When Politicians and Governments Cut Costs, The First Thing to Go is Common Sense!

It's official. Politicians just don't have common sense. They also do things in the most public, most stressful way, just to get attention. Watching the news report just gave several examples of their narrow-mindedness.

There are budget problems in every city and state. Cutting out all of the air traffic controllers in small airports, rather than some of them at different size airports just seems spiteful. (It's probably cheaper to hire the contractors than the federal employees that have such expensive benefit packages.)

Closing schools in cities (such as Chicago, Detroit, etc) is not the solution to budget problems. There are bound to be plenty of ways to cut costs - cut out the top heavy administrators, cut out the unneeded programs. As much as I hate to say it, cut out on buying materials such as new textbooks.  Chicago is closing schools in order to save money, a move that affects 30,000 students.  While it might be necessary to do this, I'd want to take a look at the budget first. The money "saved" from closing a school increases the cost to transport these students elsewhere. From my experience in school systems, EVERY district I've seen has highly paid consultants and various administrators. They spend their time creating paperwork, writing more guidelines, and over-supervising. Most of them could be removed, and allow teachers to actually spend time teaching, not documenting strategies used, and not only would they save money, they'd educate more students!

There are thousands of odd research projects paid for by government grants. Some of them are the ones that go to great lengths to prove something everyone already knew. Others are special projects that make absolutely no impact on anything, but it did provide a paycheck for a friend of the person that donated to the politicians re-election campaign.   In state government, and actually, in federal as well, there are a lot of trips to conventions and for meetings to talk with other people in similar jobs. If they want to communicate, they can send emails, or even video conference. Of course then they can't stay in expensive hotels on the beach, but such is life.

When families cut back, they cut out the extras, not the things that impact them the most. There are a LOT of ways to save money that aren't as painful. Somehow, I think the politicians would rather cause pain, just so they can blame the other guy for it!

Religion & Prayer at School Events - Yes or No?

What do you think about prayer in school? When I was in school, there was a "moment of silent meditation" every morning with the announcements. Even though I'm a Christian, I don't recall ever using that minute to pray. However, I did savor the moment of quiet, a rare moment in school.  Over the years, there has been a big issue about what should and should not be allowed in school. In most middle and high schools, the students are allowed to participate in faith-based groups either before or after school. The guiding principle has been that it's student-led, not teacher-led. In other words, students are allowed their rights to free speech, peaceable assembly, and freedom of religion and no teacher is forcing their own views on them. In reality, it's usually a Christian teacher, the group is "Fellowship of Christian Athletes" (which is for everyone, no longer just athletes) so it's freedom of religion if you happen to be Christian. But being outside of school hours, other kids were not forced to attend.

Somewhere along the line, prayers were eliminated at public events such as football games and graduation ceremonies. Advocates for prayer have decried this as interfering with their rights and leading to moral decline. Opponents argued that being forced to hear a prayer interfered with their rights to not have religion, taking the "government shall not support a religion" to it's limit.

The state of Mississippi recently passed a law that allows school prayers as a part of the morning announcements, at football games, and at graduations. This law was supported by many large Christian churches in the state.

How are you feeling now? positive? negative?

While I understand their point of view, surprisingly (to some) I don't support it. Sure, I think it's fine to pray before a football game. They used to do that, praying for sportsmanship, safety, and other nice things... even though I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few other prayers..."Hey God, about that score..." as if God cares who wins the games.  But who is to say WHAT prayers should be said? What about the week that a Catholic child prays in the small town where the majority of the population goes to either the Baptist or Methodist Church? They'll be okay with a prayer mentioning Mary? Or what about the week that a Buddhist child prays? the Muslim child? Will people join them in prayer? What about when the Atheist gets up to share a few words? We're still "okay," right? Freedom of religion is freedom for all?

A year or so ago, a locate magistrate got a law passed in her community (I believe it was in Tennessee? perhaps in Arkansas) that allowed parents to get a stipend from the government to help pay for their children's private religious school education.  It is basically modeled after the school choice issue. Her reasoning was that parents paid school taxes for public school but didn't get any return on that. It was assumed that all of the funds from the city would go to the only local Christian School which just happened to be operated by her church.

Imagine her surprise when a Muslim family sent in the paperwork for the funding to go to their Islamic School! She even denied the request and tried to fight it when they protested. Of course, the ACLU got involved, and while I don't often agree with them, this woman was in the wrong.

Yes, I definitely believe in and practice praying. It's important to me. However, just as I expect people to respect this, I also respect their views.  Some claim that this lack of public prayers is leading to the moral decline of the country. Are you kidding me? Since when is it the public school's duty to guide the moral development of students? Obviously, as more and more responsibilities are piled on, from dealing with bullying, drug use, homelessness, and other social ills in the classroom - things such as morality should be taught at home. If you don't think students have the "right" morals, then talk to their parents.

As far as I'm concerned, I do NOT want religion taught in public school, other than a neutral, "this is what this group believes" comparison. That kind of study is interesting and is a part of learning about other cultures.  Most families do not want their children taught a religion other than the one taught at home. A Buddhist student should not have a Muslim teacher telling him he's wrong. A Christian student shouldn't be told by an Atheist that there is no God. THAT is why religion should be taught at home. If it's not important enough to the parents to teach them, then the school surely shouldn't do it.

There are religious and free speech rights. Occasionally, these rights get tangled. Somewhere along the line, common sense, respect, and tolerance need to come to the surface!  Your thoughts?
 
article about the Mississippi law

UK Basketball Team: What Happened?

They've got multiple All-Americans, with 3 or 4 kids planning to do the NBA draft this year. The coach is paid close to $4 MILLION per year - Recipe for success, right? Sadly, the UK Kitty seems to have choked on a hairball.

The University of Kentucky basketball team is in danger of not even being in the NCAA tournament unless they do well in the SEC tournament, which they certainly could win. The rest of their league is down this year, which sadly, is one reason they've won some of the games they won. But this could work in their favor come tournament time, especially since it may be "do or die" for them.

What happened?  Part of it is the players are used to being stars and didn't know how to be a team.  This was the case at the beginning of the season, and frankly, like most people, I did not think it would be a big problem. After all, they'd get it together and by Christmas, they'd be winning all of their games. But that never happened.

To hear the coach talk, it's an un-coachable team. They don't want to do what he says. You know what I think? I think that the problem is that despite being paid big bucks, John Calipari simply isn't as good a coach as people thought he was. It would take a superstar to match his ego, but even the casual fan assumed they'd have a great season with that line-up.  I've never coached a basketball team older than middle school, but I'm not sure I would've done a whole lot worse. If nothing else, I'd have bribed them with chocolate chip cookies.

A GOOD coach takes even mediocre players and motivates them to try hard. He teaches them the basics and teaches them to work his style of play. If they don't cooperate, he disciplines them by putting them on the bench and letting someone else play. That has been proven to work wonders. I've seen other coaches (such as Rick Pitino with last year's UL team) take worse players and get them ready to play.  UK's coach doesn't seem to be interested in doing this. In interviews after games, he throws the team under the bus. (Way to build loyalty, Coach)

Not long ago, a star player was hurt. But you know what? They were down by 12 points halfway through the 2nd half with him in the game. They'd been losing games before he got hurt. Losing him is NOT what caused their problems. But I thought that it might encourage the others to step up their game a bit. I've seen other teams do that, but for whatever reason, UK players just don't seem to care this year.

At this point, it's a ridiculous situation with sportstalk shows speculating on how many UK players are drafted in which round of the NBA and at the same time, wondering if the team will even play in the NCAA tournament. Does this go together? Did the players just decide to skip this season because they're already mentally cashing checks next season? If I were an NBA coach, I'd be wary of recruiting someone that didn't even know how to play college ball.  (NOT choosing them could be the best thing that happens to them. They'd get off their high horse and work next year, giving UK the team they expected this year.)

Part of me feels sorry for the dedicated UK fans because frankly, they just plain aren't used to losing, especially at Rupp.  Another part of me is reminded that this is partly their fault as well. The desire to get "the best of the best" players, those headed to the NBA, leaves you with teams that are almost always young players. True, their "inexperienced" players could supposedly (until this year, anyway) out-play any seasoned team full of seniors in the country. The "one and done" philosophy has come around to bite UK this year.

The real unfair thing is that even though the fans are suffering through a miserable season, the players will go on to get multi-million dollar contracts in a few months, and the coach cashes his check no matter what. I'm not a UK fan, though I'm not an enemy either. I'm just objectively pointing out the obvious. I've been spoiled. My team, while they may not win it all, almost always plays with heart. They enjoy playing basketball.

Don't give up Wildcats. Your season is still salvageable. I suspect the prospect of not making the NCAA might finally motivate your prima dona players into playing to win. And once there, it's just a game at a time.

You're invited to "like" my facebook page and comment on other issues as well.

Rand Paul and The Filibuster

Filibuster  (/ˈfiləˌbəstər/)

Noun: The use of obstructive tactics, especially prolonged speech-making for the purpose of delaying legislative action such as a vote.

Verb: Act in an obstructive manner in a legislation, especially by speaking at inordinate length.

 

The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. He spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against and to prevent the vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1957. 

To me, the filibuster is an example of what's wrong in DC. The attitude of obstruction at all cost.... and it IS at a cost to the American people - is much like bullying. Make your point. Take a stand and vote against what you feel is wrong. Deal with consequences. Change things. But don't just keep people from voting. Game playing with people's lives should not be a political sport, but it is.

Last night, Sen. Rand Paul filibustered and spoke for almost 13 hours against the use of drones in order to prevent the vote for John Brennan. (It could be said that he droned on and on but that might be a little too corny!) One thing he said during his tirade was to ask if the President has the authority to use a weaponized drone against American citizens on American soil that aren't doing anything wrong. NOT that the President or anyone has ever said that was the case.

 SOMEONE has to lead the CIA. The vote was whether or not John Brennan is the right person. Rather than vote yes or no, he blocked the vote to discuss drones, a topic for another debate. It'd be quite appropriate (and smart) to draft legislation with guidelines for drone use by the CIA. That is actually something the Congress can and should do. But rather than try to solve a problem, he just blocked the process. It's like being offered an orange or an apple and responding by protesting grapes.

When I pointed out that his filibuster was not good, in my opinion, several people accused me of supporting drone attacks on US citizens without due process. For the record, I'm against the use of drones to kill people without due process, UNLESS of course they are indeed terrorizing. Not stopping someone in the act of terrorism would be like saying it's okay to stand by and watch someone shooting kids and not stop them because they haven't had their due process rights followed. Perhaps this puts gun rights advocates in a twisted pretzel position. CAN you actually shoot someone without giving them a trial? Oh, it's okay if they're doing something wrong. Kinda like killing someone, even an American citizen, if he's attacking?

But for all his grandstanding, and claims of winning, today they held the vote for John Brennan as head of the CIA.  He was confirmed. In addition, the Attorney General sent Rand Paul a note addressing his midnight tirade. "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no." 

So, unlike Strom Thurmond's misguided filibuster that stopped the vote on the Civil Rights Bill - for that time anyway - Rand Paul's filibuster seems to have all been for naught since the vote went forward a few hours later. The issue of drone strikes has also been addressed, and will most likely continue to be. In his eyes it was a success though, as he got what he was probably out to get in the first place - national attention.