Many districts in Michigan are undergoing continuing financial stress. Reductions in state aid are the main culprit, forcing districts to cut programs at various levels. The hue and cry is always loud and shrill. But it seems that one easy area to cut, an area where there should be little fanfare let alone controversy, would be transportation. The school buses ought to be stopped.
There is no inherent reason why schools should have to pay to get students in the classroom. Parents are the ones primarily responsible to get their kids to class. Why the general public must pay extra for what is essentially a middle class perk, and a somewhat limited perk when you consider the number of taxpayers without school age kids, is beyond reason.
Private school parents make the effort, as a rule. Why can't those in the public education sector? Yes, yes, some moms and dads won't get their kids to school, but be honest: if their dedication to the enlightenment of their own kids is so small, those students need a lot more help than a bus ride. Besides, sacrificing true educational goals and programs just to get Johnny to school is asinine. What can eventually be left of the schools in that light?
The needs of the many at times outweigh the needs of the few. This is one of those times. Stop the buses. Make people take responsibility for their own progeny.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Brown Has the Right Idea on Detroit Budget Woes
Detroit City council President Pro Tem Gary Brown has offered to have his Council expenditures cut by one-third. He believes that his colleagues and the Mayor's office could stand to do the same. If his numbers are right, and so far his numbers appear to have been better than even the Mayor's, then Detroit would be looking at a savings of around $6 million. That's not something which in itself will keep the City from bankruptcy. But it is an interesting first step.
Detroit Council members get perks beyond what many similarly placed officials do in the country. They can get a city car or a stipend of $600 per month if they don't take one. The Detroit Council's budget takes more financing than those of most other major cities. To be fair, most of the members are willing to take a 10% hit to their budgets. Mr. Brown believes that that's not enough.
His will certainly be an uphill battle. Other Council members are balking, one, Andre Spivey, asserts that a strong local legislative branch of government will save more money6 in the long run. But if that really were the case it is fair to ask why don't we have savings now? Bickering, on the part of every part of Detroit City Government, is perhaps the biggest reason why the City is facing a state takeover. It's the content of the institutions of government and not the institutions themselves which are the problem.
It's a bold move for Councilman Brown, and an easy one too, seeing as he ought to be pretty well of considering his victorious whistle blower lawsuit with the City. Still, it has merit, and should be supported. You can't ask thousands of others to bite the bullet if you won't either.
Given the nature of Detroit politicians, and emergency manager is probably in our future. Yet if a few more people thought like Gary Brown, it might just be avoidable.
Detroit Council members get perks beyond what many similarly placed officials do in the country. They can get a city car or a stipend of $600 per month if they don't take one. The Detroit Council's budget takes more financing than those of most other major cities. To be fair, most of the members are willing to take a 10% hit to their budgets. Mr. Brown believes that that's not enough.
His will certainly be an uphill battle. Other Council members are balking, one, Andre Spivey, asserts that a strong local legislative branch of government will save more money6 in the long run. But if that really were the case it is fair to ask why don't we have savings now? Bickering, on the part of every part of Detroit City Government, is perhaps the biggest reason why the City is facing a state takeover. It's the content of the institutions of government and not the institutions themselves which are the problem.
It's a bold move for Councilman Brown, and an easy one too, seeing as he ought to be pretty well of considering his victorious whistle blower lawsuit with the City. Still, it has merit, and should be supported. You can't ask thousands of others to bite the bullet if you won't either.
Given the nature of Detroit politicians, and emergency manager is probably in our future. Yet if a few more people thought like Gary Brown, it might just be avoidable.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Christmas and John Lennon
During the Christmas season we hear ad infinitum all and every Christmas song imaginable. That's okay, of course. They are part of the holidays and many are well worth hearing, containing sentiments expressed well and to a good point.
Not all of them quite make that standard, however; even some of the better ones. John Lennon's Happy Xmas (War is Over) is one of those. It is a neat little tune, at times ethereal and perhaps even angelic. But the trouble with it is that it preaches to the choir just a bit too much, while more or less undermining the very sentiments it pretends to address.
War is over...if you want it. Well, of course the bulk of the Western world wants it. Indeed, most individuals in the world want it. Yet the problem with calling for the end of war is that it falls on too many deaf ears. So long as that's the case, so long as there are those who do in fact want it on some level, then we have little more than something too idealistic to be practical.
Especially when you attempt to combine Lennon's general philosophy with the apparent point of the song. One need only recall the words of another famous song of his to get that irony: Imagine there's no heaven...no religion. In short, he usually in his life appealed to sentiments contrary to Christmas. Without Heaven or Religion there would be no Christmas. Indeed, with nothing universal and eternal, the sentiments he expresses in his work are rendered meaningless. There can be no brotherhood of man worth salt without forever.
And Forever is precisely what the greatest Christmas songs call us towards. Family, friends, fellowship; these are eternal values. John Lennon ultimately only speaks in support of earthly ones. Values of the type he could not safely proclaim even or especially in the Gulag, or modern China or North Korea. Places, it must be noted, without heaven or religion. Places mired in earthly concerns.
In the end, what he preaches must be hollow. Or, and we should truly and fully hope and pray for this, the song shows he was in fact a better man than his professed creed. Because as it is, what he calls for is little more than comfort and self indulgence. Those feelings are not in the Christmas spirit.
Not all of them quite make that standard, however; even some of the better ones. John Lennon's Happy Xmas (War is Over) is one of those. It is a neat little tune, at times ethereal and perhaps even angelic. But the trouble with it is that it preaches to the choir just a bit too much, while more or less undermining the very sentiments it pretends to address.
War is over...if you want it. Well, of course the bulk of the Western world wants it. Indeed, most individuals in the world want it. Yet the problem with calling for the end of war is that it falls on too many deaf ears. So long as that's the case, so long as there are those who do in fact want it on some level, then we have little more than something too idealistic to be practical.
Especially when you attempt to combine Lennon's general philosophy with the apparent point of the song. One need only recall the words of another famous song of his to get that irony: Imagine there's no heaven...no religion. In short, he usually in his life appealed to sentiments contrary to Christmas. Without Heaven or Religion there would be no Christmas. Indeed, with nothing universal and eternal, the sentiments he expresses in his work are rendered meaningless. There can be no brotherhood of man worth salt without forever.
And Forever is precisely what the greatest Christmas songs call us towards. Family, friends, fellowship; these are eternal values. John Lennon ultimately only speaks in support of earthly ones. Values of the type he could not safely proclaim even or especially in the Gulag, or modern China or North Korea. Places, it must be noted, without heaven or religion. Places mired in earthly concerns.
In the end, what he preaches must be hollow. Or, and we should truly and fully hope and pray for this, the song shows he was in fact a better man than his professed creed. Because as it is, what he calls for is little more than comfort and self indulgence. Those feelings are not in the Christmas spirit.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The Latest from Iowa
Herman Cain is out of the race, and Newt Gingrich is moving up. Ron Paul finished second in the most recent Iowa Republican public opinion tally, while presumed man to beat Mitt Romney wound up third in the field. What does it all mean?
It means that you shouldn't put your money on someone named after a piece of baseball equipment.
Seriously, what does it mean? Really, especially when we are talking about something only two-ninths of the players use? Catchers and first basemen wear mitts; everyone else has a glove.
Okay, enough of the silly banter. Everyone knows that a glove has fingers while mitts have a spot for the thumb while everything else is extra padding.
Really, seriously now, what does it mean?
It means that Herman Cain had a message which resonated among the Republican field, yet he had too much baggage, fairly or unfairly, to continue his run. It also means that Ron Paul has followers who will go to the end of the Earth for him, but probably not enough for him to actually become the GOP standard bearer. It means that Newt Gingrich has been able to take advantage of his Johnny come lately status and has sprung to the top before Republicans, reporters, poll watchers, debate aficianados and plain old voters have had a chance to re-examine his views and his person. It means that Mitt Romney is still considered a player but folks are checking out other options while there seems to be time to do it.
And that's all it means. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else until the actual Iowa caucus. Until then, we got nuthin' except a mitt.
First base or catcher?
It means that you shouldn't put your money on someone named after a piece of baseball equipment.
Seriously, what does it mean? Really, especially when we are talking about something only two-ninths of the players use? Catchers and first basemen wear mitts; everyone else has a glove.
Okay, enough of the silly banter. Everyone knows that a glove has fingers while mitts have a spot for the thumb while everything else is extra padding.
Really, seriously now, what does it mean?
It means that Herman Cain had a message which resonated among the Republican field, yet he had too much baggage, fairly or unfairly, to continue his run. It also means that Ron Paul has followers who will go to the end of the Earth for him, but probably not enough for him to actually become the GOP standard bearer. It means that Newt Gingrich has been able to take advantage of his Johnny come lately status and has sprung to the top before Republicans, reporters, poll watchers, debate aficianados and plain old voters have had a chance to re-examine his views and his person. It means that Mitt Romney is still considered a player but folks are checking out other options while there seems to be time to do it.
And that's all it means. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else until the actual Iowa caucus. Until then, we got nuthin' except a mitt.
First base or catcher?
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Live Orthodoxly!
Embracing change is easy. Embracing Orthodoxy is the real challenge.
-a paraphrase of Mr. G. K. Chesterton
We hear it all the time, don't we, fellow conservatives? We hear the importance of embracing change, of being willing to change, of the need to alter our beliefs and desires to the will and whim of the current society. That's all we need to do is embrace the change which the modern society wishes us to do.
If they meant for us to change in the sense of becoming truly better persons, of changing from bad habit to good, of learning to like what we ought and dislike what we ought, of becoming more truly and charitable and kind, there would be no problem. But they don't mean that. They mean, 'accept our ways of thinking and acting'. Or, more precisely, accept the change we want imposed on you.
But the trouble with accepting change as change, merely because it is what modern society may want rather than what may really help both the individual and the world at large, is that it will lead us we know not where. For change as change is insultingly simple. Do nothing, reflect on nothing, question nothing, and change will occur. There's no effort involved.
Yet embracing Orthodoxy, and we capitalize it on purpose, accepting and living by proper traditions, now that's the challenge. That's where we grow and nurture our selves and our souls. That's how we create better people and a better world. By living right according to the just precepts which have been with us since the dawn of time we improve. Change is all right, yes, if done to that purpose.
Otherwise, it will happen anyway. But would you rather do what you can to control change, or merely be stuck in its tight and unwieldy (and worldly) groove, as Mr. Chesterton also suggests? For you will lose control of yourself by merely agreeing to eternally change. Yet tradition works. That's how it became traditional in the first place.
-a paraphrase of Mr. G. K. Chesterton
We hear it all the time, don't we, fellow conservatives? We hear the importance of embracing change, of being willing to change, of the need to alter our beliefs and desires to the will and whim of the current society. That's all we need to do is embrace the change which the modern society wishes us to do.
If they meant for us to change in the sense of becoming truly better persons, of changing from bad habit to good, of learning to like what we ought and dislike what we ought, of becoming more truly and charitable and kind, there would be no problem. But they don't mean that. They mean, 'accept our ways of thinking and acting'. Or, more precisely, accept the change we want imposed on you.
But the trouble with accepting change as change, merely because it is what modern society may want rather than what may really help both the individual and the world at large, is that it will lead us we know not where. For change as change is insultingly simple. Do nothing, reflect on nothing, question nothing, and change will occur. There's no effort involved.
Yet embracing Orthodoxy, and we capitalize it on purpose, accepting and living by proper traditions, now that's the challenge. That's where we grow and nurture our selves and our souls. That's how we create better people and a better world. By living right according to the just precepts which have been with us since the dawn of time we improve. Change is all right, yes, if done to that purpose.
Otherwise, it will happen anyway. But would you rather do what you can to control change, or merely be stuck in its tight and unwieldy (and worldly) groove, as Mr. Chesterton also suggests? For you will lose control of yourself by merely agreeing to eternally change. Yet tradition works. That's how it became traditional in the first place.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Should Suh Face Criminal Prosecution?
The great Ndamukong Suh debate is on. Well, it really hasn't ended since Thanksgiving, and it really didn't begin then anyway. NFL players think he's a dirty player, no one has rushed to defend his actions during the third quarter of the Lions 27-15 Thanksgiving Day loss to the Green Bay Packers, the Packers don't think his punishment was harsh enough, and Suh has appealed the suspension. But we wonder whether it should end anyway with mere sanction by the National Football League and its fans and pundits?
What he did on the fields would be considered assault if it happened on the streets or at a neighborhood bar or business. Why should the civil authorities not be able to charge an athlete with a crime even when the act occurs in the arena?
No one buys Suh's it happened in the heat of the moment defense. No one accepts that he might have been goaded into his stomp. But as most assaults happen in the heat of the moment as well, and most assaulters are prone to argue they had reason to attack, well, the guy who acted from his bar stool would not be safe from criminal prosecution under similar circumstances, would he? Why should an NFL lineman on a football field?
Does the law end at the sidelines? Should it? We believe that it is time to consider those questions, and to perhaps use the long arm of the law to reign in on field atrocities. The athletic arena cannot be a shield for actions which would get anyone arrested.
What he did on the fields would be considered assault if it happened on the streets or at a neighborhood bar or business. Why should the civil authorities not be able to charge an athlete with a crime even when the act occurs in the arena?
No one buys Suh's it happened in the heat of the moment defense. No one accepts that he might have been goaded into his stomp. But as most assaults happen in the heat of the moment as well, and most assaulters are prone to argue they had reason to attack, well, the guy who acted from his bar stool would not be safe from criminal prosecution under similar circumstances, would he? Why should an NFL lineman on a football field?
Does the law end at the sidelines? Should it? We believe that it is time to consider those questions, and to perhaps use the long arm of the law to reign in on field atrocities. The athletic arena cannot be a shield for actions which would get anyone arrested.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Science and Goodness
One of the great debates between the Christian and the scientist is the degree to which we are animal or spiritual. Many scientists wish us to be wholly scientific in our approach to humanity and understanding of ourselves. It is really a rather shallow outlook on human nature or, even, the necessary consequences of a purely scientific view of who we are.
Science has apparently discovered the part of our brain which helps us to recognize justice. It asserts, at least in some quarters, that goodness is innate within us physically. Yet it ignores the very real point that whether good occurs in us naturally is an entirely different question from the judgment of 'what is good?' or the expectation that people will do good.
How do we know what is good except to be able to judge it in our individual and societal actions? Or are our scientifically minded friends suggesting that we just 'do things' and they happen to be good? Either way, any judgment about good, any assertion that 'this is good' cannot come wholly or entirely from within ourselves; there are too many of us with too many of our own nuanced ideas of good and bad.
Or are you saying that everyone from childhood, without guidance of any kind (parental, societal, or spiritual) will necessarily elect to do good? No Lord of the Flies scenarios possible? It begs the question of why people (and it should be obvious that all people do bad things sometimes regardless of physical construction) do bad things. Why does the thief steal, if he knows in his heart and head that it's wrong? Further, what's free will, if we are born with, say, no choice but to do good?
It should surprise no one that we are hard wired to recognize justice; we are, at the end of the day, physical as well as spiritual creatures. It should not be shocking news that a just and all knowing God in the very act of creation would make our physical selves able to recognize spiritual, eternal, and absolute truths, truths outside our own will, thus enabling us to see (so to speak) justice. That science has discovered as much enhances rather than detracts from our knowledge of God. It strengthens, not weakens, our relationship with Him. It makes our spiritual side and our physical side properly complimentary. It raises us from the mere animal into a higher plane of existence.
Science does not tell us who we are in our entirety. It only sets us on that road. How far we trail along that path is ultimately up to us. And the questions we discover along that way will not be empirical.
Science has apparently discovered the part of our brain which helps us to recognize justice. It asserts, at least in some quarters, that goodness is innate within us physically. Yet it ignores the very real point that whether good occurs in us naturally is an entirely different question from the judgment of 'what is good?' or the expectation that people will do good.
How do we know what is good except to be able to judge it in our individual and societal actions? Or are our scientifically minded friends suggesting that we just 'do things' and they happen to be good? Either way, any judgment about good, any assertion that 'this is good' cannot come wholly or entirely from within ourselves; there are too many of us with too many of our own nuanced ideas of good and bad.
Or are you saying that everyone from childhood, without guidance of any kind (parental, societal, or spiritual) will necessarily elect to do good? No Lord of the Flies scenarios possible? It begs the question of why people (and it should be obvious that all people do bad things sometimes regardless of physical construction) do bad things. Why does the thief steal, if he knows in his heart and head that it's wrong? Further, what's free will, if we are born with, say, no choice but to do good?
It should surprise no one that we are hard wired to recognize justice; we are, at the end of the day, physical as well as spiritual creatures. It should not be shocking news that a just and all knowing God in the very act of creation would make our physical selves able to recognize spiritual, eternal, and absolute truths, truths outside our own will, thus enabling us to see (so to speak) justice. That science has discovered as much enhances rather than detracts from our knowledge of God. It strengthens, not weakens, our relationship with Him. It makes our spiritual side and our physical side properly complimentary. It raises us from the mere animal into a higher plane of existence.
Science does not tell us who we are in our entirety. It only sets us on that road. How far we trail along that path is ultimately up to us. And the questions we discover along that way will not be empirical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
