Another funny coincidence...

Coincidence

Answer to "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" headline

Q:

A:

MSNBC - Does Cosby Help?

Bill Cosby's crusade

Cell phones on flights---the coming apocalypse...

"Feds move on wireless Web, cell phones in flight":

"...But there has been speculation that cell phones have played a role in some airplane crashes. European newspapers have reported that a passenger using a cell phone during takeoff contributed to the crash of a Crossair commuter plane in 2000. All 10 passengers and the crew aboard LX Flight 498 were killed when the plane crashed outside of Zurich minutes after takeoff. An official cause of the crash has not been released.
....

....

More vital communication, more annoying headaches?
The steady infiltration of wireless technology might not thrill all air travelers. The many who complain about cell phones being used in restaurants and movie theaters could mourn the loss of one of the last cell-phone-free environments. Airplanes are uncharted territory for practitioners of etiquette-straining "cell yell"--inexplicably shouting into a cell phone regardless of the call's personal nature or who can overhear. Being one narrow seat away from such callers could frazzle some flyers' nerves.

"Can you imagine 200 people talking at once?" Schonland asked. "It will be bedlam. Who will people hate more--the dreaded crying baby or the guy who talked on his cell phone for two and a half hours?" "

The Dead, the Injured, the Forgotten by Shelton Hull

An essay on the costs of Operation Iraqi Oil.

Republican Presidents And War Crimes - Nothing New Here - By Michael Gaddy

"Republican Presidents And War Crimes - Nothing New Here By Michael Gaddy" is an interesting read. It lead me to ask a number of questions to which I don't know the answers (Yet)....Are Republican wars different from Democratic wars? Are the values that lead Republicans to go to war significantly differrent from the values that lead Democrats to go to war? Republicans seem to have a fairly consistent history of fighting wars to retain American financial postition and fueling those war engines by suppressing dissention under Patriotic jingoism and Religious zealoustry--- are those values and methodologies shared by Democratic presidents? (I would expect that both parties embrace those tools at least during wartime. They seem too effective not to be used by politicians for their advantage.) Are Democratic wars fought to protect American lives while Republican wars are fought to protect American investments? Is that an/the ultimate difference between the characters of both groups?

I don't know these answers...I am thinking aloud. Your insights are welcome. If you want to offer supporting arguements you are welcome to. Please click the comments link below.

ThinkingPeace

I really like this site. It features a number of well written articles.

bendable display screens!~ COOL!!!!

The Way Things Should Be: No School Vouchers.

School Vouchers --- the government rebating taxes so a parent can send their kid to a private school --- is wrong.

I pulled this definition/overview from www.wikipedia.org

"An education voucher, commonly called a school voucher, is a certificate by which parents are given the ability to pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice, rather than the public school to which they were assigned. These vouchers would be paid for using tax revenues.

Those in favor of school choice argue that they should be permitted to spend their tax dollars at the educational facility of their choosing, allowing parents to be able to choose which school they want their children to attend. In addition, it is promised that this will allow competition between schools, improving the quality of schools overall. Some studies support the hypothesis of reduced racial and economic segregation through the abolishment of territorial-based school allocation in the public monopoly system (where students are assigned to schools according to territory, thus dividing students between richer and poorer neighborhoods), as well as greater free choice and quality improvement by forcing schools to compete among themselves by offering more diverse and interesting programs.

Some critics of the voucher system note that it is possible to have choice between schools without vouchers within the public school system, as in Los Angeles, California, and other places.

American detractors state that such choice often results in the selection of a religious school, so that public funds are given to a religious institution, thus violating the separation of church and state (although a United States Supreme Court decision in 2003 invalidated this claim). Further, many argue that given the limited budget for schools, a voucher system weakens public schools while at the same time not necessarily providing enough money for people to attend private schools (the tendency of the costs of tuition to rise along with its demand further compounds the problem). This weakens the educational possibilities for many. Since vouchers typically pay much less than the tuition charged by the private schools, only the richer students and those given scholarships will be able to attend them. Opponents also claim that the vouchers are tantamount to providing taxpayer-subsidized white flight from urban public schools, whose student bodies are predominantly non-white in most large cities.

A minority of voucher opponents in the U.S. object on radically different grounds. These opponents believe that granting government money, even indirectly, to private and religious schools will inevitably lead to increased governmental control over non-government education. Individuals who oppose vouchers on these grounds are often libertarian; a few of them go so far as to call for the abolition of all government sponsorship of education in the U.S.

In addition, economists point to the problem of "cream skimming," a variety of adverse selection in the "educational market." With a presumably greater pool of applicants, the private schools will be more selective over which students to admit, possibly excluding those who belong to the "wrong" religion or ethnicity, those with disabilities such as autism or multiple sclerosis, and those with disciplinary problems. On the other hand, by law the public schools have to educate everyone, so that they become a "dumping ground" for those students unwanted by the private schools. This further undermines the reputation of the public schools, leading to a vicious circle that tends toward the total abolition of the public schools and the end of universal education..."

I think that Americans have a tendency to think of themseleves as existing in a vaccumn. This thought carries over into all areas of their life including their thoughts on school funding.

The concept behind public schools is a good one. A country with a well-educated work force is generally going to be much wealthier than a country with a poorly educated work force. (From a business standpoint, public education is the United States Corporation's research and development arm.)

I have always been lead to believe that the reason America is prosperous is because America is the land of opportunity. Anyone who is clever and dilligent can be successful. The US government creates and protects this environment where all of it's citizens have the right to reach their potential---if they choose.

A public educational system is this in a nutshell. It gives American kids a chance to learn as much as they can absorb. Their dedication and work ethic is the limiting factor. In theory.

In practice, like most if not all other areas touched by the US government this system is being manipulated and the concept is being perverted by the rich against the poor.

To me, a quality public education is an American birthright. I get angry when I hear that kids in poor districts do not have the same supplies as kids in rich school districts. Every kid should have the more or less the same resources. That they do not, tells me that funding is being redirected from the kids of the poor to the kids of the rich. To me, this is not about the rich retaining their money, it is about rich parents STEALING the birthright of poor kids.

It is child abuse protected behind the sheild of indignant possessiveness and the coolness bred by distance and a lack of relations.

A child born on the other side of town is still a child. You may feel anger towards the child's parents for not working as hard as you have to create a better life for their children (or whatever your feelings), but heaping further hardships on those kids does not help anyone or fix the issue. Those people you are angry with are the product of people redirecting educational funds in the past. Help break the cycle.

If this message doesn't resonate with you, consider the alternatives. If the public education system continues to decay under a lack of financial and political support; If Mexican and Black children continue to drop out of public schools in record numbers; If the education supplied in public schools continues to be marginalized --- viewed as substandard (when it in fact IS substandard) by colleges, employers, teachers, and the students themselves; Where is our future?

Do we want our kids to live through a violent class struggle? Society will always have angry uneducated people who are willing to do violence to others. They are a byproduct of the occasional failing of human communities. Do we want a society with more of those people?

What of the kids of the upper class? What will they use those degrees for? Managing a aerospace manufacturing plant or managining a tire factory? The prosperity of tommorrow's America is directly tied to the decisions we make regarding public schooling today.

The choice to send one's child to the best school possible is an American's choice and no one has challenged that. The idea that one should be able to redirect their portion of public school funding to other schools is the issue. The money is not your money. To allow you to redirect it is as inane as giving people who do not support the war in Iraq the option to redirect their funds to the UN because they feel that spending their money there give us a better chance for peace then suppressing Iraqi insurgents!

Paying for America's Public Education is part of the cost of living in this wealthy, well-educated society. It is part of the cost of maintaining America and our economic well-being.

Bulb City Open Air Market

I just started work on an on-line store for my brother's creations. I'll post more news when it becomes available. I think this might be his Christmas Present---a way to finance his comic career until it gets rolling.