Huntsman for GOP Presidency Nod

Watching the Republican debate last week, I was - like many voters - profoundly disappointed in the field .... with one exception. John Huntsman was the one candidate who came across as honest, forthright, and genuine. Unlike Michelle Bachman who "wished the United States had defaulted" or Newt Gingrich who was offended by questions about his record or Ron Paul who (God love him) simply misunderstands national economics in the twentieth century or Mitt Romney who seems to be running from his record and confused about who he is, John Huntsman is the one man who presented a practical and clearly stated philosophy and who is "standing by his record" and "running on his record."

Huntsman can honestly defend his support for the deficit reduction bill and TARP and the stimulus plan. He can openly acknowledge his support of cap and trade legislation on climate change - especially because he can point out it was the Heritage Institute's idea. He can stand by his position on civil unions - because even that should be seen as conservative. He can look at conservatives and say, "Hey, this was our idea" and it's still a good one even if the Democrats embraced it. That's the same thing Mitt Romney should have said about the individual mandate. Instead of running from it, he should have stood his ground and said, "Hey! This is a conservative idea. This started with the Heritage Institute. It's still a good idea - even if Obama adopted it."

So, as an unaffiliated independent - one who is moderate with a strong fiscal conservative foundation who has much to criticize about the Democrats at the federal level - I will say this: In a contest between Huntsman and Obama today, I would be likely to vote for Huntsman. In a race between Obama and anyone else on the stage, my vote would go with Obama running away. If the GOP really wanted to appeal to the independents, they'd go with someone like Huntsman - or Johnson out of New Mexico.

But they won't. So, at this point I am stuck with the Democrats.

NCAA Academic Standards

In a move that is either a late but much needed - or more likely a symbolic but meaningless - act of reform in the higher education field, the NCAA voted to raise the base academic standards that it requires for its athletes. The board implemented a tougher baseline standards for schools to remain eligible for post-season play. Though the plans are still broad and won't be fully enacted for three years, word is the new standards would have barred Ohio State from post-season play in recent years - and the move would also limit their scholarships.

This action is way overdue - and probably won't be that effective. But it may be progress. As I've argued before, it is absurd that the NCAA and associated schools can sign TV contracts for billions of dollars and then claim tax-exempt status because of "their educational mission." The idea that the University of Texas has an "educational mission" for its football and basketball players would be laughable - if it weren't so pathetic and corrupt.

Considering 95% of the NCAA athletes playing basketball and football will never play professionally, the educational mission must take precedence. For sports outside of the big two, the rate is 100%. Thus, it may be high time for higher education to start paying its dues in terms of the revenue it generates if it is not going to accomplish the basic task of providing an education.

Do Special Needs Need Vouchers

The battle over the proposed - and now suspended - voucher program in Douglas County, Colorado has generated some serious discussion about the needs of students and the right of choice in schools and how tax dollars are spent. As I've noted before, Douglas County struck some as an unusual place for a voucher program - as it is one of the richest counties in the USA, and it's students are not trying to escape failing schools. Thus, the issue is all about freedom of choice - though Colorado already has statewide open enrollment. Thus, the issue is really about using public dollars to choose a private and/or religious education. However, in the testimony for the district's plan, one interesting claim was made by a woman who claims her son's special needs require a private school. So, that's a new angle.

Resident Diane Oakley appealed to the district to pass this voucher plan because her son has special needs - Asperger's syndrome. Oakley claims she needs the voucher to pay the $17,000 tuition at a private school called Humanex Academy - as that is the school that can meet the needs of her son. I am curious about this assertion. As a public school teacher, I know that her son's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome qualifies him for special service under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus, in Douglas County Schools, he would have a case manager and a specialized instruction program to assist him in fully accessing his right to a free and public education. Certainly, a well-funded school system like DC is going to have all the necessary support for students with special needs. And, if a public school cannot provide for a students needs under the law, families can file suit for additional support. Thus, I am wondering why this parent believes that only this private school can meet her son's needs.

Over the years I have had numerous students with Asperger's Syndrome, as well as numerous other conditions such as ADD, ADHD, anxiety disorder, sensory processing syndromes, etc. At every school I know, there are qualified personal to assist students with these struggles. I've had students with these conditions - including Asperger's - in my basic level classes that have been team taught, and I've had them in my honors and AP classes. Thus, I have no doubt that public schools - especially high quality schools like DC - can provide every angle of support to assist students in accessing their education. However, occasionally parents will feel like their child needs even more than the school provides. At those times, students do pursue private alternatives. However, that decision is personal, and I'm not sure the public schools have to support that perspective. Certainly, any parents can file with districts if they believe that the school can't provide for a legally recognized disability.

Thus, the idea of a voucher being necessary for special needs students is questionable in my opinion.

The Next Food Network Star

In the most exciting, competitive, and entertaining season yet of the Food Network's reality TV challenge to be the next "Food Network Star," the title of rising star on the Food TV scene went to Jeff Mauro. Jeff beat out eleven other competitors in a weekly test of food skills and camera challenges to earn his own show on the Food Network. Jeff created a compelling and marketable vision as "The Sandwich Guy," and his consistent commitment to that vision throughout the competition is what solidified the win for him. From his top notch cooking flair as an executive chef to his engaging stand-up comedy persona, Jeff proved to have what numerous judges and panels throughout the show deemed "star quality."

Though I don't watch a lot of TV - especially reality TV competitions - I truly enjoy the high quality lifestyle programming that is the trademark of the Food Network. Thus, last year on vacation my family became engrossed in the weekly Sunday night food cook-offs that led to Arti Sequeria winning the title of Food Network Star. Her show Arti party is still running on Sunday mornings. This year's competition was engaging from the start with quality cooks and dramatic personality clashes. But, ultimately, it was Jeff's skill and charm that earned him victory. From the beginning, my wife and I had pegged Jeff and other finalist Suzie as the two people we wanted - and expected - in the finals. We were not disappointed. Suzie was a great competitor and truly deserved to go as far as she did - but there was no doubt that Jeff was the next Food Network Star.

If you haven't yet checked out the show that launched the career of Diners, Drive-in, & Dives star Guy Fieri, you missed the exciting run of the Food Network's next great personality - Jeff Maruo, The Sandwich Guy. Jeff's show airs next Sunday morning, and it will contain his trademark line - "You're only a couple steps away from turning any sandwich into a meal, and any meal into a fantastic sandwich."

Congratulations, Jeff. Can't wait to see your show.

Paying College Football Players is Absurd

Denver Post sports columnist Mark Kiszla hit the "debt ceiling" of absurdity in today's Sunday commentary by asserting college athletes should receive a stipend. Acknowledging the situation of the Ohio State player selling his ring for money, Kizla interviewed two Bronco's players - Hall of Famer Floyd Little and second round draft pick Von Miller. Little completely opposed the idea, while Miller allegedly said a stipend "would be nice." Ultimately, Kizla's piece goes completely over the top with some of his reasoning. The image of players begging for $20 to get a haircut after having $20000 - $50000 in bills comp-ed is beyond reason.

The obvious response to Kizla's defense of these poor, struggling football players is: Where the heck are the kids' parents? What is their responsibility for making sure their child can get a haircut, go to the movies, and have a snack - especially after other citizens have foot the bill for their kids education. Kiz naively assumes all college football players are poverty-stricken refugees from public housing. Then, he features Von Miller who grew up with middle class parents who are small business owners. After getting a free ride from tuition, Dad can pony up for a Von's haircuts and movies. Can you imagine how much the Miller's grocery bill dropped while Texas A&M was feeding and housing him for four years?

Kiszla also assumes the Ohio State player who sold his ring needed the $8000 for haircuts - rather than beer money and club cover charges. When I was a student at the University of Illinois, I knew more than a dozen Illini players. None were hurting for money on the weekends. As a high school teacher, I've had dozens of students go on to play college sports, including football and basketball. None had trouble with daily living expenses.

Playing college football is not a job, and these players are already being compensated. They not only get a free education and a reasonably comfortable living situation, but they are given a free opportunity to compete on a national stage for millions of future earnings. Once they make those millions, do any feel a responsibility to pay back the university for spotting them? Of course not. They use the university as much as the university uses them. And if anyone is going to pay a stipend for these kids, it shouldn't be the colleges footing yet another bill. If Von Miller and his NFL buddies think it "would be nice" for players to get a stipend, maybe they can create a charity fund from their signing bonuses. At this point, Von could sponsor quite a few players for $300 a month.

The idea that these players deserve a monthly paycheck is unsupportable. The belief that they need it because they can't afford a haircut is downright outrageous.

Douglas County Vouchers Unconstitutional

The Denver District Court has pulled the plug on the controversial voucher program that was implemented by the Douglas County School District in Colorado earlier this year. In a 68-page rule Judge Michael Martinez ruled that the program - which allowed a percentage of district funds to be used by students for private schools - violated Colorado's Constitution which specifically prohibits any use of public funds from supporting religious schools. Thus, the 304 students who had applied for - and received a portion of - a voucher of roughly $4,000 will not be able to proceed in their plans to attend a school other than a public school on the taxpayer's dime. The suit was filed by, among others, the ACLU and a group of Douglas County residents who opposed the program.

The program raised intense debate over the last year as proponents argued from freedom of choice on the parts of parents - who are taxpayers - and opponents who argued it violates the law. To be clear, Colorado's state Constitution does, in fact, literally forbid the use of public funds for religious schools. Thus, this is not simply a debate over whether the US Constitution literally or figuratively creates a "separation of church and state." Additionally, this case tested boundaries precisely because of the socioeconomic status of the students involved. Generally, vouchers have been proposed to help poor students escape struggling schools. However, Douglas County is the sixth wealthiest county in the nation, and its schools are not in any way struggling. Well, that's not true - they are struggling for money in one of the most tax-averse parts of the country. But the quality of the education is not in dispute. It's merely the freedom of choice.

As I've noted before, I am not completely rigid in my opposition to the use of vouchers. For me, education reform is all about whatever works. To that I would assert that Douglas County schools are, in fact, working. Yet, I do believe in freedom of choice - though Colorado schools do have open enrollment laws that apply statewide. And, I won't dispute that school reform darling Finland uses a voucher-style system. So, this particular program is awkward for a variety of reasons - and I don't support change for change sake or the idea that freedom and taxpayers' rights know no bounds. Thus, my gut overall is that this program is unnecessary and not in the best interest of public education or education reform. Supreme Court, get ready.

For the most part, the students were choosing religious schools, which clearly and literally violates Colorado's state Constitution. However, some parents filed for the money because they claim their child's special needs require a private school. That's a discussion for a later post.

Care About America? Buy American

Apparently, ABC News and Diane Sawyer have keyed in on the idea that one of America's biggest problems is that Americans don't buy products made in America .... and, of course, America doesn't make enough products. In a recent report, Sawyer explained that if Americans simply focused on making sure that they shifted their spending by $20 week to specifically buy American products, the result would lead to the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Certainly, choosing to buy American is not a bad idea. And, it's not that difficult.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. That's why I have never owned one of them "foreign" cars. Every car I've bought from the time I was sixteen has been a Ford, Chevy, or GMC. And, of course, I hear a lot of the flak from other consumers about the superior quality of German or Japanese cars - but I don't buy it. And, don't try to explain that your Honda Civic was "made in America." If it's not an Ford, Chevy, or GM, then the profits are going abroad, and it's not helping the American economy. I apply the same logic to food purchases as often as I can. When my family goes out, we often do so in my own town. When I fill my tank, it is always in Greenwood Village. Whenever I can buy produce at a farmers market, I do so. It helps the local economy - and the local tax base.

Thus, my conclusion is that if any American voter out there is truly concerned about the state of our economy or debt or deficit or unemployment, then he should make a concerted effort to by American and buy all natural and local whenever he can.

Scarborough Tells It Like It Is

Whenever people wonder how I can claim to be a conservative - or how I could vote for the GOP - I could simply point to someone like Joe Scarborough. The amicable, pragmatic, and wise host of the show Morning Joe is precisely the type of moderate conservative that I support - and he represents the GOP I used to believe in. If Joe Scarborough were running for office in my district, I'd campaign for him, and if he were running for President, I'd feel great about the future. Joe Scarborough is quite simply a pragmatic and rational conservative who puts the American people above politics. He did it in Congress, and he continues to promote that view as a commentator. And he's got moxie to go with his political insight. Here's a little of that Joe Scarborough snap:

"Michele Bachmann's first answer was, I wish the federal government had defaulted. Had defaulted! A week after Americans lost--some of them perhaps lost half of their pensions. Lost half of their 401ks. When trillions of dollars went down the drain with Americans suffering, she said that and got applause, and if anybody thinks that guys like my dad are going to be voting that way...they are out of their mind and they are too stupid not only to prognosticate, they are too stupid to run Slurpee machines in Des Moines...Michele Bachmann is a joke. She is a joke. Her answer is a joke. Her candidacy is a joke...Iowa, if you let her win, you prove your irrelevance once again."

Tell it like it is, Joe.

Sit-com Community is a Great Find

Last spring two freshman boys in my Honors English 9 class recommended that I watch the new sitcom Community which recently finished its second season. As I don't generally watch much prime-time television - and I find most sitcoms these days mind-numbingly bland - I was unfamiliar with the show. However, the boys insisted that I would like it. Their argument centered around how much each episode derives from allusions to contemporary pop culture - especially from the 1980s. Because I was impressed with my students understanding of allusion - and awareness of it in this show - I recently rented the first season. And, I was not disappointed.

Community represents all that can be great about television and specifically about the sitcom. The premise of the show is a study group from an introductory Spanish class at a community college which seems to be somewhere in California. The group consists of six community college students - but the initial focus was on lead character Jeff Winger - who is a disbarred lawyer returning to college for a degree after his initial bachelor's was discovered to be falsified. Jeff - incredibly smart, witty, and superficially jaded but with a heart of gold - forms the study group in order to get in the pants of tough girl Britta Perry. The rest of the group coalesces out of random associations - and the dysfunction is hilarious. Without getting into story lines, suffice it to say, each episode brings a new challenge for the group that starts small but eventually envelops all characters and their unique situations.

It's been a while since I've seen a show this intelligent and wacky at the same time - reminds me of early Scrubs or early Spin City. And the allusions which were mentioned by my students are the key to the brilliance. This satire of contemporary American pop culture, viewed through the lens of the the industry that has grown out of higher education, is insightful social commentary - and it's probably one of the best shows on TV right now.

Check it out.

S&P Blames GOP

Interesting insight in a quote from the S&P Ratings Board on why they downgraded US Treasury debt - "Compared with previous projections, our revised base scenario now assumes the 2001/03 tax cuts, due to expire, now remain in place. We have changed our assumptions because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenue."

Strangely, that hasn't been getting much press. I would have guessed the liberal media would have heavily promoted that. And, it looks like a moot point anyway, because in the sell-off investors continued to go to T-bills, even though other countries still have AAA-ratings. Guess we still are the big dog. At least the market got up today and regained some sanity. Overall, the Dow has way too much influence on our psyche anyway. Even as the market moves along - fast or slow - wild swings in daily trading bring about talk of doom and gloom. And even as the Dow was rising the last two years and companies were posting record profits - which in turn drove up their stock prices - unemployment and the misery index remained high.

Thus, I am curious the proposal to put a minor - like .0025% - tax on stock transactions? Some are proposing it as a way to cut down on speculation and the wild swings in the market. It could raise some revenue at the same time it regulates the uncertainty. Ultimately, it'll be a no-go - but it's a reasonable idea.

T-Bills and the "Full Faith and Credit" of the USA

Wow!

How about that market play yesterday and today?

Isn't it fascinating that yesterday, amidst all the hysteria, investors sought refuge in T-Bills ... still ... even when returns went slightly negative for a short time?

Do you think that will convince radical pundits, extreme think tanks, and truly naive congressman to never, ever, ever f*%# around with the "full faith and credit" of the United States government again?

I would certainly hope so - but I doubt it.

Are Taxes Wrong?

One of my favorite bloggers, Darren at RightOnTheLeftCoast, occasionally posts about how the safety net programs of the US government are not Christian. In this post, which links to an article of similar mindset, he argues it again. If you check the comments, you'll see Darren and I have hashed this out on various occasions, and we simply disagree. However, I am somewhat baffled by his line of thought in some areas.

For example, I am curious about his occasional references to taxes as money "taken forcibly" or under the "threat of violence." This sentiment has been voiced by longtime TeachersView commenter Steven, who opposes all taxes - and pretty much all government - on the basis that it stems from threats of violence and confiscation. In his recent post, Darren says taxes and social programs are "not Christian" and other times he's said taxes, because they are taken against some citizen's wills are "not moral." I am wondering about the issue of taxes and morality.

Of course, Darren argues it's not Christian for the confiscated money to be given to the poor. Is it then also "not Christian" and "immoral" to use that money to inflict violence against other nations and peoples? Is using tax money to fight wars that not all people support wrong? Immoral? Un-Christian? Or are we just picking and choosing what we think is OK to use that "forcibly taken" money?

Darren also wondered what the Pope would say about taxes and social programs in terms of morality and Christianity. The pope has publicly condemned the War on Terror. So, clearly, using taxes to fund that would seemingly be un-Christian - especially since man was called upon by Christ to "turn the other cheek." However, the Pope hasn't publicly condemned "taxes" or "Social Security" or "unemployment compensation" or "food stamps." And, of course, Christ never said that "individuals" should be charitable but governments shouldn't. He made no distinction. I have a hard time believing that Christ would have admonished the Roman government if it had a safety net. He said pay your taxes.

Are taxes, as I believe Darren is arguing, immoral? If so, is by nature the Constitution immoral. For one of the first and primary powers given to the government in the Constitution is the authority to "levy taxes." The people went a step further with an amendment to specifically "levy taxes" on income. Thus, the authority to collect taxes is a founding tenant of the Constitution. And, as I've argued before, Christ had no opposition to taxes. Though he did exhort corrupt tax collectors to not take more than was due.

Just wondering.