Everyone is forced to pay for it (through taxes), even if they don't use it. Only the rich (who have after-tax money to pay for private school) can avoid it. And they do.
The politicians who enact the system almost universally avoid the public option.
It's hugely inefficient; we spend more and more per student with diminishing results.
Over time (decades, mind you) we have come to accept mediocrity as the norm. It's a slow process. Nobody notices. Most don't know any better.
Innovative improvement is squashed through lobbying from the entrenched public employees (who benefit from the system), and through the absence of any vibrant "private" element. No one knows how good it "could have been" (if there was real competition/innovation in a private sector), so no one knows what they're missing. Being "no worse than last year" becomes a good thing.
Over time, the profession draws weaker and weaker college students to enter the field.
Add rationing (and don't kid yourself, there MUST eventually be rationing in some manner), and you have the future of American medical care.
Last night, Hannah Kearney, from nearby Norwich, VT, won an Olympic gold medal in woman's moguls. It was great to watch. She was the last to ski, so the pressure was really on. I shed a few tears of happiness for her, partly because she's local, but mainly because she seems like such a nice young woman. So this morning, I was looking for the video on YouTube. No luck. I guess NBC has still locked up the exclusive rights for any Olympic footage. But I did find this clip from after she won the Olympic qualifying trials:
I love the quote "I'm going there to win a gold medal. I'm not going there to experience it". It's hard to believe that she's a product of our local school district, where they're taught "If you have fun, you won [quoted from my daughter]". So I saw this as a "teachable moment", and told my 7 year-old that the goal in sports *is* to win, and that, yes, there are winners and losers. And that Hannah is happier than all the other competitors because she worked so hard to win.
Anyway, if you want to see the winning run on NBC's website, you can go here. She was very happy and, not surprisingly, the first thing she did was pull out the American flag.
Hint: It's not from the "reflection of the ocean".
If you have an hour to kill before the Super Bowl, this video is well worth your time. As the MIT Physics professor (Walter Lewin) giving the lecture says; understanding science only adds to the wonder of a rainbow, it does not take away. Watch it. You'll never look at a rainbow (or a blue sky, or a sunset) the same way again.
The older I get, the more it seems history contracts. I feel like events which struck me as ancient when I was younger, were really not that long ago. Five of the six Mazurland authors are 50-ish, and have personally experienced that fifty years is really not that long of a time. And if fifty years isn't long, then neither is one hundred. And if a hundred years isn't long, then this country has reached amazing greatness in a very short time.
I've been mesmerized by this video I recently found (the music helps). This is what 100 years ago looks like. It was made around the time my grandparents were little kids. I hope you enjoy:
The video was filmed shortly before the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The film-maker went back after the quake and filmed the same route down Market Street, showing the devastation. This video has segments from each film.
Apparently, ESPN is allowing write-ins for their Heisman Trophy voting. There's a new internet surge of support for the dark horse, Barack Obama. Go here to cast a vote, and to give him the victory he hopes to some day earn!
I stumbled upon this article at AmericanThinker.com, and it's a great summary of how we got to this point in American politics. It places the blame of the Obama presidency squarely on the average voter, who has been complicit for some time in creating our societal malaise. The piece is titled "Do Not Blame Barack":
"Contrary to what my title indicates, I probably judge Barack Obama more harshly than most reading this page. I don't think he is just a misguided ideologue or merely a creature of expediency. I believe, practically speaking, he is an evil man. That is to say, while he is largely ignorant like so many others, he has developed an affinity for evil. He mistakes it for good.
Yet, to be blunt, Obama doesn't alarm me as much as the average American. To explain why, I'll present something Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero said 2000 years ago when lamenting Julius Caesar's rise to dictator:
Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions . . . . Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.' Julius was always an ambitious villain, but he is only one man."
It's well worth reading the entire thing. Near the end, the author says that to turn this around we need to increase the "weight of our virtue":
"But if we want to have any chance of winning the war, we must move on to graduate work and fight it on the deepest levels, the spiritual and cultural. We must scrutinize ourselves and evaluate how we have been complicit in empowering the culture that spawns Barack Obamas. We must remember that those of us who are engaged are a minority weighed against an apathetic majority. A few stones however, can be substantial enough to tip the scales against a million pebbles. But this can only happen if we so greatly increase the weight of our virtue that it outweighs the vice that is everywhere."
But the other part of the problem is that we conservatives tend to be too polite. We may be "virtuous" and believe everything the article says. We may even have turned off the TV, stopped buying MSM newspapers, stopped going to movies. Maybe even home schooled. We may be seething inside, but are often too polite to tell others "THIS IS WRONG!" We've been indoctrinated by the PC crowd to believe in moral relativism. That it's wrong to criticize anyone else's "values", or hurt their feelings. We need to learn from our opponents and, as Barack suggested to his supporters, "get in their faces" a bit.
We need to stand proudly and state loudly that yes, there is right and wrong. There is black and white, good and evil. Certain things are simply wrong, and it needs to be said, no matter whose feelings are hurt.
Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago, which challenges Chicago's handgun ban and their onerous registration process. As you may remember, last June the Supreme Court made its historic Heller decision which ruled that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership (at least within the home), and that it is unlawful to ban an entire category of firearms in common use. That ruling, although extremely important, only limited the federal government's ability to enact laws which might infringe on gun rights. The McDonald case will address the issue of incorporating the 2nd amendment against state and local governments. Here is the wording of the question that the Supremes chose to address:
"Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home."
So clearly, this case will finally resolve the incorporation issue, and gun rights advocates are very optimistic that they will win. But the second part of the question turns out to be a very interesting constitutional matter-- which 14th amendment clause might be used to incorporate the amendment? It turns out that previous incorporation has been done via the "due process" clause, but McDonald's attorney, Alan Gura, along with legal experts from across the political spectrum, have expressed interest in reviving the "privileges and immunities" clause, which has been dead wood since the 1870s. Doing this may allow future courts to open up a floodgate of un-enumerated "rights", which is why many liberals support McDonald, in the hopes that it will revive this clause.
Confused? Here's an excellent summary, from Reason.com, of the case and its constitutional implications. Interestingly, 33 state attorneys general have already come down in favor of incorporation:
"The state attorneys general were also bold enough to bring up a classic gun rights argument that's often mocked by liberal intelligentsia—the idea that weapon rights aren't just about self-defense against crime, but are also about defense against tyranny: The brief states that 'the right to bear arms provides the foundational bulwark against the deprivation of all our other rights and privileges as Americans—including rights that have already been incorporated against the States by this Court.'"
Look for oral arguments to occur early next year, and a ruling in June.
I just saw a fantastic concert last night. Certainly one of the top ten in my life. And I'm still trying to figure it out...
The performer was Andrew Strong. He is best known as the lead singer in the movie "The Commitments" (1991), which is about a group of Irish youngsters who start a R&B band, and make a stab at getting famous. Andrew was only 16 years old when the movie began filming, which is amazing, when you hear his mature voice. Afterwards, he went on to tour internationally (with the likes of The Rolling Stones, Elton John, Prince, and Ray Charles), be nominated for a Grammy, and have platinum record sales.
Anyway, that voice is still as strong as ever. His performance consisted mainly of the R&B classics that we Baby Boomers yearn for; covers of greats from the likes of Wilson Pickett (Mustang Sally), Otis Redding (Try A Little Tenderness), Al Green (Take Me To The River) and Joe Tex (Show Me A Man That's Got A Good Woman), just to name a few. He even threw in a little Steppenwolf (Born To Be Wild) and Hendrix (Fire). Although in this performance Strong might technically be considered a "cover band" (he didn't perform any original songs), that's a little misleading; almost like calling Joe Cocker a "cover artist". Andrew added his own unique, stylistic interpretations to each song. Or, as my son Matt said, he "owned" them. The band for this tour was chosen when Strong came to the US a few days early just for that purpose. Guitar, bassist, drummer and keyboards-- all very competent.Strong also played guitar, but in the end, it was all about his voice.
What I'm still trying to figure out is this. How was I, sitting on a plastic chair in a tent with a total of 50 (you read that right) people, watching a show of this caliber? This is a guy who's playing Boston, NYC and Philly in the days surrounding our event. I knew Strong had a fair amount of international acclaim, and before his set, my son and I wondered about how it must feel for him, with his list of successes, to walk out to an audience consisting of a handful of Vermonters on folding chairs.To Andrew's credit, he was wonderful. He seemed like he truly appreciated being there. He performed with the energy he would have used with an audience of 50,000. He clearly loved what he was doing. He was warm, and funny. And he sang his heart out. It was simply a great show.
But I couldn't help think that someone screwed up. His manager? The local promoters? This concert was to benefit the UV Rock School. It was held at the small Upper Valley Events Center. Do the math. The tickets were $30 each. They may have taken in a couple thousand bucks, gross. There were no other sales of food or merchandise. What's it cost to bring in an artist like this? Did he do this for nothing? Is this a tax write-off for Mr. Strong? I can't help but think that, if done differently, this concert could have filled our 2,000 seat Opera House, making the artist more comfortable, and bringing in more money for the school. I just don't get it.
Anyway, I'm very happy for the blessing. I love small venues, but unfortunately, in order to see great talent, you often have to go to big arenas. So there's this "artist quality to venue size" ratio that needs to be maximized. My experience last night blew it out of the water.
So last night's beer summit is history. After all the hype, we now need to ask, what have we learned from this "teachable moment"? The answer is, probably nothing. None of the three men apologized, and I'm almost certain no one changed their opinion. Sure, there was "dialogue" at the table, but we, the American people, were not privy to what was being said. And most significantly, all the prejudices that started this fiasco have not only persisted, but have probably been amplified. So it seems that all the damaging stereotypes will persist despite, or because of, Obama's best efforts.
But what about the 4th party in this brew-haha? The woman who originally started it all; the "Eve" of this national sin. The one who remained above the fray. Can we learn anything from her that may help us to lessen our poisonous profiling? Well, here she is with the typical whiny, overly-emotional, spiteful display of victimhood that you'd expect from a broad:
Doesn't like beer?! Well I'm sure the White House can dig up a wine cooler that she could share with Michelle... Ah well. America moves forward. Unscathed, yet still unchanged.
There's been a lot of talk about the choice of beers for tonight's summit on race at the White House. Beer is something Mazurland can, and should, comment on. Apparently, President Obama has chosen Bud Light, probably because it's the most popular beer in America. I have read that Prof. Gates has chosen Red Stripe, and Sgt. Crowley has chosen Blue Moon. It's a shame that none of these selections come from an American-owned brewery, but who am I to begrudge someone their choice of drink? Although a nice cold Yuengling, from America's oldest brewery, would've been hard to beat. It might also have been funny if one of these three chose a Black & Tan, just for yucks.
But the thing I'm actually more curious about is their choice of drinking glass. Now, I realize that Sgt. Crowley is probably a straight out-of-the-can type of guy, but he's going to meet the president after all. He's gotta "clean up" a little bit. So, will it be a goblet shaped glass befitting the formality of the White House? A straight 16oz pub glass, as a hat tip to the only white guy's blue collar roots? A tall pilsner glass, to add to the growing list of Obama's faux pas? A pragmatic mug? A multi-national stein?
The suspense is killing me. There's gotta be a lot of lobbying going on. Future glassware sales ride on this decision.
Recent Comments