The Noble Pundit

Break The Law For Five Years & Win?

It was bad enough that George Bush came out and proposed the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Now in an effort to differentiate themselves from Bush, all eight Democratic candidates have begun a battle to see who can make the program the worst of all worlds.

Not content with issuing work permits as under the Bush plan they have gone as far as John Kerry's proposal to grant immediate citizenship to any illegal who has managed to avoid deportation for five years.

It's a matter of human rights, a matter of civil right, a matter of fairness to Americans..." said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusettes.

How does that represent a matter of fairness to Americans - by which I use the loaded assumption of citizenship? There is no fairness to Americans, only to the law-breakers of other countries.

Now would someone please explain the difference between any of the candidates when it comes to immigration reform? Because I certainly don't see much.

UPDATE: Oops. There is no date on the article, but it appears to be at least pre-Iowa, as Gephardt is still involved. The fever I've got must be affecting my ability to catch the obvious. Sorry.

John Kerry: Inconsistant Candidate

I've not been a fan of John Kerry since I started this site and started paying a little more attention to his pronouncements and his actions. I also believe that he is, quite possibly, one of the most dangerous candidates the Democrats have running. He has enough political savvy to build coalitions to push through some of his more risky platform planks. He is also suffciently unmoored politically to basically propose anything from a moderate agenda to the Kuncinich plan.

He flip-flops on issues without a concern. He backtracks seemingly without consequence. He is nothing more than an opportunist - which makes him a very dangerous person given enough power.

So we know that he is currently against the war in Iraq. We know that he claims that he never authorized the use of force - only the threat of it's use. Here are but a few examples of his waffling around - and quotes that are at odd with his current positions:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

He enlisted in the Navy and became an officer. After training, Kerry volunteered for Vietnam. His body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers. "It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby.

On Jan. 3, 1970, Kerry requested that his superior, Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr., grant him an early discharge from the Navy so that he could run for Congress.

On April 23, 1971, Kerry led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. (but not his as he wore tham during his Senate testimony that same day.)

The cover of his book in The New Soldier raises questions about his true commitment to the American soldier:

In the Senate debate itself, Kerry, rather than embarass Vietnam by demanding the truth, launched a highly publicized diversionary investigation of the POW/MIA families and activists, who were demanding an honest accounting. Kerry labeled them "professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos" who were only involved in the POW/MIA issue for money.

Source for the first three quotes: The War room. Source for the other material: Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry

Kerry is not the principled politician he claims to be. I think that Ann Coulter's description of him as a "gigilo" and a "kept man" is probably a little over the top rhetorically, but not completely untrue either.

The man is not, and never has been, Presidential material. He is dangerous and disingenuous and should be treated as such.

Viruses, Spyware, & Such

I've been sick the last couple of days, so I've been using the extra time at home to continue my quest to clean up my computer.

I found something interesting with the online virus scanners that Venomous Kate had on her site. I used the House Call scanner, and while it did not find any viruses, it did find another malware program that both AdAware and SpyBot missed JS_FORTNIGHT. I also found (I think) another malware program that was making my system absolutely unstable tatss.exe. This thing was opening Internet Explorer sessions independently. It also was consuming resources until the system would finally get to a point where you could not use the Start Menu for anything - including shutting down. Again, nothing was catching it.

I also went and downloaded a registry checker from Cnet.com and downloaded TuneUp Utilities 2003, which ended up finding almost 1000 invalid registry entries - along with bringing to my attention three other spyware and malware programs that I wasn't finding any other way.

This adventure in computer cleaning is absolutely eye-opening. All it took was one trip to the wrong website and over a month later I'm still trying to clean it up, while still keeping out the new additions.

I've worked my way down to one more program that I can't track down and that doesn't show up in Google searches. Whatever it is works similarly to tatss.exe opening webistes without my input. It goes specifically to http://69.20.62.53/yyy(x).html where the (x) is a number between one and five. Whatever is doing this is my last, great obsession. I have to figure out how to get it removed. I know that it is hosted by a hosting company called Rackspace out of San Antonio, but that doesn't exactly do a whole lot to help me eliminate the auto-open feature.

UPDATE:

It looks like the last program was (fingers and toes are still crossed!) Look2me which attaches itself as a subprocess of Explorer (not Internet Explorer) which makes it almost impossible to remove. SpyBot and AdAware have both told me that they removed it in the past, but apparently it didn't work. Follow the instructions found here if you find that this abomination is torturing you also.

Is Dean Surrendering?

Howie Dean decided yesterday to replace his campaign manager, Joe Trippi. Today it comes out that he is all but surrendering next Tuesday in an effort to focus on other, more delegate important state, like Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin.

I'm sorry, but if your campaign is on the ropes, you do not voluntarily give up any states. Especially when it is absolutely critical for you to build some kind of momentum. How many more losing efforts, or non-efforts, can Dean really stand? Not too many I'm guessing.

The really ironic thing is that Joe Trippi was dismissed, if the rumors are to be believed, for suggesting just this strategy. So in comes Al Gore's former campaign manager and shakes things up to the point where they follow the exact same plan. The more things change....

I think that this plan is the death-knell for the Dean campaign. He'll certainly stick around for a while and will make some waves. He may even help to dictate some of the positions taken in the Democratic platform for November. But this all but assures that he will not be the first name on the ticket.

Pulling ads in the seven caucus states this week may have been a good rational decision. Unfortunately, not everything surrounding a Presidential campaign is rational. Emotion plays a big part. Momentum and excitement are important, not quite as much as actual positions, but certainly no campaign is going to succeed without them. By pulling ads, Dean is ceding momentum and a large degree of the excitement that had surrounded his campaign. At this point, after the Iowa and New Hampshire debacles, I don't think that his campaign can stand another such blow.

French Military Sales Must Be Down

For Saddam to get captured in his tiny little hole must have really been a blow to Jacques Chirac, as he is now going to push for a lifting of the arms embargo on China.

He claims that the embargo, placed in response to Tiananmen Square, "makes no more sense today."

I guess we really shouldn't be too surprised. Human rights violations are not of great concern to Chirac, unless he can somehow figure out a way to pin them on the United States. He thought that Saddam was fine, and now he is implying that China has reformed its violating ways.

Very little has really changed in China. There are still rampant human rights violations taking place. Look at the current media articles coming out of the region. Remember, this is the country that still has forced population control. But there are certainly no human rights violations taking place....

If Chirac wants to lift the embargo, that's fine. Some things have changed since 1989. Maybe there is a valid reason to lift the embargo (although it would almost certainly intensify the Far Eastern arms race). A debate would not necessarily be a bad thing. But in any discussion, there must still be a recognition and debate about the state of human rights in China. Anything less would be intellectually dishonest.

Chirac seems to be once again demonstrating that he is more interested in selling weapons to whomever, rather than holding true to his rhetoric on human rights.

A Return To Irrational Exuberance?

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of July 2002 was supposed to help reign in the worst excesses of the bubble stock markets. After 18 months, it can basically be categorized as failure as investors are still throwing money around without concern, despite the new disclosures and despite a massive expansion of the government bureaucracy.

The SEC has seen its budget nearly double since 2001. The number of bureaucrats has gone up by nearly 700 in two years. All of this in an effort to enforce "full disclosure."

Problem being, despite the full disclosure, investors will still throw money at whatever penny stock they get pitched - disclosure or not.

I get these pitches almost daily. In fact, I got the same pitch, exactly the same, 6 times in one day. They all try to pump up the stock and make it sound like the greatest thing since Microsoft as an IPO. The reports, of course, don't mention any of the potential downsides. They don't mention the risks of investing in a Bulletin Board stock - in fact, they promote the OTCBB as a benefit of the stock (it is most certainly not!).

And while many people do as I do and simply delete the email as spam, there are enough people looking for the easy way out to push up the price and volume in the stock well beyond the normal range. Some people come out smelling like a rose. Most end up getting soaked when the promotional period ends and the price and volume return to normal levels.

If you're thinking about investing money, whether it be as a trading position or an investment, please take the time to research the stock. The reports coming via email are not valid research. A quick, cursory research done after receiving the email will not be sufficient either. There is no worse feeling than buying a stock only to find that when you want to sell it, there are no other buyers. And I have talked with many people who have ended up in exactly that position. I've seen people who chased every hot Bulletin Board tip, only to end with an account full of non-liquid positions.

Irrational exuberance - chasing the latest, greatest hot stock - are the greatest threat facing your retirement accounts today. More than corporate malfeasance. More than shady brokers. Your own worst investing enemy is emotion.

Take the emotion out of your investing. Before instituting a position, make a plan. How much profit do you want (reasonably!)? How much loss can you stand? What financial criteria are important to you? Then stick to your plan!

The government, no matter what the Act they pass, cannot protect you from yourself and your own irresponsible acts. Take the time to act rationally. It is the best investment strategy you can employ.

More On CAPPS II

FOXNews has a fairly insightful piece online that delves into the concerns surrounding the CAAPS II screening program for air travelers. As I've mentioned before, I support the idea of the CAPPS II system, but this article does raise a few issues that need to be addressed.

Again, CAPPS II is a system in which the airlines run their passenger manifests against government databases in an effort to improve the travel experience while simultaneously providing more security for the flights. It's certainly a worthy goal, and one that I believe the government does have a legitimate interest in promoting. But there are also concerns about the databases themselves, civil liberties and privacy issues, and also about the absoluteness of the computer decision.

Looking at the biggest concerns first, I believe that there is validity to all three. Particularly the database issues.

I can certainly understand checking the manifest against criminal databases to help identify people who might require a bit of extra scrutiny - especially for those with violent rap sheets. The manifest should also be checked against a list of known or suspected terrorists. There should also be a check against names that the FBI has on file as being potential security risks, although they may not be terrorist risks. All of those are valid databases to run against.

What I believe are not valid, however, are the commercial databases. One, the accountability, even in theory, is not there. If something gets erroneously entered there is no assurance that the person making the error will ever even be reprimanded, much less have any action taken against them. Second, there is no commercial database that is going to provide security related information. All the security related databases are government run. Commercial databases, by their nature, are designed towards collecting information that will help sales, not security. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot think of a single security feature that might be provided with a commercial database, unless we started collecting information about every single item purchased, by everybody, at every store, and combined it all into a giant program that would go looking for combinations of purchases that could, possibly be used to make a weapon - or to clean a toilet. That kind of a database is a privacy and civil liberties violation. There is no legitimate need for the government to have that degree of information.

But getting back to the privacy issues surrounding CAPPS II, how serious are they? The biggest concern that I hear is about the sharing of the manifest with the government prior to the departure of the flight. I want to look at that a little more in depth, primarily because I think it gets to the root of the issue surrounding CAPPS II.

When you call to purchase a ticket, or you go online, or show up in person at the ticket counter, the airline is going to require that you part with a certain amount of personal information: name, address, phone number, itinerary, and so on. You are voluntarily giving this information to the airline as a condition of travel and most people never even think twice about it. It is a reasonable request.

Now the airlines have two interests in ensuring that you are not a terrorist about to board their aircraft. First, the aircraft itself is a multi-million dollar investment - some of them being measured in fractions of a billion dollars now - and they also are assuming responsibility for the safe transport of the people on board. The financial fallout of a preventable disaster is enormous. Second, they are also operating in one of the more heavily regulated industries in the country. The government has an interest in screening for terrorists as an aviation disaster almost always affects more than just the people on the airplane, it also is a matter of public safety. The airlines, in a desire to stay in business, have a very strong incentive, financially and regulatory, to comply with any government safety directive that might come down.

Now many will complain that this violates their privacy - which is not true since they willingly imparted the information as a condition of travel - and will say that in turn, by forcing them to decide between giving up some privacy or to refuse to fly that we are somehow violating their right to fly.

And I think that right there we have hit the flaw in the argument. There is no right to fly, just as there is no right to drive (the illegal aliens still haven't figured this one out, either). In fact, the only mode of transportation to which you have an unalienable right is the one that uses your own two feet. Even riding a bicycle subjects you to a level of government (you still have to obey traffic laws).

However, just because there is no right to fly does not mean that you should have to give up all your civil liberties in order to board an aircraft. No system, short of the complete elimination of powered and unpowered flight, is going to be completely fail safe in protecting people. There must be a degree of reasonableness and rationality included in determining the proper balance.

Which brings us around to the third complaint I've heard about CAPPS II, which is the red/yellow/green system of determining who shall fly and who does not.

The problem with the system is that it is too simplistic and there is no opportunity for human intervention to correct an obvious screw-up. This is also the point at which I believe that the airlines should be partnering up with TSA to increase the level of efficiency and security by doing some basic prescreening and also watching for people who might show on the system as green, but really need an additional level of scrutiny.

The customer service agents for the airlines should be asking more questions than they do. But not questions of interrogation. Engage the passenger in conversation. Listen for inconsistencies or skittishness. If, while talking to them, something doesn't seem right, bump them from a green to a yellow. It is at the ticket counter that we have the best opportunity to set the mood for experience (friendliness here would be good) while also trying to improve the effectiveness of the system.

Once the person leaves the ticket counter with their assigned color, that is where the real differentiation should come in. Folks in the green should be able to breeze through the rest of the system. Go through the metal detector and x-ray of carry-on items - just as it has been for years now - and enjoy the flight. This would be the experience for the vast majority of the people.

Those coded yellow should be subjected the higher security that everyone is currently getting. Spend more time talking to them. Spend more time searching them. These should be the people who have either come back with a criminal record or who are engaging in a fairly odd behavior. I say this full well understanding that my own travel patterns: same day round trip flights to Miami and multiple times to Atlanta for pleasure, not business, would very likely have dumped me into the yellow line. The vast majority of these people should also make it onto a flight, although maybe not the one they were hoping for.

It is the red people that are going to require the really special handling. These should be the folks that are considered to be a real and present threat to the security of the flight in some way, shape, or form. But as the example given to lead off the FOX story shows, there needs to be an opportunity for a human to intervene in the process to correct obvious mistakes. The red folks should be subjected to very intense questioning, in-depth searches of luggage, carry-ons, and person. Many of them likely will not board an airplane, but we need to have a mechanism that allows for the possibility. We want a human to be making the final decision, not a computer.

CAPPS II is a system that has a great deal of potential to improve the travel experience for millions of people per day. It also does have a few areas of concern. There needs to be a real safeguard in place against the collecting of a dossier on every American who flies. There need to be real, personal penalties for anyone - all the way up to the President - who willingly violates the safeguard provisions of the law. If it ever comes out that TSA, or any other agency or contractor, is maintaining such a file there must be in place a mechanism for it's immediate destruction.

The identity theft concern is already a concern when it comes to air travel and is not one affected solely by the CAPPS II program. The two issues, while they have a degree of intertwining are not mutually dependent on each other - and should not be viewed in such a light.

Will the system require profiling? Yes. Will we have to accept the unfortunate reality that most of the people singled out by the system are going to be either criminals or Arabic? Yes. This is an area in which, more so than other areas, we must not let political correctness get in the way of security.

CAPPS II probably isn't the perfect solution and, in its current form has some significant problems, but with some work and some tweaking, it is a viable alternative to old ladies being strip searched while real security threats could be boarding hundreds of flights every single day without our knowing. CAPPS II is a way of using technology to focus our limited resources without having to resort to the current randomness of it all.

CAPPS II is an expansion of the government. It does not, however, require the disclosure of any more information that travelers already disclose to purchase their tickets. It is simply a more effective use of that information in a manner that should improve the travel experience for a huge segment of the traveling public. It should not be Machiavellian in nature, the concerns must be addressed, but it is certainly a better starting point than any of the other suggestions out there.

A New Site To Check Out

Casey Tompkins, a gentleman who has not taken too kindly to me in the past, has lauched a new blog: The Gantry Launchpad.

Go over and take a look. Casey is a bright, articulate fellow judging by the comments he has left in the past over at Dean's World (where I found out about his site).

I wish him all the best and will be watching his site for anything new and/or interesting. Though, I do have to wonder about the imagery invocation in his analysis of the Democratic race so far.

Final Thoughts On New Hampshire

Well, the next to final numbers are in from the primary in New Hampshire and it looks like John Kerry has stomped all over Howard Dean's Presidential ambitions. So I'm going to wrap up my anaylsis with this:

1.) In his speech to supporters, Dean sounded like some kind of a Jim Bakker cult-leader up there. His was talking like a preacher talking about the hellfire and damnation that is facing all the pornographers, perverts and other sinners of the world.

2.) I was glad to hear Lieberman say that he was going to stay in the race. At least there is one reasonable candidate still left.

3.) That being said, I was also glad to hear that Kucinich was staying in the race. Between him and Sharpton we've got all the comedy relief we'll ever need.

4.) Clark is done. For all his efforts all he could pull off was a virtual tie for third with Edwards? Clark might as well pack it in and quit wasting other people's money.

5.) Edwards still has a shot, but he certainly needs to win outright in South Carolina this week.

6.) I just heard Greta Van Sustern ask John Kerry if it was time for a Vietnam vet to be President. Well, we already had one that dodged it...

Oh, yeah, don't forget to read this piece about Kerry and Vietnam. It's rather interesting. Kerry's memory about the war is a bit, er, clouded?

Question About BlogAds

I'm thinking about adding BlogAds to the site. Does anyone have any feedback on them? Good, bad, indifferent. I'd just like to hear some independent feedback before I sign up and start selling out. :-)

Someone Must Have Missed The Memo

"...the inability of undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses -- and the resulting lack of transportation -- is one of the biggest problems facing the island's Latino community."

Well, duh! I still want someone to explain to me why an illegal - forget the "undocumented" euphemism, call 'em what they are - immigrant should be entitled to any of the benefits associated with living in this country, beyond life-critical health care. They are breaking the law. We're not going to just issue a driver's license to a citizen fugitive willy-nilly, what makes the illegals special?

"These people come to work. They are doing a very good job."

You know, I'm guessing that they could find an American worker who would do the same - and likely not have the transportation issues. I'm guessing that the American worker would pay more in taxes. I'm guessing that the American worker would be more integrated into society, increasing the flow of money through the economy, thereby improving things for everyone - except, of course, for the illegal.

Bell said it's not the state and local governments' responsibility to question whether residents are legal immigrants -- that's the job of the federal government.

Let's see. What's that certain branch of local government called? It's part of the exective branch....Oh, yes! It is called LAW ENFORCEMENT. Note that the word "selective" is missing from name.

Does Mr. Bell really think that local law enforcement should completely ignore anything that might have federal jurisdiction? I wonder if he would feel the same if his child was kidnapped? Or maybe if his car was stolen and taken to Georgia - does he think that the Georgia State Police should just let the guy go?

The problem with all of the illegals driver's license arguments that I've ever seen is that they all require a degree of condoning of illegal behavior. It's always a "yes, but..." situation. There is no "but" involved. The illegals are here illegally. And as such there is absolutely no justification for granting them any special privileges or exceptions under the law. The only benefit they should get is a free ride back to the border from whence they came.

Sometimes There Is A Small Smidgeon Of Justice

A few weeks ago I briefly mentioned a creep whom I was slightly acquainted with who nearly beat a man to death down in Jupiter. Perusing the Palm Beach Post as I will looking for updates I found this little gem:

A man who was brutally beaten outside a Jupiter bar Jan. 13 has been upgraded from critical to fair condition at St. Mary's Medical Center...

Good news most certainly for the victim.

And then there was this:

Construction workers Darrel Blackman, 27, of Altamonte Springs and Geoffrey Simmons, 20, of Casselberry are being held without bail in the Palm Beach County Jail...

Good news for the rest of society.

And They're Off In New Hampshire!

So today was the day for the folks in New Hampshire to cast their all-important primary votes. According to FOXNews (and Drudge) Kerry appears to be leading the exit polls by about a six point margin over Howard Dean, who in turn is leading over Edwards, Clark and Lieberman.

Kerry or Dean managing to win the nomination of the Democratic Party would be a great boon for the Republicans. Neither man is truly electable in a mainstream, nationwide election. Kerry has a wonderful propensity for picking very stupid fights: complaining about the Pope wanting to dictate morality to the Catholic Church? That is the Pope's job! Oh, and let's not forget his April call for a regime change - in Washington. And how could we ever forget his Presidential use of language? Howard Dean? Well, do we really need to go back any further than his I-want-to-be-the-candidate-for-guys-with-Confederate-flags-in-their-pickup-trucks-Rebel yell? The man is a political Three Mile Island, primed for a catastrophic meltdown.

What was really disappointing was the report (no link) on Drudge that Lieberman may be considering "suspending" his campaign. The only electable Democrat, and he's about to drop out. What a shame.

As I write this, we have a little less than two hours left until the polls close in New Hampshire. Right now, I'd have to say that the voters are setting up for a Republican landslide in November. Does anyone know where Dukasis left the tank?

The Latest Virus

Venomous Kate over at Electric Venom has got a pretty timely warning out about the MyDoom/Novarg virus that has been out spamming in full force for the last couple of days.

The only thing that I will mention is that MyDoom/Novarg is a spoofing virus. In other words, it will pull an email address out of your adress book and make it appear that the emails that it sends out are actually coming from someone else. Helps to keep the infected owner from catching on.

I know that it is a spoofing virus because apparently a spammer on the comcast network got infected. I know it has to have been a spammer, as the email that it is being claimed was used to send the two emails is one that I haven't really used in a couple of years (not since I got my own domain) except for getting emails from a very few select people - along with a ton of spam. Yet the return message I got from a computer in the .si domain informed me that the email that I sent using that address over the comcast system contained a virus. I just happened to have updated my virus definitions and did a full system scan last night AND I went in to check the registry for any signs of the virus, but none were to be found.

Take Kate's advice: update your definitions, do a system scan and then use of the online scanners to just double check. Then use both Spybot and AdAware religiously to keep the spyware programs from doing as much damage to your computer as the viruses. One of the reasons I did the full system scan was because in the span of 24 hours I had over 140 new registry entries, spyware files and folders installed on the computer (AOL and Yahoo! chat rooms seem to be where they are coming from the most. The pains of having a teenager. At least the chat rooms are "normal" ones.).

Also, if one of the programs returns an oddlooking file name, don't be afraid to google it. In doing so a few weeks ago I found a small program called HijackThis! which will produce a log that some of the more tech savvy users of sites like Computer Cops can decipher to help you in your quest to eliminate spyware, malware, and viruses from your system.

What To Do With The Homeless?

Dean Esmay over at Dean's World has posted an interesting article and corresponding question. The article is about a plan in Columbus, OH to spend approximately $1000 per homeless person to give the chronically homeless a nice place to live. Dean isn't questioning the idea of helping the homeless, he just questions the way of disclosing the costs. As he points out, $1000 per head doesn't really tell us the cost. How many homeless are there?

The discussion surrounding the question is excellent, as it usually is over there, but I'm left with another quandry. Of the 10% of the homeless that are chronically homeless there is a segment that is homeless due to factors beyond their control: mental illness being the most common. And I absolutely agree with helping those folks. Through no choice of their own they ended up in a terrible situation. If you told me it would cost $10,000 per person to better serve them, I would have no problem. It is the other large group of hardcore homeless, the drug addicts and alcholics - the ones who chose the prediciment - that I have no desire to help.

I've heard all the arguments for why we should help the addicted: the drug is too powerful, they have some kind of mental illness that causes them to make poor decisions, it's their parent's fault, etc. I know a member of the hardcore drug-abusing homeless. He has absolutely no interest in reforming or becoming a viable member of society. He has robbed us blind and taken advantage of every kind gesture we have offered. If you were to provide him with a free to low-cost apartment, as proposed here, all that you would be doing is to create another perpetually dependent leech on society. He drains enough away as it is, giving him more is not going to be more cost effective or beneficial.

The problem is that most of the drug associated hardcore homeless are undesiring of putting in a day's work. They wouldn't want to work to pay their rent. They wouldn't want to work to buy food. They wouldn't want to work to clean their home, to do basic upkeep, or even to prepare food. For many of them, unless it comes with a poptop or can be consumed with a flick of the Bic they are completely and totally uninterested. If it's free, and their body is craving for it, they might partake. But they will only expend energy and resources on their chosen vice.

Yes, I'm conservative. Yes, I get ticked off by people that I perceive as not being willing to give an honest day's labor. But I'm also a softy when approached with a personal story. It is much more difficult to say "no" when the beggar is standing in front of me crying. But I am so thouroughly disgusted and appalled by the complete lack of, well, everything - morals, ambition, conscience - that I have actually gotten to the point of refusing help or shelter, even when the temperature is dipping into the freezing range. I can no longer (and haven't been able to for quite a while now) justify helping those who will not put forth even a shred of effort to help themselves.

For those who are mentally ill and incapable of taking care of themselves, I really think that the closing of the state run institutions was a terrible tragedy. Yes, the conditions were sometimes bad. Yes, there were some people there who probably shouldn't have been there. But for many, the institutions were the best alternative available. And they should still be available. For those who required their services, they were, and still are, the only viable option for keeping them off the streets. Bringing back the institutions would help a large part of the chronic homeless problem, and would help them in a positive way. I'll grant that there is a basis for debating who should be in the institutions and the manner in which they are run, but I don't really believe that there is much room for debating their need. Their elimination eradicated one set of problems, but created a whole set of other problems which have left the patients in a much worse condition than when they were institutionalized. We've tried it both ways. The no institution method isn't working. It's time to start helping these people again.

The only real quandry I see is what to do with the people who are chronically homeless by choice, but who are sincere in wanting to change for the better. I'm not so callous as to believe that they don't exist. They do. And they deserve a helping hand from society. We should never completely shut anyone out. But how do we address them and seperate them from the hardcore, unrepentent, homeless?

I don't think that using completion of a rehab program is sufficient enough as many of the hardcore homeless will complete a program during the winter if they believe that it will keep them warm and out of the snow. Demonstation of a work ethic might be one method, but there is also truth to the difficulty associated with a homeless person getting that first job to begin with. So how do we do this?

I think that this is where the private sector can come in to help. What's going to be needed, I think, is one-on-one interaction. Someone will need to be there to help the homeless person through an assessment, to help them with finding a job, to help with keeping the job, and to help with fighting the temptation to relapse. None of this will be easy and it is beyond the scope of anything short of a monsterous public bureacracy. I think that the private sector would be much better able to shape individualized programs, to provide the crucial one-on-one interaction, to make the necessary business world contacts.

I would gladly and willingly pay $1000 or more per qualified homeless person to either help them through mental health services and institutions or through a screened private program. Fund it through a combination of stringless federal grants and private donations. This, I believe, could be legitimately defined as a common public good.

What I cannot support, however, is a plan that gives an apartment, food, job placement assistance, or anything to the person who has no interest in becoming a productive member of society for any time period longer than required to obtain a twelve pack of beer or a crack rock. I can find no level of sympathy that makes me believe that it is a good idea to give to someone who is simply going to abuse the help and use as a way of enabling their destructive habits. I just can't.

I will go out of my way to help my fellow man who truly wants and/or requires help. I will not lift a finger to help a leech.

A Sad State Of Affairs In Mocking

Political columnists have really got to come up with a little better creativity in creating their headlines. Look at these two outstanding examples:

From the Calgary Sun: Sad state of union

And from the Washington Post: State of Gay Unions

Well those are certainly just jump-out-and-grab-you headlines, now aren't they? To create such wonderfully cliched headline must have taken all of 5 seconds of thought. Why don't writers and editors of these papers put more effort into coming up with something original?

Probably because originality doesn't pay. Cliches work because the average person doesn't want to think beyond that level when reading the paper. And with the outstanding education our children are receiving any more, it is highly unlikely that things are going to be changing in that regard anytime soon.

All-righty then, time for everyone to go searching the archives to find all the cliched titles I've used so that you can call me a hypocrite!

School Choice & Charter Schools

I don't think that I've ever come out and stated this before, but I am in favor in school choice, vouchers, scholarships, and whatever else might be out there that gives parents a real choice in deciding what kind of education they want their children to receive.

The one thing I do not agree with, however, at least not the way that Seminole County, Florida has implemented them, is the concept of the charter school. For the uninitiated, let me fill you in on how the charter school is sold around here:

It's supposed to have smaller class sizes. The teachers are supposed to be better equipped, especially when it comes to dealing with some of the more challenging children. There is a strict dress code requiring uniforms. Specially designed teaching methods ensure that the average kid in the charter school will perform better than his counterpart in the traditional public school. But most importantly, everyone, from the principal on down, is supposed to be committed first and foremost to ensuring a top notch education for the kids.

Sounds great, huh? The sad part is that the only part that seems to ring true is the part about the school uniforms - and even then they don't tell you that you must purchase them through the school only with the shirts costing nearly as much as a quality adult polo shirt from a mall department store (oh, and by the way, you'll need at least three per kid unless you want to do laundry every night.)

Me and my other half bought into the spiel after last year's school year ended. The local elementary charter school was right up the street and we, like all other parents, wanted the kids to get the best possible education that they could. We can't afford private school, so we thought that this might be a good, quality alternative. Boy, were we wrong.

We have two kids in elementary school, one currently in second grade; one in third. When they finished up last year, the one going into second grade was reading at a level just above the required first grade level needed to pass; the other was reading at a mid-year third grade level. The youngest was excelling at math and science. The older one struggled some with math but was catching it without too much extra effort. Both could be considered challenging as the older of the two doesn't know how to be quiet and the younger will deliberately defy you, as seven year old boys are wont to do sometimes (I seem to remember having done the same thing more than once.)

So off to charter school they went. We started having problems almost right away. There were the racial bus stop incidents that I mentioned in the past (no response from the school about them). We also discovered that their specially designed reading and math programs were the Success For All, or SFA, programs developed by Johns Hopkins, I believe, as "a better way of teaching kids." We were familiar with SFA because the Seminole County Public Schools, even the traditional ones, use the reading program - the exact same one that the youngest struggled with so much the year before.

Simply put, the reading program uses the "whole language" approach to reading. In other words, instead of using phonics to sound out words the kids are supposed to memorize the words so that they know them by sight. For simple books, like those on a kindergarten or first grade level that's fine. But when you have second grade books using multiple pitcures in place of words because there are too many for the kids to learn in one book, there is something wrong. The third grade books also make heavy use of the little picto-words.

In the traditional public school, however, the teachers were willing to take a little more time to at least attempt to teach a basics of phonics to the kids that were really struggling with the whole language approach. That was the only way that the youngest managed to make it through first grade. Not at the charter school however. They dogmatically stuck to the plan, refusing to deviate even an iota - mainly because the teachers didn't know how to teach phonics, not even a little. As a result, despite everything we were doing (and numerous nights of the the youngest crying that "they won't let me do it like that at school!") the older of the two made exactly zero progress in her reading, luckily she was far enough ahead going into third grade that she didn't need to make any progress. The youngest actually regressed.

Math was no better. Understand now that the traditional public schools around here rejected the SFA math program as it was too far out there even for them. But not the charter school. They stuck to it dogmatically. It was "new math" in all its glory, but with a small twist. In traditional new math (there's an oxymoron), the right answer isn't important, all that matters is the process. And the process is figured out, not by the teacher teaching, but by a bunch of unknowledgeable kids, working in groups, figuring out whatever process they want to use. And that was ok. Except that the charter school used a hybrid approach. New math, with all it's touchy-feely teamwork, for the process; traditional math, with its emphasis on the right answer, for the answer. You would not believe how many times we had to reeducate the third grader on the proper way to solve a problem after her groupmates came up with something completely bizarre. And for the second grader, well even with the explaination from the school as to what they were trying to do with a given assignment, half the time we could not figure out what they were doing. It made absolutely no sense, and I'm not exactly a math dummy!

We also had other quirks that made us wonder about the intent of the school. At the beginning of the year we got home a letter in which the school was offering a bounty for any new student that you could convince to enroll. Later, we got home a letter that gave us more specific details X number of fourth graders are needed, no second graders as we'd have to hire another teacher, and so on. They principal even came out and said that his goal was to increase the number of students because each student added a certain amount of money to the funding (oh, and they had to enroll by a certain date. After that date, tehy weren't going to accept any new enrollments). And he wanted to increase the amount of funding for the school, without increasing the expenses of the school, because it would allow for more and better special events (like the fundraising fair). They ignored the fact that their enrollment drive increased class sizes to one similar to the traditional public school and that virtually none of the extra money wsa to be spent on educating the children!

The staffing was of very poor quality. The principal himself, rather than being interested in educating children, was far more concerned with dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s, along with his precious empire expansion. We met with him several times and never once did he exhibit even the slightest bit of concern about the quality of the education in his school. He did complain about paperwork and had some very, very nice new computer equipment on his desk, however. The teachers were no better. One was suspending for abusing a child - in front of the entire class (she was later allowed to return). The youngest one's teachers used to say that he was uninterested in school, a problem child, this, that and the other, and then would mention in passing that he had a 100 average in the class. It never occured to them that he might be lacking in challenge more than he was in discipline.

A lot of ranting to be sure, but I wanted to make sure that you had the background. In December, we pulled both kids out of the charter school. The older went back to the traditional public school; the younger we enrolled in a private school (after we were able to get a scholarship to help with the costs). The difference is amazing.

When the youngest started at his new school he could barely functionally read and, in second grade mind you, had no idea how to carry the one in math. In one month - with time off for the holidays - he is already back to making progress above his end of the year reading level last year and is now doing math similar to his sister. The staff has been great, the quality of the education has been outstanding, and the kid has responded. He's a very bright kid, but one that had been written off for dumb by the charter school.

His sister, in the traditional public school, is just now starting to progress beyond where she was at the end of last year. Her reading level is still at a mid-year thid grade level. She is finally starting to remember the importance of process in math. She is not a dummy either, but she literally just went through half a year of educational stagnation. If we had the money, we'd have her in the private school also. Maybe if I start making some good money at work....

Last night was very instructive for me though. For Christmas, the youngest got a PlayStation 2. He had been getting addicted to his oldest sister's Grand Theft Auto III, so to try to get him to play something a little more worthwhile, I bought him Metropolismania yesterday. A very interesting game to say the least. The kids are supposed to build a city, but to do so you have to talk to existing residents to get new leads. The game looks cartoony, but is actually pretty deep.

What really hit me as interesting though was that the communication interface is all written, not verbal. So you have to be able to read the words coming across the screen, kind of like a closed captioning. And they're not all easy words. Some of them are pretty challenging.

And the youngest one could now only play the game, he could play it well. He knew how to read most all the words going across the screen. I was completely amazed.

Charter schools are, in my opinion, a failure. They combine all the worst traits of the traditional school system - uninterested administrators, poor teachers, and personal fiefdoms - with unproven and counterproductive teaching methods. Parents should have a choice. But selling abject failure as the greatest thing since sliced bread should not be one of them. The money wasted on the charter school would be far better spent in providing vouchers or scholarships to students so that they can attend a school where they might actually learn something.

So Jay Wants To Know

The other day, Jay Solo posed a question: which six blogs are the top ones you go to? It's a tough question, but here we go (in no particular order):

Dean Esmay
Electric Venom
On The Third Hand
Random Fate
Jay Solo
Insults Unpunished

There are others I also frequent: Allah is in the House, One Hand Clapping, The Happy Husband, and then a whole host or others that I check depending on their update status. Lately I've really been slacking due to having way been working way too much, but I'm slowly trying to get back into the swing of things.

I really find it interesting that I don't hit InstaPundit every day. Glenn was really the first blogger I read, but I guess I am just looking for a little more analysis and opinion any more. Odd really.

For Those Who Might Care

You'll have to excuse me here, but I've been on a mission against spyware and spam over the last month or so. Someone really pissed me off by installing something on my computer that causes Internet Explorer to open to a certain advertising site everytime I log in (and I can't figure out where the registry entry to remove the autoload is) and also has made my installation of Windows XP very unstable. So I really, really hate the spammers and spyware creeps right now.

In an effort to reduce the amount of spam I receive on this site, along with upgrading to MT 2.661, and installing MT-Blacklist, I have also started closing off all comment threads over three weeks old that have had no activity in the last seven days.

Someway, somehow I will figure out how to get the spammers almost completely out of my life.

When Relativism Goes Too Far

A bioethicist in the UK - one on the board of the British Medical Association - has declared that there is no difference between aborting a full grown fetus or killing a child who has already been born if they have birth defects. Given that abortion is legal in the UK he is essentially calling for, as the cartoon South Park once put it, retroactive abortion.

He claims that the retro-abortion should be legal only "soon" after the child is born. Who defines soon? Who defines what exactly constitutes a defect qualifiying of retro-abortion? Will it only be the parents that are able to decide, or will any medical professional be able to decide it would be in the person's best interest to be retro-aborted? How soon after birth is soon? A couple days? A couple decades?

This is absolutely ridiculous. What the doctor is proposing is the legalization of murder. He may want to try to twist the truth to make it more palatable, but in the end, murder is still murder.

To think that this guy is a bioethics professor, along with being a member of the BMA ethics committee, is appalling. If he cannot understand the moral implications of murdering children that some might find to be, errrr, undesirable tells me that he has no moral compass whatsoever. The last group to follow through with the elimination of "undesirables" was the Third Reich. Certainly only a very, very few would believe that Himmler and Hitler had the right idea, yet this loon is suggesting implemenation of a small portion of their plan.

Ignoring the moral questions surrounding abortion, there most certainly are serious moral implications associated with retro-actively aborting children. No amount of relativism can change the fact that murder is wrong. To say or suggest otherwise demostrates a sinister streak a mile wide.

I hope, I hope, I hope that this guy comes out and explains how this is all some big misunderstanding, but for some reason I don't see it happening. Too bad that some people just seem to believe that murder should be ok.

Howard Dean - Way Out There

Via Drudge: Howard Dean Says Iraqis Worse Off Now

Let's see. Saddam is gone. They have food and medicine that the regime once withheld. Kids are going to school. People are debating the nature of their new government - actually debating and protesting and voicing real opinions - instead of cowering in fear of the torture chambers. Their economy is even improving via an infusion of capitalist beliefs.

And still, Dean claims that "their standard of living is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

Huh?

Look at this description from Thomas Foley, the man in charge of rebuilding Iraq's economy (link via Electric Venom):

there is pent-up consumer demand in the nation. Iraqis are buying everything from cell phones to satellite dishes. New stores are opening with goods flowing onto the street and trucks frequently making deliveries (emphasis mine)

So tell me, is that the sign of an economy in decline? Not by any traditional means of measurement. Is it the signal of a declining standard of living? Absolutely not.

Even if his argument was something along the lines of the Americans mismanaging the oil economy of the nation, take a look at this article from AMEInfo (again from Venomous Kate):

The fiscal deficit of Iraq in 2003 is expected to increase sharply due to the sharp decline in oil production and exports, according to Global Investment House. But with the expected restoration of oil production levels, Iraq is expected to report a fiscal surplus in 2005.

Life in Iraq still isn't up to the standards that we expect in the United States. But it is by no means worse than it was before. For Dean to claim it is is completely preposterous.