These are the three upcoming California Special Election ballot issues that are the 'no-brainers' of the ballot. As a libertarian-leaning conservative who is a strong supporter of "promoting individual liberty and economic freedom through the idea of limited government, private property rights, and free market capitalism" (as our masthead states), I emphatically urge everyone to VOTE NO on 78, 79, and 80. All three are anti-capitalist, pro-big government measures that will result in shortages and more regulation.
Prop 78 and Prop 79 are competing attempts to regulate prescription drugs. One is sponsored by the drug companies, the other by trial lawyers and consumer advocate groups, and both would mean government regulation of prescription drug costs. Government imposed cost controls always result in lower quality, lower supply, and frustrated consumers. I cannot think of a single circumstance where the imposition of government bureaucracy and regulation has resulted in lower costs, more choice, better quality, and more supply. The opposite is ALWAYS the result.
Prop 80, if passed, would re-regulate California's electrical supply. While deregulation of a decade ago was poorly planned, and even more poorly executed, the re-imposition of government controls is not the answer. Like Prop's 78 and 79, the result will be less supply, fewer choices, and lower quality.
If you doubt my conclusions on free markets versus a regulated market, consider how the telephone service market developed. First, under the regulated market of the first five or six decades of telephone service here in the USA we though we had good prices, features, and quality. However, compare those days to the current, relatively unregulated mobile phone market. Prices are lower, features are too many to list, and long distance is FREE! In addition, the monthly costs keep dropping, and the features list grows longer.
Don't put the prescription drug market nor the electrical markets back into the stone age.
Vote NO on 78, 79, and 80.
Key words
Prop 78
Prop 79
Prop 80
California Special Election
Monday, October 31, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
California Proposition 76: State Spending and School Funding Limits
California's special election next month gives voters the opportunity to decide several important state issues. This post will discuss the merits of Prop 76, which, if passed, would place limits on state spending and on state school funding.
Currently, there are spending limits in place in the state of California, but due to the nature of the source of state revenues, primarily personal and corporate income taxes and general sales taxes, revenues rise and fall dramatically as the state's economy rises and falls. Spending must rise and fall accordingly, or large surplusses or deficits result. The legislature hasn't shown the ability to restrain spending the surplusses, instead of holding it in reserve for the years when revenues fall below expected expendatures.
Prop 76 would change all that. In general, this proposition would limit spending to "the prior-year level of expenditures, adjusted by the average of the growth rates in combined General Fund and special fund revenues over the prior three years", as the non-partisan Legislative Analyst reports in the Voters Guide. This would have the effect over time of constraining spending during revenue-rich periods, but would allow more liberal spending in revenue-poor periods. It would accomplish this by placing excess revenues in reserve for those leaner times.
For school funding, this measure would alter the current minimum spending guarantees in place from previous propositions. It's rather complicated, but essentially would likely lower minimum spending guarantees, while at the same time reducing school funding volitility. School administrators would be able to better plan budgets with the knowledge that future funding would be more consistent.
It is important to note as well that just because minimum funding guarantees would likly be reduced, there is no reason to assume that actual school spending will decrease. The legislature and the governor can fund schools at higher than the minimum, and no limits are initiated by this proposal. It will be up to you and me to hold the state responsible if school funding is inadequate.
Finally, this proposal would grant new power to the governor to control spending. Under Prop 76, the governor could declare a "fiscal emergency", and then unilaterally reduce spending without legislative approval.
The Democrats and the public employee unions are, of course, opposed to this measure. They oppose any limits placed on their ability spend your money. The unions are specifically opposed to any limits that might impact their ability to implement pay raises and improve retirement benefits for their members. The legislature is heavily dominated by Democrats, and they, of course, oppose anything thing that limits their power to spend, and grants authority to the governor to override their spending plans.
They have never before shown any ability to restrain spending, and this proposal will bring some fiscal sanity and consistency to the budget process.
Vote YES on 76
Key words
California Special Election
Join Arnold
Proposition 76
California State Spending
California School Funding
Currently, there are spending limits in place in the state of California, but due to the nature of the source of state revenues, primarily personal and corporate income taxes and general sales taxes, revenues rise and fall dramatically as the state's economy rises and falls. Spending must rise and fall accordingly, or large surplusses or deficits result. The legislature hasn't shown the ability to restrain spending the surplusses, instead of holding it in reserve for the years when revenues fall below expected expendatures.
Prop 76 would change all that. In general, this proposition would limit spending to "the prior-year level of expenditures, adjusted by the average of the growth rates in combined General Fund and special fund revenues over the prior three years", as the non-partisan Legislative Analyst reports in the Voters Guide. This would have the effect over time of constraining spending during revenue-rich periods, but would allow more liberal spending in revenue-poor periods. It would accomplish this by placing excess revenues in reserve for those leaner times.
For school funding, this measure would alter the current minimum spending guarantees in place from previous propositions. It's rather complicated, but essentially would likely lower minimum spending guarantees, while at the same time reducing school funding volitility. School administrators would be able to better plan budgets with the knowledge that future funding would be more consistent.
It is important to note as well that just because minimum funding guarantees would likly be reduced, there is no reason to assume that actual school spending will decrease. The legislature and the governor can fund schools at higher than the minimum, and no limits are initiated by this proposal. It will be up to you and me to hold the state responsible if school funding is inadequate.
Finally, this proposal would grant new power to the governor to control spending. Under Prop 76, the governor could declare a "fiscal emergency", and then unilaterally reduce spending without legislative approval.
The Democrats and the public employee unions are, of course, opposed to this measure. They oppose any limits placed on their ability spend your money. The unions are specifically opposed to any limits that might impact their ability to implement pay raises and improve retirement benefits for their members. The legislature is heavily dominated by Democrats, and they, of course, oppose anything thing that limits their power to spend, and grants authority to the governor to override their spending plans.
They have never before shown any ability to restrain spending, and this proposal will bring some fiscal sanity and consistency to the budget process.
Vote YES on 76
Key words
California Special Election
Join Arnold
Proposition 76
California State Spending
California School Funding
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
California Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Member's Dues for Political Campaigns **UPDATED**
**UPDATE** Recent television advertisements paid for by public employee unions deceptively suggest that (paraphrasing) 'there are already ways for members to opt-out of politcal fees and activities', and that Prop 75 is therefore unecessary.
What they don't say, but as this original post did below, is that the only way for a union member to 'opt-out' is to resign membership in the union. A member cannot opt-out.
Furthermore, if this proposition is "unecessary", then why will the public employee unions pay the tens and probably hundreds of million dollars on their "No on 75" campaign?
This third installment in my series of discussions about the California Special Election next month discusses Proposition 75, which, if passed, would require public employee unions to receive annual written permission from each member to use union dues for political purposes.
The public employee unions (police, fire, nurses, and teachers, primarily) are absolutely livid about this proposition because it's passage would mean that these unions would not be able to compel their members to contribute money to spend on the political campaigns that the union leadership supports.
Currently, public employees are not required to join unions, and those who choose not to join must pay a fee to the union for the union's collective bargaining work, though they do not have to pay a fee to the union for political activities.
Members of the union, however, don't have that right, and must pay whatever fee the union leadership decides is appropriate to support whatever political position the leadership chooses. The member who believes in and supports the right to collective bargaining, but is not politically allied with the generally far-left leaning union leadership, MUST support financially the leadership's political positions. The passage of Prop 75 would end that unfair practice and allow loyal members the option to 'opting-out' of political activity. That is the extent of the proposition if passed.
The union leadership views this issue as one of power; specifically theirs. They try to paint the backers of Prop 75 as evil corporations out to destroy the American way of life, when, in fact, this matter is really about freedom and the rights of the individual over that of the union. Many union members support the union in its efforts to help members, but don't necessarily support the political positions of the union leadership. This proposition would simply allow the members themselves——not union leadership——to decide if they wish to finacially support the union's political activities.
One of the arguments against passage of Prop 75 is that it unfairly targets unions, and doesn't require corporations to receive shareholder permission prior to contributing to a given political campaign. However, their is a very big difference between unions and corporations in this regard. If you work as a police officer, firefighter, nurse, or teacher in the state of California, you must join the union, or be represented by them as a non-member. There are no other choices.
However, no one is required to buy shares in a corporation. The decision to own or not to own shares in publicly traded corporation is entirely that of the individual. Furthermore, you can still work and provide for yourself and your family while owning, or while not owning shares in a corporation. Your livelihood is not affected in any way by your personal decision to own or not to own corporate stocks.
This issue, despite what the unions are spending millions to convince you of, is simply about choice. Your choice versus theirs. The rights of the individual or of the union. Freedom versus central control.
Vote YES on 75
Key words
Prop 75
California Special Election
Ask Arnold
California Propositions
California Public Employee Unions
What they don't say, but as this original post did below, is that the only way for a union member to 'opt-out' is to resign membership in the union. A member cannot opt-out.
Furthermore, if this proposition is "unecessary", then why will the public employee unions pay the tens and probably hundreds of million dollars on their "No on 75" campaign?
This third installment in my series of discussions about the California Special Election next month discusses Proposition 75, which, if passed, would require public employee unions to receive annual written permission from each member to use union dues for political purposes.
The public employee unions (police, fire, nurses, and teachers, primarily) are absolutely livid about this proposition because it's passage would mean that these unions would not be able to compel their members to contribute money to spend on the political campaigns that the union leadership supports.
Currently, public employees are not required to join unions, and those who choose not to join must pay a fee to the union for the union's collective bargaining work, though they do not have to pay a fee to the union for political activities.
Members of the union, however, don't have that right, and must pay whatever fee the union leadership decides is appropriate to support whatever political position the leadership chooses. The member who believes in and supports the right to collective bargaining, but is not politically allied with the generally far-left leaning union leadership, MUST support financially the leadership's political positions. The passage of Prop 75 would end that unfair practice and allow loyal members the option to 'opting-out' of political activity. That is the extent of the proposition if passed.
The union leadership views this issue as one of power; specifically theirs. They try to paint the backers of Prop 75 as evil corporations out to destroy the American way of life, when, in fact, this matter is really about freedom and the rights of the individual over that of the union. Many union members support the union in its efforts to help members, but don't necessarily support the political positions of the union leadership. This proposition would simply allow the members themselves——not union leadership——to decide if they wish to finacially support the union's political activities.
One of the arguments against passage of Prop 75 is that it unfairly targets unions, and doesn't require corporations to receive shareholder permission prior to contributing to a given political campaign. However, their is a very big difference between unions and corporations in this regard. If you work as a police officer, firefighter, nurse, or teacher in the state of California, you must join the union, or be represented by them as a non-member. There are no other choices.
However, no one is required to buy shares in a corporation. The decision to own or not to own shares in publicly traded corporation is entirely that of the individual. Furthermore, you can still work and provide for yourself and your family while owning, or while not owning shares in a corporation. Your livelihood is not affected in any way by your personal decision to own or not to own corporate stocks.
This issue, despite what the unions are spending millions to convince you of, is simply about choice. Your choice versus theirs. The rights of the individual or of the union. Freedom versus central control.
Vote YES on 75
Key words
Prop 75
California Special Election
Ask Arnold
California Propositions
California Public Employee Unions
Thursday, October 13, 2005
California Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure **Updated**
Next month's special election here in California has several important propositions on the ballot. These were placed on the ballot by Governor Schwartzenegger after failing to agree with the Democrat-controlled legislature on these important issues. In my previous installment on these propositions, I discussed Prop 77, the redistricting issue, and this week I will discuss Prop 74, the "teacher tenure" issue.
If enacted, the measure would be officially titled "Put the Kids First Act". This measure affects two employment criteria for public school teachers: First, the probationary period for new teachers would be extended from two to five years. Second, school administrators would have the ability to fire lower-performing teachers who have received two consecutive "unsatisfactory evaluations", regardless of their tenure status. The dismissed teacher can, within 30 days of their dismissal, ask for an administrative hearing on their dismissal.
The teachers unions obviously are very upset about this measure. They don't like the idea that their members can be fired for poor performance, and without a prior hearing. Welcome to the real world, teachers!
Most of us——some estimates say 60%* —are employed as "at-will" employees, which means that we can be fired "at-will", with no reasons given. We can also quit under the same circumstances. There are some exceptions to this, of course, but for the most part, an at-will employee can be fired or can quit without reasons or notice, or hearings. Why shouldn't teachers work under the same employment rules as most everyone else?
Obviously collective bargaining agreements have had a lot to do with this issue, and the teachers unions are viscously fighting this proposition, as they stand a lot to lose if it passes. While I am a strong supporter of teachers, and have argued previously that I believe the lion's share of blame for poor student performance lies with parents, I also believe that teachers should be held to the same employment standards as the majority of Americans in the workforce.
Vote YES on 74.
*New estimates are closer to 80%
Key words
California API
Prop 74
Put the Kids First
California Propositions
California Special Election
"At-will" employment
If enacted, the measure would be officially titled "Put the Kids First Act". This measure affects two employment criteria for public school teachers: First, the probationary period for new teachers would be extended from two to five years. Second, school administrators would have the ability to fire lower-performing teachers who have received two consecutive "unsatisfactory evaluations", regardless of their tenure status. The dismissed teacher can, within 30 days of their dismissal, ask for an administrative hearing on their dismissal.
The teachers unions obviously are very upset about this measure. They don't like the idea that their members can be fired for poor performance, and without a prior hearing. Welcome to the real world, teachers!
Most of us——some estimates say 60%* —are employed as "at-will" employees, which means that we can be fired "at-will", with no reasons given. We can also quit under the same circumstances. There are some exceptions to this, of course, but for the most part, an at-will employee can be fired or can quit without reasons or notice, or hearings. Why shouldn't teachers work under the same employment rules as most everyone else?
Obviously collective bargaining agreements have had a lot to do with this issue, and the teachers unions are viscously fighting this proposition, as they stand a lot to lose if it passes. While I am a strong supporter of teachers, and have argued previously that I believe the lion's share of blame for poor student performance lies with parents, I also believe that teachers should be held to the same employment standards as the majority of Americans in the workforce.
Vote YES on 74.
*New estimates are closer to 80%
Key words
California API
Prop 74
Put the Kids First
California Propositions
California Special Election
"At-will" employment
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Is Atheism a Religion?
Yesterday's post about the Mt. Soledad Cross controversy spurred me into further investigation of the question of whether atheism is a form of religious belief. As I discussed yesterday,
There is also a very large segment of the atheist population who very actively seeks to abolish any references to any form of religious faith in any public forum, governmental agency, or public schools, or any organization or activity open to the general public. I would characterize this group of atheists as "activists", and suspect that many of them would also characterize themselves as politically liberal.
The latter group is the more vocal 'face' of atheism, and are usually the ones filing lawsuits to remove religious symbols from public buildings, schools, etc. These activist atheists zealously and ruthlessly pursue their non-believer goals—which seem to this writer as ultimately the elimination of all religious activity anywhere except possibly in the privacy of one's home. One such zealot sued to remove the Cross atop Mt. Soledad, and another sued to stop public schools from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and its reference to "under God".
In researching this question, however, I discovered a recent United State Appellate Court ruling that held that atheism is indeed areligiouss belief. The August, 2005 decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has spurred furious debate between those of religious faith and atheists, and even among atheists themselves.
Since the federal courts have now affirmed that atheism is a religion, my argument that the San Diego judge who ruled that the public vote to transfer the land under the Cross on Mt. Soledad to private hands was an unconstitutional promotion of religion, was by her ruling violating the constitution by promoting atheism. Atheists want the Cross removed because their religion (atheism) says such symbols are opposed to their religion. If you are anti-religion, then you are pro-atheism. Therefore the removal of religion and religious symbols from public property is the promotion of atheism. The promotion of atheism is the promotion of a religion. The promotion of a religion by government is unconstitutional, therefore the order to removereligiouss symbols and practices from government property and institutions is, in fact, the unconstitutional promotion of a particular religious faith over others.
The Supreme Court has held (the Lemon Test) that to beincompletelye with the1stt amendment, government must be secular in nature, must neither promote nor inhibit religious activity, and must not excessively entangle government and religion.
The ruling on the Mt. Soledad Cross, given the above, is in clear violation of the Lemon Test in that it promotes atheism, inhibits Christianity, and, through its promotion of atheism, excessively entangles government and religion.
"If belief in a Higher Power is considered a religious faith, then an equally powerful argument can be made that the non-belief in a Higher Power is also a religion. To put it another way, a religious person believes in a Higher Power. An atheist does not. Neither position can be proven with facts or science; each requires faith in an idea."A Google search of the title of this post reveals many relevant links to this discussion. Many of those who consider themselves atheists bristle at the charge that atheism is a religion. Many of these people have a very simple adherence to atheism that they don't believe in any Higher Power, no After-Life, no Supreme Being, nothing.
There is also a very large segment of the atheist population who very actively seeks to abolish any references to any form of religious faith in any public forum, governmental agency, or public schools, or any organization or activity open to the general public. I would characterize this group of atheists as "activists", and suspect that many of them would also characterize themselves as politically liberal.
The latter group is the more vocal 'face' of atheism, and are usually the ones filing lawsuits to remove religious symbols from public buildings, schools, etc. These activist atheists zealously and ruthlessly pursue their non-believer goals—which seem to this writer as ultimately the elimination of all religious activity anywhere except possibly in the privacy of one's home. One such zealot sued to remove the Cross atop Mt. Soledad, and another sued to stop public schools from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and its reference to "under God".
In researching this question, however, I discovered a recent United State Appellate Court ruling that held that atheism is indeed areligiouss belief. The August, 2005 decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has spurred furious debate between those of religious faith and atheists, and even among atheists themselves.
Since the federal courts have now affirmed that atheism is a religion, my argument that the San Diego judge who ruled that the public vote to transfer the land under the Cross on Mt. Soledad to private hands was an unconstitutional promotion of religion, was by her ruling violating the constitution by promoting atheism. Atheists want the Cross removed because their religion (atheism) says such symbols are opposed to their religion. If you are anti-religion, then you are pro-atheism. Therefore the removal of religion and religious symbols from public property is the promotion of atheism. The promotion of atheism is the promotion of a religion. The promotion of a religion by government is unconstitutional, therefore the order to removereligiouss symbols and practices from government property and institutions is, in fact, the unconstitutional promotion of a particular religious faith over others.
The Supreme Court has held (the Lemon Test) that to beincompletelye with the1stt amendment, government must be secular in nature, must neither promote nor inhibit religious activity, and must not excessively entangle government and religion.
The ruling on the Mt. Soledad Cross, given the above, is in clear violation of the Lemon Test in that it promotes atheism, inhibits Christianity, and, through its promotion of atheism, excessively entangles government and religion.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Mt. Soledad Cross Controversy
Justice was again delayed by a San Diego county superior court judge who ruled Friday that the transfer of Cross and land around it atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego to a veteran's group was an "unconstitutional preference of the Christian religion to the exclusion of other religious and non-religious beliefs in violation of the No Preference Clause of the California Constitution."
Some quick background: The current Cross has been there since 1954, and was preceded in the same location by another Cross since 1913. In 1989, a local atheist began litigation to have the Cross removed, since it was on city-owned property. In 1991, a superior court judge held that the Cross, located on city property, violated the Separation clause of the US Constitution. Legal sparring has continued since that ruling, culminating with Prop A, which overwhelmingly passed last July by a 75% "yes" vote to transfer the Cross and the land on which it rests to a private veteran's group. Opponents filed legal challenges that judge Patricia Yim Cowett ruled to be unconstitutional.
This ruling makes no sense to me. Essentially, the judge held that the existence of the Cross, and it's transfer to a private group is unconstitutional. So the judge rules that the Cross on government property is unconstitutional, and the transfer of the Cross and land to a private entity is also unconstitutional. The only possible remedy then, would be to either move or destroy the Cross. What the judge failed to address, however, is the Free Exercise clause of the US Constitution. Every Easter, probably since 1913, various religious groups hold services at Mt. Soledad, and I would argue that to now deny them this opportunity would be a clear violation of the Free exercise clause.
As discussed in this space back in May of 2005, the Supreme Court has made very clear that the "wall of separation of church and state" is not a wall at all, but a fuzzy line. The government cannot promote NOR inhibit religion. By transferring the Cross, a now-historic part of San Diego, the government is certainly not promoting a religion. Since so many religious activities have occurred there by so many Christian sects for so many years, to argue that government has been somehow sponsoring or promoting religion is preposterous.
In fact, I would argue that by ordering the removal of the Cross, this judge is essentially promoting a form of religion, that form being atheism. If belief in a Higher Power is considered a religious faith, then an equally powerful argument can be made that the non-belief in a Higher Power is also a religion. To put it another way, a religious person believes in a Higher Power. An atheist does not. Neither position can be proven with facts or science; each requires faith in an idea.
I would therefore argue that to order the removal of the Cross is an unconstitutional promotion of a religion by government, that religion being atheism.
Key words
Mt. Soledad
Cross
Wall of Separation
Lemon Test
Separation of Church and State
1st Amendment
Some quick background: The current Cross has been there since 1954, and was preceded in the same location by another Cross since 1913. In 1989, a local atheist began litigation to have the Cross removed, since it was on city-owned property. In 1991, a superior court judge held that the Cross, located on city property, violated the Separation clause of the US Constitution. Legal sparring has continued since that ruling, culminating with Prop A, which overwhelmingly passed last July by a 75% "yes" vote to transfer the Cross and the land on which it rests to a private veteran's group. Opponents filed legal challenges that judge Patricia Yim Cowett ruled to be unconstitutional.
This ruling makes no sense to me. Essentially, the judge held that the existence of the Cross, and it's transfer to a private group is unconstitutional. So the judge rules that the Cross on government property is unconstitutional, and the transfer of the Cross and land to a private entity is also unconstitutional. The only possible remedy then, would be to either move or destroy the Cross. What the judge failed to address, however, is the Free Exercise clause of the US Constitution. Every Easter, probably since 1913, various religious groups hold services at Mt. Soledad, and I would argue that to now deny them this opportunity would be a clear violation of the Free exercise clause.
As discussed in this space back in May of 2005, the Supreme Court has made very clear that the "wall of separation of church and state" is not a wall at all, but a fuzzy line. The government cannot promote NOR inhibit religion. By transferring the Cross, a now-historic part of San Diego, the government is certainly not promoting a religion. Since so many religious activities have occurred there by so many Christian sects for so many years, to argue that government has been somehow sponsoring or promoting religion is preposterous.
In fact, I would argue that by ordering the removal of the Cross, this judge is essentially promoting a form of religion, that form being atheism. If belief in a Higher Power is considered a religious faith, then an equally powerful argument can be made that the non-belief in a Higher Power is also a religion. To put it another way, a religious person believes in a Higher Power. An atheist does not. Neither position can be proven with facts or science; each requires faith in an idea.
I would therefore argue that to order the removal of the Cross is an unconstitutional promotion of a religion by government, that religion being atheism.
Key words
Mt. Soledad
Cross
Wall of Separation
Lemon Test
Separation of Church and State
1st Amendment
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Harriet Miers
Like most people watching to see who President Bush would nominate to fill retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, my first reaction to news reports that White House Council Harriet Miers was the nominee was, "Who?" I am, as you might guess, something of a newshound, and thought I knew all the major players in the Bush White House, but I must confess I had never even heard her name before she was announced as his choice.
Many in the MSM and the Blogosphere on both the Right (here, and here, and here, etc.) and Left (here, and here, and here etc.) have been either happy or sad with this news, and there is no real concensus as to whether the Left or the Right are more disappointed. Based on all I have so far heard, seen, and read, I would say that there are more conservatives who are disappointed than liberals, though I don't see how anybody could possibly know enough about her to even form an opinion yet.
I believe that the president could have, and probably should have chosen someone with much better credentials, though the choice is his and his alone. I hope he knows something that we don't.
Keywords:
Miers
Many in the MSM and the Blogosphere on both the Right (here, and here, and here, etc.) and Left (here, and here, and here etc.) have been either happy or sad with this news, and there is no real concensus as to whether the Left or the Right are more disappointed. Based on all I have so far heard, seen, and read, I would say that there are more conservatives who are disappointed than liberals, though I don't see how anybody could possibly know enough about her to even form an opinion yet.
I believe that the president could have, and probably should have chosen someone with much better credentials, though the choice is his and his alone. I hope he knows something that we don't.
Keywords:
Miers
Sunday, October 02, 2005
California Proposition 77: Redistricting
California's Prop 77 is an amendment to the state constitution that reforms how legislative districts are drawn. Under existing law, the legislature draws the boundaries of all statewide legislative districts, as is done in many, if not the majority of states. "Redistricting" is mandated by the federal constitution following the decennial federal population census, and usually provides incumbent politicians with the opportunity to draw political boundaries that favor their re-election, or at least the election of a member of their party to their seat. In fact, in the last election (November 2004) not a single legislative or Congressional seat in the state of California changed political party.
Under the current system, "gerrymandering" by the legislature reduces competitiveness and increases reelection rates of incumbents. This gerrymandering has resulted in average reelection rates in the US House and Senate of an average of approximately 93% and 81%, respectively, between 1964 and 2002.
Prop 77 seeks to change this system so that a three-member panel of retired state and/or federal judges would be empowered to draw up all statewide legislative districts. The recommendation would then be placed on the ballot for approval by the voters. Having read the entire text of the bill, there are many checks and balances that ensure that those in power will not in control of the process, which, under the current system is a huge conflict of interest.
The panel will be required to create boudaries that are contiguous, are geographically sensible, and that will strive to ensure that existing city and county boundaries are used whenever possible. If the voters reject the redistricting plan, then a new panel will be formed who will re-draft the proposal, which will again go to the voters. This process repeats until a plan is accepted.
I strongly support the passage of Prop 77.
Keywords: Prop 77
Under the current system, "gerrymandering" by the legislature reduces competitiveness and increases reelection rates of incumbents. This gerrymandering has resulted in average reelection rates in the US House and Senate of an average of approximately 93% and 81%, respectively, between 1964 and 2002.
Prop 77 seeks to change this system so that a three-member panel of retired state and/or federal judges would be empowered to draw up all statewide legislative districts. The recommendation would then be placed on the ballot for approval by the voters. Having read the entire text of the bill, there are many checks and balances that ensure that those in power will not in control of the process, which, under the current system is a huge conflict of interest.
The panel will be required to create boudaries that are contiguous, are geographically sensible, and that will strive to ensure that existing city and county boundaries are used whenever possible. If the voters reject the redistricting plan, then a new panel will be formed who will re-draft the proposal, which will again go to the voters. This process repeats until a plan is accepted.
I strongly support the passage of Prop 77.
Keywords: Prop 77
Friday, September 30, 2005
Postings
Sorry I haven't posted in too long. Been really busy, but have been formulating posts in my head. I hope to get some big ones going this weekend, so please check back!
Monday, September 26, 2005
Depleted Uranium: Is it a Health Hazard?
Doesn't appear to be, despite the wild assertions of the Left. The World Health Organization doesn't seem too concerned, nor does Sandia National Labs.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Hurricane Forecasters Got it Right, But the AP Gets the Story Wrong
Much has been reported and written about hurricane Katrina and the poor response from government at all levels. The president has even accepted responsibility for the shortcomings of the federal government, but as written about in this space previously, the real tragedy was the inability or unwillingness of local officials to implement their own well-documented emergency plan and evacuate those people who could not get out themselves.
Much has also been made, especially by those opposed to everything the president does and says, to his comment that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breech of the levees." In an otherwise good article about the accuracy of the hurricane forecasters, John Pain of the Associated Press writes,
Note that the president says "breached", whereas the warnings Mr. Pain cites warns of levee "overtopping". "Breaching" and "overtopping" are not the same thing. Breaching refers to a hole or break in the integrity of the levee, while overtopping describes the water level rising above the top of the levee, but not the failure of the levee itself. The distinction between the two is crucial to the crux of this article.
The article does go on to cite dire warnings given to the administration by the director of National Hurricane Center, but fails to cite specific sources or quotations. It makes one wonder if specific warnings about "levee breaches" or "levee failures" were ever actually given. If such evidence were available, I would think Mr. Pain would have cited references.
I will give Mr. Pain credit for adding, albeit at the very end of the article, the fact that the National Hurricane Center director took the unusual step of personally calling "the governors of Mississippi and Louisiana and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin two days ahead of time to warn them about the monstrous hurricane."
Unfortunately, most of the blame for the slow response to the disaster continues—from the left, anyway—on the president, when the mayor and governor had ample warning to get the residents out two days before the hurricane struck.
Keywords:
Katrina
Much has also been made, especially by those opposed to everything the president does and says, to his comment that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breech of the levees." In an otherwise good article about the accuracy of the hurricane forecasters, John Pain of the Associated Press writes,
"The performance by the two agencies calls into question claims by President Bush and others in his administration that Katrina was a catastrophe that no one envisioned."
For example, Bush told ABC on Sep. 1 that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." In its storm warnings, the hurricane center never used the word "breached." But a day before Katrina came ashore Aug. 29, the agency warned in capital letters: "SOME LEVEES IN THE GREATER NEW ORLEANS AREA COULD BE OVERTOPPED."
Note that the president says "breached", whereas the warnings Mr. Pain cites warns of levee "overtopping". "Breaching" and "overtopping" are not the same thing. Breaching refers to a hole or break in the integrity of the levee, while overtopping describes the water level rising above the top of the levee, but not the failure of the levee itself. The distinction between the two is crucial to the crux of this article.
The article does go on to cite dire warnings given to the administration by the director of National Hurricane Center, but fails to cite specific sources or quotations. It makes one wonder if specific warnings about "levee breaches" or "levee failures" were ever actually given. If such evidence were available, I would think Mr. Pain would have cited references.
I will give Mr. Pain credit for adding, albeit at the very end of the article, the fact that the National Hurricane Center director took the unusual step of personally calling "the governors of Mississippi and Louisiana and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin two days ahead of time to warn them about the monstrous hurricane."
Unfortunately, most of the blame for the slow response to the disaster continues—from the left, anyway—on the president, when the mayor and governor had ample warning to get the residents out two days before the hurricane struck.
Keywords:
Katrina
Friday, September 16, 2005
The Liberal Mind
I spent time with a committed liberal recently, and it was a real eye-opener. Like you, I have heard and read about the differences between how liberals and conservatives think, but here before me like a freshly opened oyster was liberalism in all its glory... or misery, depending on your point of view.
For context, we spent time together while the tragic events unfolded in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. My liberal comrade was deeply offended that the media referred to those people who sought refuge from the storm and its aftermath as "refugees". He actually believes that the apparent slowness of the aid response is because most of the people who live in New Orleans are black.
On a broader level, he believes that everything printed in the New York Times is gospel truth, and everything broadcast on Fox News is a lie. He is, at 25 years old, still in college studying to be a social worker. A social worker. No doubt a noble pursuit, but one that will forever place him under the control of, and in support of a growing Welfare State. I know his heart is in the right place, and he doesn't qualify (yet) as a classic "angry liberal", but he isn't yet old enough to become angry and bitter.
His choice of career, however, compared with another 20-something acquaintance of mine who is more conservative is stark. Here he is, still in college, with no plans for his future other than doing social work. He doesn't own a car, or a computer, or a TV, or really anything except, of course, his Ipod. He does have very good musical talent, but doesn't have the drive to succeed at music. He is irresponsible about many things, and completely lacks a sense of urgency in just about anything he does.
My more conservative friend, however, is also in his twenties, is a college graduate, has a good job with a high five-figure salary, owns a house, two cars, has a family, and pays lots of taxes. In fact, if it weren't for my more conservative friend who earns money and pays taxes (and the millions like him), my liberal friend (and the millions like him) wouldn't have the grant money to go to college, perform social work, or generally be the lazy and irresponsible guy he is.
It seems clear to me that my liberal friend is very typical of many liberals. It is also very clear why so many liberals go into journalism, academia, government and the public sector, and why so many conservatives prefer to go into business and private sector. Liberals, to their credit, seem to understand that by controlling the news media, academia, and government, that their collectivist goals can be reached. Whether by design or by accident, liberals have for a very long time been working to institutionalize their agenda through control of these three areas, with average Americans unaware of this creeping revolution.
Conservatives, on the other hand, generally tend go into business and the private sector because they believe that by helping themselves, they can best help society. Conservatives, while working to build success in their own lives and the lives of their fellow Americans, haven't and still don't seem to understand that liberals have a seven-decade head start on controlling government, academia, and the news media. Fortunately, however, the conservative counterrevolution is underway, with control of the government now in Republican hands.
One other interesting illustration of how conservatives and liberals think is their respective reactions to hurricane Katrina. Liberals, who prefer strong central control over local control, were aghast at the response of the federal government. Conservatives, on the other hand, were aghast at the response of the state and local authorities to the hurricane, as conservatives prefer control by state and local authorities through the concept of federalism.
It seems to me that to be a liberal, you must first react emotionally to a situation. You must also be able to overlook reality if you find it offensive. Like referring to those seeking refuge as "refugees"; even though that is what they are, it is 'mean-spirited' to call them that. And you must believe that the best way to solve problems is by a consolidation of power in fewer hands.
For context, we spent time together while the tragic events unfolded in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. My liberal comrade was deeply offended that the media referred to those people who sought refuge from the storm and its aftermath as "refugees". He actually believes that the apparent slowness of the aid response is because most of the people who live in New Orleans are black.
On a broader level, he believes that everything printed in the New York Times is gospel truth, and everything broadcast on Fox News is a lie. He is, at 25 years old, still in college studying to be a social worker. A social worker. No doubt a noble pursuit, but one that will forever place him under the control of, and in support of a growing Welfare State. I know his heart is in the right place, and he doesn't qualify (yet) as a classic "angry liberal", but he isn't yet old enough to become angry and bitter.
His choice of career, however, compared with another 20-something acquaintance of mine who is more conservative is stark. Here he is, still in college, with no plans for his future other than doing social work. He doesn't own a car, or a computer, or a TV, or really anything except, of course, his Ipod. He does have very good musical talent, but doesn't have the drive to succeed at music. He is irresponsible about many things, and completely lacks a sense of urgency in just about anything he does.
My more conservative friend, however, is also in his twenties, is a college graduate, has a good job with a high five-figure salary, owns a house, two cars, has a family, and pays lots of taxes. In fact, if it weren't for my more conservative friend who earns money and pays taxes (and the millions like him), my liberal friend (and the millions like him) wouldn't have the grant money to go to college, perform social work, or generally be the lazy and irresponsible guy he is.
It seems clear to me that my liberal friend is very typical of many liberals. It is also very clear why so many liberals go into journalism, academia, government and the public sector, and why so many conservatives prefer to go into business and private sector. Liberals, to their credit, seem to understand that by controlling the news media, academia, and government, that their collectivist goals can be reached. Whether by design or by accident, liberals have for a very long time been working to institutionalize their agenda through control of these three areas, with average Americans unaware of this creeping revolution.
Conservatives, on the other hand, generally tend go into business and the private sector because they believe that by helping themselves, they can best help society. Conservatives, while working to build success in their own lives and the lives of their fellow Americans, haven't and still don't seem to understand that liberals have a seven-decade head start on controlling government, academia, and the news media. Fortunately, however, the conservative counterrevolution is underway, with control of the government now in Republican hands.
One other interesting illustration of how conservatives and liberals think is their respective reactions to hurricane Katrina. Liberals, who prefer strong central control over local control, were aghast at the response of the federal government. Conservatives, on the other hand, were aghast at the response of the state and local authorities to the hurricane, as conservatives prefer control by state and local authorities through the concept of federalism.
It seems to me that to be a liberal, you must first react emotionally to a situation. You must also be able to overlook reality if you find it offensive. Like referring to those seeking refuge as "refugees"; even though that is what they are, it is 'mean-spirited' to call them that. And you must believe that the best way to solve problems is by a consolidation of power in fewer hands.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Who's Fault is Katrina? **UPDATE**
The destruction and misery brought on by Hurricane Katrina has been viciously exploited by the Angry Left, the Hate-Bush crowd, and even the leadership of the Democrat party. The unfortunate truth in this tragedy, despite the lies of the left, is that many of those people killed, or raped, or murdered during and in the aftermath of the storm would likely have been saved had they been properly evaculated.
The emergency plan in place prior to Katrina's strike clearly outlines that the evacuation of New Orleans is "responsibility of the Mayor of New Orleans in coordination with the [state] Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the OEP Shelter Coordinator." If the people who had no transportation were looked out for as described in such great detail in NO's "Hurricane Emergency Evacuation Standard Operating Procedure", the horrific situation that followed the hurricane could have been avoided. Had the people not been in NO, as ordered by the mayor (but not enforced), then whether federal response was fast or slow would have made no difference.
There is also evidence (though I have not been able to confirm this yet) that the president had urged the governor or Louisiana to formally request federal assistance as early as Friday night before the storm hit, and again on Saturday. It wasn't until Sunday, the day before the storm hit that the governor actually requested federal assistance. Until this request is formally made, the president does not have the authority to order federal troops or other aid into an affected area.
It is also important to remember that the mayor of NO did not order mandatory evacuations until Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit. Had he done so even 24 hours earlier, or on Friday night as apparently urged by the director of the National Hurricane Center, the situation during and following the hurricane would likely have been much better.
It is clear that the federal response to Katrina was inadequate, but more importantly, the state and local response was even worse. Had they not delayed requests for federal aid, and not delayed mandatory evacuations, and had they actually implemented their own emergency plans, federal aid would probably have come sooner, and more importantly, those most vulnerable to the wrath of Katrina could have gotten out of harm's way before the storm hit.
A timeline of Katrina
**Update** A better timeline of Katrina
*Fixed misspelling
The emergency plan in place prior to Katrina's strike clearly outlines that the evacuation of New Orleans is "responsibility of the Mayor of New Orleans in coordination with the [state] Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the OEP Shelter Coordinator." If the people who had no transportation were looked out for as described in such great detail in NO's "Hurricane Emergency Evacuation Standard Operating Procedure", the horrific situation that followed the hurricane could have been avoided. Had the people not been in NO, as ordered by the mayor (but not enforced), then whether federal response was fast or slow would have made no difference.
There is also evidence (though I have not been able to confirm this yet) that the president had urged the governor or Louisiana to formally request federal assistance as early as Friday night before the storm hit, and again on Saturday. It wasn't until Sunday, the day before the storm hit that the governor actually requested federal assistance. Until this request is formally made, the president does not have the authority to order federal troops or other aid into an affected area.
It is also important to remember that the mayor of NO did not order mandatory evacuations until Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit. Had he done so even 24 hours earlier, or on Friday night as apparently urged by the director of the National Hurricane Center, the situation during and following the hurricane would likely have been much better.
It is clear that the federal response to Katrina was inadequate, but more importantly, the state and local response was even worse. Had they not delayed requests for federal aid, and not delayed mandatory evacuations, and had they actually implemented their own emergency plans, federal aid would probably have come sooner, and more importantly, those most vulnerable to the wrath of Katrina could have gotten out of harm's way before the storm hit.
A timeline of Katrina
**Update** A better timeline of Katrina
*Fixed misspelling
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Are You a Democrat, Republican, or Southern Republican?
Here is a little test that will help you decide...
Question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes on you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Democrat's Answer:
"Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!"
"Does the man look poor or oppressed?"
"Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?"
"Could we run away?"
"What does my wife think?"
"What about the kids?"
"Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?"
"What does the law say about this situation?"
"Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?"
"Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?"
"Is it possible he would be happy with just killing me?"
"Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?"
"If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?"
"Should I call 9-1-1?"
"Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior."
"This is all so confusing! ! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus."
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
Southern Republican's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click.....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click
Daughter:
"Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
Question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes on you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Democrat's Answer:
"Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!"
"Does the man look poor or oppressed?"
"Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?"
"Could we run away?"
"What does my wife think?"
"What about the kids?"
"Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?"
"What does the law say about this situation?"
"Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?"
"Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?"
"Is it possible he would be happy with just killing me?"
"Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?"
"If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?"
"Should I call 9-1-1?"
"Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior."
"This is all so confusing! ! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus."
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
Southern Republican's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click.....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click
Daughter:
"Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
Inside the Sheehan Camp: A Conservative's View
The RadioEqualizer has an interesting post by Curtis Loftis, a conservative activist. He managed to infiltrate the Cindy Sheehan camp in Crawford, Texas, and while incognito, saw the inner workings of this very professional public relations operation.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Costs of the Iraq War
David Francis pens a great article in today's Christian Science Monitor regarding the costs of the war in Iraq. It is stacking up as the third most costly war in 2005 dollars, going back trough all the wars since World War 1.
The last two paragraphs I found particularly interesting:
The last two paragraphs I found particularly interesting:
"From one standpoint, the US economy should find it easier to absorb the present war. Today's defense budget is about 4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services. That compares with 6.2 percent in the 1980s, 9.4 percent in 1960 (Vietnam), 14.2 percent in 1953 (Korea), and 38 percent in 1944 (World War II).
In that respect, today's war "is much cheaper," says Kosiak."
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Able Danger: A Third Source Corroborates Initial Claims
Fox News is reporting today that JD Smith (no relation), a defence contractor who was part of the Able Danger team, has come forward to confirm that at least some of the 9-11 hijackers were identified well before 9-11, but were not allowed to report the information to the FBI.
The most troubling thing about the Able Danger story is that the infamous "wall" between intellgence and law enforcement, created by Jamie Gorelick while in the Clinton Administration, and later a member of the 9-11 Commission, prevented this information flow, and the specter of a cover-up by Commission staff to protect those responsible hangs over the whole affair.
The most troubling thing about the Able Danger story is that the infamous "wall" between intellgence and law enforcement, created by Jamie Gorelick while in the Clinton Administration, and later a member of the 9-11 Commission, prevented this information flow, and the specter of a cover-up by Commission staff to protect those responsible hangs over the whole affair.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Interesting Stuff I Noticed Today
Michelle Malkin links to more lies from the Left (aka Mainstream Media).
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has a great article on the continuing and irrational obsession of some on the Left claiming stolen elections in 2000 and 2004. (Hat tip American Thinker)
Patterico shares with us his letter to the New York Times regarding their columnist Paul Krugman's article on the election of 2000 in Florida.
A scientist quits an important panel studying global warming over charges that his co-panelists don't want to consider possibities other than established dogma.
The debate over whether global warming is increasing the severity and frequency of hurricanes rages on, though my money is on the guys who actually study hurricanes. (They don't think so.)
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has a great article on the continuing and irrational obsession of some on the Left claiming stolen elections in 2000 and 2004. (Hat tip American Thinker)
Patterico shares with us his letter to the New York Times regarding their columnist Paul Krugman's article on the election of 2000 in Florida.
A scientist quits an important panel studying global warming over charges that his co-panelists don't want to consider possibities other than established dogma.
The debate over whether global warming is increasing the severity and frequency of hurricanes rages on, though my money is on the guys who actually study hurricanes. (They don't think so.)
Friday, August 19, 2005
California Academic Performance Index (API)
The California 2004 API scores came out this week. The API is a measure of student performance in English, math, science, and related subjects. The scores are reported by county, district, and school, and even includes charter schools. The scores run between 200 and 1,000, with 800 being the target.
The API has become the primary yardstick for school performance since passage of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Each summer parents, teachers, and administrators wait anxiously for the scores to come out as so much is riding on the results. There are people who have sold their homes in one lower-performing district an bought another in a district with better API scores. New people moving in to an area often base their buying decisions on API scores. I suspect that teachers and administrators have been promoted or demoted based on their school or district's API rise or fall.
The scores are very easy reading, and most people assume that a school with low scores has bad teachers and/or administrators. But looking more deeply into the API report one can see that there is far more than meets the eye, and many schools and school employees have no doubt been unfairly judged as a result of not looking beyond the obvious. Digging just a little deeper into the report, results are listed by race. Reviewing the data by race suggests that something other than schools, teachers, and curriculum may be to blame for poor performance. By no means am I suggesting that one race is inherently smarter; I believe the source of the difference by race is the type of support that many kids at home.
Take San Diego County schools, since that is where I live and have the most familiarity. When an individual school is picked at random from the list linked above, a breakdown by race is shown. The Encinitas school district is in a fairly affluent coastal city of northern San Diego County. Capri Elementary has about an even mix of White and Latino students, but their scores are quite different. Whites scored 855 whereas Latinos scored 649. At a similar school in the same district, Park Dale Lane Elementary, whites outnumber Latinos by more than 3.5:1, and score 865 to Latinos 694. [Note: "Socioeconomically Disadvantaged" is defined as children of parents who both have not finished highschool, and/or participate in the school lunch program. Race is not a factor.]
So given the mix of students, Capri's overall API is a respectable yet below target 759, whereas Park Dale Lane scores an above-target 833. Most people who follow the API scores would rather send their kids to Park Dale Lane, of course, because it scored better. However, given the fact that the White students at Capri scored nearly identical to the White students at Park Dale Lane, a successful argument cannot be made that the school, the administrators, and the teachers are not adequately teaching their students. Click around some of the other schools, and you will find similar results almost everywhere. It is also interesting to note that when the racial breakdown is studied by district, where the samples are large enough, that is, Asian children seem to easily score the best. In the Encinitas district, Asian's cored 950, to White's 891, to Latino's 676.
Why though? What is the reason for the better scores of the White students? I don't for a second think that Latinos are in any way 'not as smart' as Whites. I work with many Latinos, I have many Latino friends, I married a Latina, my children are Latino, as are, of course, my in-laws. Latinos are smart, caring, hard working, happy people, and I am proud to have become part of the Latino culture. So if 'smarts' is not the answer, what is it? Why don't Latinos score higher as a group?
I believe that the reason is their parents. Many of them are first or second generation immigrants, and language is a big problem for them. They have not fully assimilated into American society, and often live each day speaking only Spanish. They watch Spanish TV, listen to Spanish radio, and read Spanish newspapers, and then when their kids come home they can't help them with their homework. Because of the schools, fortunately, the kids speak perfect English, but at home they must speak Spanish. This is not alway the case, of course, but seems to be the rule more often than not.
There also is the feeling among some parents, and this cuts across all races, is that educating children is the job of the schools, and parents don't think they have to do their part. But lets face it, education at the primary and secondary level is like a three-legged stool, where schools, students, and parents are each one leg. If one of the legs doesn't hold up its weight, the stool will fall over.
Can schools and teachers do a better job? I'm sure they would be the first to say "yes", and I believe they try to do so everyday. But we as parents MUST do a better job of helping our childen learn by helping, challenging, and nurturing their intellectual development.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
The API has become the primary yardstick for school performance since passage of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Each summer parents, teachers, and administrators wait anxiously for the scores to come out as so much is riding on the results. There are people who have sold their homes in one lower-performing district an bought another in a district with better API scores. New people moving in to an area often base their buying decisions on API scores. I suspect that teachers and administrators have been promoted or demoted based on their school or district's API rise or fall.
The scores are very easy reading, and most people assume that a school with low scores has bad teachers and/or administrators. But looking more deeply into the API report one can see that there is far more than meets the eye, and many schools and school employees have no doubt been unfairly judged as a result of not looking beyond the obvious. Digging just a little deeper into the report, results are listed by race. Reviewing the data by race suggests that something other than schools, teachers, and curriculum may be to blame for poor performance. By no means am I suggesting that one race is inherently smarter; I believe the source of the difference by race is the type of support that many kids at home.
Take San Diego County schools, since that is where I live and have the most familiarity. When an individual school is picked at random from the list linked above, a breakdown by race is shown. The Encinitas school district is in a fairly affluent coastal city of northern San Diego County. Capri Elementary has about an even mix of White and Latino students, but their scores are quite different. Whites scored 855 whereas Latinos scored 649. At a similar school in the same district, Park Dale Lane Elementary, whites outnumber Latinos by more than 3.5:1, and score 865 to Latinos 694. [Note: "Socioeconomically Disadvantaged" is defined as children of parents who both have not finished highschool, and/or participate in the school lunch program. Race is not a factor.]
So given the mix of students, Capri's overall API is a respectable yet below target 759, whereas Park Dale Lane scores an above-target 833. Most people who follow the API scores would rather send their kids to Park Dale Lane, of course, because it scored better. However, given the fact that the White students at Capri scored nearly identical to the White students at Park Dale Lane, a successful argument cannot be made that the school, the administrators, and the teachers are not adequately teaching their students. Click around some of the other schools, and you will find similar results almost everywhere. It is also interesting to note that when the racial breakdown is studied by district, where the samples are large enough, that is, Asian children seem to easily score the best. In the Encinitas district, Asian's cored 950, to White's 891, to Latino's 676.
Why though? What is the reason for the better scores of the White students? I don't for a second think that Latinos are in any way 'not as smart' as Whites. I work with many Latinos, I have many Latino friends, I married a Latina, my children are Latino, as are, of course, my in-laws. Latinos are smart, caring, hard working, happy people, and I am proud to have become part of the Latino culture. So if 'smarts' is not the answer, what is it? Why don't Latinos score higher as a group?
I believe that the reason is their parents. Many of them are first or second generation immigrants, and language is a big problem for them. They have not fully assimilated into American society, and often live each day speaking only Spanish. They watch Spanish TV, listen to Spanish radio, and read Spanish newspapers, and then when their kids come home they can't help them with their homework. Because of the schools, fortunately, the kids speak perfect English, but at home they must speak Spanish. This is not alway the case, of course, but seems to be the rule more often than not.
There also is the feeling among some parents, and this cuts across all races, is that educating children is the job of the schools, and parents don't think they have to do their part. But lets face it, education at the primary and secondary level is like a three-legged stool, where schools, students, and parents are each one leg. If one of the legs doesn't hold up its weight, the stool will fall over.
Can schools and teachers do a better job? I'm sure they would be the first to say "yes", and I believe they try to do so everyday. But we as parents MUST do a better job of helping our childen learn by helping, challenging, and nurturing their intellectual development.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
