Courage does not always roar.
Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying,
"I will try again tomorrow".
Anonymous
Tweet of the Day
"I don’t really care about [a constitutional right to record] because if [Obama] doesn’t follow the Constitution we don’t have to." Recine
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) August 7, 2014
"All the innovative thinking on how to solve public policy problems for the past 25 years has come from the right." http://t.co/hmLULsFWxV
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) August 8, 2014
Obama is imprudently getting sucked back into vortex of Iraq, a sinkhole of American blood and treasure. The US has not declared war on ISIS
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) August 8, 2014
Sen. John Walsh (D-MT) dropped out of this fall's election race: "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done."
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) August 8, 2014
Image of the Day
 |
| Via Catholic Libertarian |
 | ||||
| Via Cody Southpaw Corcoran |
I cited John Goodman's post in one of today's tweets. Goodman is probably best known in this blog as the healthcare guru at the Independent Institute. In one proposed reform, for higher education, Ryan brings up MOOC's (massive open online course: think a variation of Applied Placement exams meet highly scalable Internet-based classes). Russ Roberts had a recent EconTalk on the topic, and Scientific American has a good overview here.
There are a number of concepts similar to an approach John Carroll introduced (minimalized instruction) in which I dabbled in my own research (I created a minimal manual for SQL, the lingua franca of relational (table-based) databases). The basic idea was to foster learning in independent, manageable chunks focusing on practical exercises, encouraging trial and error with software, facilitated by relevant guidance and tips. The early assessments were feedback on learning performance, software and/or materials. Early usability labs allowed finer behavioral data collection (say, time to locate and execute a learning task, requests for external help, etc.)
Not having taught a MOOC, I don't mean to suggest I'm specifying my discussion is applicable to all MOOC's, but lectures may be arranged in usable chunks (say, 10 minutes), with highly sophisticated software that, for example, can capture when a certain part of a lecture is put on pause and/or replayed. In addition, the feedback mechanism can include peer student forums where students can work together to resolving issues in understanding. I know one of the things I had to control for was my own knowledge of the subject matter; experts can fill in missing concepts in a text--I might use a term unknown to the novice learner. The SA article also discusses the concept of flipping; e.g., where recorded lectures are like required readings for class, and classtime is used for more value-added learning purposes. (Think of elementary school math by drilling outside of class, and classtime released for more problem-solving mentoring.) I'm very intrigued by the flipping concept; I see mastering basic learning skills as the focus of early education and more autonomous learning as one progresses towards graduation.
MOOC is based on more of a freemium model where the lectures are free and you might pay a modest fee, say a course certification exam for course credit at universities. In a related concept, I have a nephew whom intends to major in meteorology but is taking his general requirements at a junior college affiliated to a major Texas university which fully recognizes his course work. (Not to mention the junior college can be much cheaper.)
The bottom line is that Congressman Ryan is exploring ways for say a high school graduate to earn a college degree without taking on massive loans--and earn a degree at one's own pace. We could also see some hybrid programs tied, say, to industry certifications. To be honest, I think we need to privatize education, but Ryan, by devolving federal education funds to the states, would be in accordance to the principle of Subsidiarity; the key issue is ensuring the feds don't attach strings to the funding.
Follow-Up Odds and Ends
- Richard Recine, a part-time 59-year-old NJ cop (cf. first tweet above), has resigned. Don't cry for him, though: he's been pulling down a current $79K pension since 2006.
- Sen. John Walsh, Baucus' interim replacement, whose Master's thesis has turned out to be significantly plagiarized, withdrew from a race that was already leaning to a GOP flip this fall.
Facebook Corner
(Yesterday's Libertarian thread on the atomic bomb anniversary continued: I strongly disagree with the narrative the bomb was needed to end the war).
You're crying about killing an enemy that that killed many more Chinese than the bombs did and used their babies as bayonet practice, and say, the death of fewer than 50000 Americans losing their lives Is ok? Japan started the the war for America by killing over 2400 Americans in case you forgot. Tell me why they should not have deserved any thing but unconditional surrender?
First of all, I'm not whitewashing war atrocities and crimes against humanity by either side. Second, many Japanese disagreed with militarism and many emigrated to Brazil, the US, etc. Third, the Soviets and Chinese together accounted for roughly half of the dead. Germans lost roughly 10% of her population, Japan about 4%, the US about 0.32%. Fourth, under what sense is prolonging a war over a concession to allow the Japanese to keep an emperor necessary? It was a face-saving condition that had zero military significance. That step chewed up American as well as Japanese casualties.
"Japan started the war..." Yes and no. Yes, the initial military move was made by Japan, but the US had declared economic war on Japan and knew the outcome of failed negotiations would likely result in an attack; perhaps when and where FDR didn't know But the US had intelligence suggesting it was imminent. I'll simply assume you have not read Robert Higgs' compelling case: http://mises.org/daily/6312/How-US-Economic-Warfare-Provoked-Japans-Attack-on-Pearl-Harbor
(Cato Institute). "When Congress passes a law, it is the president’s duty to enforce it. The president has discretion in how to enforce it, to be sure, but he can’t suspend, waive, ignore, or change it."
Whereas the Fascist-in-Chief has made it clear that he refuses to compromise and unless the opposition capitulates he will work around the Constitution and the law, the problem I have is the Court's mechanism of enforcing any finding. There seems to be only one constitutional mechanism (besides the ballot box): impeachment. I don't think the courts want to get into a role of playing referee between branches or partisan squabbles. I'm not a lawyer, but I do think the fact that Obama threated to veto a statutory delay passed by the House, saying that it was unnecessary, is an indirect admission of making policy vs. enforcing it. I could see, perhaps, that the court could say Obama would have to revise any policy contradicting the statute's timeframe.
But now that this administration has let the genie out, wait for the next Republican President. I can see the IRS (just a rogue agent, or 100) targeting pro-choice groups tax status, suspending payments to Planned Parenthood, ordering the Justice Dept. to suspend any discrimination investigations, and the list goes on. And remember, you Democrats sat by and let it happen.
I agree taxpayer money shouldn't go to the baby killing industry. But this intellectually vapid "all politicians are the same" nonsense doesn't wash. The welfare state was part of the Progressive movement. We should shutter all the parasites, including the victimization industry.
(IPI). See Image of the Day.
We subsidize big business...Welfare is only costing each working person about $100 a year while we give THOUSANDS of our income every year to subsidizes Big Business. How about you print a chart for that?
The "progressive" parasitic troll is at it again. It's the "progressive" whores that are trying to manipulate the economy by subsiding ethanol programs. The Parasite-in-Chief has done NOTHING to lower/flatten noncompetitive tax brackets.
The "progressive" troll ignores that over 60% of the federal budget goes to INDIVIDUAL benefits, NOT businesses, and we are over $80T in unfunded liabilities for INDIVIDUAL benefits, not BUSINESS ones. So, you were saying, parasite?
(follow-up comment)
A couple of more things. I'm not going to spend hours rebutting every crazy thing that a "progressive" troll says, and I guess it's up to IPI to educate trolls. But I can't let a troll get away for outright lying about the amounts of comparable welfare. (Keep in mind as I alluded to many corporate subsidies are things liberals want--like food subsidies, rail subsidies, green industry subsidies, etc. I want a free market--I want ALL subsidies eliminated, corporate and individual.) But the point first to point out even in the Cato Institute figures, they compare about $100B to $56B--in the context of a $3.7T budget. Not the hundred vs. thousands propaganda alleged.
Let me quote from the bipartisan CRS, 2011: " CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion." $746B federal, the rest state matches. "The exclusively federal share of spending on these federal programs is up 32 percent since 2008, and now comprises 21 percent of federal outlays (this share too is more than Social Security, Medicare, or defense)...over just the last 30 years. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount expended on these 10 programs has increased by 378 percent over that time."
Your serve, troll.
(IPI). The federal government has a serious problem keeping tabs on its employees, from an FCC worker watching porn while at work, to DHS employees collecting overtime pay to sit on Netflix or talk on the phone.
And now, a new report from the Patent and Trademark Office found that at least 19 paralegals have been getting paid $60,000 to $80,000 a year to sit on Facebook, online shop and watch TV — costing taxpayers about $5.1 million in the last four years
The odd thing is that the fed PC police can or do monitor and/or filter Internet addresses. For example, I do consulting involving Oracle database software. I would say at least a third of relevant URL's for issues I was researching were blocked (on a federal system). Some Internet email portals were blocked at least at some agencies. Every federal employee or contractor has to go through Internet policy training, I think at least on an annual basis. I generally never queried the Internet for personal things except maybe to check on a hotel reservation or communications with my employer/agency. I think there are enough warnings about consequences for violating policy that I tried to ensure I did personal stuff outside work.
(IPI), Also published political cartoon of the day.
Why are you still lying? No way is the ACA more expensive. You know who thinks it expensive? People who have never had to buy insurance in the past....I have been buying my own insurance for the past 26 years and believe me it is way better now. In the past you would have an agent and he would show you the policies he wanted you to look at. You could never see them all. Well now before you sit down with your agent you can look at what is offered on the healthcare.gov. My insurance went up every single year. About every other year they would cancel my policy and show me the replacements....always more expensive. They have lost that leverage. If I don't like the plan and the rate from the agent I can buy it myself on the .gov site. I don't qualify for a subsidy so don't call me a taker just yet.
Are you really that clueless? Who do you think pays for people subsidized below their true underwritten costs? Why do you think there's a mandate? Do you think the fascists are underwriting the true costs of the parasites? Other people are paying the costs... The only way insurance companies can stay solvent is for the fascists to either subsidize losses, guarantee new profitable policyholders (e.g., younger, more profitable policyholders guaranteed by mandate), and/or to pass it onto their existing policyholders. Economically perverse "progressive" policies of guaranteed issue and community rating come at a cost, lady! This is a fact of life, not some retarded "progressive" conspiracy.
It's clear you don't know a damn thing about business or economics. You are in a freaking state of denial.
More Proposals
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall |
Billy Joel, "Tell Her About It". Joel's second #1 ("It's Still Rock 'N Roll").
