"Facts on the ground also compel us to recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq, including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.
The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces would not only throw open large parts of Iraq to domination by the radical regime in Tehran, it would also send an unmistakable message to the entire Middle East--from Lebanon to Gaza to the Persian Gulf where Iranian agents are threatening our allies--that Iran is ascendant there, and America is in retreat. One Arab leader told me during my trip that he is extremely concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but that he doubted America's staying power in the region and our political will to protect his country from Iranian retaliation over the long term. Abandoning Iraq now would substantiate precisely these gathering fears across the Middle East that the U.S. is becoming an unreliable ally.

That is why--as terrible as the continuing human cost of fighting this war in Iraq is--the human cost of losing it would be even greater. "

VoR: Kudos to Joe Lieberman!

To read the entire article, click here.

America was built on many good Judeo-Christian values .. but a couple of Trojan Horses snuck in along with all those 'good' values and forever affected our thinking on political issues.

Case in point: our religion-inspired predisposition to revere altruism sets us up to favor the 'have-nots'. Whatever else illegal immigrants might be, they definitely fit the description of 'have-nots'.

For the record: I happen to agree with the 'mainstream' conservative opinion that:
* we should enforce our laws,
* illegal immigrants should not be granted amnesty,
* we should build a wall and secure our borders for all the right reasons.

I weigh in on the topic of illegal immigration only to illustrate that it is difficult (and inconsistent) to take an anti-illegal-immigration stance while still adhering to the tenets of charity and sacrifice as 'virtues'. A politician who articulates such positions can be demagogued to death for his seeming insensitivity and lack of compassion.

Note: I don't claim to understand the ideological motivation or political calculus behind President Bush's support for this Immigration bill. Can any TH pundit explain if it is just plain foolishness, or is there some grand triangulation or strategery being attempted? 

That said, let's return to the subject of those darn Trojan Horses!

Our moral code extols altruism, so we lack moral ammunition against the illogic of illegal immigration. Although it is the right thing to say, it just sounds so mean-spirited and selfish to sit here, surrounded by our well-earned affluence, and say "send 'em all back to their Socialist cesspools. Let them take a couple of centuries to create a Capitalist society in their countries, if they want to succeed like us". 

Politicians use our religion-inspired predisposition towards altruism against us. If a politician can couch his support for Illegal Immigration in charitable terms - and enough of us buy into this nonsense - then the Trojan Horse has been successfully deployed. Of course, this applies on both sides of the political spectrum.

The Left has made compassionate conservative an oxymoron; and now the Right is skewering President Bush for being compassionate (but stupid). Observe the strenuous back-pedalling of Religious Conservatives away from President Bush once he showed his compassionate support for illegal immigration. Many Religious Conservatives voted for President Bush because he passed their social litmus tests. But now that he failed them on illegal immigration (an issue that involves economics and American self-interest), they are bitterly disappointed.

Sorry folks, but its that altruistic Trojan Horse that got us into this!

.. our chickens are coming home to roost.

We elected a conservative, whose ideology is based on:

* faith
* generosity & charity (with taxpayer money, a la the Prescription Drug Program)

Why does it surprise us that our champion is generous when it comes to opening our borders. Whether it is a cynical vote-grab (the position of the Democrat party) or misplaced compassion, the results are the same.

Next time, let's elect a conservative whose ideology is based on:

* reason
* American self-interest

Instead of obsessing about candidates' positions on social issues like gay rights, lets focus on our their positions on economic issues (yes, illegal immigration is an economic issue).

Our politicians can do more damage to our pocketbooks than to our sex lives. 

Capitalism IS self-limiting -- but only in a MIXED economy.

It is also limited when people take for granted that the affluence it produces (the effect) will magically survive all attempts to subvert capitalism (the cause).

Capitalism flourishes when there is the absence of Govt interference. In fact, if there is no enforced collective action, if you leave people alone, the result will be an evolving form of Capitalism! Therefore, Capitalism can be seen as the logical extension of personal freedom - in the economic arena. Unfortunately, it is that absence of interference that is encroached upon in all modern-day Capitalist countries, leading to the prevailing mixture.

With mostly good intentions, many of which lend themselves to good sound bites (e.g. "a chicken in every pot .."), we undermine the cause of Capitalism, while expecting it's effects to continue forever.

Of course, Capitalism is no panacea - it does not promise a successful outcome for everyone. There are those who complain that it is too harsh, and would create a gritty, unpleasant reality. The results, however, indicate that it is socialism, the antithesis of capitalism, that perpetuates dependence and poverty. Witness the gritty reality of countries such as North Korea and Cuba. What Capitalism does better than any othe system is to ensure the best utilization of scarce resources.

If affluence is de-linked from freedom (and Capitalism) by the citizens of a prosperous, capitalist country, they tend to opt for an ever increasing welfare state.

The question that we should ask ourselves is "Why do so many Americans (who benefit everyday from the affluence of Capitalism) fail to understand the causal relationship involved?"

My answer (and not a very popular one in this forum): we carry the germ of socialism in the form of our Judeo-Christian moral code that celebrates sacrifice.  While embracing the positive contributions of America's Judeo-Christian code, we should also be aware that the factors that limit our implementation of Capitalism are also borne by the same religious code.

The topic of illegal immigration is a glaring example of the logical inconsistency of Religious Conservatives.

Clarification: I make a distinction between Religious Conservatives - those whose political positions are driven by their Religious beliefs - and Conservatives who may be religious in their personal lives.

Notice how Religious Conservatives have to 'dance on the head of a pin' to defend their position because of their religious bias towards charity, sacrifice, altruism etc.

The anti-illegal-immigration points of Religious Conservatives can be summarized into:

* enforced charity (bad) is not the same as voluntary charity (good)
* its against the law - and laws are derived from and supported by Religious scripture
* despite the good intentions, it impoverishes regular Americans

Compare the above subjective statements with the following objective arguments put forward by Secular Conservatives, who do not have to reconcile their position with religious convictions:

* abolish the welfare state because it is immoral in principle AND in its implementation
* enforce our borders, to further our self-interest

Isn't it curious that Religious Conservatives fall back upon the Secular Conservative position while debating - but are forced to stretch greatly to justify the religious basis for those positions?

Similar problems of consistency exist with respect to the Religious Conservative positions on:
* Public Education
* Universal Health Care
* Minumum wage

Since the above entitlements affect regular Americans and not those foreigners (illegal aliens), Religious Conservatives will find it harder to refute those on moral grounds.

So, they are forced to a weaker pragmatic defense -- i.e. Universal Health Care doesn't work, so it is bad.

Religious people claim to have an altruistic philosophy - and they do - but their hypocrisy is exposed when they are forced to make subjective statements such as "sure, we would't mind supporting them with charity, but not inside our country"!

Or, "they broke the law" and laws (and govts) are acceptable because there are scriptures that support them! Those laws are definitely man-made, as are the borders between countries.

I happen to agree with most Religious Conservatives on the subject of illegal immigration; no amnesty, enforce the law, etc. However, I approach politics from a secular viewpoint - keeping any religious sentiments private.

I weigh in on this debate only to show that the lack of consistency of people who try to support the conservative position while simultaneously advocating a religious basis for political thought. I also maintain that it is this dichotomy that causes many religious people to break ranks with conservatives, especially in their younger years.

.. the prospect of Islamic terror raised the temperature a tad too fast!

You know the urban legend: "The boiling frog story states that a frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough — it is said that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will never jump out."

Socialist leaders know exactly how to play this game. By 'giving' unearned benefits to the electorate while raising taxes to pay for their generosity, they raise the temperature of the water gradually. 

As long as it gets them re-elected, Socialists don't really worry about the effects of their policy. When faced with a failing economy and a loss of competitiveness in Global terms, French politicians reduced the mandated work week, raised the minimum wage and passed legislation that 'protects' workers from ever being fired. Deluded French voters kept re-electing leaders who 'gave' them such benefits, despite the fact that they were leading France towards lower economic standards. Does any of this sound familiar?

So, what happened? Why couldn't the Socialists keep their shell game going forever?

In Chirac-istan, the combination of a weak immigration policy and a 'strong' welfare state attracted the worst kind of immigrants. Bewildered, left-leaning Frenchmen watched the demographic tide that had swept up on their shores. They could catch a glimpse, a sneak preview, of the dismal future that their Leftist politicians had brought upon them.

When the prospect of a violent, un-assimilated, un-employable Islamic underclass was added to the mix - the 'temperature' of the water rose abruptly, and the Frog jumped. 

Irrational exuberance, n'est-ce pas?

Despite my joy in seeing the French electorate lean (somewhat) to the Right, my optimism is tempered by the fact that the French have been indoctrinated for so long in the 'goodness' of welfare-statism that their changes are likely to be incremental, not structural. After decades of damage it would take several quantum leaps for them to realize any significant benefits.

Lacking the huevos to opt for quantum changes, they are likely to enact some feeble 'reforms' which will be trumpeted as "American style Capitalism, with a dash of French flavor". Those reforms will inevitably cause some pain among the indolent, who are used to being hand-fed. Their answer will then be - Capitalism doesn't work mon ami, let's go marching back to the glory days of socialism while the band plays "La Marseillaise" triumphantly in the background.

Parallels may be found in our own society. Public Education - which should have been anathema in 'free-enterprise' America - is here to stay. We may see some incremental changes (e.g. vouchers) that are touted as great steps towards a free market. But those limited, short-lived experiments will never generate broad based results and we will continue to slouch leftwards.

Supporters of laissez-faire capitalism have seen the cloud of communism descending upon Latin America over the past year. The following links show an inexorable trend:

May 1, 2006: Bolivian President Seizes Gas Industry (from washingtonpost.com)

Feb 20, 2007: Venezuela Nationalizes Its Largest Power Firm (from npr.org)

May 1, 2007: Chavez takes control of oil giants (from cnn.com)

No doubt these news items bring joy to socialists everywhere. Unfortunately, the results of this trend are all too predictable. We can expect poverty levels to rise in countries whose leaders enforce their command by these steps. On the global market for commodities such as oil, we can predict shortages due to reduced production, leading to higher prices.

Amidst all this doom-and-gloom, there may be some good news!

May 7, 2007: France Elects U.S.-Friendly Conservative (from cbsnews.com)

Of all the gin joints in all the world, the electorate in France has signalled it's disgust with big-Govt Socialism. While it is too early to tell, there may be hope for France after all ..

I have just finished reading "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I recommend it highly to everyone!

As previous visitors to this blog may have noticed, I espouse the concept of political atheism. In my view, political atheism is not necessarily the same thing as personal atheism. My beliefs are based on the need for consistency in every area of our lives. I believe that the germ of socialism is introduced into our political & economic thinking by our deeply held religious beliefs. Typically, the germ is embodied as the glorification of self-sacrifice and altruism, a central tenet of most major religions. Therefore, religion makes our political & religious thinking inconsistent.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's journey from being a near-militant Islamist sympathizer to skeptical socialist and then all the way to secular near-conservative is inspiring - not because she is some kind of superwoman, but because she is a normal human being who seeks a consistent ideology. However, in the prevailing cultural fog of moral grayness, she is special. She questions inconsistencies, whether they are based on religious or political dogma.

As a fellow-seeker of moral consistency, I was struck by the questions that arise in young Ayaan's mind. For example, she is faced with the stern double-standard of morality in Islam: a woman may not show her face because it may provoke uncontrollable sexual lust in men. Her question, revealing an innocently correct search for consistency "what if the sight of a man's uncovered face incites a similar lust in women?"

After fleeing an arranged, loveless marriage, Ayaan's early experiences with the Dutch nanny-state cause her to marvel at the largesse provided by welfare in a mixed economy. Even as she benefits from the generosity, she is not blind to the problems. She sees the inconsistencies of socialism in the way it affects people on both sides of the equation. At that stage in her life, Ayaan has a limited education, but has the intelligence to observe the 'cause and effect' linkage between socialism and dependency. A rare example in the community of African refugees, she focuses on getting a post-graduate education and breaks away from the pernicious grasp of the welfare cycle. Her intellectual growth continues as she discards Leftist ideology and multi-cultural thinking on the altar of moral consistency.

After 9/11, Ayaan reaches celebrity status due to her denunciation of the faith that provides a moral justification for mass murder. An innocently sincere question that she raises at a public conference is followed by her appearances on TV. She touches off a firestorm within her own Left-leaning political party for daring to question the hypocrisy of multi-culturalism. Following through logically, she publicly discards Islam despite the fact that she faces ostracism from her family. During Ayaan's tenure in Dutch politics, she faces the brunt of full-contact modern day politics in which her opponents have her Dutch citizenship revoked in order to bring down the prevailing government.

A collaboration between Ayaan and Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh leads to a documentary titled "Submission" about the fate of women under Islamic law. When Theo van Gogh is brutally murdered and Ayaan's life is threatened by Islamists, she is forced to go into hiding. Ayaan strips away any romantic illusions that readers may have towards life-in-hiding; for several joyless years, she is shuttled between nondescript 'secure locations' in Europe and the US. While she pays a steep price for her beliefs, Ayaan remains steadfast in her principles.

Most people seek morally consistent belief systems in their early years. Either out of ignorance, or from dogmatic thinking, many young people are given limited choices. Seeking consistency, they often choose some sort of organized Religion in their personal lives and Welfare State Socialism as the political & economic extension of their personal beliefs. Even those who manage to find a principled, objective world-view in their early years seem to sag into the pit of moral relativism in later years. On this blog I apply this criticism equally to Secular & Religious Leftists as well as Religious Conservatives. If you think about it, Religious Leftists may be wrong-headed, but they sure are morally consistent!

Most Religious Conservatives in America will appreciate reading about Ayaan's formative years and her subsequent struggles with Islam and Socialism. However, they will have difficulty in embracing Ayaan's atheism and some of her thoughts on social issues. American Leftists, whether religious or secular, will enjoy the book as a 'good read', but are likely to discard her political and economic world-view. Introspective readers of all persuasions may see ominous parallels in their own thinking that will be difficult to ignore.

Ayaan's book is inspiring, because the story of her life is about a normal person who just keeps asking questions. Unlike most people, she doesn't just 'shut up and conform' but continues to seek moral consistency in her life.

Bravo, Ayaan. Stay safe ..

Our politicians like to 'apologize' publicly for systemic failures made by previous generations. I call them Crocodile Apologies, because they are usually accompanied by crocodile tears.

Usually politicians apologize to television cameras for mistakes that were made many generations ago. For example, it is now en vogue to apologize for slavery. While slavery is a blot on our national historical conscience, there are no Americans alive today who are guilty of practicing slavery.

How about a big real apology for screwing up education from the 1950s onwards? Now that is a mistake that continues to fester, so real, living Americans are involved. And, there is certainly plenty of culpability to go around!

Is there a presidential candidate (on either side) who would like to get 'first water' by being the first to apologize for getting the Govt mired into ownership of schools?

It is very simple: despite our best intentions, we messed up!

Of course there were disparities, unequal outcomes, unfairness etc. But, as a result of our 'solution', the Govt:

* builds, owns and operates schools
* sets curriculum
* hires teachers, administrators, staff
* negotiates salaries with unions
* raises taxes

Results?

* more 'unequal outcomes', unfairness
* high costs that outpace inflation
* low (and steadily worsening) quality

Imagine what might have transpired if the 'reformers' of the 1950s and 1960s had mandated Govt vouchers (only for the needy) - and nothing else!

Neither side has it right, unfortunately, on fixing our K-12 education system.

The suggestions from both sides are minor - involving patchwork to a system that is failing miserably!

Republicans: local control (state level), more money, some accountability .. blah, blah

Democrats: Federal control, more money .. blah, blah

Of the two 'patchwork' solutions, I happen to favor (slightly) the Republican version - but c'mon .. don't any of these politicians get the fact that as a country, we erred grossly when we put K-12 education into the hands of the Govt? Would it matter significantly if it was the State Govt instead of the Federal Govt?

How long will we taxpayers accept band-aids on a gushing wound?

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

In a previous post, I posed the following question: If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by Socialism?

An interesting question, isn't it? In this article, I attempt some analysis. Feel free to agree or disagree - I invite your comments!

Is the question based on fact? Consider that America is 80% Christian but a 50/50 country based on political affiliation. Even assuming that the entire 20% of America that is non-Christian leans leftwards (a questionable assumption) that means that 30% of those who lean to the left are likely to be Christians. Another way of stating this is "At least 30% of our voters are religious-leftists".

Of course, a good follow-on question would be "But are they leftists because of their social or economic views?"

An analogous question may be asked of secular conservatives - "Are they conservative because of their social or economic views?"

For the purposes of this discussion, I identify Leftist or Conservative social and economic positions based on definitions in a previous post titled:  What kind of FOUR LETTER conservative are you?

Since Christian principles are usually at odds with the Leftist social viewpoint, does this mean that religious leftists lead with their redistributionist economic views?

Since religion is likely to drive social rather than economic views, it seems intuitive that social conservatives lead with their laissez-faire economic views.

Unless there is a flaw in the above reasoning, conservative economists (e.g. Dr. Thomas Sowell) should be given a lot more air time by Republicans seeking to 'convert' religious leftists to the conservative cause. It would seem that conservative economists would have a much larger 'addressable market' for new voters than conservative spokesmen of the Jerry Falwell variety?

I mean, with 30% of the electorate up-for-grabs, talk about a vote rich environment! Also, from a sheer entertainment point-of-view, wouldn't you like to see Dr. Sowell wipe the floor with Paul Krugman in a debate on economics?

The answer to the above question depends on whom you ask. Let's ask the same question during imaginary interviews with four different people:

Q) If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by socialism?
A) Religious conservative> Christians who buy into socialism aren't real Christians; they have lost their way. Or, they're Christians who are unable to think - they are (insert favorite pejorative phrase here for a 'mental midget') and have misunderstood the Scriptures. Since socialism doesn't work, it doesn't lead to the betterment of humanity. Therefore, it is anti-Christian, notwithstanding all the pious sounding objectives. If a nice socialist engages me in a debate and says that we just aren't implementing socialism very well (e.g. we just need slightly higher taxes to feed everyone), I really have no morally consistent answer.

Q) If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by socialism?
A) Religious leftist> because socialism is based on self-sacrifice, which is consistent with my religion. Socialism also glorifies the downtrodden, and that too, is consistent with my religion. As a result I personally embrace socialism. I work tirelessly to feed the hungry (all over the world), and give willingly of myself so that others can improve their lives. I do not seek affluence, or any of the modern conveniences of the Western world, because those are not my goals, or the goals of my co-religionists. Like them, I am poor but that doesn't bother me, because I rejoice in my faith. My country's affluence offends me, because it shows the stark contrast that is prevelant in the world today. I seek a more spiritual and less material world. "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:17-26).

Q) If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by socialism?
A) Secular leftist> I don't really have a religion, but I sure am glad to have the votes of religious leftists (who are being consistent with their quaint faith) - while I seek control and power over those who produce wealth. Some may call my approach 'parasitic' but they don't really understand that their world would fall apart without the benevolent influence of enlightened people like me. Oh, because of the contradictory, quaint beliefs of Christians, I will continue to drive more of them towards my agenda in every generation. It works particularly well with younger Christians. Sotto voce: Boy, am I glad that we reformed public education in the 1950s and 60s! Its so easy to gain the moral high-ground in political debates today - all we have to do is scold religious conservatives for being anti-social towards the downtrodden.  I just love to watch them squirm, while dancing on the head of a pin. I particularly love it when they get angry, self-righteous and hateful - because I can use that too against them!

Q) If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by socialism?
A) Secular conservative> I am either atheistic in my personal life - or, I keep my religion away from politics. That is because I understand the inconsistency of religion and Capitalism - which is synonymous with freedom.

If the above description troubles you, it should!

I have just finished reading "The Bell Curve" by Herrnstein & Murray (1994) and - although it is a tough read for the mathematically challenged - I recommend it highly to anyone who wants to weigh in on subjects related to education in America.

Here is the Wiki link for those who may not have enough time to read the book - I must confess that it took me over a month, given my schedule! The Wiki link also presents some of the criticism that was levelled against this book (e.g. that it promotes scientific racism).

My personal opinion is that the material & data is presented clearly. Conclusions that are drawn seem to be objective, and the authors repeatedly caution against using the material outside the intended scope.

Obviously, dealing with multi-variable issues in a statistical manner is difficult. The authors carefully 'control' for relevant parameters and dissect the available data (sources of which are also explained). The effects of divorce, illegitimacy, parental socio-economic status, parental education, race, welfare, crime and other issues are carefully accounted for in this book - and the results are occasionally predictable but sometimes surprising.

Reputable sources of data are examined, for example the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY), a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics tracking thousands of Americans starting in the 1980s. All participants in the NLSY took the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), a measure of cognitive ability comparable to an IQ test.

The statistical techniques employed are well explained - even to the mathematical novice - and correlations are carefully stated. 

The conventional wisdom is that K-12 Public Education in America is a failure. However, some people point to the stunted nature of Private Education as proof that privatization is not the answer.

Often cited is the fact that there is a long 'waiting list at the expensive public schools'. Does this make sense? Can we apply Econ101 and come up with an explanation?

Remember: economics deals with the allocation of scarce resources.

If you think about it, the fact that there are waiting lists for the good pvt schools actually demonstrates the impact of 'free' public education on the market for Private Education.

The analogy that comes to mind is that of the Private Enterprise (black market) shops in the former Soviet Union.

While the grocery stores in the Soviet Paradise had bare shelves, people would line up for hours for a chance to get their hands on the scarce luxuries (e.g. meat) at the Pvt stores.

Except for the fact that Pvt schools in the US are not illegal, the scarcity of good education as a commodity is the result of Govt control of this sector.

BTW, if the NEA had its way, don't you think that Private schools would be illegal! If that sounds absurd, stick around for a decade or two ..

And now, for a thought experiment!

Your name is GoodTeacher. You, along with three other good teachers, decided to become educational entrepreneurs - so, you start a company called EnterpriseEd. You see a market in AnyCity, USA because the public schools were underperforming.

Clearly, you could make a case that there is a need for better schools. But is there a 'demand' for a for-profit school?

Rather than wait around for public schools to 'reform' themselves, EnterpriseEd decides to do something about it themselves - exemplifying their true American spirit!

So EnterpriseEd puts together a business plan - and off they go in search of funding to start a pvt school. They finally manage to get in front of a Venture Capital firm called GotBucks, Inc.

The first question (and maybe the final one) from GotBucks would be "How do you compete against a 'free' system"? With parents already paying for public schools via taxation, can you quantify the demand?

EnterpriseEd (along with its charter member, GoodTeacher) don't have a good answer, because their addressable space (a term that VCs like to use) is almost non-existent.

Lacking capital, GoodTeacher (and her partners) go back to their jobs as Govt servants, depriving the citizens of AnyCity, USA of an alternative.

Now, imagine this scenario taking place all over the US, and for many, many generations. Is it surprising that there aren't enough pvt schools? Is it surprising that there are shortages in a country that lacks for very little in most other areas?

What is the missing ingredient?

As I argue in "Johnny can't read .. it's time to think outside the box", that missing ingredient is free-enterprise.

A visitor from a foreign country would be justified in making the following observation: "Free-enterprise institutions work well in America, delivering good quality at prices that are affordable to everyone. Americans must love their food and entertainment, because they have made sure that those areas benefit from this uniquely American thing called free enterprise.

"It would also appear that the quality of education is unimportant to Americans, as long as there is access to it. Why else would they have utilized a worn-out, broken down system to educate their kids? Americans also seem to consider teachers to be inferior professionals . Somehow, Americans think that they are not really qualified. They NEED a Union, they need to be cocooned from the marketplace."

I disagree vehemently with any notion that teachers are 'weak', either intellectually or morally. I've met many, many teachers who have the intellectual and moral strength to succeed in ANY profession. They choose to be teachers, because it is THEIR LIFE. But, any success they have comes IN SPITE of the system - not because of it. They will continue to be the best teachers in a free-enterprise system of education. In fact, they will be 'recruited' by many schools, bidding desperately to get the best staff on their teams.

The current system is designed to attract mediocre people into the teaching profession. The exceptions to that rule are a few really good, motivated, talented people who burn out after a decade and (if they're lucky) get recruited by the few private schools that manage to survive in the swamp created by Public Education.

We love to think that our system attracts thousands of Jaime Escalantes a la "Stand and Deliver". But that is not what really exists in our schools. We're all impressed by the movies that show a heart-of-gold teacher with the forbearance of Mother Theresa and/or Gandhi, the intellect of Edison or Mme Curie and the street cred and toughness of Morgan Freeman. The fact that some teachers exist who embody all those attributes is wonderful - but in a macro sense, a system that is designed to work only when run by supermen and superwomen is destined to fail.

Observe that the private sector produces SUPER quality (forced by competition) while being run by seemingly NORMAL individuals. Similarly, a private sector education system would also produce high quality output (well educated kids) while harnessing the productive abilities of teachers and administrators.

If we don't switch to free-enterprise education, we are dooming future generations of students to mediocrity. We will also lose many potentially wonderful teachers.

Imagine .. 
A presidential candidate whose platform for education included the following:

A) Making tuition to accredited Private Schools tax deductible

AND / OR

B) Providing vouchers to families with school age kids - vouchers that could be used at accredited public AND private schools

Such a candidate would get the interest of parents (read: voters) from both sides of the political spectrum.

Needless to say, such a candidate would not appeal to most union-istas - except for those who also happened to be parents who put their kids' education ahead of the political loyalties.

What would the above proposals achieve?

They would:

• constitute a relatively minor change in our existing system - and give us a chance to see if this reforms the system
• revive private education - currently struggling, with some notable exceptions
• increase competition for teachers - raising salaries for good teachers
• set the country on a path towards free-enterprise-education; IMO this should've been our approach from day one!

Please take a moment and jot down your responses to the following questions:

1) Would you vote for such a candidate regardless of the candidate's party affiliation?

2) Are there any disadvantages to either of the two proposals?

3) Can you name any candidate with the huevos to take on the status-quo in education?

4) Can we accept the status-quo?