Foreign Affairs: Jal Mehta: Why American Education Fails

Source:FRS FreeState

For the United States to succeed long-term and for us to ever get our poverty rate down to at least a more competitive level with our developed competitors, instead of twice as high, or to get our level of poverty down to where our normal rate of unemployment is, we simply are going to have to have better public education in this country. And get back to being in the top ten in education in the world where we were twenty thirty years ago instead of 39th. And being towards the middle of the pack with our competitors. Being ranked with small developing countries like the Baltic Republics.

For this to happen we simply our going to have to stop sending our students to school based on where they live. And instead send them to school based on what’s the best school for them. And that means things like public school choice and charter schools especially for our low-income students and even empowering their parents to go back to school. To finish their education so they can get good jobs as well. Stop paying teachers based on how long they’ve been teaching and instead pay them based on how well their students are learning.

And hold our teachers and their students accountable for the jobs that they are doing. Like we do in practically every other profession. And stop promoting kids to the next grade level based on their age and instead based on how well they are learning and what they know. Can they read and write and so forth at the next grade level. And we need to stop funding schools based on where they are located and instead fund based on what they need to serve their students and staff well and do a good job. That means another revenue sources to go along with the property tax or replace the property tax.

I’m not in favor of private school choice at least that’s funded by taxpayers. Because it diverts money that otherwise could be going to things that fund public school choice. Which would give parents the option to send their kids to any school in that public school system that they want. So basically that would have an opening for their kid. Or money that could be used to fund charter schools. Which are public schools that are run independent of the public school bureaucracy. Or money that could be used to fund low-performing schools in low-income neighborhoods.

So low-income schools have the resources that they need to be more competitive with let’s say middle class schools. Or money that could be used to pay good teachers more. And retrain low-performing teachers. But what public school choice and charter schools do is give parents and students the choice to go to what’s the best school for the student. And not based on where they live. And that means if a school is not doing very, well they are going to lose students. And forces public schools to compete with each other to make the public school system as effective as it can be.

There’s not a lot of things I would spend more money on at the Federal level. But public education, job training and public infrastructure would be the areas I would spend more money. But not to fund a failing system. But I would reform the system to improve and then invest more in an improving system. So we have all the resources that we need to see that everyone in the country has access to life long education.

Not just K-12 or even just through college, but as working adults as well. No matter their income levels. So we all have the opportunities that we need to be successful and live in freedom in life. And not be dependent on government, because we didn’t have access to a good education. And that’s what education reform looks like from me. And the liberal way to reform education and job training in this country.

Glammed For Beauty: Video: Five Ways To Dress You White Shirt and Jeans In Boots

Source:The Daily Post

You’ll never ever hear me complaining about see too many sexy women, including the baby-faced cutie in this video, wearing jeans in boots. And that is generally denim jeans in boots, but I’ve seen women wear leather jeans in boots as well. But that look unfortunately isn’t nearly as common as denim jeans in boots. Skinny denims in boots, is probably the most popular casual look, at least with American sexy women right now.

You’ll never hear me say, “you know what, instead of seeing all of these sexy women in their jeans in boots when they are out in about, how about we see more women wearing long dresses. So they don’t show their legs, butts. Especially if they’re well-built with curves and even tall. And instead of seeing these women wearing tight t-shirts and leather jackets with their jeans in boots, so we can see their chess’, they wear long thick sweaters and coats, along with their long dress’, so we can’t check them out at all.”

You’ll never hear me say that, because I love sexy women and especially love sexy women who know they’re sexy and enjoy knowing the rest of the world sees that as well. That is all you see in this video. A beautiful baby-faced sexy women, who is proud of that and proud to show those aspects of her. And who does that in a stylish and even professional way. Where she could wear this work when she’s doing her shopping, hanging out with her friends, going out with her boyfriend or husband. And in certain cases depending on where she works, could wear this look to work as well. And its great to see.

Conel Rad: Video: The Choice 1964: Barry Goldwater Campaign Film

Source:The FreeState

There’s a book that was written in 2005 or 2006 essentially called the The Choice, a Glorious Defeat For Conservatives. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty close where the author argues that Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential election landslide loss inspired so many young people. Especially Conservatives to join the American Conservative movement and get involved in American Conservative politics. And even work for Conservative Republicans, or become Conservative Republicans themselves.

And I agree with this because without 1964, Congressional Republicans do not pickup something like forty-five seats in the House in 1966. Still about thirty short of a majority, but put them in contention for 1968 to win back the majority in the House. And I believe they picked up 4-5 seats in the Senate, but they were in the low-thirties as far as Senators after 1964. Barry Goldwater won ten states in 1964, but I believe seven of them were in the South. Which was right-wing Democratic country. And what Senator Goldwater did in 1964 was expand the playing field for the Republican Party by bringing in new Conservatives to the Republican Party.

Without 1964 Richard Nixon doesn’t get elected President of the United States in 1968. Because again Barry Goldwater expanded the playing field in 1964 and brought in more right-wingers to them Republican Party and out West. But in the South and brought in Libertarians from the West and Religious-Conservatives from the South. That use to back right-wing Democrats who were against things like civil rights. Barry Goldwater and Dick Nixon brought in right-wingers to the Republican Party as well especially from the South.

Because pre 1964, the Republican Party was mostly a Midwest and Northeastern party, but Goldwater and Nixon changed that for the GOP. And all of these Southern right-wingers to the GOP kept moving along in the 1970s as well. To the point that President Nixon is reelected in a landslide in 1972. More Southern and Western Republicans are elected Governor and to Congress both House and Senate in 1978. And of course go up until 1980 when Ronald Reagan is elected President and Senate Republicans win back the Senate for the first time since 1952.

I do not believe that Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 expecting to win. Even though I’m sure he would’ve taken the job had he won it. But he ran against Progressive big government basically from the New Deal to the Great Society. And to show Americans that there was another way to govern America and another competing vision of where to take America. And made conservatism mainstream in America.

Russia Today: Thom Hartmann: How Big Should Government Be?

Source:Free State MD

In this editorial, Thom Hartmann said that government should be big enough to insure that all Americans have access to quality affordable health care. And I guess that means health insurance as well and education. Does that mean that Thom believes that the Federal Government should be running the entire healthcare and education systems in this country? I know he’s in favor of Medicare For All, which would basically make Medicare the sole provider of health insurance in this country. I disagree with him on that, but I know he’s in favor of Medicare single-payer for all. But my question would be for Thom, does that mean he’s also in favor of the U.S. Government running the entire health care system in this country, or just as it relates to health insurance?

The United Kingdom use to have a nationalized healthcare system. Both health insurance and health care delivery. Before they started privatizing parts of their health care system and allowing for some private hospitals and health insurers. And my other question for Thom would be does he want to nationalize the education system in America as well? I agree with Thom Hartmann when it comes to regulation, to make sure we are consuming safe products. That won’t kill us, at least instantly, but that’s different from prohibition. My points about regulations would be about cars, toys, food inspection, so we do not get poisoned things that we have to use everyday. Or do use everyday, so these products are as safe as possible, even if they aren’t good for us. Like food to use as an example, but that we do not get poisoned from eating a meal or something.

And that we work under safe working conditions, just as long as the public sector isn’t trying to run the private sector and vice-versa. They both have different roles and both are needed for a country to become and remain a developed country. We agree that government shouldn’t be running the economy or running industries and I would add, or nationalizing any industries. Including education and healthcare. So the question for me at least not asking myself this question since I already know the answer as far as where I come down, is what should government be doing at all levels, not just at the Federal level? And it first starts with the United States Constitution and what authority does government at all levels have to do in this country.

And once you’ve figured that out, you meaning anyone, then it becomes about what should government be doing with the constitutional authority that it has. So for example, for me it starts with what government shouldn’t be doing. Because I believe there’s more that government shouldn’t be doing than what it should. So to me big government, is government that does too much trying to do for the people what they can do for themselves. Basically so I do not want government trying to run our lives and making decisions for us that we can do for ourselves. Like where we can send our kids to school, or what we can say to each other, as long as we aren’t libeling people or inciting riots. Or giving out classified information, that sort of thing. Or telling us what we can and can’t do with our own lives.

And after we cover what government shouldn’t be doing, then it becomes about what the states and locals should be doing. A bottom up approach rather, in a classically liberal, but still liberal direction. Rather than a top down heavy-handed socialist, or dictatorial direction. So I want the states and localities to run the things that they should be running basically that we do not need a national approach to be running. Things like education and public assistance, social insurance, to use as examples. I would block-grant most if not all the Federal social insurance programs to the states and localities. And let the Feds serve as regulators to see what’s working and that basic national standards are being met. And then leave the rest as far as what government should be doing for the Feds.

Like protecting us from foreign invaders, terrorists, national criminals in conjunction with the states and localities, protecting our borders, overall immigration policy, national-security, foreign policy. And also serve as a funding source in areas like education and job-training. So everyone has access to a quality education in America, including job training for low-income and low-skilled workers in this country. So they can live in freedom as well. So overall the Federal Government of my dreams would be smaller than the Federal Government of today. Including in defense and I do not want the U.S. Government trying to run the lives of Americans, or trying to police the world as well.

But I would invest more in infrastructure and rebuild this country, just not have the Federal Government run that. But approve a lot more new infrastructure-projects that need to be fixed, or built and invest more in like I said education and job training. Again, just not running those things, so that all Americans have access to a quality education in life. No matter how they start out, or the income level of their parents. But also so low-income low-skilled parents, can get themselves the skills that they need to live in freedom in life as well. And not be dependent on government for their economic survival, no matter the level of government.

When I blog about limited government, I’m actually blogging about limited government. Surprise surprise, it sounds too simple that it must be true. But I’m not blogging about what Libertarians would call small government. That I just want government limited to doing what we need it to do. Not trying to run our lives from an economic, or personal point of view. Or trying to tell us what we can do with our own lives, but there to do for us to serve us by doing the things that individuals can’t do for themselves.

The Weekly Standard: Abby Wisse Schachter: The New Paternalism

Source:The FreeState

Does liberal democracy come with risks which is different from being dangerous and does individual freedom come with risks as well and does society as a whole not just government have an interest to see that everyone is living as healthy as a life as possible not just physically? The answers to these questions is of course yes, but the real question is who should make the decisions. The individual who knows himself or herself better than anyone and one way or the other will have to deal with the consequences of their decisions for good or bad?

Or government trying to make our decisions for us? The answer to this whole question is the difference between liberal democracy which comes with a lot of individual freedom and responsibility. And paternalism or some type of big paternalist state where risks and rewards are very limited because the central government controls most of the power in the country. How you answers these questions pretty much defines your own politics. And if you are a Liberal like me, you simply believe in liberal democracy, but that it should come with individual responsibility as well. 

And that means the individual has the freedom to make their own decisions with their own lives. Not the freedom to hurt innocent people obviously, but the freedom to manage their own lives. But then has to deal with the consequences of their own decisions for good or bad. The rewards from making good decisions and the consequences of making bad decisions. So they are incentivize to make good decisions in the future and to make fewer bad decisions in the future as. Well which benefits society as a whole rather than government trying to make criminals out of people for making bad decisions with their own lives. 

If you are someone who believes individual freedom is somehow dangerous and perhaps risky, then you essentially believe and perhaps you would put it on more colorful terms, but that freedom incentivizes people to make bad decisions. That freedom is too risky and that people are stupid anyway and with more personal choice, come more bad decision-making. And what we need is a government especially a central government big enough to only prevent people from making bad decisions, but punish the idiots who dumb enough to break the law and take individual responsibility over their own lives. 

The difference between the individualist and the collectivist or even statist, is that the individualist believes in a free society or free state. The collectivist or statist believes in the nanny state and depending on how far the collectivist distrusts individualism, they may believe in a police state as well. The difference between Thomas Jefferson the father of liberal democracy and liberalism and Michael Bloomberg, not the father of the nanny state, but certainly their current president and head of state. 

The whole War on Drugs fiasco is a perfect example of that. If you are to the left of me and let’s say one of the Progressives of today,  or what is called a modern Progressive, then you think personal freedom is dangerous. Because if gives people the freedom to make bad decisions that society as a whole has to deal with. My answer to people being able to make bad decisions is to eliminate the middleman or middle women. And put the responsibility of the individual to manage their own lives and allow them to collect the rewards of their good decisions. 

And leave the people to deal with the consequences of their bad decisions again so they are incentivize to make good decisions in the future. And fewer bad decisions in the future as well, rather than forcing taxpayers to bail them out when they make bad decisions. Or making criminals out of people who make bad decisions with their own lives. Which is why liberal democracy is a great system as long as it comes with individual responsibility so people do not have to bail out others when they make bad decisions.

Cal Thomas: Back to the 50s

Source:The FreeState

There is a movement in America that’s religiously based at least to a certain degree that believes that America has been going down hill at least culturally since the 1960s. When more Americans like African-Americans were given the same freedom as Caucasian-Americans under law. Where women had the same freedom as men and where more Americans who came of age in this decade no longer felt the need to live their lives like their parents and grandparents. And felt free to live their own lives and not worry about being called Un- American or immoral.

I call people who believe America has gone downhill since the 1960s and that the Baby Boom Generation has essentially ruined America, or at least their version of America, the Traditional Values Coalition. But perhaps they should be called the 1950s Generation. The Silent Generation Club perhaps of people who grew up in the 1950s and came of age in the 1950s. But in Cal Thomas's case not to give away his age or anything, but he was born in late 1942, so yeah he did grow up in the 1950s, but he came of age in late 1960 or 63, depending on how you define coming of age, 18 or 21. And went to college in the 1960s, whether he's a Baby Boomer or not. He has experiences of people from that generation. But for some relates better to people who were born in the 1930s. 

The Traditional Values Coalition or Silent Generation Club, are people who point back to the 1950s and before that as their utopia. Dad worked and was the man and head of the household, even though mom didn't work and did at least the majority of the parenting of their kids. African-Americans were no longer slaves, but their role in life was to serve wealthy Anglo-Saxon-Americans. Both in the Northeast and in the South. Gays weren't in the closet, they were trapped in the closet and locked in so tightly that a tank couldn't knock the door down. And were expected to be quiet and not make any noise in life. Not that dissimilar to African-Americans role in America. 

And what the 1960s the Baby Boom Generation did was to ruin the utopia for people trapped in the 1950s who do not seem capable of modernizing and adapting to the times. As the great Bob Dylan said, "Times Were A Changin" and  the Traditional Values folks simply didn't get that. And have decided that the 1950s is their great moment and time and they are not moving past that moment and live in a time machine or time warp. The 1960s blew down that door for them and blew down doors that were blocking opportunity for millions of Americans who didn't happen to be Anglo-Saxon or male 

There are economic collectivists who tend to be Progressive or Socialist. But there also what I call cultural collectivists on the right. Neoconservatives who believe there is one way for people to live and one way for Americans to be American. And when we leave this status quo to live our own lives, that we are damaging society and free to make mistakes with our own lives that others have to pay for and so-forth. Liberals and perhaps Libertarians like the 1960s because individual-freedom became available to more Americans. 

The 1960s created a New America where more Americans including women of all ethnicities and races, African-Americans gays  were free to live their own lives and not feel the need to live the way their parents and grandparents did. Where the common TV show no longer feature a man coming home from work and saying, "honey I'm home", with his lovely wife saying, "hi honey how was your day", the man saying, "it was a bear and I'm bushed. What's for dinner?" Because now moving up to modern America, honey might be still at work when her husband gets home. And working with other women and perhaps people of different races and ethnicities. 

Neoconservatives as we see today in the Tea Party to use as an example, dislike the 1960s for those exact same reasons and see things like divorce, pre-martial sex, pornography, adultery, homosexuality, perhaps heavy metal music to use Rick Santorum’s case and hip hop as threats to society that must be eliminated. They want to lock up Americans for their own good and end what they see as their immoral behavior. Why because, they live in a time machine stuck on 1955 and don't see the America the rest of the country sees. 

The Traditional Values Coalition like to point to the 1950s as a decade when we were less individualistic and more collectivist as a country culturally, as a time that we should move back to in this new national time machine that would of course have to be funded by American taxpayers. And if anything we have too much personal freedom today that must be cut back for the good of the nation. 

Everything wasn’t bad about the 1950s and the 1960s was certainly not a perfect decade. But with the 1960s came more individual freedom for people to live their own lives. And you combine that with individual responsibility as well and we would really have a liberal democracy. That could work for everyone with everyone able to make their own decisions. And then have to deal with the consequences of their own decisions.

PBS: NewsHour- ‘Five States Move to Restrict Access to Abortion Services’

Source:PBS NewsHour- Ilyse Hogue from National Pro-Choice America.

Source:The Daily Times

“Five states have moved to adopt tighter abortion regulations, including North Dakota, which has the nation’s strictest abortion regulation, outlawing abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected. Jeffrey Brown gets perspectives from Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life and Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice America." 

From the PBS NewsHour 

“The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America’s Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House.”

From Wikipedia

All of these abortion restriction laws are coming in red states that like to complain about big government and government interfering in our lives and so-forth and yet they write laws that do exactly that. And interfere with the most personal of decisions that Americans will ever make which get’s to our healthcare.

In this case women’s healthcare and who decides whether women give birth or not after being pregnant. Apparently big government in red states is government they do not like mainly as it relates to the economy. But big government that they do like as it has to do with our personal lives is okay, because: “It’s in our national interest to have government making these decisions for us. Rather than individuals have the freedom and responsibility to make these decisions for ourselves.”

And then you get to the constitutional and legal aspects of this where these laws will be ruled unconstitutional. Because of the rock solid pro-choice majority on it. And you have states defending laws in court with taxpayer funds that will be ruled unconstitutional. Money that would’ve been spent for other things that would not get thrown out.