One of the reasons Indiana's Democrats ran away to Illinois for over a month to deny a quorum at the statehouse was their close ties to the Teachers' union, which was strongly demanding they do whatever it takes to stop the school voucher program being pushed by the newly minted GOP majority.
The basic concept is that those who want to escape a terrible public school and actually go somewhere else to get an actual education, but don't have the means to pay private school tuition, will now be able to apply for the State of Indiana to contribute a defined amount of cash to whatever school they choose to attend.
The teachers are scared to death by this initiative, and are convinced it will eventually lead to the collapse of the public school systems. The opposite side of the argument is that it will provide competition and incentive for school administrators and teachers to step up their game and improve the quality of education in their schools to keep those students from bolting to a private school.
The fundamental question comes down to whether or not the idea will work. Ultimately the only way we can find out is if we try it, which I'm willing to do. Because there's no question that public schools in general, and the big city schools in particular, are an unmitigated disaster. Why must we continue to throw money at the schools and teachers until we're almost bankrupt, only to see the quality of education decline year after year?
Look at the Indianapolis Public Schools. They have wonderful football stadia and fantastic basketball arenas. But their students can't manage an SAT score good enough to qualify them for any of the state universities (unless they're a blue-chip athlete, which is different).
We hear more and more frightening tales about the dangers and outrages taking place in the hallways and restrooms of these taj mahal buildings. Bullies assault kids for not being cool enough. Underage couples have sex in the alcoves and bathrooms, and we can't be sure how often it should be classified as rape or assault. Illicit drugs and gangs selling them in the stairwells are a serious problem. Teachers hide in their classrooms or the lounge because they're afraid of being assaulted themselves if they take the chance to roam the halls alone during the school day.
Do you want your kid to go to these schools? I can't imagine any sane parent who would.
Yes, there's a pretty good chance that the schools in IPS might lose enough of their funding and students with this program that they'll have to be closed. But unless the administrators and teachers are willing to step up and demand standards of discipline and behavior in their schools and take back the hallways and restrooms, perhaps they deserve to close.
I'm not insensitive to some of the challenges these public schools are facing. They tremble in fear that a parent will sue them if they dare to discipline an unruly student. They fear that their best students will be the first to take the vouchers and escape to the private schools, but who can blame them?
Only boldness, dedication, and determination by the teams of principals, deans, counselors, and teachers can turn the disastrous schools around. Students in the cities come from poor, broken and disfunctional homes where there is little to no caring adult supervision are the most difficult to reach and inspire.
But our country's future depends on someone finding a way to do it, and if our public schools can't, maybe the private schools can.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Is My Perception Accurate?
I didn't really want to, but somehow ended up watching Obama's speech on Libya last night. What has me thinking this morning isn't about what he said, but how I perceived his speech.
Unless I've missed it, I don't see others (at least on the Web) who share my perception of Obama's speech. Has my perception of the speech been influenced by a deep mistrust and ingrained negative perception of Obama himself, or is my analysis of his speech accurate?
Time to describe the speech and my interpretation: Obama was the angry stepfather scolding all of us for being too stupid to understand his greatness.
Throughout the speech, it seemed his attitude and bearing came across as angry, defensive, condescending, and superior. His main point was that Gaddafi was a bad guy who was killing his own people, therefore we have a moral responsibility to step in to protect those innocent victims. The point was delivered with an air that said, you're all such idiots for not understanding this and forcing me to be here to explain.
Then lest anyone have the temerity to point out his naked hypocrisy based on the similar case made by Bush for Iraq, he made sure to petulantly point out that unlike (the evil) Bush, he successfully convinced the United Nations to sanction the effort and created a coalition with NATO and a couple of Arab countries.
The natural follow-up question to his attempt at moral superiority over his predecessor is, what if you failed to get the UN to go along? (Actually, his success was in getting the dissenting members of the security council like Russia and China to abstain rather than vote no). Would that make the mission still morally imperative, even if the United States had to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people by ourselves?
But asking silly questions like that of the Narcissist-in-Chief is beside the point. He failed to even try answering the main complaint about Libya, which is that he's bound by law to ask Congress for their approval before beginning such a foreign military adventure.
Please tell me, does the perception I get from this President as a spoiled brat narcissist whining at his detractors on National Television instead of making a sober and reasoned case for his Libyan war accurate? Does anyone else perceive him the same way, or have I somehow been blinded by my opposition to his other policies?
My own conclusion is that yes, I am sometimes influenced by my strongly negative opinions of Obama's policy priorities, nearly all of which I couldn't be stronger in my opposition. On the other hand, I have to believe that any honest and unbiased analysis of the speech would have to agree with my own assessment.
Unless I've missed it, I don't see others (at least on the Web) who share my perception of Obama's speech. Has my perception of the speech been influenced by a deep mistrust and ingrained negative perception of Obama himself, or is my analysis of his speech accurate?
Time to describe the speech and my interpretation: Obama was the angry stepfather scolding all of us for being too stupid to understand his greatness.
Throughout the speech, it seemed his attitude and bearing came across as angry, defensive, condescending, and superior. His main point was that Gaddafi was a bad guy who was killing his own people, therefore we have a moral responsibility to step in to protect those innocent victims. The point was delivered with an air that said, you're all such idiots for not understanding this and forcing me to be here to explain.
Then lest anyone have the temerity to point out his naked hypocrisy based on the similar case made by Bush for Iraq, he made sure to petulantly point out that unlike (the evil) Bush, he successfully convinced the United Nations to sanction the effort and created a coalition with NATO and a couple of Arab countries.
The natural follow-up question to his attempt at moral superiority over his predecessor is, what if you failed to get the UN to go along? (Actually, his success was in getting the dissenting members of the security council like Russia and China to abstain rather than vote no). Would that make the mission still morally imperative, even if the United States had to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people by ourselves?
But asking silly questions like that of the Narcissist-in-Chief is beside the point. He failed to even try answering the main complaint about Libya, which is that he's bound by law to ask Congress for their approval before beginning such a foreign military adventure.
Please tell me, does the perception I get from this President as a spoiled brat narcissist whining at his detractors on National Television instead of making a sober and reasoned case for his Libyan war accurate? Does anyone else perceive him the same way, or have I somehow been blinded by my opposition to his other policies?
My own conclusion is that yes, I am sometimes influenced by my strongly negative opinions of Obama's policy priorities, nearly all of which I couldn't be stronger in my opposition. On the other hand, I have to believe that any honest and unbiased analysis of the speech would have to agree with my own assessment.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Final Four is Set
This is an historic final four in many ways, most of the firsts due to Butler and VCU. That's just part of what makes it fun. Saturday's Butler regional final game against Florida had to be put on hold (via DVR) while we went to church. Florida looked like they were poised to blow the game wide open, but somehow Butler was able to recover and catch up within a point at halftime. So I felt somewhat hopeful as I set the DVR and headed out.
Then I came back home, had a bit of dinner, then headed back to watch the second half. I was able to avoid any news on the game, and could pretend I was watching the second half live - except for the ability to blow past commercials.
Once again, things looked grim midway through the second half, as Florida once again seemed to be taking over the game. But out of the blue, Brad Stevens sent in Crishawn Hopkins, a freshman who I don't recall having played in any of the previous games. Hopkins contributed energy to help his team, as well as a steal, a great assist, and a 3 pointer. He also turned the ball over on a bad pass and was taken out of the game, but the boost he gave the team was evident.
Matt Howard probably would have sealed the victory by winning his second free throw at the end of the game, and it surprised me that Florida chose not to try feeding one of their big men under the basket for the win where they'd been so dominant most of the game.
Instead, the semi-desperate 3-point shot at the buzzer bounced off and the game went to overtime. Butler looked fresh and feisty in overtime, and played like they sensed a victory. The clock was winding down within 30 seconds with a 1-point Bulldog lead when my DVR recording ended. Of course! Overtime went well past the scheduled end time for the game, so I wasn't going to see the last half minute.
Dad called at that precise moment when the recording stopped, asking what I thought about the Butler game. I told him I thought the game was very exciting, but I just wish I knew what happened in the last 30 seconds of overtime. He threatened to leave me in the dark, but then sort of filled me in on the Butler win, sealed by Mack.
I didn't mean to be disrepectful of Virginia Commonwealth in the previous post, and now they're Butler's opponent in the national semifinal game next weekend after shutting down Kansas. I saw that game, and my overall impressions were these: VCU clearly played with more energy and desire than Kansas, they shot the lights out from the 3-point arc, they played fast and didn't allow Kansas' shooters good looks from outside.
Kansas looked sluggish and bewildered as VCU ran out to a huge first-half lead, but seemed to right themselves early in the second half as they closed the gap to 2 points. I thought VCU would fold once Kansas caught them, but they managed to recover enough to stay ahead, fending off every Jayhawk run until they were in position to shoot free throws to seal their Final Four berth with a 10-point final margin.
It seemed that Kansas may have taken the game for granted, and just didn't have enough gas in the tank to fight back from that stunning first half.
It seems to me that Butler can and should beat VCU. My first hope is that VCU gets a case of nerves as they experience the awe of actually playing in the national semifinal game, while Butler's already been there and should know better how to deal with the situation.
VCU is a team that lives on an emotional energy, and the way to beat that energy is to play tight defense and frustrate them into turnovers early. If Butler can get ahead of VCU early, turn them over a few times and beat them on the boards, I think they can get VCU to begin giving into the pressure with more turnovers and bad shots. That could allow Butler to gain a runaway win.
But that also might be wishful thinking.
Based on what I've seen of the teams on the other side of the bracket, my pick for the final game from that other semifinal is Kentucky. If we get Butler and Kentucky into the championship game, anything can happen. Everything could also go exactly opposite of my predictions.
It's part of the fun of this tournament.
Then I came back home, had a bit of dinner, then headed back to watch the second half. I was able to avoid any news on the game, and could pretend I was watching the second half live - except for the ability to blow past commercials.
Once again, things looked grim midway through the second half, as Florida once again seemed to be taking over the game. But out of the blue, Brad Stevens sent in Crishawn Hopkins, a freshman who I don't recall having played in any of the previous games. Hopkins contributed energy to help his team, as well as a steal, a great assist, and a 3 pointer. He also turned the ball over on a bad pass and was taken out of the game, but the boost he gave the team was evident.
Matt Howard probably would have sealed the victory by winning his second free throw at the end of the game, and it surprised me that Florida chose not to try feeding one of their big men under the basket for the win where they'd been so dominant most of the game.
Instead, the semi-desperate 3-point shot at the buzzer bounced off and the game went to overtime. Butler looked fresh and feisty in overtime, and played like they sensed a victory. The clock was winding down within 30 seconds with a 1-point Bulldog lead when my DVR recording ended. Of course! Overtime went well past the scheduled end time for the game, so I wasn't going to see the last half minute.
Dad called at that precise moment when the recording stopped, asking what I thought about the Butler game. I told him I thought the game was very exciting, but I just wish I knew what happened in the last 30 seconds of overtime. He threatened to leave me in the dark, but then sort of filled me in on the Butler win, sealed by Mack.
I didn't mean to be disrepectful of Virginia Commonwealth in the previous post, and now they're Butler's opponent in the national semifinal game next weekend after shutting down Kansas. I saw that game, and my overall impressions were these: VCU clearly played with more energy and desire than Kansas, they shot the lights out from the 3-point arc, they played fast and didn't allow Kansas' shooters good looks from outside.
Kansas looked sluggish and bewildered as VCU ran out to a huge first-half lead, but seemed to right themselves early in the second half as they closed the gap to 2 points. I thought VCU would fold once Kansas caught them, but they managed to recover enough to stay ahead, fending off every Jayhawk run until they were in position to shoot free throws to seal their Final Four berth with a 10-point final margin.
It seemed that Kansas may have taken the game for granted, and just didn't have enough gas in the tank to fight back from that stunning first half.
It seems to me that Butler can and should beat VCU. My first hope is that VCU gets a case of nerves as they experience the awe of actually playing in the national semifinal game, while Butler's already been there and should know better how to deal with the situation.
VCU is a team that lives on an emotional energy, and the way to beat that energy is to play tight defense and frustrate them into turnovers early. If Butler can get ahead of VCU early, turn them over a few times and beat them on the boards, I think they can get VCU to begin giving into the pressure with more turnovers and bad shots. That could allow Butler to gain a runaway win.
But that also might be wishful thinking.
Based on what I've seen of the teams on the other side of the bracket, my pick for the final game from that other semifinal is Kentucky. If we get Butler and Kentucky into the championship game, anything can happen. Everything could also go exactly opposite of my predictions.
It's part of the fun of this tournament.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
NCAA Basketball Update
My bracket's busted, and I suspect those who seem to be winning right now must have cheated. Who except Kentucky fans had them beating Ohio State? That was a surprise to me.
Who figured Duke would get shot down so convincingly by Arizona?
The only teams still alive for me are Butler, Kansas and UConn. At least I picked one upset right, but only because I'm a Butler fan.
Today Butler's going to have to beat Florida if they want to get back to the Final Four. It would seem to me that they're going to need a healthy Andrew Smith to have a chance. If he's hobbled by the ankle sprain he picked up against Wisconsin, it's going to be very tough for the Dogs to contain the Florida bigs.
Even if Smith is hobbled, it would be a mistake to write them off. I think Donovan knows that as much as anybody, and he won't let his team take them for granted. My pick was BYU to beat Florida, and it would have been fun to see a Butler-BYU matchup because I think they're similar teams. But so far Butler's been able to find a way to win, and my hope is they can do it again, whether or not Smith's ankle cooperates.
Since Ohio State's gone, I'm not even going to try to pick the national champ. Most everybody in the Elite 8 seems capable, although I'm not completely sold on VCU yet.
It's been a fun tournament. I've been missing the Hoosiers, though, and am still a little upset with them for all the bad decisions they've made in the years since the sham firing of Bob Knight that turned them from one of the top basketball schools in the country to a mediocre also-ran.
Who figured Duke would get shot down so convincingly by Arizona?
The only teams still alive for me are Butler, Kansas and UConn. At least I picked one upset right, but only because I'm a Butler fan.
Today Butler's going to have to beat Florida if they want to get back to the Final Four. It would seem to me that they're going to need a healthy Andrew Smith to have a chance. If he's hobbled by the ankle sprain he picked up against Wisconsin, it's going to be very tough for the Dogs to contain the Florida bigs.
Even if Smith is hobbled, it would be a mistake to write them off. I think Donovan knows that as much as anybody, and he won't let his team take them for granted. My pick was BYU to beat Florida, and it would have been fun to see a Butler-BYU matchup because I think they're similar teams. But so far Butler's been able to find a way to win, and my hope is they can do it again, whether or not Smith's ankle cooperates.
Since Ohio State's gone, I'm not even going to try to pick the national champ. Most everybody in the Elite 8 seems capable, although I'm not completely sold on VCU yet.
It's been a fun tournament. I've been missing the Hoosiers, though, and am still a little upset with them for all the bad decisions they've made in the years since the sham firing of Bob Knight that turned them from one of the top basketball schools in the country to a mediocre also-ran.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Final Four
This year's NCAA tournament has been fun to follow, mainly because of Butler's second straight bracket-busting run.
Even without my kid who's now a Butler alum, I still would be a fan. Partly because they're from Indiana, but mostly because it's the sort of team I can admire. These guys aren't the types who went to college for only one year and only pretended to be students while they auditioned for the NBA (see Kentucky).
They're solid students and solid citizens who just happen to play basketball really well. Look at guys like Shelvin Mack and Matt Howard and Ron Nored, who seem to be both great basketball players and great guys. Look at their coach, Brad Stevens, and you'll understand the truth about how great teams are a reflection of their leaders.
Can they make it back to the Final Four? Sure.
Will they make it back? Who knows.
But to get this far the second year in a row when everyone still wrote them off as a fluke has been really fun to watch. If they lose to Wisconsin tonight it won't take away from what a terrific achievement it's been for them. I believe they've overachieved this year to an even greater degree than last year, because this year everyone they played knew better than to take them for granted.
But they still win every game by a whisker. I'll have to stay up late to catch every minute of the game, and hope they dispose of Wisconsin and move on to meet BYU (my pick) for the opportunity to play in another Final Four.
Even without my kid who's now a Butler alum, I still would be a fan. Partly because they're from Indiana, but mostly because it's the sort of team I can admire. These guys aren't the types who went to college for only one year and only pretended to be students while they auditioned for the NBA (see Kentucky).
They're solid students and solid citizens who just happen to play basketball really well. Look at guys like Shelvin Mack and Matt Howard and Ron Nored, who seem to be both great basketball players and great guys. Look at their coach, Brad Stevens, and you'll understand the truth about how great teams are a reflection of their leaders.
Can they make it back to the Final Four? Sure.
Will they make it back? Who knows.
But to get this far the second year in a row when everyone still wrote them off as a fluke has been really fun to watch. If they lose to Wisconsin tonight it won't take away from what a terrific achievement it's been for them. I believe they've overachieved this year to an even greater degree than last year, because this year everyone they played knew better than to take them for granted.
But they still win every game by a whisker. I'll have to stay up late to catch every minute of the game, and hope they dispose of Wisconsin and move on to meet BYU (my pick) for the opportunity to play in another Final Four.
Notes on NFL
Those who know me also know I'm a pretty big sports nut. I've been a Colts fan since before they moved from Baltimore (when Ted Marchibroda coached them the first time around), and even kept tabs on them during their horrible years in Indy.
So you might be surprised to find out my attitude on the current contract dispute between the NFL and the players. I don't really care.
Not that I won't miss the NFL if they don't play in the fall, of course that would be disappointing. But I don't expect that to happen. There's too much money at stake for both sides, so it seems silly and stupid for them to lose a season arguing over their respective slices of the pie.
If you've been reading my posts about the union fights happening in various states, I hope you didn't make the mistake of assuming I'm anti-union, and therefore somehow favoring the NFL owners over the NFLPA. Not at all.
The players are certainly free to form a union to bargain for the best possible deal for their members. Since nobody forces me to pay for their salaries and benefits, I don't care how rich their contracts get. Forces of basic economics will be applied if the package is too rich - people will simply quit buying tickets and merchandise if the prices get too high, and if the NFL network charges too much in subscription fees, even big fans like me will simply choose not to subscribe.
Owners want to set specific terms for the contract that have nothing to do with actual revenues. In other words, they want to fix the costs they must pay out to their players rather than have to share a percentage of revenues. That's understandable, and they have every right to make such demands.
Players want to guarantee a baseline of compensation, then get a cut of revenues on top of that. They want the owners to assume all the downside risk, but make sure they share in the upside. That sounds like a pretty good deal for them if they can get it, and they did get it in the previous contract. They have every right to make such demands.
What makes it harder to get an agreement in the NFL as opposed to pretty much any other private business concern is the fact that the NFL is a monopoly. Players have a short shelf life, and the NFL's the only game in town. So if there's any leverage in these negotiations, it would seem to rest with the owners.
If the stalemate gets really bad, I suppose the players could all chip in and start a pro league of their own. Wouldn't that be interesting?
If the two sides refuse to budge and there isn't a 2011 season, it will turn off the fans. People will get disgusted with both sides, seeing billionaires arguing with millionaires over a game. They'll find other sources of entertainment for the lost NFL season, and may not come back when the league finally opens for business next year.
Sure, I'll miss the NFL if the lockout stretches through this coming season. But all I have to do is switch my attention to other things, like high school and college football, which are much more deserving of my attention anyway.
So you might be surprised to find out my attitude on the current contract dispute between the NFL and the players. I don't really care.
Not that I won't miss the NFL if they don't play in the fall, of course that would be disappointing. But I don't expect that to happen. There's too much money at stake for both sides, so it seems silly and stupid for them to lose a season arguing over their respective slices of the pie.
If you've been reading my posts about the union fights happening in various states, I hope you didn't make the mistake of assuming I'm anti-union, and therefore somehow favoring the NFL owners over the NFLPA. Not at all.
The players are certainly free to form a union to bargain for the best possible deal for their members. Since nobody forces me to pay for their salaries and benefits, I don't care how rich their contracts get. Forces of basic economics will be applied if the package is too rich - people will simply quit buying tickets and merchandise if the prices get too high, and if the NFL network charges too much in subscription fees, even big fans like me will simply choose not to subscribe.
Owners want to set specific terms for the contract that have nothing to do with actual revenues. In other words, they want to fix the costs they must pay out to their players rather than have to share a percentage of revenues. That's understandable, and they have every right to make such demands.
Players want to guarantee a baseline of compensation, then get a cut of revenues on top of that. They want the owners to assume all the downside risk, but make sure they share in the upside. That sounds like a pretty good deal for them if they can get it, and they did get it in the previous contract. They have every right to make such demands.
What makes it harder to get an agreement in the NFL as opposed to pretty much any other private business concern is the fact that the NFL is a monopoly. Players have a short shelf life, and the NFL's the only game in town. So if there's any leverage in these negotiations, it would seem to rest with the owners.
If the stalemate gets really bad, I suppose the players could all chip in and start a pro league of their own. Wouldn't that be interesting?
If the two sides refuse to budge and there isn't a 2011 season, it will turn off the fans. People will get disgusted with both sides, seeing billionaires arguing with millionaires over a game. They'll find other sources of entertainment for the lost NFL season, and may not come back when the league finally opens for business next year.
Sure, I'll miss the NFL if the lockout stretches through this coming season. But all I have to do is switch my attention to other things, like high school and college football, which are much more deserving of my attention anyway.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
If I Were Liberal
I'd be extremely upset with my president right now.
He failed to close the Guantanamo terrorist prison.
He failed to raise taxes on the rich.
He passed a disastrous healthcare bill that failed to deliver universal, medicare-style healthcare for every citizen.
He took his sweet time winding down the Iraq war with policies undistinguishable from the evil Bush.
He failed to push through Card Check, and now newly elected Republican state governors and legislators are moving to destroy what's left of our labor unions.
He failed to pass meaningful environmental laws, especially Cap & Trade, and with $4 gas returning it may be too late.
He failed to naturalize the 12 million or so illegal immigrants and open the border, and now there might not be enough votes out there to keep Republicans from taking over completely next year.
He failed to make gay marriage the law of the land.
Now the economy is destroyed and he's being blamed, but things would be getting much better if only he'd just been bolder with our agenda.
Now the Republicans just might succeed in defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood and maybe even much of the EPA, which will be a horrible disaster for us.
Worst of all, he just committed us to war against Libya without even asking Congress for their opinion. At least Bush went to Congress for permission before he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (even though as a liberal I would still believe he lied to them to get that permission).
Must be tough to be a liberal these days.
He failed to close the Guantanamo terrorist prison.
He failed to raise taxes on the rich.
He passed a disastrous healthcare bill that failed to deliver universal, medicare-style healthcare for every citizen.
He took his sweet time winding down the Iraq war with policies undistinguishable from the evil Bush.
He failed to push through Card Check, and now newly elected Republican state governors and legislators are moving to destroy what's left of our labor unions.
He failed to pass meaningful environmental laws, especially Cap & Trade, and with $4 gas returning it may be too late.
He failed to naturalize the 12 million or so illegal immigrants and open the border, and now there might not be enough votes out there to keep Republicans from taking over completely next year.
He failed to make gay marriage the law of the land.
Now the economy is destroyed and he's being blamed, but things would be getting much better if only he'd just been bolder with our agenda.
Now the Republicans just might succeed in defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood and maybe even much of the EPA, which will be a horrible disaster for us.
Worst of all, he just committed us to war against Libya without even asking Congress for their opinion. At least Bush went to Congress for permission before he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (even though as a liberal I would still believe he lied to them to get that permission).
Must be tough to be a liberal these days.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Redistricting
Some recent stories have helped explain why the Indiana Democrats still won't return to the statehouse. Apparently their tactic is focused on more than union issues; they also are seeking a way to stop the Indiana assembly from completing their once-a-decade job of redistricting the state's congressional seats.
The last decade's redistricting task was completed with the Democrats in charge. All it takes is a glance at the map to understand the degree of gerrymandering that took place last time around.
Districts 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 were designed to be "safe" Democrat districts. But the backlash election in 2010 had the effect of moving the more moderate 8th and 9th districts back into the Republican column.
What are the Republicans promising to do this time around? Eliminate gerrymandering and keep communities together, stopping the practice of splitting cities by drawing lines in the same town to maximize the possibility of creating a "safe" Democrat congressional seat.
Republicans announced a series of open meetings across the state to get people's input on the new district lines. They've hired outside consultants to help them draw the lines with the stated purpose of eliminating partisan advantage and keeping communities together in the same district.
On its face, it sounds completely reasonable, and it's certainly transparent. But Democrats are going to fight to the bitter end to stop it from happening. Apparently because they believe this approach puts them at a disadvantage.
They will argue that their gerrymandering gives their constituencies (presumably poor, minorities, and urbanites) a better chance to be represented in congress, because a partisan-blind district boundary subjects Indiana to what they see as a tyranny of the majority. In making this argument, they seem to be admitting that the majority of Hoosiers live on the Center-Right side of the political spectrum.
It's a very simple and fundamental question: Is it fair to draw districts without any attempt to engineer a desired political outcome, or is it fair to "protect" minorities by drawing districts that allow them to send one of "their own" to congress?
I'm sort of offended by the idea that anyone needs to be "protected", and especially that any group of citizens would look at things in terms of being represented by "one of their own". How paternalistic and condescending can some folks get?
Would the Democrats currently hiding out in plain sight in Illinois prefer the Republicans create their own gerrymandered districts to cut the Democrat advantage down from, say, 5 to 3 "safe Democrat" districts? Either way, they should be making their arguments from Indianapolis instead of continuing their game of hide and seek in Illinois.
The last decade's redistricting task was completed with the Democrats in charge. All it takes is a glance at the map to understand the degree of gerrymandering that took place last time around.
Districts 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 were designed to be "safe" Democrat districts. But the backlash election in 2010 had the effect of moving the more moderate 8th and 9th districts back into the Republican column.
What are the Republicans promising to do this time around? Eliminate gerrymandering and keep communities together, stopping the practice of splitting cities by drawing lines in the same town to maximize the possibility of creating a "safe" Democrat congressional seat.
Republicans announced a series of open meetings across the state to get people's input on the new district lines. They've hired outside consultants to help them draw the lines with the stated purpose of eliminating partisan advantage and keeping communities together in the same district.
On its face, it sounds completely reasonable, and it's certainly transparent. But Democrats are going to fight to the bitter end to stop it from happening. Apparently because they believe this approach puts them at a disadvantage.
They will argue that their gerrymandering gives their constituencies (presumably poor, minorities, and urbanites) a better chance to be represented in congress, because a partisan-blind district boundary subjects Indiana to what they see as a tyranny of the majority. In making this argument, they seem to be admitting that the majority of Hoosiers live on the Center-Right side of the political spectrum.
It's a very simple and fundamental question: Is it fair to draw districts without any attempt to engineer a desired political outcome, or is it fair to "protect" minorities by drawing districts that allow them to send one of "their own" to congress?
I'm sort of offended by the idea that anyone needs to be "protected", and especially that any group of citizens would look at things in terms of being represented by "one of their own". How paternalistic and condescending can some folks get?
Would the Democrats currently hiding out in plain sight in Illinois prefer the Republicans create their own gerrymandered districts to cut the Democrat advantage down from, say, 5 to 3 "safe Democrat" districts? Either way, they should be making their arguments from Indianapolis instead of continuing their game of hide and seek in Illinois.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
When the Leader Can't Lead
There's an undercurrent surrounding the meltdowns around the world, from the literal one in Japan to the figurative ones in the Middle East and a growing number of states here at home. The underlying theme is the palpable lack of leadership from the one person we normally expect to step forward - our country's President.
In Japan, while the historic earthquake and accompanying tsunami devastated their island, our President was playing golf and thinking about his NCAA brackets. His traditional Saturday radio address was phoned in from before the disaster so he could take the weekend off, and was just about one of the Left's favorite topics - equal pay for women.
The pattern is more important than the appearance that he cares more about his tee time, getting on ESPN to share his basketball tournament picks, vacationing in Rio, and throwing bones to the left-wing base than about stepping up to help solve the world's problems. The pattern is clear and undeniable.
Egypt and Syria: He cheered the ouster of Mubarak in Eqypt, but did nothing about it other than express his support after it became apparent that the protesters would succeed. Likewise, he's stated that Gaddafi must go, but has done nothing to help make it happen. Regardless whether it was a good idea to support the rebels in Libya, he failed miserably in even the simple expression of a comprehendable policy on the matter.
Japan's Nuclear Problem: He sent the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. He promised to help with shipping relief and nuclear engineers. He expressed condolences. But Japan desperately needs help with those melting reactor cores, while the President's actions implicitly communicate that it's not his problem. A true leader would have recruited and appointed the best nuclear scientist to head up a team to go help Japan solve the problem, backed up by every piece of technology they require. He would have started building this team as soon as the disaster happened (giving up his tee time to do so), and immediately met with Japan's Prime Minister and the Power Company to pave the way for his team of experts to hit the ground running.
Growing Strife at Home: From the budget fight to the individual state battles, one might call what he's done leadership. That is, if you consider fanning the flames of protest by directing his PAC, Organizing for America, and affiliated organizations like MoveOn.org to load up busloads of folks and pay them minimum wage to go protest in what's now something like 8 states and growing. A true leader would put his partisanship aside and travel to each of these states to invite the statehouse Republican and Democrat combatants and attempt to serve as a peacemaker, trying to help find the middle ground that helps them solve their problems. A true leader would have put out a federal budget proposal that takes deficit reduction seriously, but he chose instead to send a budget that makes it far worse. Then he has been conspicuously absent from the debate, basically telling congress to give him what he wants or he'll use the veto pen.
Energy: The alarming run-up in energy cost seems to fit his agenda, as he strongly suggests $4 gas is a good thing, because it somehow will help us accelerate our transition to "clean and renewable energy". Only the far left would consider his action (or inaction) on this problem leadership. He arguably has worked hard to make sure abundant North American energy sources including oil, coal, and natural gas are shut down. It would seem he's immune or uncaring about the economic disaster these rising energy costs and associated food costs is already taking form.
We desperately need a leader. 2012 may be too late to find one.
In Japan, while the historic earthquake and accompanying tsunami devastated their island, our President was playing golf and thinking about his NCAA brackets. His traditional Saturday radio address was phoned in from before the disaster so he could take the weekend off, and was just about one of the Left's favorite topics - equal pay for women.
The pattern is more important than the appearance that he cares more about his tee time, getting on ESPN to share his basketball tournament picks, vacationing in Rio, and throwing bones to the left-wing base than about stepping up to help solve the world's problems. The pattern is clear and undeniable.
Egypt and Syria: He cheered the ouster of Mubarak in Eqypt, but did nothing about it other than express his support after it became apparent that the protesters would succeed. Likewise, he's stated that Gaddafi must go, but has done nothing to help make it happen. Regardless whether it was a good idea to support the rebels in Libya, he failed miserably in even the simple expression of a comprehendable policy on the matter.
Japan's Nuclear Problem: He sent the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. He promised to help with shipping relief and nuclear engineers. He expressed condolences. But Japan desperately needs help with those melting reactor cores, while the President's actions implicitly communicate that it's not his problem. A true leader would have recruited and appointed the best nuclear scientist to head up a team to go help Japan solve the problem, backed up by every piece of technology they require. He would have started building this team as soon as the disaster happened (giving up his tee time to do so), and immediately met with Japan's Prime Minister and the Power Company to pave the way for his team of experts to hit the ground running.
Growing Strife at Home: From the budget fight to the individual state battles, one might call what he's done leadership. That is, if you consider fanning the flames of protest by directing his PAC, Organizing for America, and affiliated organizations like MoveOn.org to load up busloads of folks and pay them minimum wage to go protest in what's now something like 8 states and growing. A true leader would put his partisanship aside and travel to each of these states to invite the statehouse Republican and Democrat combatants and attempt to serve as a peacemaker, trying to help find the middle ground that helps them solve their problems. A true leader would have put out a federal budget proposal that takes deficit reduction seriously, but he chose instead to send a budget that makes it far worse. Then he has been conspicuously absent from the debate, basically telling congress to give him what he wants or he'll use the veto pen.
Energy: The alarming run-up in energy cost seems to fit his agenda, as he strongly suggests $4 gas is a good thing, because it somehow will help us accelerate our transition to "clean and renewable energy". Only the far left would consider his action (or inaction) on this problem leadership. He arguably has worked hard to make sure abundant North American energy sources including oil, coal, and natural gas are shut down. It would seem he's immune or uncaring about the economic disaster these rising energy costs and associated food costs is already taking form.
We desperately need a leader. 2012 may be too late to find one.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Purpose of Polls
We can't watch a news program or ready an article without being fed poll results. Polls turn out not to be so much about gauging people's attitudes and opinions and more about influencing those attitudes and opinions.
It's all in the questions asked. Just look at the recent fight in Wisconsin. At issue, should government employees have the "right" to collective bargaining?
So the "pro" side on collective bargaining (read Democrats) run out and poll everyone, asking the generic question something along the lines of "Do you support a right of workers to form a union for the purpose of negotiating salary, benefits, and working conditions?"
Most people, something around 80 percent if I caught the poll results right, said yes. To the specific question above, I'm part of the 80 percent as well. But when the Democrats trumpet the 80 percent as proof of universal approval on the side of the public employee unions, they're wrong. Because after careful consideration and study of the underlying facts, I concluded that Wisconsin is doing the right thing.
The other side cites similar numbers when asking the public questions about whether it's reasonable for government to ask their employees to contribute something from their own paychecks to their pensions and health insurance.
Polls are used as sort of a bludgeon to convince average people that they must support the teachers' union because if they don't, they must belong to the 20 percent of idiots who don't support a right to collective bargaining. Or the flip side will tell average people that if they support collective bargaining for teachers, their government will go bankrupt while teachers live like leeches in a cushy Florida retirement condo.
The polls themselves are highly effective tools used by both parties to influence public sentiment, ultimately so those behind the polls can gain and keep power. It leads me to think that maybe it's time for the general public to end the manipulation.
A suggestion for a new movement - the anti-manipulative pollster movement. Whenever you get called by a pollster and given a question that's obviously crafted to elicit a response that can be used to support a political agenda, just say no. Refuse to participate unless asked a relevant question.
At least it will skew the results enough that it might discourage irresponsible polling.
It's all in the questions asked. Just look at the recent fight in Wisconsin. At issue, should government employees have the "right" to collective bargaining?
So the "pro" side on collective bargaining (read Democrats) run out and poll everyone, asking the generic question something along the lines of "Do you support a right of workers to form a union for the purpose of negotiating salary, benefits, and working conditions?"
Most people, something around 80 percent if I caught the poll results right, said yes. To the specific question above, I'm part of the 80 percent as well. But when the Democrats trumpet the 80 percent as proof of universal approval on the side of the public employee unions, they're wrong. Because after careful consideration and study of the underlying facts, I concluded that Wisconsin is doing the right thing.
The other side cites similar numbers when asking the public questions about whether it's reasonable for government to ask their employees to contribute something from their own paychecks to their pensions and health insurance.
Polls are used as sort of a bludgeon to convince average people that they must support the teachers' union because if they don't, they must belong to the 20 percent of idiots who don't support a right to collective bargaining. Or the flip side will tell average people that if they support collective bargaining for teachers, their government will go bankrupt while teachers live like leeches in a cushy Florida retirement condo.
The polls themselves are highly effective tools used by both parties to influence public sentiment, ultimately so those behind the polls can gain and keep power. It leads me to think that maybe it's time for the general public to end the manipulation.
A suggestion for a new movement - the anti-manipulative pollster movement. Whenever you get called by a pollster and given a question that's obviously crafted to elicit a response that can be used to support a political agenda, just say no. Refuse to participate unless asked a relevant question.
At least it will skew the results enough that it might discourage irresponsible polling.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Arguing with a Democrat
Its rare when I actually have a discussion of politics with a Democrat, but did so over the weekend. The experience was enlightening, if painful. Enlightening not in the sense I was won over - far from it, but painful in the sense that if you want to maintain a pleasant relationship with someone who lives on Democrat Island, it's probably best to avoid the subject of politics.
First and foremost, a Democrat lives on their feelings and perceptions, and perhaps most surprising to me is fiercely loyal to their party. Democrats feel things deeply, and it seems that's the primary reason they choose to be Democrats. They believe with near-religious fervor that their party is the only hope for the poor and middle class, and Republicans are evil Barons bent on acquiring obscene levels of wealth without the slightest regard to and at the expense of their fellow man.
If I believed all that, I suppose I'd be a Democrat too. But I don't because I'm intensely curious, analytical, and my life is ruled by studying the facts and making what I believe to be reasoned conclusions. And I'm not at all loyal to Republicans, which seems to be something a Democrat can't understand about me.
Some of the things my Democrat friend tried very hard to convince me:
Why we had $4 gas a few years ago? Bush taking care of his cronies in the oil companies. Why is it back to $4 now? Same greedy evil oil companies. The GOP is just making it hard for Obama to break up the oil barons' club.
What was the Iraq war all about? Bush's gift to his oil industry buddies, especially Halliburton.
Opinion of the Democrats fleeing to Illinois from Wisconsin and Indiana? Enthusiastic support. If the evil Republicans get their way, we'll be back to 80 hour workweeks in unsafe sweatshops for only a few bucks a day, maybe even child labor.
What caused the financial collapse? Greedy bankers. And Republican government giving incentives to industries to move their operations offshore.
How to solve the budget crisis? Tax the greedy bankers and greedy oil companies.
Bill Clinton's impeachment? A trumped-up vendetta orchestrated by evil Republicans who wanted payback for Nixon. (That one really blew my mind).
When I tried to suggest that these simplistic and fantastic theories were not supported by the facts, unfortunately I offended my Democrat friend. Even though this friend had just finished informing me that I have been brainwashed by some right-wing propaganda machine and there are two sides to every story, my response attempting to offer some factual evidence to refute or leaven some of these opinions was taken as condescension.
My biggest revelations in the conversation were two:
A Democrat has a self image that says something like, "I'm right, you're evil". Notice in the litany above that every belief included a reference to an evil, greedy Republican, or Oil Company, or Banker. There's this sort of black and white, us versus them mentality. I'm sure there is some of this mentality on the Right, but I haven't encountered it nearly to the level of this Democrat or those on TV.
A Democrat finds facts irritating and irrelevant. Introducing factual information as an attempt to introduce some reason to the argument was the point that induced offense. Facts are discarded as mere right-wing propaganda.
Something that is consistent nearly every time I hear a Democrat speak about an issue is that they are more likely to demonize the proponents of the other side of the issue than to present strong arguments for their side. My failure to engage any discussion of a specific issue without having my friend move immediately off the topic to demonize someone on their hit list seems to have proven the point.
The thing that concerns me after my conversation is the use of offense to shut off the conversation. Like Democrats did in Wisconsin and Indiana, when they stop communicating and charge the others with being offensive, it's impossible to arrive at common ground.
You see, this Democrat might be surprised to find we agree far more than we disagree. Is there corruption and greed in the world? Of course there is. Does that make all conservatives corrupt and greedy? Does that suggest that Democrats are never greedy or corrupt? That's ridiculous.
What I prefer is to talk about solutions. I don't want to argue about Whether Clinton was more corrupt than Nixon, or Obama more than Bush. A Democrat will defend Obama to the end, while I don't care to defend Bush except when the charge is false or unfair. I took issue with many Bush policies, but take issue with nearly all Obama policies. Those differences aren't because of party affiliation or the slant by the media, and certainly not race. They're based solely on my study of those policies which led to a sincere belief that those policies do terrible harm to our country.
The Democrat thinks it's the job of the Federal government to take care of people. I think it's the job of government to protect people from fraud and harm, but that it's the responsibility of people to take care of each other.
Such is the essence of the difference between the Democrat and me.
First and foremost, a Democrat lives on their feelings and perceptions, and perhaps most surprising to me is fiercely loyal to their party. Democrats feel things deeply, and it seems that's the primary reason they choose to be Democrats. They believe with near-religious fervor that their party is the only hope for the poor and middle class, and Republicans are evil Barons bent on acquiring obscene levels of wealth without the slightest regard to and at the expense of their fellow man.
If I believed all that, I suppose I'd be a Democrat too. But I don't because I'm intensely curious, analytical, and my life is ruled by studying the facts and making what I believe to be reasoned conclusions. And I'm not at all loyal to Republicans, which seems to be something a Democrat can't understand about me.
Some of the things my Democrat friend tried very hard to convince me:
Why we had $4 gas a few years ago? Bush taking care of his cronies in the oil companies. Why is it back to $4 now? Same greedy evil oil companies. The GOP is just making it hard for Obama to break up the oil barons' club.
What was the Iraq war all about? Bush's gift to his oil industry buddies, especially Halliburton.
Opinion of the Democrats fleeing to Illinois from Wisconsin and Indiana? Enthusiastic support. If the evil Republicans get their way, we'll be back to 80 hour workweeks in unsafe sweatshops for only a few bucks a day, maybe even child labor.
What caused the financial collapse? Greedy bankers. And Republican government giving incentives to industries to move their operations offshore.
How to solve the budget crisis? Tax the greedy bankers and greedy oil companies.
Bill Clinton's impeachment? A trumped-up vendetta orchestrated by evil Republicans who wanted payback for Nixon. (That one really blew my mind).
When I tried to suggest that these simplistic and fantastic theories were not supported by the facts, unfortunately I offended my Democrat friend. Even though this friend had just finished informing me that I have been brainwashed by some right-wing propaganda machine and there are two sides to every story, my response attempting to offer some factual evidence to refute or leaven some of these opinions was taken as condescension.
My biggest revelations in the conversation were two:
A Democrat has a self image that says something like, "I'm right, you're evil". Notice in the litany above that every belief included a reference to an evil, greedy Republican, or Oil Company, or Banker. There's this sort of black and white, us versus them mentality. I'm sure there is some of this mentality on the Right, but I haven't encountered it nearly to the level of this Democrat or those on TV.
A Democrat finds facts irritating and irrelevant. Introducing factual information as an attempt to introduce some reason to the argument was the point that induced offense. Facts are discarded as mere right-wing propaganda.
Something that is consistent nearly every time I hear a Democrat speak about an issue is that they are more likely to demonize the proponents of the other side of the issue than to present strong arguments for their side. My failure to engage any discussion of a specific issue without having my friend move immediately off the topic to demonize someone on their hit list seems to have proven the point.
The thing that concerns me after my conversation is the use of offense to shut off the conversation. Like Democrats did in Wisconsin and Indiana, when they stop communicating and charge the others with being offensive, it's impossible to arrive at common ground.
You see, this Democrat might be surprised to find we agree far more than we disagree. Is there corruption and greed in the world? Of course there is. Does that make all conservatives corrupt and greedy? Does that suggest that Democrats are never greedy or corrupt? That's ridiculous.
What I prefer is to talk about solutions. I don't want to argue about Whether Clinton was more corrupt than Nixon, or Obama more than Bush. A Democrat will defend Obama to the end, while I don't care to defend Bush except when the charge is false or unfair. I took issue with many Bush policies, but take issue with nearly all Obama policies. Those differences aren't because of party affiliation or the slant by the media, and certainly not race. They're based solely on my study of those policies which led to a sincere belief that those policies do terrible harm to our country.
The Democrat thinks it's the job of the Federal government to take care of people. I think it's the job of government to protect people from fraud and harm, but that it's the responsibility of people to take care of each other.
Such is the essence of the difference between the Democrat and me.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Rational Conclusions
Indiana Democrats decided to follow Wisconsin's example and fled to Illinois in protest of the Republican's introduction of a Right to Work law. Indiana's issue isn't the same as Wisconsin's, even though both involve unions.
There's been plenty of time and plenty of available information for the rest of us to understand the nature of the conflict. My own evolution of understanding has followed a path which started with some agreement with both sides, but ended with solid support of the right (or Right) side.
Allow me to share my analysis of some of the arguments.
Wisconsin's budget bill features a change in the relationship between the state and the teachers union. That's why the Democrats fled to Illinois, and that's why the Wisconsin state house has looked more like Eqypt than America the last couple of weeks.
The teachers union argues that they've already agreed to the governor's proposed increases in their contribution levels to their health insurance and pension. Therefore, they argue, there's no need to "take away their collective bargaining rights".
On its face, the argument seems reasonable. If they union will agree to adjustments in their contracts to help solve the state's budget crisis, then why take the extra step of cutting back on their bargaining power?
First of all, contrary to the message most of us get from the nightly news, the governor isn't disbanding the teacher's union. Nor is it accurate to characterize the bill as "taking away collective bargaining rights". What the bill actually proposes is to limit collective bargaining to wages only, letting the state set benefits. It also allows each teacher a choice whether or not they wish to be represented by the union.
That second change, shared with Indiana and generally called "Right to Work", is anathema to unions everywhere, both public and private sector. Because the unions believe that if rank and file employees are permitted to make their own choices on union membership, many of them will say "no thanks".
According to one of the articles I've read on the subject, unions grab between $800 and $1200 per year from their members, through direct payroll deductions. Young teachers especially have a hard time parting with that much in dues, which could be 4 or 5 percent of their income. So whether or not Governor Walker and the Indiana GOP are targeting closed shops out of a clear end-game objective of killing the unions altogether, it is fair to assume such a law will make it much more difficult for union leaders to keep their organization intact.
I have never begrudged the idea that people could get together as a group to negotiate better pay and working conditions with their employer. That fundamental principle has seemed to be a positive development for folks in the past, helping make workplaces safer, wages better, and helped establish the 40-hour workweek.
But today's unions don't seem to be in business for those basic purposes. The mob moved in to make unions their own personal piggy banks, and it seems that may not have changed much. Today's major unions are the primary source of funds and political action for the Democrat party, to the point where an entire political party stands as the government representative of the union and bureaucrat class.
Why does Walker want to cut back on teacher's union power in his state? Because despite the union claims that they're willing to accept changes to their contracts to go along with his fiscal plans, their contracts aren't with the State. Their contracts are with their individual school districts. Walker's point is that the effect of the inextricable partnership between the Teacher's Union and the Democrat Party is that the school boards negotiating the contracts were put in place by the union, therefore the contract negotiation ends up the functional equivalent of the teachers union sitting down and writing the contract to fulfill its own desires.
If Walker and his GOP legislators back down and drop the union provisions from the bill, there's a high likelihood that many of the school boards still holding majorities of teachers union cronies will ignore the budgetary revisions and may keep or expand the existing contracts.
There's another way he might be able to accomplish his goals without the union bargaining provisions - just tie state education funding to local school districts to those school districts meeting the state's budgetary standards. But I understand and now basically support his goals.
Then there's the Right to Work issue in Indiana. What I suspect lots of Hoosiers don't know is the fact that that particular bill has already been pulled off the table, and apparently the governor has tried to appease the missing Democrat legislators by promising it won't be brought back this session.
So why are the Democrats still hiding out in Illinois? Because they want more. They are now demanding that 11 bills be taken down, some of which have already passed both houses. They're no longer using this tactic over the Right to Work issue, but have decided to make it a standard tactic to try to kill any and all bills they don't like. That's not good.
On Right to Work in general, my take is that closed union shops are unconstitutional. States like Indiana that permit closed union shops are in violation of Freedom of Association. I believe that if you talk about rights, there is no right for unions to force all workers in a company to join their organization as a prerequisite to holding a job with the company. Every worker should have the choice whether or not to belong to the union, and every union member should vote on their level of dues and how those dues are spent.
Those are the real freedom issues.
There's been plenty of time and plenty of available information for the rest of us to understand the nature of the conflict. My own evolution of understanding has followed a path which started with some agreement with both sides, but ended with solid support of the right (or Right) side.
Allow me to share my analysis of some of the arguments.
Wisconsin's budget bill features a change in the relationship between the state and the teachers union. That's why the Democrats fled to Illinois, and that's why the Wisconsin state house has looked more like Eqypt than America the last couple of weeks.
The teachers union argues that they've already agreed to the governor's proposed increases in their contribution levels to their health insurance and pension. Therefore, they argue, there's no need to "take away their collective bargaining rights".
On its face, the argument seems reasonable. If they union will agree to adjustments in their contracts to help solve the state's budget crisis, then why take the extra step of cutting back on their bargaining power?
First of all, contrary to the message most of us get from the nightly news, the governor isn't disbanding the teacher's union. Nor is it accurate to characterize the bill as "taking away collective bargaining rights". What the bill actually proposes is to limit collective bargaining to wages only, letting the state set benefits. It also allows each teacher a choice whether or not they wish to be represented by the union.
That second change, shared with Indiana and generally called "Right to Work", is anathema to unions everywhere, both public and private sector. Because the unions believe that if rank and file employees are permitted to make their own choices on union membership, many of them will say "no thanks".
According to one of the articles I've read on the subject, unions grab between $800 and $1200 per year from their members, through direct payroll deductions. Young teachers especially have a hard time parting with that much in dues, which could be 4 or 5 percent of their income. So whether or not Governor Walker and the Indiana GOP are targeting closed shops out of a clear end-game objective of killing the unions altogether, it is fair to assume such a law will make it much more difficult for union leaders to keep their organization intact.
I have never begrudged the idea that people could get together as a group to negotiate better pay and working conditions with their employer. That fundamental principle has seemed to be a positive development for folks in the past, helping make workplaces safer, wages better, and helped establish the 40-hour workweek.
But today's unions don't seem to be in business for those basic purposes. The mob moved in to make unions their own personal piggy banks, and it seems that may not have changed much. Today's major unions are the primary source of funds and political action for the Democrat party, to the point where an entire political party stands as the government representative of the union and bureaucrat class.
Why does Walker want to cut back on teacher's union power in his state? Because despite the union claims that they're willing to accept changes to their contracts to go along with his fiscal plans, their contracts aren't with the State. Their contracts are with their individual school districts. Walker's point is that the effect of the inextricable partnership between the Teacher's Union and the Democrat Party is that the school boards negotiating the contracts were put in place by the union, therefore the contract negotiation ends up the functional equivalent of the teachers union sitting down and writing the contract to fulfill its own desires.
If Walker and his GOP legislators back down and drop the union provisions from the bill, there's a high likelihood that many of the school boards still holding majorities of teachers union cronies will ignore the budgetary revisions and may keep or expand the existing contracts.
There's another way he might be able to accomplish his goals without the union bargaining provisions - just tie state education funding to local school districts to those school districts meeting the state's budgetary standards. But I understand and now basically support his goals.
Then there's the Right to Work issue in Indiana. What I suspect lots of Hoosiers don't know is the fact that that particular bill has already been pulled off the table, and apparently the governor has tried to appease the missing Democrat legislators by promising it won't be brought back this session.
So why are the Democrats still hiding out in Illinois? Because they want more. They are now demanding that 11 bills be taken down, some of which have already passed both houses. They're no longer using this tactic over the Right to Work issue, but have decided to make it a standard tactic to try to kill any and all bills they don't like. That's not good.
On Right to Work in general, my take is that closed union shops are unconstitutional. States like Indiana that permit closed union shops are in violation of Freedom of Association. I believe that if you talk about rights, there is no right for unions to force all workers in a company to join their organization as a prerequisite to holding a job with the company. Every worker should have the choice whether or not to belong to the union, and every union member should vote on their level of dues and how those dues are spent.
Those are the real freedom issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)