they wouldn't get any free money. And, the alarmists say, the studies the taxpayers' money pay for "prove" there is global warming caused by humans.
Except it doesn't.
There hasn't been any warming for about 15 years, a fact alarmists are squirming over. The computer models they rely on are bogus.
In this case, the money is supposed to be used to plan for the flooding that global warming is going to cause in a century or so.
These guys are bureaucrats who already are paid to plan. Why do they need more money to do what they are supposed to be doing every day?
It doesn't cost any more to plan for flooding than it does to plan for increased traffic. None of their plans are likely to have any effect any way, even if they are needed.
Local politicians aren't going to pony up the money for the dikes, or whatever. They will turn to the alarmists in the federal government, who will be only too happy to shovel more money their way.
In a century, when the "threat" has been exposed as a hoax, they won't be around to be held accountable. Meanwhile, your children and grandchildren still will be paying the tab.
Monday, April 8, 2013
The unthinkable happens
It was 40 years ago that the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
I won't even go there on the question of whether they were right pre-1973 or post-1973.
The point is that this science was a consensus for many years.
Global warming alarmists call people who don't buy their guff "deniers" and sniff that the belief in this theory is a "scientific consensus."
Let's leave aside the fact that there are thousands of scientists who don't buy it.
But just what is a consensus? It is a common belief among a group based on what they know.
Let's face it: Scientists just don't know everything about the weather, or climate.
Currently, there is widespread embarrassment among alarmists over the fact that there hasn't been any warming for the past 20 years.
Their computer models insist that it should be warming, and that anticipated future warming predicted by these models will wipe out mankind. These models are the basis for the demand that humans worldwide completely change their way of life and spend trillions of dollars in the process.
Maybe before that, we should have models that work?
Previously, they said no warming over a period of 10-20 years would be evidence that the theory is at fault. Now that period has passed, they are insisting it will take 30-40 years to show catastrophe is not imminent.
Let's also step back and take note that all this furor is over an increase in global warming of less than one degree since it began being measured.
At about the time psychological scientists changed their consensus, national news magazines were writing about a scientific consensus that the Earth was facing a new Ice Age.
That's right. There had been a cooling period of several years, following a warming period, and the science was settled, according to news accounts. Glaciers were coming.
Not long after that, a new consensus was formed and global warming was born.
They assured us it was not just a normal cycle of warming and cooling. Humans were causing it with their electric plants and automobiles. Don't worry about the fact that most of the increase occurred before electric plants and automobiles.
Common carbon dioxide -- without which life cannot exist on Earth -- came to be a "pollutant." Politicians want to tax it.
But the public is catching on. Global warming now ranks very low on the list of what people worry about, according to opinion polls.
Maybe those in the alarmist community might want to re-examine their consensus as the psychologists did 40 years ago.
I won't even go there on the question of whether they were right pre-1973 or post-1973.
The point is that this science was a consensus for many years.
Global warming alarmists call people who don't buy their guff "deniers" and sniff that the belief in this theory is a "scientific consensus."
Let's leave aside the fact that there are thousands of scientists who don't buy it.
But just what is a consensus? It is a common belief among a group based on what they know.
Let's face it: Scientists just don't know everything about the weather, or climate.
Currently, there is widespread embarrassment among alarmists over the fact that there hasn't been any warming for the past 20 years.
Their computer models insist that it should be warming, and that anticipated future warming predicted by these models will wipe out mankind. These models are the basis for the demand that humans worldwide completely change their way of life and spend trillions of dollars in the process.
Maybe before that, we should have models that work?
Previously, they said no warming over a period of 10-20 years would be evidence that the theory is at fault. Now that period has passed, they are insisting it will take 30-40 years to show catastrophe is not imminent.
Let's also step back and take note that all this furor is over an increase in global warming of less than one degree since it began being measured.
At about the time psychological scientists changed their consensus, national news magazines were writing about a scientific consensus that the Earth was facing a new Ice Age.
That's right. There had been a cooling period of several years, following a warming period, and the science was settled, according to news accounts. Glaciers were coming.
Not long after that, a new consensus was formed and global warming was born.
They assured us it was not just a normal cycle of warming and cooling. Humans were causing it with their electric plants and automobiles. Don't worry about the fact that most of the increase occurred before electric plants and automobiles.
Common carbon dioxide -- without which life cannot exist on Earth -- came to be a "pollutant." Politicians want to tax it.
But the public is catching on. Global warming now ranks very low on the list of what people worry about, according to opinion polls.
Maybe those in the alarmist community might want to re-examine their consensus as the psychologists did 40 years ago.
What institutions of "higher education" produce
You have to despair upon reading something like this.
Probably, this kid had sense at one time. But after four years in a university, his brain has turned into mush, if this column is any evidence of what goes on inside his head.
Just to use two examples:
He talks about the "rivers" of oil terrorizing Arkansas residents.
The amount of oil released could easily be contained in two swimming pools. Is that enough to flood an entire state and drive people from its cities?
Then, to avoid the moral crime of using oil he suggests everyone should switch to an electric car.
Where does he suppose the electricity is going to come from in an oil-free world? Windmills?
He probably thinks this is bold, new thinking, and quite daring. This is nothing more than standard, knee-jerk liberalism, instilled in him by professors who are steeped in rivers of it.
You can get your fill of it any day on MSNBC or in the columns of the New York Times. Fewer people make those choices every day.
We all hear the nonsense from "educators" that we cannot teach facts; we must teach people "how to think."
If this is an example, I'll go for facts any day.
Probably, this kid had sense at one time. But after four years in a university, his brain has turned into mush, if this column is any evidence of what goes on inside his head.
Just to use two examples:
He talks about the "rivers" of oil terrorizing Arkansas residents.
The amount of oil released could easily be contained in two swimming pools. Is that enough to flood an entire state and drive people from its cities?
Then, to avoid the moral crime of using oil he suggests everyone should switch to an electric car.
Where does he suppose the electricity is going to come from in an oil-free world? Windmills?
He probably thinks this is bold, new thinking, and quite daring. This is nothing more than standard, knee-jerk liberalism, instilled in him by professors who are steeped in rivers of it.
You can get your fill of it any day on MSNBC or in the columns of the New York Times. Fewer people make those choices every day.
We all hear the nonsense from "educators" that we cannot teach facts; we must teach people "how to think."
If this is an example, I'll go for facts any day.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Conned again
Rush Limbaugh says: "Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country."
Why? Polls show high approval for President Obama and people blaming the GOP for the panic Obama manufactured over the sequester.
The sequester would mean precisely this: The federal government would spend more next year than this year. It would merely spend 5 percent less than politicians want to spend.
In other words, the government could do everything it is doing now.
Yet, the president paints a picture of children in the streets with begging bowls, crying for food, if Congress allows his sequester plan to take place.
The GOP-controlled House has passed a plan to avoid sequester. But the Democrat Senate won't pass it and the president would not sign it.
Government by continuing crisis is working, as is the plan to tear down America.
By the time people wake up, if ever, it will be too late.
It is a lot like being a citizen of Rome in 410 A.D., when the city was sacked by barbarians. Within a generation, the empire was dissolved.
Why? Polls show high approval for President Obama and people blaming the GOP for the panic Obama manufactured over the sequester.
The sequester would mean precisely this: The federal government would spend more next year than this year. It would merely spend 5 percent less than politicians want to spend.
In other words, the government could do everything it is doing now.
Yet, the president paints a picture of children in the streets with begging bowls, crying for food, if Congress allows his sequester plan to take place.
The GOP-controlled House has passed a plan to avoid sequester. But the Democrat Senate won't pass it and the president would not sign it.
Government by continuing crisis is working, as is the plan to tear down America.
By the time people wake up, if ever, it will be too late.
It is a lot like being a citizen of Rome in 410 A.D., when the city was sacked by barbarians. Within a generation, the empire was dissolved.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Lunacy at the top
President Obama's new line -- we can't cut our way to prosperity -- is meant to be a twist on the conservative staple that you can't tax your way to prosperity.
However, there is a slight difference. One is true and one is not.
Taxing -- taking money from the productive part of the economy and allowing politicians to "spread it around a bit" has not ever produced prosperity and never will.
On the other hand, the $5 trillion in spending added during the past six years Democrats have been in control has done nothing beneficial.
Think about it. None of that money was being spent six years ago and yet we were a healthy, happy, hale and hearty nation. The debt was worrisome but manageable -- if we had just frozen spending, without making cuts.
Obama has abandoned the pose of being a moderate and now is openly pushing to create a welfare state that will dwarf those in socialist countries.
Regardless what we can't do, what we can do is tax and spend our way to bankruptcy.
However, there is a slight difference. One is true and one is not.
Taxing -- taking money from the productive part of the economy and allowing politicians to "spread it around a bit" has not ever produced prosperity and never will.
On the other hand, the $5 trillion in spending added during the past six years Democrats have been in control has done nothing beneficial.
Think about it. None of that money was being spent six years ago and yet we were a healthy, happy, hale and hearty nation. The debt was worrisome but manageable -- if we had just frozen spending, without making cuts.
Obama has abandoned the pose of being a moderate and now is openly pushing to create a welfare state that will dwarf those in socialist countries.
Regardless what we can't do, what we can do is tax and spend our way to bankruptcy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
