Fining Parents and Students For Cutting Class

On the face of it, this sounds like a good idea. Let's hold parents responsible for their children's conduct!

It could soon cost kids, and parents in Concord upwards of $500 if the teenager continues to cut class.

There’s no question about it, said Mayor Laura Hoffmeister, Concord police have their hands full with truant kids these days.

“Often they’re finding that the kid they return at 11 a.m. is back out at 12:30,” said Hoffmeister.

This prompted school officials to look into a school day curfew ordinance. After a general warning, kids and their parents would be fined $100 after the first offense, $200 after the second, and $500 after the third.

After thinking about it further, I cannot support this idea. Why, you ask? Because in California, we do so much to undercut the authority of parents that we cannot justly hold them responsible in many circumstances.

How can we hold parents responsible for student conduct, for example, when our school counselors are, with very few exceptions, required to respect confidentiality regarding what students tell them? The school has information that a parent should have but refuses to share it. How can we hold parents responsible?

Additionally, in California children can leave campus to go get an abortion, and we're forbidden by law to notify the parents that their child is leaving campus, much less having a medical procedure done.

It's reasonable for parents to assume that when their child gets to school, the school assumes a certain amount of responsibility for the child and the parent simultaneously gives up some authority. If a kid is cutting school, with which adult group--the parents or the school--does the responsibility lie? There's a good argument for saying the school is responsible for ensure the child doesn't leave campus, or at least that the school is monitoring the child.

I understand the reasoning behind this proposed law, I really do. I just don't see it as a practical thing to do, except in some fairly rare cases.

Hat tip: reader MikeAT.

Socialism, Social Justice, and Vonnegut

Vonnegut's story Harrison Bergeron is what's being referenced here:

As I argue in my new book, America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, social safety net policies to prevent human suffering and deprivation are well justified. In civilized societies, there is broad consent to such policies, which just recognize the moral obligation of each to help their fellow man.

But once such policies are established, going beyond them to take from some by force of law what they have produced and consequently earned, to give to others merely for the purpose of making incomes and wealth more equal, is unjustifiable and counterproductive. Vonnegut’s story helps to explain why.

Go read the entire piece for more details; you will not be disappointed.

Tuesday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question, "Which artist popularized the song The Candy Man with a 1972 release that hit #1 on the Billboard charts?", is:
Sammy Davis, Jr. The song was originally written for the 1971 movie Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Today's question is:
Who bought the first commercially-produced Hummer in 1992?

Today I Walk

Finally, the quadriceps in my left leg are beginning to work again. I can raise my foot, ever so slowly, more than a foot off the ground if need be! My knee bends--not fluidly, and not even 90 degrees yet, but it bends. With the quads and the knee beginning to work more like they should, my movement, while slow, starts to resemble what it should. Today, after 80 days, I walk.

When I go to physical therapy today, it will be without crutches and without a cane.

I'm not done yet. I still cannot go up or down a step without my right leg doing all the work, but I'm getting closer. I'll still need the cane for awhile, especially for distances that aren't as short as that from the car to the therapy office, and I may even need the wheelchair for awhile to get across campus when school starts, but the progress I'm making is clear.

And for that I'm thankful.

Monday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question, "What is the world's newest country, which became independent on July 9, 2011?", is:
South Sudan, which broke away from Sudan.

Today's question is:
Which artist popularized the song The Candy Man with a 1972 release that hit #1 on the Billboard charts?

I'm #1 :-)

Sometimes Statcounter will show me a search wherein my post in the top link, and one of my favorites where that occurs is here. Here's what it looks like as I type this:

Sunday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question, "In what year was the official groundbreaking for the Hollywood Walk of Fame?", is:
1960.

Today's question is:
What is the world's newest country, which became independent on July 9, 2011?

Geek Porn

At 3:45 this morning I finished watching the director's cut of the first Star Trek movie, from 1979. Not having seen the movie in a few decades, I can't say for sure how different this version is from the original, so I'll write as if this version were the original. After all, it can't be that different, even at 2 hrs 10 minutes....

As I stated, this movie came out in 1979. Star Trek had been off the air for 10 years (the cartoon doesn't count), and Roddenberry had to deliver. Bringing in noted sci-fi author Alan Dean Foster to write the story probably sounded like a good idea.

The movie started with three minutes of star footage and music before we ever even see the Paramount logo. Roddenberry is definitely building up the suspense. And then we get new theme music (later used for Star Trek: The Next Generation), and even better, a new Star Trek font! Oh, this is good.

Now, finally, the movie starts. And what do we see? Slow, close up, stem-to-stern pans of Klingon warships, followed by our first look at "new style" Klingons. Ohmigawd, this is so cool.

If you include the star footage and opening credits, it was over 12 minutes in before we even see Kirk.

Shortly thereafter came the slow, close up, stem-to-stern, up, down, and all-around shots of Enterprise for minutes. Literally, minutes. I was reminded of what Scotty would say in the Star Trek reboot movie made 30 years later: "I'd like to get my hands on her ample nacelles."

Then it hit me: this movie was total geek porn. And Roddenberry was being a tease.

There was a hitch in the system we realize that the new Starfleet uniforms are essentially jammies with vibrators located at the belly. As we would say a few decades later: epic fail.

The special effects were state-of-the-art 1979, which is to say, impressive at the time but not so much now. But Roddenberry had one good one up his sleeve, and by using it shortly after the Enterprise voyeurism we were led on to believe there would be more. That first jump to warp was new, and exciting--and orgasmic. And let's not forget the Ilea-probe's showing up in what amounts to just a shirt that barely covers the hoochy-coo, and no pants. At that point we can almost drop the "geek" from "geek porn".

And sadly, that was about it for the movie. The flight through Vger's cloud took so long as to be tedious. At least the story makes more sense now that it did then--maybe because I'm not 14, and maybe because the Director's Edition clarified things a bit.

It was entertaining to watch, but Roddenberry's tease was so obvious that all it was missing was some "bow-shicka-bow-shicka-bow-wow" music, and maybe a pole dancer.

The one surprise? Commander Decker got the girl, not Kirk. Now that is a tease.

Conservatives For The Environment

Of course conservatives are pro-environment, we just don't make a fetish of it. This author has an interesting piece, which ends thusly:

Conservatives need to remember they can care for the environment and still hate Al Gore.

OK, given. But what about this statement?

But rather than worry about the politics of the science, can’t we all just agree that pollution is not a good thing, that wasting energy is stupid and expensive, and that we ought not damage the environment?

It's not a matter of "damaging" then environment, it's a matter of degree. I know many conservatives who, like me, are rightly labeled "conservationists", which is a very different animal from the wacko "environmentalists" who make the most noise.

Two Views of Freedom

The first comes from President Obama's Energy Secretary, and it encapsulates the "liberal" view of freedom:

“We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money,” he said.

The next comes from George Washington, and dare I say it, encapsulates the conservative view:

“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”

Which view is closer to yours?

Saturday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question, "In the Kenny Rogers song Coward of the County, what was the last name of the three brothers who “took turns” with Becky?", is:
Gatlin.

Today's question is:
In what year was the official groundbreaking for the Hollywood Walk of Fame?

Using Math To Illustrate

Charles Krauthammer does an excellent job in this column of showing just how much trouble we're in financially, and just how unserious the president is about getting us out of that trouble:

And what have been Obama’s own debt-reduction ideas? In last week’s news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet owners — six times.

I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years — that is not a typo — it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since — first in shekels, then in dollars — we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

Obama’s other favorite debt-reduction refrain is canceling an oil-company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years — you will not yet have offset Obama’s deficit spending for February 2011.

Sometimes, knowing a little math can be pretty important.

Friday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question, "Which US states have one-syllable names?", is:
Maine.

Today's question is:
In the Kenny Rogers song Coward of the County, what was the last name of the three brothers who “took turns” with Becky?

Thursday Trivia

The answer to yesterday's question, "If you were to start with zero and start writing out all the whole numbers in words, what would be the first number in which you'd write the letter 'a'?", is:
One thousand.

Today's question is:
Which US state(s) have one-syllable names?

Crazy Education Budgeting

Two articles in the major Sacramento newspaper show how political education funding is, even to the point of madness. Here's some info from the first:

A budget-related bill that Gov. Jerry Brown signed Thursday has sparked a division within the education community as school districts push to reverse new protections for teachers.

Lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 114 in the final 45 minutes of the legislative session Tuesday night. The bill protects teachers from further layoffs in the new fiscal year.

It also requires districts to ignore the possibility they could lose $1.5 billion in classroom funding in December as well as $248 million in school bus money.

Teachers say those protections ensure stability through the school year. District officials say those requirements restrict their ability to plan for a midyear reduction. They are also frustrated by the suspension of requirements that districts show how they balance their budgets for three years.

Here's the second:

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg defended a last-minute budget bill protecting teachers from further layoffs and reducing district authority, saying that Democrats preserved class sizes and education jobs.

The proposal was backed by the California Teachers Association, which has significant budget influence. About two-fifths of the state's general fund must flow to K-12 schools and community colleges, and the union has been a reliable Democratic contributor.

"We were intentional," Steinberg said during a meeting with The Bee Capitol Bureau. "We do not want to create a situation where more teachers and classified employees lose their jobs. And we did not want to see class sizes increase."

Assembly Bill 114 has drawn fire from school fiscal officials because it reduces their authority, especially if the state imposes a midyear $1.5 billion classroom reduction should tax dollars fall short.

So what do these articles tell us? They tell us that the Democrats (without a single Republican vote) smooched the butt of the CTA and passed a budget that forbids school districts to cut personnel, even if projected tax revenues don't materialize and the state has to cut education funding mid-year. Districts obviously don't like this--what, pray tell, are they going to cut, air conditioning???

Anyway, here's the most honest statement coming from downtown:

Steinberg acknowledged that Democrats rushed Assembly Bill 114 through the Legislature, though he said the haste was necessary to preserve the majority-vote budget deal before it could unravel.

As I said in a previous post, they're idiots.

Update, July 9, 2011: Even the Chronicle looks down its nose at this bill:

School officials across the state are frustrated and puzzled by a bill crafted in private and passed in the final hour of the Legislature's budget debate that strips districts of their ability to lay off teachers and forces them to spend money they might want to save for a rainy day.

AB114, signed into law June 30, appears to be an 11th-hour nod to the teachers union to preserve teacher jobs, fiscal experts said.

"It was pure political juice at one hour before the budget is voted on that all this stuff is stuffed in there," said Ron Bennett, president and CEO of School Services of California, an education financial consultant. "If that is the only way you can pass that ... we think that's a pretty good indication that it's not great public policy right off the top."

Raising Taxes

Liberals want to raise taxes? Instapundit has an exceptional idea:

If I were a Republican member of Congress, I’d be proposing big excise taxes on movie tickets, DVDs, CDs, digitial movie and music downloads, etc. Then let Hollywood scream about how the tax increase would destroy American jobs. . . .

But wait, he has more ideas:

Here’s my proposal: A 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Leave a $150K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman, Sachs, pay a $425K surtax. Some House Republican should add this to a bill and watch the Dems react.

UPDATE: Should we also provide that salaries paid to former government officials aren’t deductible for corporations? Or is that going too far? I say: Put it in as a negotiating point!

Sounds smarter than a tax on tanning salons, don't you think? And much more fun. After all, if taxes are there to change behavior, reward friends, and punish enemies, well....

Update, July 8, 2011: Gotta love the Hollywood angle:

Check out the Domestic Production Activities Deduction (§199), created by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. It classifies moviemaking as a production activity, and gives a tax credit for it (I think 9% or half of salaries paid, whichever is less). (Might PajamasTV qualify, I dunno). Hollywood thus gets a special tax credit of its own, on the theory (which Hollywood types would reject if applied to anyone else) that reducing taxes increases employment.

My Legislature Is Run By Idiots

The Amazon Tax won't bring a cent to the state, and it's already screwed people:

For several years now, the military museum in Old Sacramento has quietly earned a nice little income by acting as a sales rep for Amazon.com.

But this small nonprofit, along with thousands of other California organizations and businesses, has been caught in an epic standoff between Amazon and state officials...

While legal experts expect Amazon to sue the state, the online giant already is taking action of a different sort. Hoping to exempt itself from the law, Amazon has fired its 10,000 California affiliates, cutting off their commissions. Scores of other e-commerce companies affected by the law, including Overstock.com and a slew of smaller firms, have done the same...

But they (decisions to cut off affiliates) will affect organizations like the California State Military Museum, which earned about $2,000 a year as an Amazon affiliate.

Good job, state legislature. Idiots.

Update: Instapundit reports the following:

Meanwhile, reader Spencer Martin — a professor of Finance — emails:

Perhaps someone could clear up *why* States think enacting these internet tax collection mandates will raise any revenue. The biggest target, Amazon, merely sidesteps these laws by shutting down its Associates program and thereby escaping jurisdiction. That leaves only the potential net revenue *loss* from taxable income that the Associates were receiving. Are State budget authorities dumb enough (as CBO is) to score these bills as revenue-enhancing?

I guess so.

There would be no constitutional problem if Congress regulated this, as it absolutely, positively interstate commerce. Congress hasn't yet decided to do so, but that doesn't mean the states can step in. Besides, when the states do unconstitutionally step in, look at the mess they make of things!

A Revenue Problem, or a Spending Problem?

We definitely have a spending problem:

Take a look at the trends here (easy-to-understand chart at the link), again remembering that the data is all in 2010 dollars. In fifty years, we have tripled overall federal revenue, and prior to the current recession/stagnation we had quadrupled it...

Now, let’s put the data in this chart with one showing the rate of spending in inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars:
(chart at link)
While revenues have tripled during this period, federal spending has more than quintupled. The economic expansion of the 1990s (including the dot-com bubble) temporarily raised revenue above the spending trendline, but the slope on spending increased in the early 2000s, and practically launched spaceward in 2007 when Democrats took control of Congress.

I have to ask this: is it even possible to raise taxes high enough to pay for everything the government has promised? I doubt that it is.

So How's That President Doing, Anyway?

If you look at the numbers, not so well:

The Obama administration recently created a new White House post charged with rapidly responding to unfavorable stories. They could have spared the taxpayers $72,500, since the mainstream press is already doing that job free of charge.

A case in point is the media's rapid and fierce response to Mitt Romney's claim that President Obama's economic policies have made the country worse off. Rather than investigate the claim, they've made it their mission to debunk it...

But it's clear he's made the recovery worse. And there are, in fact, many economic indicators that are demonstrably worse since Obama took office. Here are a few we've noted in this space before:

There are 2 million fewer private-sector jobs now than when Obama was sworn in, and the unemployment rate is 1.5 percentage points higher.

• There are now more long-term unemployed than at any time since the government

• The U.S. dollar is more than 12% weaker.

• The number of Americans on food stamps has climbed 37%.

• The Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) is up 62%.

• And the national debt is about 40% higher than it was in January 2009.

In fact, reporters who bother to look will discover that Obama has managed to produce the worst recovery on record.

"Worst recovery on record." Sounds like a campaign theme to me. How's that "hope and change" working out?

Update, July 9, 2011: Let's add a little more fuel to that fire:

There was not a single bit of good news in the Bureau of Labor report. And watching President Obama this morning try to explain this mess and offer solutions to our predicament was painful. He was reduced to listing as one of his policy recommendations streamlining the patent process. That underscores just how intellectually exhausted the Obama presidency is. They have no more arrows left in their public policy quiver...

But of course the problem isn’t simply the anemic recovery and high unemployment; it is, as I’ve argued before, the broader belief that America is on a road toward decline and mediocrity, that our best days are behind us, and that our progeny face a less hopeful future than we did.

This is very corrosive stuff for an American president. And with every passing month, it seems, the news gets worse, our decline seems to accelerate, and the impotence and incompetence of the Obama presidency grows.

75 Days and Counting

Noted improvement today!

I've been to three physical therapy appointments so far (next one is scheduled next week), and those, along with my own drive to heal, are allowing me to make good progress. I haven't used my motorized wheelchair in a couple weeks--it's probably done for good now--and I've even stored the crutches in the garage. I use a cane now, and should totally take video of me standing on my front porch, waving the cane, yelling, "Hey you kids, get offa my lawn!" I still have the standard wheelchair, and am planning to keep it at school for trips to the office and such, as our campus is somewhat spread out and even short walks still fatigue me.

But that isn't the good news.

This morning I sat down to breakfast with my son, and whilst eating and talking I happened to look down at my leg. Despite everything I wrote above, I still haven't been able to get that much bend out of it. Some of my leg muscles are coming back online--I can lift my foot several inches now, which means the quads are starting to work again--but getting the knee back to some semblance of normal is going to take a few months more (back in April, the surgeon said recovery would take 6-12 months). Anyway, I looked down at my leg, and I swear it was bent at about 75 degrees. Just sitting on the chair, with my foot resting on the floor, I hadn't even noticed my knee was bent so much. 75 degrees after 75 days!

That's a long way from this.