Monday, December 06, 2004

'Tis the season? Apparently not for some...

Maureen Dowd, a voice of the left (by edict or self-appointment) makes a confession in her witty Op-Ed titled Jingle Bell Schlock:
"I've never said this out loud before, but I can't stand Christmas."
On the one hand, this epitomizes the left - they hate everything! Can anyone tell me ONE positive thing the left has had to say in the last, oh - 50 years? Especially MoDo?

On the other hand, it isn't a surprise that the main reason for her anxiety and negative thoughts during this season are self-focused and full of self-pity:
"It might be exacerbated by the stress I feel when I think of all the money I've spent on lavishing boyfriends with presents over the years, guys who are now living with other women who are enjoying my lovingly picked out presents which I'm no doubt still paying for in credit card interest charges."
Get over yourself, it isn't always about you! That goes for those of you on the left who commiserate with her too.

Steroids, Sports and Life

The WSJ.com - The Daily Fix has a story which compiles reactions from around the country to the latest scandal in sports:
"While fans immerse themselves in the ugly details, it's worth also recalling why this matters. Miami Herald columnist Linda Robertson reminds that we may lose a key element of enjoying sports: wonder. 'Fans who once marveled at the feats of their fellow humans will get bored watching chemically-enhanced mutants smash ever more meaningless records.' The International Herald Tribune's Rob Hughes, meanwhile, asks, 'What do we tell the children now of our grown up ethos that sport is good for the body and the soul?'"
As a fan and father, I have long since given up on that ethos in sports. There are too few who embody it anymore. Here in Wisconsin, we feel blessed to have Brett Favre as the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers. He has been the closest person to continue that ethos - playing for the love of the game and always giving his best (even when his best isn't good enough) - yet even he struggled with pain killers.

No one is perfect and we should never place anyone on that pedestal. As easy at is to blame the player (and justified) for not taking personal responsibility, others must assume blame as well. Owners, coaches, trainers and, perhaps most of all, the fans.

That's right. The fans. Those of us who feel the need to be entertained every minute of every game. Who will only respond to the big play, the slam dunk, the home run, a new record at every event. Those of us who will pay ungodly sums of money for memorabilia and will do almost anything to get it in the first place. And those of us who feel we are part of the game and are immune to any sanctions for our actions: "we paid good money for these seats, we can do what ever we want!"

Getting back to Brett Favre. He did something more important than win a Super Bowl and break multiple records. He grew as a human. Yes. He was addicted to pain killers and drank more than his fair share. But he had the heart and support to overcome these addictions, discontinue their use, and still perform at the top of his game. In addition, he still plays because he loves the game.

That's an ethos that I hope my kids learn. You can make mistakes. As long as you take responsibility for those mistakes, learn from them and put forth your best effort each and every day, you will be fine. And it wouldn't hurt to do what you love to do - not because others love you doing it.

Saturday, December 04, 2004

JS Online: State's condom buy raises hue and cry

This article in the morning newspaper discusses the outcry over the purchase and distribution of novelty - colored and flavored - condoms by the state. While the cost is paid through grants from the CDC, the non-monetary costs don't seem to hit home:
"The intent of offering novelty condoms is to provide greater choices to those people who might be reluctant to use a condom or discuss the subject of protection with a partner, Vergeront said."
Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Wasserman) offered this telling comment:
"Like it or not, we're going to be paying either way," Wasserman said, because taxpayers could foot the bill for health care costs if the state doesn't contain the spread of sexually transmitted diseases."
"Like it or not,"? If I engage in risky behavior - such as driving too fast on the highway - and I get in an accident through my own actions, does the state have the responsibility to pay for my medical bills? If I should die, does the state have the responsibility to compensate and take care of my surviving family?

Friday, December 03, 2004

"Religion is but a myth...

...and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" ~ Freedom from Religion Foundation. This quote - certain to bring us closer together - was found by Professor Althouse at the Capitol building in Madison. Scroll down through the lovely pictures of the Christmas tree and other decor in the rotunda and you will see a picture of this quote on a sign which represents the foundations criticism of the tree.

Continue to read her comments about the quote. I agree completely.

Science and God

They can co-exist. Despite the extreme opinion on both sides of this argument, I think most people believe in the existence of both, as expressed by Professor Colling here, from the WSJ.com - Science Journal:
"Unlike those who see evolution as an assault on faith, Prof. Colling finds it strengthens his own. 'A God who can harness the laws of randomness and chaos, and create beauty and wonder and all of these marvelous structures, is a lot more creative than fundamentalists give him credit for,' he told me. Creating the laws of physics and chemistry that, over the eons, coaxed life from nonliving molecules is something he finds just as awe inspiring as the idea that God instantly and supernaturally created life from nonlife."

Thursday, December 02, 2004

More on obesity

As a follow-up to the November 30th post from the WSJ, this story by Radley Balko at Tech Central Station details more of the harm that unquestioned statistics can cause:
"The CDC's announcement represents a tidy anecdote for what's wrong with the obesity debate. The problem, put simply, is that hysteria sells. It sells research to grant writers, it sells executive summaries to media outlets, and it sells newspapers to the public. Anyone taking a close look at the 400,000 number could see some obvious flaws in its computation. In the New York Times, for example, the University of Chicago's Dr. Eric Oliver pointed out that there are only 2 million deaths each year in the United States, total. Since obesity has little effect on the mortality rates of people over 65, and 70% of annual deaths are among people over 65, in order for the 400,000 figure to be correct virtually every single death among people under 65 would have to have been caused by obesity."
Later, there's this:
"The most troubling thing about the 400,000 fiasco is the way nutrition activists and politicians relied on the number to call for drastic new laws and regulations aimed at getting obesity under control, but which also represented potentially severe restrictions on the food industry, and serious trespasses on consumer choice, personal freedom, and personal responsibility -- and how the media let them get away with it without an ounce of skepticism."
We all need to have a healthy skepticism for all statistics thrown at us. If it sounds too good to be true - or in this case, too ominous - it probably is.

WI: School tax levies rise 7.3% in state

This story in today's JS Online reports that property tax levies by school districts will increase an average of 7.3%. This is more than double the rate of inflation. The story goes on to address some of the factors that have led districts to this 'need'. In addition, it quotes John Gard (R-Peshtigo) as saying his number one priority is to get a tax freeze bill passed in the next session, to end this. Everyone is pointing fingers - and they're all right. What they need to do is turn the finger around:

"Many involved in the school finance scene point to the decision by the governor and state Legislature two years ago to back away from the decade-old commitment to providing, on average, two-thirds of the money for general local school spending as the cause of the property tax increases now.

State Sen. Michael Ellis (R-Neenah) said: 'As the state goes south on participating (in paying for schools), the levy has to go north.' He predicted that, if nothing changes, levies in the next years will increase by 10% or more annually.

School officials also note that not only are they getting squeezed by a drop in the level of state aid, but they also have to cope with rising expenses, particularly the cost of health insurance for employees.

Stan Johnson, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state teachers
union, said leaders need to have 'some kind of discussion very soon' about how to fund schools in ways that maintain their quality."

We need to be grown-ups about this. We've created - or allowed to be created - a system that is almost unaccountable to anyone. As with most publicly run programs, politicians and bureaucrats have turned schools into the proverbial 'football' that they all use for personal gain.

We are far from unique in Wisconsin. The courts in New York have just ruled that funding for schools in New York city alone, have been under funded by $5.6 billion a year! What they haven't reported is, where the funding would go, what it would be used for, and ultimately, who'd pay for it.

Right now, we have no one representing us on either side with any objectivity. The schools are represented by the unions and administrators who don't believe there should be ANY limits to what we spend. After all, it's for the children.

On the other side, we have the politicians who are trying to make points with their constituents by 'freezing taxes' through a bill or state constitutional amendment. This will not solve the problem, but may get them re-elected.

Schools are important. They are necessary for our state and country to continue to be competitive and successful in the world - now and in the future. It is our responsibility as tax-payers to fund public schools because we all benefit from the product.

Schools must become more responsible. Just as it is the public's responsibility to fund schools, it is the school's responsibility to produce a product that meets the public need at a competitive cost. For too long, schools have evolved to focus more on the social needs of students, rather than the intellectual needs. It has been far more important to reward self-esteem, than results.

This focus has been a windfall for schools. Special needs programs have historically exceeded general funding increases over the last decade or so. Federal and State dollars have provided 'bonuses' to districts for special needs students - thereby incenting districts to redefine and attract (recruit) more special needs students. What is happening in our country that we are producing this ever increasing number of 'special needs' children?

Additionally, the story in the paper this morning quotes school officials who point to rising costs in health insurance as a major factor in the need for increased funding. First, this does nothing to increase the results - children who are better educated. Second, a major reason health care costs are out of line in Wisconsin schools is because they do not seek competitive bids - they self-insure. And finally, most private businesses have chosen to bite-the-bullet and ask their employees to contribute more to the cost of insurance and medical costs. Schools, with very rare exceptions, refuse to do so.

There is more than enough blame to go around and even more difficult decisions which must be made. Unfortunately, we don't have enough leaders - on either side - to take on the tough decisions. It's far easier to point fingers and promote band-aid 'solutions' like tax freezes. Schools happen to be the largest, single consumer of tax dollars, but all departments, agencies and tax funded programs could reduce costs as part of the solution. The vast majority of tax payers are more than willing to pay their share - when they believe they are getting what they pay for. Right now, we don't.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Thomas Sowell: A taxing experience

Thomas Sowell:
"There was a time when the purpose of taxes was to pay for the inevitable costs of government. To the political left, however, taxes have long been seen as a way to redistribute income and finance other social experiments based on liberal ideology."
And more times than not, the experiment fails with unintended consequences which have far greater undesireable impact.