The Wall Street Journal has an article today on something that should have been obvious to all when creating the health care bill, but was completely ignored by the Democrats: supply.
At the current rate of medical school completion, the US could be 150K doctors short in the next 15 years. The government plays a great role in medical education because Medicare funds most of the costs associated with medical residencies.
Common sense would say that the government, in concert with expanding the amount of those who will want access to health care, would greatly increase Medicare funding for residencies, so that medical schools could expand and more doctors could be trained to meet the demand of 30 million new medical consumers. Not only was Medicare funding for medical residents not raised, Medicare was cut by $500 billion in an accounting move to make the bill seem less of a boondoggle.
As a result, there will be a huge shortage of doctors and a looming supply problem in medical care that will require a huge fix in the years to come.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Something Never Discussed During the Health Care Debate: Supply
The House passed the Senate Health Care plan, as well as a series of Reconciliation measures designed to force those without health insurance to buy it (or face a penalty), as well as taxing upper income taxpayers to subsidize insurance for those who make under $88,000/year.
Regardless of whether you agree with this or not, and I clearly do not, there is one question that no one seems to be asking. Let's assume there are 45 million or so people in the U.S. who do not consume health care because they do not have insurance. This bill will insure almost all of them, so assume there will be at least 40 million new health care consumers in the U.S. in five years. Even with the influx of money that could be spent from the insurance premiums and payments by insurers to health care providers, who will be treating these patients?
As far as I can tell from cursory glances at the legislation and more in-depth study of the news reports on it, there is nothing in the legislation to support the creation of new medical schools. How will you increase the consumer base of medical care in the U.S. by 20% or more without any increase in the number of medical doctors, nurses, and other health care workers? How will the system handle all the new demand for services? Doctors are incredibly overworked as it is.
Money can build hospitals and buy equipment, but medical schools are the only way to tilt the balance of supply and demand. If the supply cannot keep up with the new artificially-inflated demand, the supply is going to get more expensive no matter what the government does. If the government was serious about cutting the costs of health care, it would provide incentives to universities to create medical schools and hospitals to create residency programs. After a few years with larger classes of new doctors, there would be more supply to meet the new demand for services, and costs would stabilize or go down.
That is how you solve a health care problem. Forcing millions more people into a health care system that operates at or near capacity on a regular basis is not going to solve any problem. Giving people insurance that they cannot use because the system is flooded with patients who cannot be seen is a disaster waiting to happen.
Regardless of whether you agree with this or not, and I clearly do not, there is one question that no one seems to be asking. Let's assume there are 45 million or so people in the U.S. who do not consume health care because they do not have insurance. This bill will insure almost all of them, so assume there will be at least 40 million new health care consumers in the U.S. in five years. Even with the influx of money that could be spent from the insurance premiums and payments by insurers to health care providers, who will be treating these patients?
As far as I can tell from cursory glances at the legislation and more in-depth study of the news reports on it, there is nothing in the legislation to support the creation of new medical schools. How will you increase the consumer base of medical care in the U.S. by 20% or more without any increase in the number of medical doctors, nurses, and other health care workers? How will the system handle all the new demand for services? Doctors are incredibly overworked as it is.
Money can build hospitals and buy equipment, but medical schools are the only way to tilt the balance of supply and demand. If the supply cannot keep up with the new artificially-inflated demand, the supply is going to get more expensive no matter what the government does. If the government was serious about cutting the costs of health care, it would provide incentives to universities to create medical schools and hospitals to create residency programs. After a few years with larger classes of new doctors, there would be more supply to meet the new demand for services, and costs would stabilize or go down.
That is how you solve a health care problem. Forcing millions more people into a health care system that operates at or near capacity on a regular basis is not going to solve any problem. Giving people insurance that they cannot use because the system is flooded with patients who cannot be seen is a disaster waiting to happen.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Just What the IRS Does Not Need, More Power
Under Obamacare, what will happen to your tax refund if you refuse to get health insurance?
The IRS may keep it and apply it to any penalty that the government decides to impose on those without health insurance. The IRS will be able to confiscate it under the House Health Care proposal. Of course, those who lack health insurance and are paying the penalty are likely not paying the penalty because they choose not to have coverage; they likely cannot afford it. Taking their tax refund is a horrible way to help people who need that money. After all, they overpaid the government in the first place!
Since the IRS will be given new powers of confiscation, they need $10 billion from the government over 10 years to separate tax refunds from hard-working people who need it. Oh, and another 17,000 employees to deal with all the new responsibility Obamacare would give them.
This scenario is likely just going to be compounded with all the new orders given to existing branches of government. Each department is going to need money above and beyond what the health care bill costs in order to implement it, as well as tens of thousands of employees, all at above market wages and union representation. So while the Democrats say health care is only going to cost so much, they clearly either ignore or discount the true cost of implementing this disgrace of a bill.
The IRS may keep it and apply it to any penalty that the government decides to impose on those without health insurance. The IRS will be able to confiscate it under the House Health Care proposal. Of course, those who lack health insurance and are paying the penalty are likely not paying the penalty because they choose not to have coverage; they likely cannot afford it. Taking their tax refund is a horrible way to help people who need that money. After all, they overpaid the government in the first place!
Since the IRS will be given new powers of confiscation, they need $10 billion from the government over 10 years to separate tax refunds from hard-working people who need it. Oh, and another 17,000 employees to deal with all the new responsibility Obamacare would give them.
This scenario is likely just going to be compounded with all the new orders given to existing branches of government. Each department is going to need money above and beyond what the health care bill costs in order to implement it, as well as tens of thousands of employees, all at above market wages and union representation. So while the Democrats say health care is only going to cost so much, they clearly either ignore or discount the true cost of implementing this disgrace of a bill.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Anthem Under Fire For Lack of Common Sense
Anthem Blue Cross insurance has been under fire lately. The White House wants Anthem to explains its premium increases, and has been hit by a jury in California for refusing to pay for a liver transplant.
Ephram Nehme was approved by Anthem for a liver transplant in California, but his doctor told him to go to Indiana for a shorter wait. He did so, and Anthem refused to cover the transplant in Indiana, citing its contract with Nehme that stated all transplants had to take place in California. Nehme paid for the surgery himself, then sued Anthem and received the cost of his transplant and attorneys' fees.
While Anthem could be seen as proper for sticking to its contract language, contract language such as this is why people hate insurance companies, and why Democrats think people will support their reforms. Consumers don't understand contract language like this, and don't understand why an insurance company can approve transplants in one state but not another. It was not as if Nehme wanted to have his transplant done in Zimbabwe, he wanted it done in Indiana, another state in which Anthem sells insurance! Anthem could clearly determine whether a provider in Indiana meets its standards for payment. So while Anthem will say that Nehme, and others with Anthem insurance in California, can't leave California for transplants, consumers will only get angry with insurance companies, and become putty for the Democrats.
Insurance companies need to pick and choose their battles with consumers. Hiding behind contract language is going to get Obama's Single Payer System, and insurance companies (as well as Americans) will be the big losers there.
Ephram Nehme was approved by Anthem for a liver transplant in California, but his doctor told him to go to Indiana for a shorter wait. He did so, and Anthem refused to cover the transplant in Indiana, citing its contract with Nehme that stated all transplants had to take place in California. Nehme paid for the surgery himself, then sued Anthem and received the cost of his transplant and attorneys' fees.
While Anthem could be seen as proper for sticking to its contract language, contract language such as this is why people hate insurance companies, and why Democrats think people will support their reforms. Consumers don't understand contract language like this, and don't understand why an insurance company can approve transplants in one state but not another. It was not as if Nehme wanted to have his transplant done in Zimbabwe, he wanted it done in Indiana, another state in which Anthem sells insurance! Anthem could clearly determine whether a provider in Indiana meets its standards for payment. So while Anthem will say that Nehme, and others with Anthem insurance in California, can't leave California for transplants, consumers will only get angry with insurance companies, and become putty for the Democrats.
Insurance companies need to pick and choose their battles with consumers. Hiding behind contract language is going to get Obama's Single Payer System, and insurance companies (as well as Americans) will be the big losers there.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Sean David Moron vs. the SEC
The Securities and Exchange Commission is going after Sean David Morton, for allegedly collecting $6 million in money from investors in his "psychic" investment fund. Morton claimed his "psychic" powers could be used to substantial profit in the foreign currency trading markets. Morton collected $6 million from investors, but allegedly only placed $3+ million in trading accounts and used the rest of it for his "non-profit" and personal purposes.
The SEC has accused Morton of violating many sections of the Securities Act and Exchange Act, including Rule 10b-5. In the complaint, the SEC points out many false statements by Morton and numerous stories of Morton (allegedly) lying to induce investors to hand over money to him. Morton also allegedly failed to complete any SEC requirement in relation to registering his investment companies, and a statement he made to Coast to Coast AM appears to show that Morton did not think he was responsible for registering.
The SEC generally does not go after people it does not have an air-tight case against, with the notable exception of Mark Cuban. Additionally, Morton does not have the best litigation track record, particularly when you consider he calls himself "Americas' Psychic". UFOWatchdog.com exposed Morton repeatedly, pointing out every contradiction and fallacy that Morton stated about himself. Morton eventually sued the author of UFOWatchdog.com for defamation, but was found to have violated the Anti-SLAPP statute in California and ordered to pay legal fees of approximately $16K.
Morton also apparently sued the SEC in 2009 while the SEC was investigating him, claiming that the SEC was going after him solely to take taxpayer-paid trips to Disneyland and In-N-Out Burger. While noble goals of the SEC if they were true, the lawsuit was dismissed in December 2009.
Of course, Morton's psychic powers in dealing with the legal system and the SEC are comparable to his past predictions. Click the link to see some of the "psychic visions" of Morton, and you'll see that his only success is suckering people out of money. Hopefully the SEC puts Morton into a position where he cannot play PT Barnum anymore.
The SEC has accused Morton of violating many sections of the Securities Act and Exchange Act, including Rule 10b-5. In the complaint, the SEC points out many false statements by Morton and numerous stories of Morton (allegedly) lying to induce investors to hand over money to him. Morton also allegedly failed to complete any SEC requirement in relation to registering his investment companies, and a statement he made to Coast to Coast AM appears to show that Morton did not think he was responsible for registering.
The SEC generally does not go after people it does not have an air-tight case against, with the notable exception of Mark Cuban. Additionally, Morton does not have the best litigation track record, particularly when you consider he calls himself "Americas' Psychic". UFOWatchdog.com exposed Morton repeatedly, pointing out every contradiction and fallacy that Morton stated about himself. Morton eventually sued the author of UFOWatchdog.com for defamation, but was found to have violated the Anti-SLAPP statute in California and ordered to pay legal fees of approximately $16K.
Morton also apparently sued the SEC in 2009 while the SEC was investigating him, claiming that the SEC was going after him solely to take taxpayer-paid trips to Disneyland and In-N-Out Burger. While noble goals of the SEC if they were true, the lawsuit was dismissed in December 2009.
Of course, Morton's psychic powers in dealing with the legal system and the SEC are comparable to his past predictions. Click the link to see some of the "psychic visions" of Morton, and you'll see that his only success is suckering people out of money. Hopefully the SEC puts Morton into a position where he cannot play PT Barnum anymore.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tax Dodgers Are Blind
You need to be a bit creative to honestly deny the ability of the US Government to impose an income tax, considering it was implemented during the Civil War and enacted as an amendment to the Constitution. Tax deniers claim that the 16th Amendment was improperly enacted by some of the states, so it never really was legal. They claim it violates freedom of speech (by requiring you to report income) and taking of property without due process, among other spurious arguments.
Joseph Stack was not so much a tax denier as much as a tax protester, but his suicide letter made many references to the idea that the income tax was unconstitutional.
However, Peter Pappas, a Florida tax attorney and author of The Tax Lawyer's Blog, has gone through Stack's suicide letter and refuted every inaccuracy stated. Among his points:
Stack:
Joseph Stack was not so much a tax denier as much as a tax protester, but his suicide letter made many references to the idea that the income tax was unconstitutional.
However, Peter Pappas, a Florida tax attorney and author of The Tax Lawyer's Blog, has gone through Stack's suicide letter and refuted every inaccuracy stated. Among his points:
Stack:
We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling (sic) from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God).
Pappas:
All in all, Pappas makes Stack's IRS diatribe look incredibly foolish and makes Stack look like a selfish person who just did not follow tax laws very well. While Stack's letter makes him on the surface to be harassed by the IRS, Pappas shows that most of what Stack said is pure smoke, and he was a rebel without a clue.Again, Stack is upset that he couldn’t get away with what he alleges the Catholic Church got away with: Namely, tax fraud.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Need $50K? Flip Off a Cop
Getting arrested for flipping the middle finger at a police officer is apparently quite the profitable endeavor.
David Hackbart did such a thing at another motorist, and then a police officer in Pittsburgh. After flipping off the motorist, the police officer warned Hackbart not to do it. Hackbart then had the reasonable response of flipping the police officer off for telling him not to flip the motorist off. The police officer then arrested Hackbart for disorderly conduct, despite the act of flipping someone off being protected First Amendment speech and not obscene. In other words, even in the catch-all unconstitutionalness of most disorderly conduct statutes, flipping the bird is not included.
So Hackbart did the normal American thing; he sued the Pittsburgh Police under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing violations of his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Hackbart won at summary judgment against the police officer, with the judge finding that Hackbart was clearly pulled over because he flipped off the police officer in a retaliatory measure. Pittsburgh, realizing it was facing a substantial judgment, then settled the case for $50,000 and agreeing to inform police officers on the need not to pull motorists over for flipping them off.
So if you're driving in Pittsburgh, use your middle finger at will, and maybe you can be $50,000 richer.
Thanks to On Point News for the article and scanning the briefs.
David Hackbart did such a thing at another motorist, and then a police officer in Pittsburgh. After flipping off the motorist, the police officer warned Hackbart not to do it. Hackbart then had the reasonable response of flipping the police officer off for telling him not to flip the motorist off. The police officer then arrested Hackbart for disorderly conduct, despite the act of flipping someone off being protected First Amendment speech and not obscene. In other words, even in the catch-all unconstitutionalness of most disorderly conduct statutes, flipping the bird is not included.
So Hackbart did the normal American thing; he sued the Pittsburgh Police under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing violations of his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Hackbart won at summary judgment against the police officer, with the judge finding that Hackbart was clearly pulled over because he flipped off the police officer in a retaliatory measure. Pittsburgh, realizing it was facing a substantial judgment, then settled the case for $50,000 and agreeing to inform police officers on the need not to pull motorists over for flipping them off.
So if you're driving in Pittsburgh, use your middle finger at will, and maybe you can be $50,000 richer.
Thanks to On Point News for the article and scanning the briefs.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Great Video of North Korea
(I just like this photo very much)
CNN had a link to a story done by an internet media outfit called VBS.TV. It is a 14 part series on VBS.TV's trip into North Korea, including what they saw while they were there, the trouble they had getting in, and the surrealness of it all.
Particularly interesting are the visits to the Arirang Mass Games, where the reporter is one of 15 spectators with 100K Koreans participating, and the reporters' trip to the DMZ from both sides of the North-South Divide. The Southern side is much stricter with rules (like no pointing at anyone in the North) and checkpoints, and the Northern side uses the opportunity to taunt the South. Very interesting also is the extent to which the North Koreans go to try and give the impression of abundance to the reporters.
I've always been intrigued about North Korea. It is such an unknown place, where time seems to have forgotten all about it. Watching the video, it's staggering to see how much in the past the DPRK is. In the largest library in North Korea, the DPRK Guide is talking with pride about the library having Mariah Carey and the Beatles on a cassette tape.
Of course, when you consider what North Korea looks like to the universe after dark (the picture, obviously), it is easy to see how it could be so backwards.
If you have an hour to kill and are as intrigued about North Korea as I am, I suggest watching the 14 part series from VBS.TV.
Parts 1-3 are on CNN's website in this story. Click on the video.
Part 4 starts here on the VBS.TV website.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
UMass Law Approved
The Mass Board of Education approved a UMass Law School. Apparently a $75,000 debt load at graduation will motivate lawyers to go into public service in a way that a $100,000 debt load will not.
The UMass system will regret it when the law school steals public funds from the rest of the university system after the law school goes on a politician hiring binge. It will cost tens of millions of dollars to recruit students to an unaccredited law school, where the whole hope is that tuition dollars from a larger student body will allow the school to increase facilities to the barest requirements the ABA has. But how will the rising student body deal with the substandard facilities currently in place?
Ten years from now, when Massachusetts inevitably faces another budget crisis, does anyone think the legislature will resist the urge to dramatically raise tuition for the UMass Law School, just as California has responded to its near-bankruptcy by making the U. Cal law schools among the highest tuition in the country and insanely high for out-of-state students.
But hey, a public law school and lots of jobs for former state reps made buying this unaccredited law school worth it, right?
The UMass system will regret it when the law school steals public funds from the rest of the university system after the law school goes on a politician hiring binge. It will cost tens of millions of dollars to recruit students to an unaccredited law school, where the whole hope is that tuition dollars from a larger student body will allow the school to increase facilities to the barest requirements the ABA has. But how will the rising student body deal with the substandard facilities currently in place?
Ten years from now, when Massachusetts inevitably faces another budget crisis, does anyone think the legislature will resist the urge to dramatically raise tuition for the UMass Law School, just as California has responded to its near-bankruptcy by making the U. Cal law schools among the highest tuition in the country and insanely high for out-of-state students.
But hey, a public law school and lots of jobs for former state reps made buying this unaccredited law school worth it, right?
Monday, February 1, 2010
The IRS Hates Air Travelers
The airline industry just got emboldened by the IRS last week. The IRS has decided that checked baggage fees are not taxable under federal air travel excise tax because of an exclusion that says fees for baggage transportation are not taxable. Of course, the IRS neglected to state, or just forgot, that prior to airlines charging checked baggage fees, the cost of baggage was incorporated in the fare, which was subject to excise tax.
This literal interpretation of the IRS Code could embolden the airlines to further unbundle the components of their airfare and charge for them separately, knowing they will not need to share the revenue with the government. Air travelers will be much less sensitive paying a rounded fee, such as $25, versus having to pay $25 plus the excise tax.
With the airlines not needing to worry about excise tax, they can unbundle other parts of the fare that were once subject to the excise tax. Eventually, airlines can charge a nominal fare, such as $10, and have separate specific charges for everything else, such as fuel, a seat, baggage, drinks, etc. Only the $10 fare will be subject to the excise tax, and the airline can keep all the other revenue for itself. For those who think this is unlikely, look at Ryanair, the deeply-discounted airline in Ireland. They do exactly this.
Normally I hate taxes and think companies should do everything in their power to avoid them. However, the airline industry is different. The airline industry relies on many different layers of government, local governments that apply fees on tickets to pay for airport renovations and the federal government for security (not the TSA, but other security), air traffic control and other administrative assistance. Most other industries can repay this government assistance through other means, like corporate taxes on profits or personal taxes through dividends, but the airline industry is almost always unprofitable and certainly does not give dividends to shareholders. Excise taxes are almost the only way the airline industry pays for the infrastructure that it uses.
Unbundling could undo the airline industry's only contribution to the government that subsidizes it so much. The IRS should have imposed the excise tax on baggage fees, telling the industry that it should rightly be considered part of the fare. Even if the IRS Code excludes the cost of transporting baggage, that was intended to apply solely to bags flying independent of passengers. Applying the rule literally will hurt the traveling public.
This literal interpretation of the IRS Code could embolden the airlines to further unbundle the components of their airfare and charge for them separately, knowing they will not need to share the revenue with the government. Air travelers will be much less sensitive paying a rounded fee, such as $25, versus having to pay $25 plus the excise tax.
With the airlines not needing to worry about excise tax, they can unbundle other parts of the fare that were once subject to the excise tax. Eventually, airlines can charge a nominal fare, such as $10, and have separate specific charges for everything else, such as fuel, a seat, baggage, drinks, etc. Only the $10 fare will be subject to the excise tax, and the airline can keep all the other revenue for itself. For those who think this is unlikely, look at Ryanair, the deeply-discounted airline in Ireland. They do exactly this.
Normally I hate taxes and think companies should do everything in their power to avoid them. However, the airline industry is different. The airline industry relies on many different layers of government, local governments that apply fees on tickets to pay for airport renovations and the federal government for security (not the TSA, but other security), air traffic control and other administrative assistance. Most other industries can repay this government assistance through other means, like corporate taxes on profits or personal taxes through dividends, but the airline industry is almost always unprofitable and certainly does not give dividends to shareholders. Excise taxes are almost the only way the airline industry pays for the infrastructure that it uses.
Unbundling could undo the airline industry's only contribution to the government that subsidizes it so much. The IRS should have imposed the excise tax on baggage fees, telling the industry that it should rightly be considered part of the fare. Even if the IRS Code excludes the cost of transporting baggage, that was intended to apply solely to bags flying independent of passengers. Applying the rule literally will hurt the traveling public.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Shocker: Distracted Driver Laws Fail
Sorry about the sarcasm, but to no real surprise, all of these laws that ban hand-held use of mobile phones do not have the intended legal effect. An insurance group, the Highway Loss Data Institute, examined data from states like Connecticut, California and New York to examine accident frequency before and after these states enacted laws banning hand-held use of mobile phones while operating a vehicle.
Why do these statutes fail? Because mobile phones are one of many ways drivers are distracted, with such ancient distractions such as the radio, the instruments and passengers outside of the imagination of legislators in deciding what to ban while driving an automobile. The states that have passed these laws find that people start using hands-free devices to talk, leaving them just as distracted before, but apparently with one more crucial free hand.
The study authors are apparently perplexed by this, saying the study "raises as many questions as it answers." However, it is not perplexing at all. While everyone has driven along a road next to someone texting/typing and erratically driving as a result. However, this is not a new occurrence with the mobile phone. Before mobile phones, there were women applying makeup, people in heated arguments, attempting to adjust the analog dial on an AM radio... the list goes on and on. When I was 16, I was rear-ended by a distracted woman who was rifling through her purse at 45 mph. Should they ban purses and other bags from the passenger compartment of autos because women were distracted? Obviously, that argument would be viewed as absurd.
Why then ban mobile phones when 99.9% of drivers are able to maturely use a phone while driving? Is there a mighty Jupiter Jack lobby, or is Motorola secretly conspiring with the government to enact these laws to pump up sales of Bluetooth headsets?
Distracted driver laws are simply the only way governments know how to handle things: in a reactionary and misguided way.
Why do these statutes fail? Because mobile phones are one of many ways drivers are distracted, with such ancient distractions such as the radio, the instruments and passengers outside of the imagination of legislators in deciding what to ban while driving an automobile. The states that have passed these laws find that people start using hands-free devices to talk, leaving them just as distracted before, but apparently with one more crucial free hand.
The study authors are apparently perplexed by this, saying the study "raises as many questions as it answers." However, it is not perplexing at all. While everyone has driven along a road next to someone texting/typing and erratically driving as a result. However, this is not a new occurrence with the mobile phone. Before mobile phones, there were women applying makeup, people in heated arguments, attempting to adjust the analog dial on an AM radio... the list goes on and on. When I was 16, I was rear-ended by a distracted woman who was rifling through her purse at 45 mph. Should they ban purses and other bags from the passenger compartment of autos because women were distracted? Obviously, that argument would be viewed as absurd.
Why then ban mobile phones when 99.9% of drivers are able to maturely use a phone while driving? Is there a mighty Jupiter Jack lobby, or is Motorola secretly conspiring with the government to enact these laws to pump up sales of Bluetooth headsets?
Distracted driver laws are simply the only way governments know how to handle things: in a reactionary and misguided way.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Scott Brown Gets It
The "Teddy Kennedy" seat in the Senate is wrong, as wrong as most voters in Massachusetts are, the seat still belongs to the people of Massachusetts, not Coakley or Kennedy.
This is not the Deep South in the early 20th Century, where the real election was the Democratic primary.
Scott Brown can conceivably win this race. Massachusetts can stand for America.
This is not the Deep South in the early 20th Century, where the real election was the Democratic primary.
Scott Brown can conceivably win this race. Massachusetts can stand for America.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Scott Brown Day
Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, has had quite a day today.
First off, he raised over a million dollars today. As of 11:30PM, he has raised $1,117,747 today. Outside of Mitt Romney, can you imagine a Republican from Massachusetts raising anywhere near that much money in a week, nevermind a day? The money may be mainly coming from outside of Massachusetts, but it will pay for numerous commercials until the election next Tuesday.
Secondly, he took Martha Coakley to the cleaners tonight. Not just my opinion as well. Commentators like Andy Hiller from Channel 7 and Joe Battenfeld of Channel 25 say he ran away from the debate. Coakley is a horrible debater, lacking when she needs to move off the script her handlers give her. Scott Brown showed enthusiasm, knowledge and spark, and also showed that he was not a typical GOP guy, which clearly helps in Massachusetts.
There might be a real race in the next week or so. Ignoring the predictable Globe poll on Sunday that showed Coakley up 15% (despite the fact that the day it went to press it was 4 days old, and the sample size was too small collected over a too long period of time.... but polling issues are for another day), there is another poll that shows Brown ahead, within the margin of error, 48%-47%. Coakley has turned out to be a horrible candidate for the Dems, and even if she wins, she is damaged goods.
Go Scott Brown!
First off, he raised over a million dollars today. As of 11:30PM, he has raised $1,117,747 today. Outside of Mitt Romney, can you imagine a Republican from Massachusetts raising anywhere near that much money in a week, nevermind a day? The money may be mainly coming from outside of Massachusetts, but it will pay for numerous commercials until the election next Tuesday.
Secondly, he took Martha Coakley to the cleaners tonight. Not just my opinion as well. Commentators like Andy Hiller from Channel 7 and Joe Battenfeld of Channel 25 say he ran away from the debate. Coakley is a horrible debater, lacking when she needs to move off the script her handlers give her. Scott Brown showed enthusiasm, knowledge and spark, and also showed that he was not a typical GOP guy, which clearly helps in Massachusetts.
There might be a real race in the next week or so. Ignoring the predictable Globe poll on Sunday that showed Coakley up 15% (despite the fact that the day it went to press it was 4 days old, and the sample size was too small collected over a too long period of time.... but polling issues are for another day), there is another poll that shows Brown ahead, within the margin of error, 48%-47%. Coakley has turned out to be a horrible candidate for the Dems, and even if she wins, she is damaged goods.
Go Scott Brown!
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Could Massachusetts Elect a Republican Senator?
A recent poll for the special U.S. Senate election on January 19 has Scott Brown down 50-41 among "likely voters" and Brown only down 2 percent among respondents who stated they would definitely vote.
Considering that in Massachusetts the Democrats have always won every statewide position (except Governor until 2006), usually by large margins, this poll must be a gut punch to the Democrats. For Senate races, the Democrat usually wins by approximately 65-70% to 30-35% (even a well-funded Mitt Romney only got 41% as a Senate candidate).
Why is Scott Brown doing so well? Well, a sinister idea is furthered by Ben Smith of Politico, that the Democrats nationally are rooting and hoping for a close race so that the Democrats can win and state that the Republican momentum is a myth. It is an idea with some supporting evidence behind it. The Boston Globe, normally the mouthpiece of the Democratic party in Massachusetts, has published articles critical of Coakley, stating that she went easy on a defendant in a 2005 case and was a poor performer before the US Supreme Court in a case Coakley lost that has made prosecution crime labs overburdened. Could the Globe be purposely trying to put the race closer on the idea that there is no way Massachusetts will elect a GOP man?
Here's hoping, if the Democrats are purposely trying to make the race closer, they overdo it and cause Coakley to lose. Coakley is a horrible candidate, and only won the primary because she was the only female. She is an awful speaker, unable to expand on anything beyond force-fed talking points, and clearly will be nothing more than an empty Democratic vote. Massachusetts could make Scott Brown a very dependable independent Senator, toning down his more right-wing views for the purpose of reelection.
Win or lose, at least the campaign commercials have gone way down since the primary ended.
Considering that in Massachusetts the Democrats have always won every statewide position (except Governor until 2006), usually by large margins, this poll must be a gut punch to the Democrats. For Senate races, the Democrat usually wins by approximately 65-70% to 30-35% (even a well-funded Mitt Romney only got 41% as a Senate candidate).
Why is Scott Brown doing so well? Well, a sinister idea is furthered by Ben Smith of Politico, that the Democrats nationally are rooting and hoping for a close race so that the Democrats can win and state that the Republican momentum is a myth. It is an idea with some supporting evidence behind it. The Boston Globe, normally the mouthpiece of the Democratic party in Massachusetts, has published articles critical of Coakley, stating that she went easy on a defendant in a 2005 case and was a poor performer before the US Supreme Court in a case Coakley lost that has made prosecution crime labs overburdened. Could the Globe be purposely trying to put the race closer on the idea that there is no way Massachusetts will elect a GOP man?
Here's hoping, if the Democrats are purposely trying to make the race closer, they overdo it and cause Coakley to lose. Coakley is a horrible candidate, and only won the primary because she was the only female. She is an awful speaker, unable to expand on anything beyond force-fed talking points, and clearly will be nothing more than an empty Democratic vote. Massachusetts could make Scott Brown a very dependable independent Senator, toning down his more right-wing views for the purpose of reelection.
Win or lose, at least the campaign commercials have gone way down since the primary ended.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Alan Grayson: Douchebag
Congressman Alan Grayson, of Florida's 8th District, wrote the US Attorney General to investigate the website www.MyCongressmanIsNuts.com, because of supposed fraud by the website author.
Apparently Grayson's beef with the website is that the author claims to live in Grayson's district but does not. Grayson thinks this horrible sin is fraud and that the website author is violating the election laws. It surely cannot be that Grayson would be trying to intimidate someone who is critical of him with the weight of the Department of Justice. I mean, surely that's an appropriate punishment for a local critic of a nobody Congressman. Has anyone ever heard of this guy? I didn't think so.
Democrats don't hate free speech at all! They hate people who have the nerve to speak different viewpoints than their own. Alan Grayson, get a pair of balls. You are in politics, and are unnerved by someone challenging you. If anyone should be investigated for breaking the law, it is Grayson, for abuse of process or some false accusation statute that the US Code almost certainly has (yes, lawyers don't know every law).
Apparently Grayson's beef with the website is that the author claims to live in Grayson's district but does not. Grayson thinks this horrible sin is fraud and that the website author is violating the election laws. It surely cannot be that Grayson would be trying to intimidate someone who is critical of him with the weight of the Department of Justice. I mean, surely that's an appropriate punishment for a local critic of a nobody Congressman. Has anyone ever heard of this guy? I didn't think so.
Democrats don't hate free speech at all! They hate people who have the nerve to speak different viewpoints than their own. Alan Grayson, get a pair of balls. You are in politics, and are unnerved by someone challenging you. If anyone should be investigated for breaking the law, it is Grayson, for abuse of process or some false accusation statute that the US Code almost certainly has (yes, lawyers don't know every law).
Friday, December 11, 2009
Out of Control IRS
The IRS seems to think it should vary the population that it audits. Certain commentators, including some from Forbes who think taxpayers should be paid for an audit to make it more appealing, think the IRS should audit many more taxpayers than it currently does. The theory is that most under-report their taxes, so the more audits the IRS does, the more revenue the IRS receives. In fact, the Forbes article says that on average the underpayment in each audit is $19,000, so that is what an audit is worth to the IRS.
Here's Exhibit A for why this is a bad idea. Meet Rachael Porcaro, a 32 year old single mother of two who makes $19K at Supercuts and lives with her parents for $400/month. Her dealings with the IRS were detailed in the Seattle Times.
She was audited over the course of two years for claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for her two children. Why would the IRS audit someone who makes so little money? According to Porcaro, the IRS thought that because she made so little money, she must be hiding income somewhere. Nevermind the fact that there are lots of people living below the poverty line in Seattle, she must be the one person hiding money. According to the IRS, if you are a family of three making less than $36K a year in Seattle, you're stealing or hiding money somewhere. Of course in Porcaro's case, even if she was hiding money, it likely wasn't taxable. She was living with her parents paying rent, but she could still receive $12,500 from each parent each year as a tax-free gift, and the IRS could not do anything about it.
The IRS originally said she could not claim the EITC for 2006 and 2007 nor her children as dependants for those years and assessed her $16,000 in back taxes. Nevermind she only makes $19,000 a year, has no house or car and no real way to pay that assessment. Porcaro's father had to spend $10,000 to hire an accountant to defend Porcaro's tax returns.
The IRS demanded copies of the blueprints of the house Porcaro lives in with her parents, bank statements, and had to prove her children were hers! The IRS decided eventually that she could claim the EITC, but made too little money to claim her children as dependants. So Porcaro had to pay $1500 to the IRS. For someone making $19,000, that probably is not the easiest thing to do, but it likely is easier than having to pay $16,000, or almost a year's salary for her.
What a disaster this situation is. This whole investigation probably cost $25K. The IRS will likely have to pay Porcaro's accountant $8K for his fees because the IRS was wrong to assess Porcaro for the EITC in the first place. So the US government is out about $20K or so to collect $1500. But for those in favor of greating IRS auditing, this is going to happen more and more.
The IRS cannot just audit wealthy people, and the IRS needs to ensure that it does not lose money on these audits, so the IRS will start picking on more and more people who can't afford to defend themselves. Porcaro was lucky in the sense that her parents would pay for an accountant to defend her, but many poor parents of young children do not have families with the income to do such a thing. Those people will have to go before the IRS alone, and the IRS will place liens on everything they have, essentially giving them no hope to ever get out of poverty, and giving poor people another reason to feel the government has it out for them.
The first thing I would do as Porcaro is to tell her parents to claim their grandchildren as a deduction. If the IRS doesn't think Porcaro provides more than half of her children's needs, it almost certainly can't state that her parents don't provide for their grandchildren. Porcaro's parents should file amended returns for all those years claiming their grandchildren as dependants, and dare the IRS to audit them again. Given that Porcaro's parents make more money than Porcaro, the dependent deduction will probably be valuable to them.
If the IRS is going to audit more people, standards need to be in place so that the IRS doesn't use poor people as a piggy bank to make audits worthwhile. Whether you agree or disagree with the EITC, many poor people rely on it, and taking it away years later would be financially crippling to these people. Wealthy people hire armies of attorneys to deal with the IRS because they are ruthless. Poor people don't have that ability, and I'm not saying attorneys should be appointed for them; but the IRS should not be able to increasingly look to poorer people to make audit successes look better.
Here's Exhibit A for why this is a bad idea. Meet Rachael Porcaro, a 32 year old single mother of two who makes $19K at Supercuts and lives with her parents for $400/month. Her dealings with the IRS were detailed in the Seattle Times.
She was audited over the course of two years for claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for her two children. Why would the IRS audit someone who makes so little money? According to Porcaro, the IRS thought that because she made so little money, she must be hiding income somewhere. Nevermind the fact that there are lots of people living below the poverty line in Seattle, she must be the one person hiding money. According to the IRS, if you are a family of three making less than $36K a year in Seattle, you're stealing or hiding money somewhere. Of course in Porcaro's case, even if she was hiding money, it likely wasn't taxable. She was living with her parents paying rent, but she could still receive $12,500 from each parent each year as a tax-free gift, and the IRS could not do anything about it.
The IRS originally said she could not claim the EITC for 2006 and 2007 nor her children as dependants for those years and assessed her $16,000 in back taxes. Nevermind she only makes $19,000 a year, has no house or car and no real way to pay that assessment. Porcaro's father had to spend $10,000 to hire an accountant to defend Porcaro's tax returns.
The IRS demanded copies of the blueprints of the house Porcaro lives in with her parents, bank statements, and had to prove her children were hers! The IRS decided eventually that she could claim the EITC, but made too little money to claim her children as dependants. So Porcaro had to pay $1500 to the IRS. For someone making $19,000, that probably is not the easiest thing to do, but it likely is easier than having to pay $16,000, or almost a year's salary for her.
What a disaster this situation is. This whole investigation probably cost $25K. The IRS will likely have to pay Porcaro's accountant $8K for his fees because the IRS was wrong to assess Porcaro for the EITC in the first place. So the US government is out about $20K or so to collect $1500. But for those in favor of greating IRS auditing, this is going to happen more and more.
The IRS cannot just audit wealthy people, and the IRS needs to ensure that it does not lose money on these audits, so the IRS will start picking on more and more people who can't afford to defend themselves. Porcaro was lucky in the sense that her parents would pay for an accountant to defend her, but many poor parents of young children do not have families with the income to do such a thing. Those people will have to go before the IRS alone, and the IRS will place liens on everything they have, essentially giving them no hope to ever get out of poverty, and giving poor people another reason to feel the government has it out for them.
The first thing I would do as Porcaro is to tell her parents to claim their grandchildren as a deduction. If the IRS doesn't think Porcaro provides more than half of her children's needs, it almost certainly can't state that her parents don't provide for their grandchildren. Porcaro's parents should file amended returns for all those years claiming their grandchildren as dependants, and dare the IRS to audit them again. Given that Porcaro's parents make more money than Porcaro, the dependent deduction will probably be valuable to them.
If the IRS is going to audit more people, standards need to be in place so that the IRS doesn't use poor people as a piggy bank to make audits worthwhile. Whether you agree or disagree with the EITC, many poor people rely on it, and taking it away years later would be financially crippling to these people. Wealthy people hire armies of attorneys to deal with the IRS because they are ruthless. Poor people don't have that ability, and I'm not saying attorneys should be appointed for them; but the IRS should not be able to increasingly look to poorer people to make audit successes look better.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Bad Idea Continued: UMass Law School Passes Hurdle
The proposed transformation of unaccredited mess of a law school Southern New England Law into a supposedly new and improved UMass Law School passed another hurdle today.
The UMass "Board of Trustees' Committee on Administration and Finance", whatever that is, passed a resolution to take over SNESL by a 12-4 vote. Now the proposal goes to the Finance Committee, the UMass Board of Trustees, and finally the Mass Board of Education. The first time SNESL tried to sucker UMass into assuming control of it, it went all the way to the Board of Education, so this is not necessarily a sign that UMass will take the school over. However, Gov. Deval Patrick, of Harvard Law, is in favor of the law school, so the Board of Education may be more supportive.
Of course, the press release states that UMass is this much closer to providing a "low cost" $24K/year law school education, and offering half tuition off for four years of public employment after that. Of course, if this were such a good idea, SNESL, with its tuition of about $22K, would have public interest hopeful lawyers lining up. However, that is not the case.
While law schools are a prestige item and a cash cow for universities, the costs of running a law school are high. Professors, who would make mid six figure and higher salaries in the private sector, are very expensive and very fickle. The SNESL professors are what you would expect from a school with a lower cost, not as impressive. If SNESL is to get accredited, it needs to wildly expand its library, physical plant and professors, and raising tuition and student class size is not going to make it happen without a bailout from Massachusetts, despite that SNESL and UMass say that is not necessary.
The strategy by SNESL and UMass is to keep repeating the no-cost line ad naseum until the Board finally breaks down and approves the SNESL bailout. Of course, once the law school is approved and UMass takes it over, magically these "unexpected costs" of complying with the ABA accreditation standard are "found", and one of two things will need to be done: either raise tuition or get state aid. Of course, since the supposed purpose of the law school is to get lawyers "interested" in public service, UMass will seek its bailout then, hoping the state economic situation and tax revenues are better situated than currently.
It is a total sham, represented perfectly by this fact: If SNESL could get accredited by raising tuition and adding students, why have they not done it already? Why would they forfeit their assets to UMass in return for ZERO? Because they cannot do it. SNESL could sell its buildings, assets and cash for something, but the law school is worthless. No one creates a private law school in the hope the state will take it over some day. If SNESL could be accredited on the terms UMass says they could be accredited on, there would be absolutely no need for this takeover.
Why does UMass want a law school? Prestige. Plain and simple. It also, coincidentally of course, gives them another school to stock full of patronage hires who are unqualified to teach at any current law school. Another layer of bureaucracy at a university full of bureaucracy, for the next generation of political hacks.
A very bad idea, the UMass Law School.
The UMass "Board of Trustees' Committee on Administration and Finance", whatever that is, passed a resolution to take over SNESL by a 12-4 vote. Now the proposal goes to the Finance Committee, the UMass Board of Trustees, and finally the Mass Board of Education. The first time SNESL tried to sucker UMass into assuming control of it, it went all the way to the Board of Education, so this is not necessarily a sign that UMass will take the school over. However, Gov. Deval Patrick, of Harvard Law, is in favor of the law school, so the Board of Education may be more supportive.
Of course, the press release states that UMass is this much closer to providing a "low cost" $24K/year law school education, and offering half tuition off for four years of public employment after that. Of course, if this were such a good idea, SNESL, with its tuition of about $22K, would have public interest hopeful lawyers lining up. However, that is not the case.
While law schools are a prestige item and a cash cow for universities, the costs of running a law school are high. Professors, who would make mid six figure and higher salaries in the private sector, are very expensive and very fickle. The SNESL professors are what you would expect from a school with a lower cost, not as impressive. If SNESL is to get accredited, it needs to wildly expand its library, physical plant and professors, and raising tuition and student class size is not going to make it happen without a bailout from Massachusetts, despite that SNESL and UMass say that is not necessary.
The strategy by SNESL and UMass is to keep repeating the no-cost line ad naseum until the Board finally breaks down and approves the SNESL bailout. Of course, once the law school is approved and UMass takes it over, magically these "unexpected costs" of complying with the ABA accreditation standard are "found", and one of two things will need to be done: either raise tuition or get state aid. Of course, since the supposed purpose of the law school is to get lawyers "interested" in public service, UMass will seek its bailout then, hoping the state economic situation and tax revenues are better situated than currently.
It is a total sham, represented perfectly by this fact: If SNESL could get accredited by raising tuition and adding students, why have they not done it already? Why would they forfeit their assets to UMass in return for ZERO? Because they cannot do it. SNESL could sell its buildings, assets and cash for something, but the law school is worthless. No one creates a private law school in the hope the state will take it over some day. If SNESL could be accredited on the terms UMass says they could be accredited on, there would be absolutely no need for this takeover.
Why does UMass want a law school? Prestige. Plain and simple. It also, coincidentally of course, gives them another school to stock full of patronage hires who are unqualified to teach at any current law school. Another layer of bureaucracy at a university full of bureaucracy, for the next generation of political hacks.
A very bad idea, the UMass Law School.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Throw the Indian State Dinner Crashers in Jail
And here's how.
18 U.S.C. 1001 allows prosecution of those who “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” or “makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
Sounds like those stupid wannabe-reality TV stars to me.
The link above to the Law Blog post states that the defendants would put the blame on the gatekeepers at the event for not keeping them out or asking them questions to cause the defendants to make a false statement or cover up. Nonetheless, it would be impossible for the defendant couple to explain away what they did without using a cover up by trick. The statute was used on those in the Jack Abramoff scandal, so the statute is not a relic of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Prosecuting the stupid Balloon family in Colorado and these wannabe-socialites in Virginia will serve as a lesson that just because Bravo or one of the myriad of stupid cable channels want to make you a "reality star," you're still nobody.
18 U.S.C. 1001 allows prosecution of those who “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” or “makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
Sounds like those stupid wannabe-reality TV stars to me.
The link above to the Law Blog post states that the defendants would put the blame on the gatekeepers at the event for not keeping them out or asking them questions to cause the defendants to make a false statement or cover up. Nonetheless, it would be impossible for the defendant couple to explain away what they did without using a cover up by trick. The statute was used on those in the Jack Abramoff scandal, so the statute is not a relic of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Prosecuting the stupid Balloon family in Colorado and these wannabe-socialites in Virginia will serve as a lesson that just because Bravo or one of the myriad of stupid cable channels want to make you a "reality star," you're still nobody.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Anti-Bullying Statutes Won't Work
The Boston Globe, of the "shove a UMass Law School down peoples' throats crowd", has written two articles this week about a "push" for an anti-bullying statute in Massachusetts to protect students in schools and online. The most popular anti-bullying statute making the rounds in Massachusetts would ban bullying on school grounds and make bullying a mandatory reporting activity for teachers, similar to how child abuse concerns are treated. Who the teachers would report bullying to is another matter.
Yesterday there was a hearing in the Massachusetts State House where bullies, the bullied and "experts" got to talk about the supposed effect bullying has on students. My favorite quotes:
A girl who left Swampscott schools because of supposed bullying: ""I was pushed out of the town I spent my whole life in. I found a school that I feel comfortable in, but I wonder if the school had reacted in an appropriate way, would I still be a student in Swampscott schools?" she said."
Ignore the fact that her mother likely wrote her statement that she read from. Also ignore the fact that some teacher probably gave her extra credit for reading this statement at the hearing. She plays the victim well. I was pushed out... blah blah blah. Where were her parents? Where were her teachers? When I was in grade school and kids picked on other kids or me, the kids fought back or told their teacher, who put a stop to it. If that failed, the parents got involved, and it eventually stopped. Children don't interact anymore, they are allowed to speak to each other, but every type of interaction is micromanaged. Whereas twenty years ago, kids would have dealt with this reasonably, now the parents have conditioned the kids to think that if someone bothers them, to run away. Now on to what a bully says.
A "reformed bully": ""Last year, I was part of the problem. I was insensitive and I treated my peers without consideration,'' said the student..."
This kid cannot be serious. His statement reads like a court-ordered essay a kid convicted as a juvenile of shoplifting or some minor crime might be required to write to show remorse. This is faux remorse. Likely also written by the parents. However, these are still more believable than the professor's statement.
A Northeastern University prof: ""Bullying should be a red flag," he said. "The Virginia Tech killer was bullied and harassed and no one offered a helping hand. The origins of the Virginia Tech massacre can be seen in the killer's life, long before he got to college."
Professors, particularly the sociologists who love grouping people, have decided, based on specious examples and reasoning, that bullies are likely to cause mass murder. The Columbine killers were bullied, the Fort Hood sociopath was bullied because he was a Muslim, and so on. If only teachers had been able to find these troubled youngsters while they were getting bullied, and the world would be spared these cold-blooded killers, created by the taunts they received as youths. The professor also testified that bullying can make this happen, but does not always happen.
This is similar to claims that video games are responsible for violent activities. It sounds logical right? Bullying is hurtful to the bullied and they build up rage and eventually pop. Just as logical as the idea that growing up playing violent video games makes people want to be violent. Except studies do not show this to be true. The link between bullying and snapping just is not there. Sure, kids who get bullied may eventually fight back at those who are bullying them, but there's an argument to be made that fighting back is healthy behavior, at least 15-20 years ago the argument would have been made. Today, people isolate the children not getting along and make sure there is no conflict, because nobody's children should deal with interpersonal conflict... until it's too late, and they have to deal with conflict but have no clue how to act like a normal person. It is not that bullying is appropriate, it is that it is human, and depriving children the opportunity to learn and adjust to these behaviors through legislating away activity just makes for weaker children overall.
What good would the legislation do? Nothing. Bullying likely is not allowed on any school grounds currently. Making it against the law does nothing for anyone involved. Mandatory reporting requirements by teachers are also useless. Who do they report to? Social services? A school psychologist? Are parents going to have to go to behavioral training with their children? Nothing a statute accomplishes will be of any use of all.
This is just one more attempt to legislate everything away that might possibly be harmful. Even though they are kids, they should learn to grow up and accept that not everyone in life is going to be very nice, no matter what their parents say. If they pass anti-bullying statutes, why not force kids to play football in plastic bubbles? After all, it's just for their protection, just like protecting them from bullies.
Yesterday there was a hearing in the Massachusetts State House where bullies, the bullied and "experts" got to talk about the supposed effect bullying has on students. My favorite quotes:
A girl who left Swampscott schools because of supposed bullying: ""I was pushed out of the town I spent my whole life in. I found a school that I feel comfortable in, but I wonder if the school had reacted in an appropriate way, would I still be a student in Swampscott schools?" she said."
Ignore the fact that her mother likely wrote her statement that she read from. Also ignore the fact that some teacher probably gave her extra credit for reading this statement at the hearing. She plays the victim well. I was pushed out... blah blah blah. Where were her parents? Where were her teachers? When I was in grade school and kids picked on other kids or me, the kids fought back or told their teacher, who put a stop to it. If that failed, the parents got involved, and it eventually stopped. Children don't interact anymore, they are allowed to speak to each other, but every type of interaction is micromanaged. Whereas twenty years ago, kids would have dealt with this reasonably, now the parents have conditioned the kids to think that if someone bothers them, to run away. Now on to what a bully says.
A "reformed bully": ""Last year, I was part of the problem. I was insensitive and I treated my peers without consideration,'' said the student..."
This kid cannot be serious. His statement reads like a court-ordered essay a kid convicted as a juvenile of shoplifting or some minor crime might be required to write to show remorse. This is faux remorse. Likely also written by the parents. However, these are still more believable than the professor's statement.
A Northeastern University prof: ""Bullying should be a red flag," he said. "The Virginia Tech killer was bullied and harassed and no one offered a helping hand. The origins of the Virginia Tech massacre can be seen in the killer's life, long before he got to college."
Professors, particularly the sociologists who love grouping people, have decided, based on specious examples and reasoning, that bullies are likely to cause mass murder. The Columbine killers were bullied, the Fort Hood sociopath was bullied because he was a Muslim, and so on. If only teachers had been able to find these troubled youngsters while they were getting bullied, and the world would be spared these cold-blooded killers, created by the taunts they received as youths. The professor also testified that bullying can make this happen, but does not always happen.
This is similar to claims that video games are responsible for violent activities. It sounds logical right? Bullying is hurtful to the bullied and they build up rage and eventually pop. Just as logical as the idea that growing up playing violent video games makes people want to be violent. Except studies do not show this to be true. The link between bullying and snapping just is not there. Sure, kids who get bullied may eventually fight back at those who are bullying them, but there's an argument to be made that fighting back is healthy behavior, at least 15-20 years ago the argument would have been made. Today, people isolate the children not getting along and make sure there is no conflict, because nobody's children should deal with interpersonal conflict... until it's too late, and they have to deal with conflict but have no clue how to act like a normal person. It is not that bullying is appropriate, it is that it is human, and depriving children the opportunity to learn and adjust to these behaviors through legislating away activity just makes for weaker children overall.
What good would the legislation do? Nothing. Bullying likely is not allowed on any school grounds currently. Making it against the law does nothing for anyone involved. Mandatory reporting requirements by teachers are also useless. Who do they report to? Social services? A school psychologist? Are parents going to have to go to behavioral training with their children? Nothing a statute accomplishes will be of any use of all.
This is just one more attempt to legislate everything away that might possibly be harmful. Even though they are kids, they should learn to grow up and accept that not everyone in life is going to be very nice, no matter what their parents say. If they pass anti-bullying statutes, why not force kids to play football in plastic bubbles? After all, it's just for their protection, just like protecting them from bullies.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Bad Idea: A UMass Law School
The Boston Globe, doing the best it can to support UMass-Dartmouth's heist of Southern New England School of Law, has another article about UMass-Dartmouth's plan to turn a fourth rate college into a fourth rate college with a fifth rate law school.
Here, Southern New England School of Law is trying to say it really is not the horrible law school that the ABA purports it is. They found 18 alumni who were successful attorneys and would vouch for the school. SNESL states that they started a law review to show that their students are serious, but then states that the tuition is too low at SNESL for them to provide rigorous bar study curricula for the students and that in the last three years, 43% of SNESL bar takers passed, at a time where the average pass rate has been around 85%.
The big argument for the UMass Law School is that keeping the tuition low will allow attorneys into public service. The problem with this argument is that SNESL's current tuition is lower than the planned UMass Law School tuition. Currently the tuition at SNESL is $21,800. The planned UMass Law School tuition is about $24,000. If there really are students who want to go into public service, they can already attend SNESL or Mass School of Law and take the bar in Massachusetts or Connecticut.
SNESL could continue the mission it claims that UMass could only provide. SNESL could increase enrollment to pay for better teachers, better curricula and better facilities without giving itself away to UMass. All the plans for the UMass Law School could be accomplished by SNESL without sticking UMass with any of the mess. SNESL will not undertake this plan because it knows it will fail, and it hopes that by merging with UMass that UMass will finance the millions needed to save their unaccredited school.
When someone comes up with a good, legitimate reason for a UMass Law School, they'll be the first.
Here, Southern New England School of Law is trying to say it really is not the horrible law school that the ABA purports it is. They found 18 alumni who were successful attorneys and would vouch for the school. SNESL states that they started a law review to show that their students are serious, but then states that the tuition is too low at SNESL for them to provide rigorous bar study curricula for the students and that in the last three years, 43% of SNESL bar takers passed, at a time where the average pass rate has been around 85%.
The big argument for the UMass Law School is that keeping the tuition low will allow attorneys into public service. The problem with this argument is that SNESL's current tuition is lower than the planned UMass Law School tuition. Currently the tuition at SNESL is $21,800. The planned UMass Law School tuition is about $24,000. If there really are students who want to go into public service, they can already attend SNESL or Mass School of Law and take the bar in Massachusetts or Connecticut.
SNESL could continue the mission it claims that UMass could only provide. SNESL could increase enrollment to pay for better teachers, better curricula and better facilities without giving itself away to UMass. All the plans for the UMass Law School could be accomplished by SNESL without sticking UMass with any of the mess. SNESL will not undertake this plan because it knows it will fail, and it hopes that by merging with UMass that UMass will finance the millions needed to save their unaccredited school.
When someone comes up with a good, legitimate reason for a UMass Law School, they'll be the first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
