Trip's On Hold

My son is sitting in the Houston airport--they won't let him on the plane to Honduras. There's a lot of scrambling in two different time zones, but it's not looking good. Obviously I have to put my trip on hold until we can find out what's going on.

Update: Everything's fallen though. My son will return from Houston tonight. I'll modify my desert trip and take him with me.

What A Great Way To Start A Vacation!

Phil Perry's (see above) wife is a friend of Right On The Left Coast and got me a ticket to see this show at the Radisson Grove. I can't tell you how many times during the night I said "wow!"

Great show--no, amazing show. Awesome way to kick off a great week.

The Big Summer Trip

Tomorrow I'm off on a "vacation of solitude". I'll be driving through central and eastern Nevada, stopping at such sites as Indian petroglyphs, ghost towns, abandoned mines, and interesting geological phenomena. Obviously, blogging will be light to non-existent for the next several days. I'll still post your comments, though, when I get an opportunity to check in.

I'm hoping to have plenty of post-worthy pictures upon my return.

So until then, adieu! And thank you for reading my blog. Be sure to check back in on the 12th.

Government Surveillance To *Expand*

Congressional Democrats, under pressure from the Bush administration, today proposed a six-month compromise that would expand the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance of overseas communications in search of terrorists.

So after all that whining about how the President's "warrantless surveillance" was against the law and un-American and how the Patriot Act is taking away our freedoms, the Democrats are going to allow the program to expand. That's right, expand.

So what fig leaf are they going to try to use to cover their obvious change of heart?

The proposal, according to House and Senate Democrats, would permit a secret court to issue a single broad order approving eavesdropping of communications involving suspects overseas and other people, who may be in the United States. That order "need not be individualized," according to a Democratic aide.

That's right. They're going to allow a court--incidentally, the same court that already ruled the President didn't need a warrant to conduct the surveillance that was being conducted--to issue a blanket warrant. In other words, a carte blanche.

If my liberties were at risk before, I don't see how they're any safer now.

The Dems got this one right, but it sure looks like they should be eating crow about it.

21 1/2 Years After Challenger

All these years later, NASA's going to send another teacher up on a shuttle.

There's lots of talk about Challenger--how could there not be--but do you remember the names of the Challenger crew?

I do.

Commander Scobee
Pilot Mike Smith
Ron McNair
Greg Jarvis
El Onizuka
Judy Resnick
Christa McAuliffe

May they rest in peace, and have no visitors.

Charter School Closed

In this post I wrote about an Oakland charter school that faked documents--for example, a teacher's record didn't match a report card and neither matched the student's transcript, among other problems.

The school has been closed by its governing board. This is a good example for other schools that want to cheat and lie. It's unfortunate for those students who are innocent bystanders in this mess--truly it is--but how else do you reinforce the lesson that lying and cheating as that school did are crimes?

Carnival of Education

When you're done with the Tilt-A-Whirl you can read this week's Carnival of Education, which includes my post on the NEA and democracy.

Free Speech At Columbia

Makes you wonder what they have to hide.

Yes, I know it's a private university and they can make whatever rules they want, but I don't see anything about "controlling the message" in their Mission Statement.

Report: Technology "Immersion" In Middle School

Click here to read the report from the 2nd year of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot program--or, if you prefer, allow me to summarize it for you:

Students and teachers in the program were significantly more comfortable using "technology", principals provided more leadership regarding "technology", and there was stronger parent and community support for "technology". Students in immersion schools seemed to like school better and had fewer discipline problems.

However, there was no significant effect on student self-directed learning, there was a negative effect on student attendance, and there was no significant effect on standardized test scores in reading, writing, or math.

Technology had a positive effect on math achievement for higher achieving students.

Do these results explain or justify further expenditures for "digital schools" and "bookless schools" and for plans in some districts to issue every student a laptop computer? I'm not sure they do.

But this is only one study, right?

What Is The True Purpose of the NEA?

Why does the teachers union exist?

I believe that a union should look out for the best interests of those who support it financially, and should focus on their pay, benefits, and working conditions.

It seems, however, that the NEA disagrees with me. It apparently sees itself as a union cum social services organization, a left-wing organization of the highest degree.

What prompts me to say this? Why, their very own resolutions, posted on their very own web site. There are some 300 resolutions there; how many of them pertain directly to pay, benefits, and working conditions? Even if you like or agree with some of the resolutions, why should a labor union--financed in part by extorted dues--be involved in these issues that have nothing to do with pay, benefits, and working conditions?

Seriously, go read just the table of contents for their resolutions.

Tell me why a labor union should be looking out for others people's children instead of (or in addition to) its members. And if you think that a labor union of teachers should be looking out for students--as if that's not the responsibility of the elected school board--explain the 2nd paragraph of Resolution B-75 to me, which punishes students whose parents pay taxes for public schools but don't want their children educated in public schools.

See if the NEA itself lives up to Resolution B-11 with regards to white people or Republicans, both of whom are specifically left out of the list of people who should be respected. Explain how the NEA can support affirmative action and other set-aside programs--and why it disliked the school segregation cases ruled up on by the Supreme Court in June--when it claims Part D of Resolution B-11.

Tell me why a labor union to which I'm compelled to give money should give a darn about "Equity for Incarcerated Persons", which is Resolution B-23.

I'll skip a hundred or so resolutions--what possible interest could a labor union have in "Statehood for the District of Columbia", Resolution H-11? or in the "International Court of Justice" or the "International Criminal Court", Resolutions I-2 and I-3? or "Protection of Senior Citizens", Resolution I-35? or in "Businesses Owned By Minorities and/or Women", Resolution I-54?

I could go on but I'll stop there. While the ideas represented by those resolutions may (or may not) be good ideas, the NEA has no business concerning itself with them--or in using my money to do so. Pay, benefits, and working conditions, and nothing else.

Want to know why I have so much disregard for the NEA? There are only two reasons:

1. the fact that I'm compelled to give them my money, and
2. the things on which they spend my money.

The second point I've addressed in this post, the first I've addressed in so many others:

Every (non-military) American has a right to join a union. Every American has a right not to join a union. Every American should have the right not to be required to support a union financially.

That NEA gets a cent from me is an injustice of the highest order.

NEA Members Are Homophobes

It's statements like the following, which pertains to gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender school employees, that just disgust me about the NEA. Quoting from EIA (where else?) in this week's Communique:

The Standing Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification had a research problem: "One of the challenges confronting the committee was the continuing lack of empirical or even anecdotal data on the experiences and the rate of harassment among school personnel. The difficulty obtaining such data is more likely a byproduct of the extreme homophobia that makes many schools inhospitable places for personnel to be openly GLBT, rather than the absence of negative experiences among GLBT personnel. In addition, the relatively few personnel who are openly GLBT may report mostly positive experiences because they work in hospitable climates and have strong support from administrators and the community. While these experiences are valid, they probably do not reflect the experiences of the majority of GLBT personnel nationwide."

They admit that there's no data at all, assume harassment, and state outright that the reason there are no data is because of "extreme homophobia". Nope, no bias there! Certainly no left-leaning agenda.

But let's dissect that statement a bit.

The NEA is the largest labor union in the country. It has affiliates in every state, even in right-to-work states. There are few districts indeed in which the NEA is not present in some form. With well over 2 million members, including teachers and support personnel, I dare say that it's a mammoth.

That being the case, who are the homophobes that must be harassing the GLBT teachers into silence? Fellow teachers and school staff--fellow NEA members.

Who else could it be?

Smart Is Cool

Smart and hot is even better =)

McKellar should know. The actress once struggled with the subject around the seventh grade, but a teacher helped her through. McKellar eventually majored in math in college. She co-authored a scientific paper while a student at UCLA.

The book includes tips to avoid mistakes on homework, ways to overcome test-day anxiety and profiles of three beautiful mathematicians. (emphasis mine--Darren)

The referenced book is called Math Doesn't Suck.

Higher Pay For Math And Science Teachers

In this post I suggested that universities' charging more for math/science courses, for example, would have the effect of having even fewer people go into those fields, while "oppressed studies" majors would continue to flood a job market that doesn't need them. Well, if this proposal is implemented, it could conceivably counteract the effect listed above.

A group of business and university leaders proposes addressing the shortage of math and science teachers by paying higher salaries, improving teacher training, and giving first-year teachers more support...

Among teachers of all subjects, math teachers have the highest annual turnover rate (16.4 percent). Science teachers have the second-highest (15.6 percent).

We'll see if the NEA and CTA hop on board with this.

Health Care

Some companies are offering stick-and-carrot approaches to employees in an effort to reduce health care. While I don't like such approaches, they are the inevitable result of employer-paid health care.

Does anyone know why we in the United States assume that our health care costs will be borne by our employers?

Well kids, our story takes place in World War II. We got pretty close to socialism in that war, what with wage and price controls, rationing, the New Deal (under which we still suffer), etc. Companies, limited by government in what they could pay employees, found ways around the limits by offering non-taxable perks--including health care. Now, more than 60 years later, we live in a society that expects employers to fund health care coverage. What a perversion.

So what are companies doing today in order to cut costs?

Looking for new ways to trim the fat and boost workers' health, some employers are starting to make overweight employees pay if they don't slim down...

In one of the boldest moves yet, an Indiana-based hospital chain last month said it decided on the stick rather than the carrot. Starting in 2009, Clarian Health Partners will charge employees as much as $30 every two weeks unless they meet weight, cholesterol and blood-pressure guidelines that the company deems healthy.

Those of you who adore the nanny state might very well say, "Good! It's what's best for those people." I, on the other hand, don't have a problem with the market approach--those who cost the system more should pay more.

However, what happens when government runs health care and compels people to lose weight? Then it becomes an issue of the coercive power of the state versus individual freedom, and that's an entirely different game.

One California school district is looking at getting into this game:

[T]he Los Angeles Unified School District, which has 90,000 employees, is researching financial incentives and disincentives to help bring down healthcare costs.

There are some interesting issues relating to these reward-and-punishment proposals when instituted by companies; what happens when the government itself starts implementing requirements "for the public good"? Will we have Prohibition II? Will smoking be outlawed? Will we have mass public calisthenics each morning like they (used to?) have in China? Will certain foods be taxed more, or forbidden?

Critics of the lose-it-or-pay trend say that companies that charge overweight employees more for their medical coverage are turning the healthcare system into a police state and, just as worrisome, are working off of a false assumption that it's easy for people who are obese and have other health issues to change their situations...

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a Princeton, N.J.-based employee rights group, called the trend "a very dangerous road that could lead to employers controlling everything we do in our private lives."

If you don't want your employer controlling what you do in your private life, the thought of government's being in that position should send a chill down your spine.

And do you foresee many new "disabilities" to create loopholes?

Still, some lawyers say weight-based compensation plans may run afoul of other employment laws.

"A key protection in the Americans with Disabilities Act is that employers can't discriminate against employees based on their health status," said J.D. Piro, a principal at Hewitt Associates' healthcare law group. "This is a fight that's likely going to be dealt with in the courts."

Smoking, drinking, overeating, addiction to high-calorie foods--all will become "disabilities".

In Arkansas, Deeann Gutekunst, 42, a Benton County deputy treasurer, said she understood the rationale for the county's policy.

"If you have employees who don't care about their health," she said, "what else are you supposed to do?"

Of course, the solution is to compel them. Right.

How about this solution? How about we create a "wall of separation" between employer and health care? How about we let the marketplace take care of health care, the same way it takes care of groceries, housing, cars, and most everything else we need in our daily lives?

This isn't an area that requires more government intervention--heck, it was government intervention that got us here in the first place. This is an area that requires less.

But people aren't going to want to give up their "free" (employer-provided) health care. This is exactly why we don't need to go any further down the road to socialism--because any time someone gets something for which they don't have to pay money directly from their own pocket, they think it's free. It's too abstract to realize that every cent your employer pays for your health care--or for your social security, for that matter--is money that can't go into your pocket. Our health care situation in the United States is nowhere near ideal, but I can see no improvements at all by bringing it completely under the jurisdiction of the very government that created the employer health care mess in the first place.

It gets worse under government-run health care. As NewsAlert (see blogroll at left) always says,

Socialism means waiting in line.

Private health insurance is forbidden in Canada--except in Quebec, where the High Court ruled that too many people are dying while waiting and must be allowed to get private insurance. Another case is pending in Toronto. What will happen in Canada is this: there will be a two-tiered health care system, one for the "haves" and one for the "have-nots". Everyone will have the least common denominator, government-run health care program, which requires exceedingly long waits for what we in the US consider routine exams, and those who can afford it will have better. Given that, what good has Canada's system provided?

Here's the situation in Toronto:

It started when McCreith, a resident of Newmarket, north of Toronto, suffered a seizure last year. He was told in Canada he would have to wait more than four months for an MRI to rule out a malignant tumor.

Rather than wait, McCreith, 66, quickly arranged a trip to Buffalo for a scan. The MRI confirmed his worst fears — a cancerous growth that a Buffalo neurosurgeon removed a few weeks later.

“If I had been patient, I’d probably be disabled or dead today,” McCreith said.

Now, McCreith is suing the Ontario government in a closely watched constitutional challenge that could reshape universal health coverage in the province by striking down the prohibition against patients buying private insurance.

On this side of the border, advocates of universal health insurance champion Canada’s popular public program as a fairer system that the United States should emulate, as seen in Michael Moore film, “Sicko.” Yet critics see the long waits for some services in Canada — mainly for non-emergency surgery — as an argument against an increased role for government in health care.

With Medicare, Medicaid, and (in California) Medi-Cal, even the poorest wouldn't suffer what McCreith suffered in his first-class, G-8 government-provided health care.

For those of you who think socialism will level the playing field, you're right. It brings everyone down to the lowest level. And then the "haves", especially those in government, start making exceptions for themselves. Is that really what you want?


Hat tip to NewsAlert for the two links above.

Is The Teachers Union In Mexico Worse Than NEA/AFT?

Joanne links to a story that says, "Oh yeah."

Learning Styles: Complete and Total Crap

And it's high time someone says so publicly, even if that someone is in Britain.

"The rationale for employing Vak (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) learning styles appears to be weak. After more than 30 years of educational research in to learning styles there is no independent evidence that Vak, or indeed any other learning style inventory, has any direct educational benefits."

Some of us will never forgive Howard Gardner for writing that rubbish (I'm in British mode now), nor can we forget the so-called education professionals who foisted it upon our profession above and beyond what Gardner himself posited.

Good pedagogy requires that material be taught in a way that makes it accessible to students. That way is not necessarily the way that's most comfortable for the student; rather, it's the way that's most appropriate for the subject matter. Trying to learn trig using your musical or kinesthetic "intelligence" would be a colossal blunder. Of course specific applications in specific instances can be found, but on the whole, if you want to learn trig, you should learn it as it's been effectively and efficiently learned and taught for centuries.

So kudos to Baroness Greenfield! And kudos as well to Professor Coffield, who gets the final word in the linked article and in this post:

Frank Coffield, a professor at London University's institute of education, who reviewed 13 models of learning styles, insists that the approach is theoretically incoherent and confused.

"As well as Vak, I came across labelling such as 'activists' versus 'reflectors', 'globalists' versus 'analysts' and 'left brainers' versus 'right brainers'. There is no scientific justification for any of these terms," he said.

"We do students a serious disservice by implying they have only one learning style, rather than a flexible repertoire from which to choose, depending on the context."

I've Always Said This Was A Family Blog

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

• drugs (2x)
• slap (1x)

• 
  

2200+ posts, and this is what they come up with? Slap? Idiocy. I hope movie ratings are determined more intelligently, but I fear they're not.

It's nice they realize that I don't use foul language, though.

Good For Brown

When I read the title of this post I experienced a sinking feeling, thinking that it was the accuser that Brown had admitted. Instead they welcomed one of the real victims of the Duke rape hoax.

With everything over but the cleanup in that case, I can't imagine why any of those young men would ever want to hear about Duke again, much less return. What a vile, disgusting place--and with professors like the Gang of 88, the university deserves any consequences that accrue.

That situation, and indeed the entire university, cry out for justice--and I for one hope that voice is heard.

The NEA and Democracy

The NEA likes to bill its annual Representative Assembly as the largest democratic assembly in the world, with a couple thousand delegates who get to vote on the major issues facing the union.

This, of course, is complete and total crap.

There's so much more to democracy than just voting--after all, Saddam Hussein got "reelected" plenty of times. Hiding behind a façade of a fair election is the most evil of lies and the most cynical of acts.

Since the left is so fond of international governmental organizations (but not multinational corporations, go figure), I thought it might be fun to explore the democratic requirements of one of the treaties we've signed. Let's see what the Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States has to say on the topic.

At the beginning of the charter is a large list of therefores, whereases, and recognizing-thats. This one stood out to me:

RECOGNIZING that the right of workers to associate themselves freely for the defense and promotion of their interests is fundamental to the fulfillment of democratic ideals;

What is probably the most important word in that recognition? Freely. Well, the NEA certainly can't claim title to that. Let's move on to the articles.

Article 3
Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.

Of course these articles relate specifically to governments and not to unions, but an organization that considers itself democratic in nature should at least support these requirements, if not abide by them. NEA doesn't believe in secret elections; as a union, it supports the card check process for certifying unions (learn how a card check works here). NEA doesn't believe in pluralism, it believes in acting as a monolithic bloc representing "teachers", even though it supports politicians and organizations that a large percentage of its membership most likely does not.

Article 4
Transparency in government activities, probity, responsible public administration on the part of governments, respect for social rights, and freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy.

The constitutional subordination of all state institutions to the legally constituted civilian authority and respect for the rule of law on the part of all institutions and sectors of society are equally essential to democracy.

Transparency is not a word I'd use to describe the workings of the teachers union. And when the NEA devotes even a page of its union rag to the 30+% of its membership that claims to be Republican, or that challenges NEA's actions, I'll consider revisiting this criticism. Until then, no.

Article 5
The strengthening of political parties and other political organizations is a priority for democracy. Special attention will be paid to the problems associated with the high cost of election campaigns and the establishment of a balanced and transparent system for their financing.

Opposing viewpoints expressed in the NEA? Perish the thought. It takes outside organizations to stand up to the NEA because there isn't a fair process with which to do so internally.

Article 6
It is the right and responsibility of all citizens to participate in decisions relating to their own development. This is also a necessary condition for the full and effective exercise of democracy. Promoting and fostering diverse forms of participation strengthens democracy.

I'm not quite sure what a diverse form of participation is--maybe it's supporting a Republican for president, something the NEA has never done in its 150 year history? Nah, couldn't be that!

Well, that was fun. Now let's try something domestic--the US Department of State. Here's what our own State Department, darling of the liberals, has to say about majority rule and minority rights:

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.

U-bots will claim that the NEA does this, but I disagree. Vehemently.

For starters, the NEA is entitled to my money--whether or not I want them to have it. They can vote all they want what to do with my money, but the fact that they get it against my will is tyranny.

I do not believe the NEA will protect my individual rights and self-identity, since the very idea of a labor union is that we're all one and speak with one voice. The NEA has no outreach to people of my political persuasion--and why should they? They get my money anyway. If I had remained a union member I wouldn't have minority status, I'd have invisible status. Yet even after resigning, they still get my money.

If you've ever seen a union at work, you'll know that dissent is never tolerated. Don't believe me? Shame on you. (Updated link here.)

Incidentally, did you know that according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, that during the period 1975-1993 (the last time period for which I have found data), NEA ranked as the most violent public-sector union? I didn't, either, but I do now.

How can all this be fixed? Hayek answered that question decades ago in The Constitution of Liberty:

[T]he coersion of employers would lose most of its objectionable character if unions were deprived of this power to exact unwilling support.

I've said it before, several times:

Every (non-military) American has a right to join a union. Every American has a right not to join a union. Every American should have the right not to be required to support a union financially.

It must be this way if free will and freedom of association are to have any meaning at all.

The Simpsons

Have you ever wondered what you'd look like as a Simpson's character? Me either. But at this site, you can find out! And here's what I'd look like.