I will only vote for a Presidential Candidate who will
    * re-open debate on drilling in ANWR and other environmentally verboten areas

I'm fully aware that a President can't enact such laws without the support of Congress. Therefore, I extend this litmus test to all candidates who are running for elected office within my <limited> sphere of influence in Nov '08. Since I believe that economic issues trump social issues, I will use my proverbial nose-clip fashion accessory when it comes to those matters this fall.

The very fact that the debate on drillin' in ANWR is re-opened will cause the forward contract price of crude to fall. This will have a much larger short-term impact on gas-prices than (a) begging the Saudis to increase production (b) reducing taxes on gasoline (although I'm in favor of this as well, see below). If drillin' in ANWR is voted down, the American public will see prices rise again and apply pressure on elected officials who oppose it. This will actually have a long-term effect on gasoline prices.

Actually, I have a suggestion on the topic of gasoline taxes: permanently repeal the subsidies to oil companies and permanently eliminate federal taxes on gasoline. Hey, is this what the (D) party means by pay-go?

Q) Does it bother anyone else to watch our Senators and Congressmen lecturing oil industry executives about their moral duty to seek alternative fuels?

That is analogous to Coke being ordered (maybe even subsidized) to seek an alternative to Coca Cola. Of course, if Coke chose to do so voluntarily, for competitive reasons - and on their own nickel - that would be just fine. But isn't it absurd to make such a demand?

In a recent debate on the topic of Universal Health Care, Barack Obama asked Hillary Clinton a question:

"You can mandate it but there will still be people who can't afford it. And if they can't afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?"

Hillary ducked the question at the debate, preferring to filibuster the issue by mouthing platitudes (to partisan applause), including gems such as "Universal Health Care is a core Democratic value" until the clock ran out! Later, on the ABC program "This Week", when pressed on the question of mandates she conceded that "we will have an enforcement mechanism" including ""you know, going after people's wages."

Barack's side is playing up the 'difference' between his soft, benign mandate (applicable only to children), and evoking images of Hillary's thugs garnishing the wages of the healthy middle-class folks who choose not to buy health insurance.

Voters should realize that all Government programs - even those with warm, fuzzy-sounding goals - require a Govt enforcer. Somewhere behind all the largesse is a squad of Jackbooted Thugs, who will take away your money, or, if you protest, your freedom. But who, exactly, is the target of these gun-toting Thugs?

For an understanding of this, I recommend the book "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes.

This book is a must-read, not just for conservatives, but for all ..

You may be asking "who is the Forgotten Man"?

Imagine that a person 'A' observes that a person (or group) 'X' is suffering. A goes to B and together A & B conjure up a noble, societal scheme to help X.

If you are a conservative, you will understand that there is a person 'C', the Forgotten Man, who is paying for the 'noble' intentions of A and B. Unfortunately, C was never consulted, but has to silently sacrifice his interests on the altar of A and B's grandiose schemes.

To a Leftist, the rhetoric is all about X. Whether A and B are well-intentioned, or only in it for their self-aggrandizement. C does not exist - or, if he does, he exists only to be turned into the villain of the piece.

In the introduction to this book, Amity Shlaes tells of how FDR used the phrase "The Forgotten Man" in one of his first famous radio speeches - but neglected to use it in the proper context as was intended by William Sumner, the original author of the analogy.

In FDR's speech, the forgotten man label was switched from "C" to  'X', the supposed victim of societal inequity! And FDR was elected, then re-elected, then re-elected ..

Incidentally, Amity Shlaes doesn't spare the Hoover administration (that preceded FDR) either!

In case you have any doubts, the Jackbooted Thugs are directed at "C", the forgotten man. And, unless you are one of the "X" who lives by siphoning from the Govt trough, that means YOU!

Barack or Hillary may ascend to the Presidency, helped by those who think (mistakenly) that Government can (or should) correct economic inequities - whether real or perceived. Once their plans to help "X" are put into effect, the freedom of the majority is diminished.

If you want to know why Hillary Rodham Clinton will be our next president (and an unmitigated disaster), look no further than the above ad:

Here are the gifts that she promises us:

* Universal Health Care

* Alternative Energy

* Middle Class Tax Breaks

* Bring Troops home
* Universal Pre-K

Of the above 'gifts' the only one that makes sense (as a laudable goal) is "Bring Troops Home", Who could possibly not want our troops to return home? But knowing that Hillary's ideas are based on defeatism, I can't get behind her on that either!

Alternative Energy - sure, who could be against such a thing? It would be like being against Mom and Apple Pie. But, does Govt's role involve higher taxes that are levied on us to fund lofty (but essentially uneconomical) projects? Is Nuclear Energy considered an example of Alternative Energy? Is drilling in ANWR an alternative? Or, would those alternatives alienate the enviro-wing of the Democrats?

Regarding the new entitlements that she lovingly wraps as Christmas gifts for us, all I can say is that once again, we Americans are being bribed with our own money. The criminal aspect of it all is that it will actually convince 45% of our electorate to vote in favor of any entitlement-increasing candidate.

As a result, we can expect more entitlements in our future. And, these entitlements will come from both political parties (observe the Bush Prescription Drug Plan which is responsible for nearly 25% of the projected Medicare deficit).

Elections have become a contest in which the candidate who promises to give away the most Govt largesse has the best chance of winning. The fact that we let them get away with it when there are failed entitlements all around us (e.g. almost any Public School) - is nothing short of criminal.

After November 2008, we Americans can no longer claim to live in a Capitalist country. There are those on the Left for whom that would be a cause for celebration. But our grandchildren will pay dearly for it - hey, maybe there is another 'greatest' generation in our future.

In an article titled "In a Funk, Italy Sings an Aria of Disappointment " that was recently published in the NYTimes, Ian Fisher writes "The word here is “malessere,” or “malaise”; it implies a collective funk — economic, political and social — summed up in a recent poll: Italians, despite their claim to have mastered the art of living, say they are the least happy people in Western Europe.

“It’s a country that has lost a little of its will for the future,” said Walter Veltroni, the mayor of Rome and a possible future center-left prime minister

Other excerpts from the NYTimes article:
* Internet use and commerce here are among the lowest in Europe, as are wages, foreign investment and growth.
* Pensions, public debt and the cost of government are among the highest.
* Bureaucracy and unclear rules kept United States investment in Italy in 2004 to $16.9 billion. The figure for Spain was $49.3 billion. 
* Only 36 percent of Italians trust their government
* Statistics now show that 11 percent of Italian families live under the poverty line, and that 15 percent have trouble spreading their salary over the month.
* Italy has one of Europe’s lowest birth rates, the fewest children under 15 and the greatest number of people over 85, apart from Sweden.
* Unemployment is low, at 6 percent. But 21 percent of the population between 15 and 24 did not work in 2006.

The article also paints an interesting picture in the following:

But the government has fallen once and threatens to fall again at every difficult vote. Small proposals bring protesters to the streets, one hurdle to making changes as protected interests seek to preserve themselves. Pharmacists shut their doors this year when the government threatened to allow supermarkets to sell aspirin. The cost for just 20 aspirin tablets at a pharmacy is $5.75.

The measure passed, but the government is largely paralyzed. Voters are fed up, and Mr. Prodi’s foes know it.

“I understand the bad humor, the malaise,” said Gianfranco Fini, leader of National Alliance, the second-largest opposition party. “People are starting to get strongly angry because you have a government that doesn’t do anything.”

Hmm .. could it be that the Italian Government does too much, and actually erodes the economic freedom of its citizens?

Unfortunately, the NYTimes writers do not delve into the root cause behind this malaise. Either due to ignorance or philosophical bias, the writers seem to miss the correlation between affluence and economic freedom. Or, did they chose their interview subjects in a way to deliberately obscure the lack of economic freedom in Italy?

The 2007 Index of Economic Freedom  that is publshed by Heritage.org measures and ranks 161 countries across 10 specific freedoms, things like tax rates and property rights. Italy is ranked 60th, neatly sandwiched between Uganda (59th) and Nicaragua (61st). Other countries of note that rank higher than Italy are: Spain - 27th, France - 45th, Mexico - 49th, Jordan - 53rd.

Incidentally, Heritage.org has an excellent book that is available as a free download from this link. In it, you will find excerpts such as the following from chapter2:

For several weeks during the autumn of 2005, riots raged in the streets of Paris. Every night, hundreds of cars were burned, shops were vandalized, and violence ruled. French President Jacques Chirac concluded that his nation was suffering from a profound "malaise," a word that indeed captures the reality of economic and social problems in many European countries. After centuries of economic leadership, Europe must now face the truth that its governing institutions—especially its labor markets—are deeply flawed. Those who finally took to the streets, native and immigrant citizens alike, were severely affected by unemployment.
:    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :     :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :     
Imagine that your neighbor, having broken a leg, wants your son's help to mow his lawn. He is prepared to pay 20 euros, and your son is willing to do the work for as little as 15 euros. But imagine the state demanding a 50 percent tax. The deal (and work) are taxed out of existence. Or suppose the government demands that the service be performed by a public monopoly, which perhaps charges above 20 euros. Again, your son is without work. Or a labor market regulation demands a minimum wage of 50 euros, and the neighbor is not willing to pay that much. Again, nothing happens. Or a trade union is allowed to deny your son access to your neighbor's lawn because he is not a member of their organization. The result: no job.

My question to the NYTimes writers is: if an armchair blogger can find such information in a few minutes, how could you possibly not explore the cause-and-effect that is clearly responsible for the malaise in Italy? Perhaps they were too busy enjoying Italian culture .. on the NYTimes expense account.

In his famous speech on January 25, 1974, Ronald Reagan said "Standing on the tiny deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, “We will be as a city upon a hill..."

Well, in 2007 there is a different kind of "city upon a hill" that is taking shape. Could Venezuela's Hugo Chavez be taking a page out of Ronald Reagan's book?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venezuela's Chavez Attempts New City
An NPR story by Juan Ferero

Morning Edition, November 12, 2007 · Awash in oil profits, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is attempting to build a city from scratch. The plan is to erect a municipality in a national park just outside Caracas and away from the pollution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are so many things wrong with this picture, one doesn't know where to begin!

* Chavez's "new Socialism" depends upon Capitalism - without the world-wide demand for oil that comes from Capitalist endeavor, there would be no engine to drive his programs. Even if his new cities are successful (which is extremely doubtful), they would owe their existence to Capitalism.

* The new cities will contain all the bare necessities in the form of supermarkets, pharmacies, shopping malls, parking lots etc. An estimated 100,000 people will be relocated from the poorer sections of Caracas to live in this new paradise.

* The new city, called Caribbean, is carved out of a mountaintop near Caracas. I wonder what Chavez's enviro-crazy friends think about that!

* The new cities would require the expropriation of land from several people who happen to live in that area. Oh well, that's never been a problem in a socialist country ..

* As usual, central planners forget how how their grandiose plans will be sustained. It might be worth asking a few questions:

        - What miracle will make merchandise appear in those shopping malls?
        - How will the poor citizens of this new paradise be able to afford all this?

* My prediction is that 
        (1) this city (and many like it) will be built 
        (2) poor people will be relocated to these cities with much fanfare
        (3) in 3-5 years, these cities will become un-inhabitable slums
        (4) a few cities will be kept functional - every socialist regime needs its Potemkin villages.

Oil Discovery Rocks Brazil

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) -- A huge offshore oil discovery could raise Brazil's petroleum reserves by a whopping 40 percent and boost this country into the ranks of the world's major exporters, officials said.

The government-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras, said the new "ultra-deep" Tupi field could hold as much as 8 billion barrels of recoverable light crude, sending Petrobras shares soaring and prompting predictions that Brazil could join the world's "top 10" oil producers.

Petrobras President Sergio Gabrielli said Thursday the oil from ultradeep areas, including the Tupi field, would give Brazil the world's eighth-largest oil and gas reserves. Petrobras' American depository shares jumped $24.03 to $116.77 on the New York Stock Exchange to close at a 52-week high. In Brazil, Petrobras shares ended 14.1 percent higher Thursday at 80.17 reals ($45.94) in Sao Paulo.

"If this is confirmed, we will no longer be a 'medium' country, pursuing self-sufficiency and exporting a little. It will transform the nation to another level, with exporting properties like Venezuela, Arab nations and others," said Dilma Rousseff, presidential chief of staff.

For a country that went deeply into debt buying foreign oil in the 1970s and '80s, "this has changed our reality," she said.

Felipe Cunha, an oil analyst with the Sao Paulo-based brokerage Brascan, said the Tupi field guarantees Brazil's oil output will continue to grow.

"If the best-case scenario happens, this discovery would make Petrobras' reserves overcome those of Shell and Chevron and put Petrobras behind only Exxon and British Petroleum," Cunha said.
--------------------------end of excerpts---------------read the article by clicking on this link ------------------------

VoR: this is great news!  I will personally celebrate by purchasing Brazilian wine this weekend and toasting their success.

Note: most Americans are not aware that Italian immigrants launched a wine growing industry in Brazil in the 1880's. The best Brazilian wines come from Rio Grande do Sul, the Brazilian state that is furthest south. If any readers of this blog are wine aficionados, I would suggest a Merlot from wineries such as Miolo or Casa Valduga. Saúde (to your health) as they say in Brazil.

Some additional points to ponder:

* Remember that Brazil has been touted by environmentalists as a role model, due to its Govt-mandated efforts to switch a significant percentage of Brazilian automobiles from gasoline to ethanol or flex (dual-use)?

* As a result of this discovery, the price of gas will eventually drop in Brazil. How will Brazilians feel about the Govt-mandated switch from gasoline to ethanol or dual use? Will they continue to be enthusiastic supporters of ethanol because of their deeply held feelings about Go-Ba-Wa-Ma as a religious cult? (that's global warming, to you un-enlightened, capitalist, gas guzzlers).

* It would be interesting to see how environmentalists react to the fact that their enviro-champion is soon to become a major exporter of oil. No doubt they will find that this drilling disturbs the mating rituals of the dwindling numbers of endangered undersea Brazilian caribou.

* For Americans, it means the addition of an additional source of oil that is not affiliated with the Middle East. This news should also have a positive effect on the price of oil, which has hovered near the $100/barrel mark in recent days.

* This news from Brazil also begs the question - WHY AREN'T WE DRILLING IN THE ANWR COASTAL PLAIN? Heck, the mere opening of debate on this subject in our Congress wil cause oil prices to drop!

* One hopes that Brazil will use its resources wisely and not go the way of Venezuela. However, the fact that Petrobras is Govt-run doesn't bode well for long-term prospects. It would be a lot more beneficial to the Brazilian economy if Petrobras were privatized.

* Since Brazil had become a net importer of corn (to produce ethanol), perhaps this will help reduce the demand for corn -- bringing corn prices back to normal. Hey, maybe our Mexican comrades can afford to eat Tortillas again!

Read "Of Tortillas .. and men"

Is Christianity The Problem? Hitchens vs. D'Souza

The above debate took place on October 22, 2007. It was hosted by The New York Society for Ethical Culture, and sponsored by several organizations including: The King’s College, The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and tothesource.org.

The debate may be viewed via Youtube, thanks to 'aLifelessMagical'; each of the following segments is approximately 9:30 minutes long. The format of the debate is as follows: ten minutes for each speaker, followed by five minutes of rebuttal per speaker, then questions back-and-forth between the speakers. The debate concluded with questions from the audience, with the first three questions reserved for students of King’s College.

Part 1 of 10
Part 2 of 10
Part 3 of 10
Part 4 of 10
Part 5 of 10
Part 6 of 10
Part 7 of 10
Part 8 of 10
Part 9 of 10
Part 10 of 10

Selected excerpts, edited for clarity:

DD: Atheism has become a militant phenomenon. If you are an unbeliever, why be militant? I don't believe in unicorns, but I haven't written any books on the subject.

DD: Western values came into the world because of Christianity. Concepts such as freedom and democracy derive from the belief that all men are equal in the eyes of God.

DD: Scientists from Kepler to Newton were Christians. Some (e.g. Mendel) were priests and monks!

DD: Modern science is based on three Christian assumptions that are, at root, metaphysical.
1. That the universe as a whole is rational
2. That the universe obeys laws that are comprehensible in the language of mathematics.
3. That the laws of nature our understandable within our own minds (evidence of God).

DD: religion hasn’t killed nearly as many people as atheism. Even during the Spanish Inquisition, which lasted 300 years, only 2,000 people were killed. In comparison, 20th century atheist regimes (including Hitler, the Soviets, Pol Pot), resulted in over a 100 million casualties.

CH: Christianity is a loose plagiarism of Judaism.

CH: The three major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) are based on faith that a man-made religion can be the key to salvation in this life and beyond. Although some 'social amelioration' can be attributed to the liberal stances taken by some adherents of Christianity, there is a higher standard of proof that is required before one can say that Christianity is the source of virtue.
 
CH: another assumption that is made by believers is that faith is itself a virtue, transcending reason and dispensing with the need for evidence

CH: human morality/ethics come from human solidarity that pre-dates all forms of monotheism. If not, are we to assume that our ancestors believed that perjury, murder and theft were OK, only to find out after the 'encounter in Sinai' that they weren't.

CH: Christianity is masochistic as well as partly sadistic. It assumes that we wouldn't know a right action or be able to have a right thought without the permission of a Celestial dictatorship that guards us while we sleep, that can convict us of thought crimes, that supervises our every waking moment and that is the origin of totalitarianism in the obeisance that it demands of us and continues to persecute and supervise us after death.

CH: How horrible would it be if we were forced to live in a posture of permanent gratitude to an unalterable 'benign' dictatorship in whose installation we had had no say

CH:  The story of Christianity is untrue, and made up by fallible and opportunistic human beings.
 
CH: The premise of Christianity is not only untrue, it is also immoral because:
* It offers 'vicarious redemption' - by applauding a particularly revolting human sacrifice that took place before you were born, it condemns you to punishment if you don't accept it. Or, if you accept it you are offered the chance that your own sins can be forgiven.

* It requires compulsory love and compulsory fear - simultaneously. If those conditions are met, it is not that you get a 2nd chance - or that your debts can be paid, but you receive an absolution of your sins. The desire to be washed free of sins (responsibilities) itself is immoral and should be rejected

CH: laws of nature can be suspended in your favor if you make the right propitiation. Einstein said that the laws of nature are not ever suspended. Christianity says that they CAN be suspended. A virgin can conceive, leprosy can be cured, the blind can see. It is immoral to lie to children.

CH's moral challenge to those in the audience who believe that morality comes from the supernatural: “Name a moral action or ethical statement made by a believer that could not also be done or held by an unbeliever.” However, if asked to 'name a wicked action or vile statement attributable ONLY to their religious faith' believers in the audience would find it very easy.

CH: the human species has existed for at least 100,000 years. Here is what you have to believe. Heaven watched that implacably for 98,000 years as humans lived and died in ignorance and then decided to intervene - in the form of a filthy human sacrifice in a remote part of the Palestine -  the news of which hasn't penetrated to the rest of the world and will not be believed when it does!

'Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything--except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the "welfare" of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only "to serve." . . . I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind--yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?'

The above words were spoken by Dr. Thomas Hendricks, a fictional surgeon in Atlas Shrugged. This novel was was written by Ayn Rand 50 years ago, during an era in which the medical profession was free - at least relative to modern times.

These words are worth reading (or re-reading) in the current political context, in which Universal Health Care appears to be a foregone conclusion. What would happen to our society, if our brightest minds abandoned the medical profession due to the enslavement that results from the Govt takeover of this field?

Interestingly, the above words also apply to other professions - including those that have become traditionally associated with Governmental institutions, e.g. education.

A symptom of the academic rot on our college campuses may be found in the seemingly innocuous area of 'progressive volunteerism'. Enter the oxymoronic world of mandatory volunteerism.

Admissions committees at most of our colleges place a disproportionately heavy emphasis on an applicant's record of progressive volunteerism. On the surface, this doesn't seem like such a bad thing - after all, it does show that the applicant 'gave something back to the commmunity', and perhaps learned about compassion during their high school years. Who could be against that?

Unfortunately, what should've been an interesting footnote to a student's application has now become an almost mandatory requirement. High school students are advised to pick from a 'menu of community service' choices. We are now witnessing the specter of mandatory volunteerism.

Under the guise of seeking well-rounded students and promoting diversity on campus, admissions committees are making their process more subjective and political. For example, a politically biased committee member may turn down a student with JROTC qualifications in favor of a student with a demonstrated progressive background, often based on the applicant's record as a community volunteer.

At some high schools in my area, administrators boast of their students who do as many as 125 hrs of community service during their sophomore and senior years. This is done to 'prepare them for the college admissions process'. In some cases, even academically gifted students are advised to forgo an additional AP course in favor of volunteer work.

The reality is that students are shown a path to college that does not demand academic rigor. Many of the incoming freshmen are well-rounded, well-meaning & diverse - but they lack academic preparation, having wasted precious time on fluffing up their resumes with progressive volunteerism.

Ideology is no longer a significant part of the discussion, except among political junkies (and most of TH-types are political junkies).

In fact, the word 'ideologue' has become a pejorative - as in 'he is an ideologue, incapable of compromise'. So, the touchstone of a 'good' politician is his/her ability to compromise, not his/her ability to stand fast on principle.

BTW, most of those who post frequently at TH (including yours truly) would be considered ideologues by 'pragmatic' politicians. 

What we are seeing is the non-ideological branding of candidates, parties and issues.

Wiki definition: A brand includes a name, logo, slogan, and/or design scheme associated with a product or service. Brand recognition and other reactions are created by the use of the product or service and through the influence of advertising, design, and media commentary. A brand is a symbolic embodiment of all the information connected to the product and serves to create associations and expectations around it.

When branding of politicians is non-ideological, primaries become a search for an electable standard-bearer. The RNC and DNC machinery are well tuned to this fact, and both sides will field 'compromisers'. The angst that (R) ideologues feel about Rudy, is not that different from the angst of (D) ideologues about Hillary.

There are some conservatives that are aggressively seeking a return to conservative ideology. I support that effort (with a focus on laissez-faire economics and American self-interest) , but fear that it is doomed.

So why has "ideology" become a dirty word? Why do politicians get away with damning "ideologues" as the proverbial black sheep?

I think that it is because America has become personality/celebrity driven. Celebrity has taken the place of ideology. And not just in politics .. think of the following 'associations' that more-or-less supplant the underlying concept or entity.

* the anti-war (D) party - Hillary
* Microsoft - Bill Gates
* Global warming - Al Gore the Nobel
* Altruism - Mother Theresa
* 9/11 - Rudy

LOS ANGELES — As the director of high schools in the gang-infested neighborhoods of the East Side of Los Angeles, Guadalupe Paramo struggles every day with educational dysfunction.

For the past half-dozen years, not even one in five students at her district’s teeming high schools has been able to do grade-level math or English. At Abraham Lincoln High School this year, only 7 in 100 students could. At Woodrow Wilson High, only 4 in 100 could.

For chronically failing schools like these, the No Child Left Behind law, now up for renewal in Congress, prescribes drastic measures: firing teachers and principals, shutting schools and turning them over to a private firm, a charter operator or the state itself, or a major overhaul in governance.

But more than 1,000 of California’s 9,500 schools are branded chronic failures, and the numbers are growing. Barring revisions in the law, state officials predict that all 6,063 public schools serving poor students will be declared in need of restructuring by 2014, when the law requires universal proficiency in math and reading.

“What are we supposed to do?” Ms. Paramo asked. “Shut down every school?” 

                            --------------end of excerpt------------

Yes, that is exactly what we must do, Ms. Paramo. Shut 'em down!

Then, re-open them under new (Private) management and let the magic of competition and accountability work - as it does in every other field in which it exists!

The above NY Times article should be read in its entirety by anyone who is concerned about K-12 education in America. The numbers are staggering - in California alone, more than 1000 of 9500 schools are "chronic failures", and 6043 schools that serve poor students need restructuring by 2014 unless the law is changed.

Not surprisingly, the NYTimes article is a thinly disguised screed against George Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. If the schools are failing, it must be the law that is causing their failure. Note: I'm not a huge fan of the NCLB law - at best, I consider it a bad compromise that was brought on by the need to mollify various political groups.

It is interesting to note that there is very little mention of Free Enterprise solutions to this problem. Although one of the provisions of NCLB is that failing schools could be turned over to a private firm or a charter operator, that solution isn't considered very favorably by the entrenched (and unionized) education Mafia.

The takeover of a failed school by the State is another provision under NCLB. Although I don't believe that this will make much difference, it is interesting that "so far, education experts say they are unaware of a single state that has taken over a failing school in response to the law. Instead, most allow school districts to seek other ways to improve."

What we need is a 10yr phased privatization of K-12 education.

PHASE1 (1st five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers that are redeemable at any accredited private or public school for every eligible kid
* tax deductibility of tuition to any accredited private school

PHASE2 (next five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private and public schools
* tax relief for everyone else
* end tax deductibility of tuition

PHASE3 (the future)
* no more public schools
* vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private schools (now a flourishing, self-sustaining part of the economy)

What would the effect be on all the players: teachers, administrators, students and parents?

Teachers & administrators: more pay for competence
Students & parents: higher quality, more choice, lower cost

Suggested links:

Free Enterprise Education

Education & economics

Imagine .. a pro-education presidential candidate

Johnny can't read .. it's time to think outside the box

Inspired by religious doctrine - or by feel-good liberal atheists - selflessness occupies a great deal of our attention.

Somewhere in America:

- A moist-eyed politician with a quivering lip (but impeccably coiffed hair) conjures up visions of starving or homeless people somewhere in the world

- a charismatic and telegenic preacher speaks with great conviction of our duty to help our less affluent fellow men

- presidential candidates speak of 'public service' in altruistic terms while indulging in shameless self-promotion

- admission committees at major universities consider the spirit of 'progressive volunteerism' as an important attribute in their applicants; in some cases, this can be as important as the applicant's academic record

- our political process is tilting Leftward, with each new entitlement as a stepping stone towards others. Failure of past entitlement programs is not an obstacle - as long as our intentions are 'selfless'.

- inefficient 'non-profit' ventures are placed on a pedestal, while it has become common to impugn the motives of 'for-profit' ventures; e.g Public Schools vs Private Schools

- there is a disproportionate sense of upliftment in the fake smarminess of 'donations', 'volunteerism' and 'not-for-profit'. Not that those actions are bad, but they certainly don't accomplish as much as 'for-profit' ventures. Observe that non-profit ventures would fail but for the contributions of people whose incomes are tied to for-profit ventures.

Instead of relying upon (and demanding) professionalism and competence, we are becoming a nation of parasites and willing victims.

What is killing us (softly), is the "S" word ..

S E L F L E S S N E S S 

Conversely, it is true that the word 'selfish' can be mis-construed.

But there appears to be no other way to describe it. Also, think of the way in which 'selflessness' is mis-construed on a regular basis:

* it has become perverted into the ideological basis of Leftist rationale for Welfare, Public Education

I'm familiar with the point-of-view that personal selflessness is 'good' while the enforcement of 'public' selflessness is 'evil'.

But that distinction is just not enough. We have become predisposed to accept all forms of selflessness (real or imaginary) as a political and economic trump card.

As a result:
* non-profit proposals get more public support than profit-oriented proposals
* selfless-sounding (but unworkable) policies become the law of the land; e.g. Public Education, Welfare, Universal Health Care
* foreign policy based on American self-interest becomes watered down into 'saving' other nations

And, in the end ..
* socialism will replace capitalism in America

If you think that is a stretch, wait until Nov '08 

A comment that is often heard relates to parenting: "How can you speak ill of selflessness? After all, think of parents, who toil selflessly to provide for their kids."

Personal anecdote (perhaps other parents can relate to this): when I held my newborn son for the first time, I was conscious of an emotional surge that was more powerful than any other I have previously experienced. As I looked at him I felt a sense of self - he was my son, and I would do anything for him. I felt the same surge when my 2nd son was born.

I cannot feel that bond with anyone else's child. At that moment, there were, perhaps, 50 other kids in the hospital nursery - but they didn't exist for me. It was (and remains) a selfish emotion that binds me to my children.

A parent who abandons their child clearly doesn't feel that bond with their child. Such a parent has no sense of 'self' - s/he is selfless in the purest sense of the word.
----
Selfish (def): one for whom the self is the sole purpose in life
----
A personal adaptation of the above definition: I include my children (I have two), my wife, my parents and my siblings within the bubble that I call my 'self'. To varying degrees I accept responsibilities towards those in my 'selfish' bubble. Since I voluntarily chose to get married and have kids, I accept a higher level of responsibility towards my wife and kids.

I believe that others feel similarly selfish - but are conditioned to feel guilty about such emotions by our culture's fascination with altruism. We therefore fall prey to anyone else (a politician, for example) who professes to actually adhere to those 'finer feelings' that we know we lack.

And that is the double-fraud of selflessness. It is inconsistent with human beings, but we are 'supposed' to feel guilty if we lack that quality.

Because, in order to believe in selflessness, we have to defraud ourselves into believing that:

1) Selflessness is a virtue
2) Humans are selfless creatures

If the above statements were true, then Communism would've succeeded. It didn't!

Religious people (and socialists) preach one form or another of selflessness as a panacea. It is worth thinking, however, could it be that we just aren't 'selfish' enough?

I realize that it is the prevailing fashion for people to put selflessness on a pedestal. Most of the teachings of organized religion also praise selflessness - in fact, without that concept, there wouldn't be much organization in organized religion.

But, is it possible that we are actually drowning in an orgy of selflessness? Consider that selflessness is the 'enabling agent', the gateway to:

* the welfare state
* multiculturism
* socialism
* affirmative action

Consider some of the most selfish actions that a human being can commit (and I'm guilty of them all):

* getting an education
* working to improve one's own life
* creating one's own biological children
* putting one's family first

By my definition, a male (or female) who abandons his/her biological children is truly selfless! It is an inversion of our morality (and language) that defines such actions as selfish.

This isn't just a linguistic or semantic interpretation. The 'selfless' mindset is what gives moral permission for people to abdicate their own responsibilities.

For example, if a person volunteers precious, productive years in 'selfless' efforts to help the 3rd World - surely their 'nobility' entitles them to have others pay for their medical care, if they happen to contract some disease in the process?

Imagine if everyone indulged in their 'selfless' fantasies. Can anyone seriously expect utopian results from such a worldview?