Principles Matter ... Until the Public Turns Against Them?
If a majority of the population wants to repeal the Bill of Rights, shall we do that? Obviously not.

Yet states are poised to do something like that. No, there's no serious move to repeal, say, Miranda rights. But there's a move afoot to ban all smoking in "public places," including privately owned and patronized restaurants in bars.

Speed Gibson has some thoughts and a transcript of a radio conversation between an econ professor, who understands due process and the role of government, and a state representative,a Republican, who does not--or at least not enough to stand up to the nanny-state proposal.

(Sigh) Disclaimer and clarification: I'm not a smoker and never have been. I don't take money from tobacco companies. (permalink)

Rural Lawmakers: Vote for Urban Choice, or Pay for the Clean-Up.
There's a plan being floated in Missouri to establish tax credits for companies that provide grants to scholarship organizations that would, in turn, help students attend privately run schools.

A similar measure has been operating in Arizona and Pennsylvania for a while, but its prospects in Missouri are not strong.

What's interesting about this scenario is how the proposal might pass after all. From the St. Louis News-Dispatch:

Rep. Ed Robb, R-Columbia, hopes to sell rural legislators on the premise that the tax credit is a free-market solution to failing urban schools. Without such a solution, he said, the whole state may have to foot the bill for continuing declines in St. Louis and Kansas City.

Sounds about right.

Bring in some competition, fix up the schools, and stave off a state bailout or takeover.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Just in Case You Thought College was about Intellectual Pursuits.
The student newspaper at the University of Kansas knows what students really need in college: more knowledge about sex.

Yep.

It sounds like something out of the Onion, but that's what a writer for the Kansan says.

"University students are often provided with opportunities to pursue exceptional careers. Dailey accurately asserts that many students lack sufficient means to study the part of their lives that will determine their happiness even more than financial gain. In an increasingly superficial and materialistic society, many lose sight of the importance of meaningful and intimate connections. Sex, as an act solely intended to gain physical pleasure, becomes unsatisfying.

Fortunately, students at the University have the opportunity to learn about this aspect of life as well as their future careers."

Calculus? Pfft! Economics? So unsatisfying. Science? Unnecessary.

At least the class lauded by the editorial writer is non-credit. At least for now. (permalink)

We Don't Handle Risk Very Well.
Do two fatalities a year from toboganning mean that we need a law requiring helmet use for all toboggan riders? That's the question asked in Canada, by Andrew Coyne.

----------------------
According to a report in Tuesday's National Post, "tobogganing accidents have killed at least seven people in Canada since 2003." That's seven people -- make it eight if you like -- in four years. Two per year. Out of, what, 50 million tobogganist-runs nationwide?

Three of the seven, moreover, died when they were hit by cars. Stay away from any hills that empty onto roads, then, and your chances are something like one in 50 million. This is, in short, not a particularly risky activity, which perhaps explains why so many children and adults enjoy it in safety every winter, as they have done for centuries.

But because two children were killed tobogganing in the last month, one in Quebec and one in Manitoba, and because one of the children died of a head injury, instantly the cry goes up: We must have helmets. More than that, we must have mandatory helmets: helmet laws, to be enforced on every hill in the country. For tobogganing.
----------------------

Coyne points out that it's easy to be obsessive about reducing some risks while ignoring others. "A sane approach to life," he concludes, "understands that some risks are inevitable, and that if there is anything worse than death it is to spend every waking moment consumed with the potential for mischance."

The attempts to use official power to eliminate all risks lack perspective (and sometimes honesty). There's another risk that is ignored in the safety-for-all-time campaign, and that's the risk to a free society.

To quote an outspoken critic of bans on cigarette smoking, "in a free society sometimes one has to support the right of individuals to do things he might personally find annoying, morally reprehensible or even stupid and self-destructive." (permalink)

No Alcohol in the Communion Wine?
Laws governing the consumption of alcohol can be very strange. The latest: a proposal in Nebraska that some people feared would forbid teenagers from taking communion.

The legislator who proposed the bill said that his goal was simply to tighten controls on underage drinking.

Sen. Lowen Kruse "said he assumed common sense would prevail — and the tiny amount of alcohol offered at communion would not rise to a criminal offense."

Now, however, public concern about overzealous prosecution prompted a revision in the bill:

"His revised version would likely allow minors to consume up to two ounces of alcohol as a part of a religious ceremony.

That would expand the exemption to Jewish ceremonies conducted at home, said Kruse, a retired minister in the Methodist Church, where grape juice is used in ceremonies."

(Lincoln Journal-Star, "Kids could drink communion wine, after all.") (permalink)

Don't Forget Self-Interest at Work.
Stephen Pollard brings up a point about self-interest and the British Medical Association. The post is specifically about the BMA's warning about gambling, but the introductory sentences could be applied on the U.S. side of the Atlantic. We could substitute, say, "the teachers union" for the "British Medical Association," and the logic would be just as useful to remember:


--------------------------
When it comes to self-advancement, there is no interest group that comes close to the British Medical Association. When trade union officials speak, we know what they are up to. They are trying to increase their influence and power. And we judge the sense of what they say accordingly.

The BMA is, except in one crucial respect, no different. It is like any other trade union, with the same overriding motivation: to increase its influence and power. The crucial difference, however, is that when the prefix "Doctor" is attached to a name, we lose our critical faculties. We assume that anything emanating from the BMA is disinterested and motivated only by the desire to increase the sum of human good.

Often, this is obfuscated by our lack of medical knowledge [or knowledge of current pedagogical theories, or fear of facing 20 children in a classroom every day]. We have to take on trust the recommendations of experts. But just occasionally, the transfer of money into doctors' hands --which the BMA exists to pursue -- is made blatant.

---------------
The self-interest of experts and advocacy groups is nothing usual, and not in itself a bad thing. But policy makers and citizens alike ought to hold to some healthy skepticism from those peddling solutions. (permalink)

Consumer-Driven Health Care ... In Europe?
The move towards consumer-driven health care is slowly taking hold in the U.S., with HSAs, pressure for transparency in pricing, and companies paring back on health care plans. But can such a move take place in Europe, the home of socialized medicine? The Health Consumer Powerhouse thinks so.

From its "About Us" page:

Health Consumer Powerhouse is the leading European provider of consumer information on health care. The Powerhouse is dedicating ideas and resources to the development of consumer empowerment action. We analyse health care and compare the outcomes, designing consumer information tools like health care system and Illnesses indexes, consumer press and education (permalink)

Public Schools: Melting Pot, or Boiling Pot?
It looks like the Cato Institute is taking on the belief that public education (i.e., government-run schools) is an essential part of a civil society.

From an announcement:

"Many Americans believe that public schools are the gentle flame beneath the Great American Melting Pot-- that they are the best, perhaps the only, means of fostering social cohesion and good citizenship. But are they?

A new report from Cato's Center for Educational Freedom argues that, in reality, public schooling is inherently divisive. In "Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict," Neal McCluskey explains that public schooling forces everyone to pay for a single official system that does not, and indeed cannot,– reflect the public's diverse and often conflicting views. The inevitable result of this system, he concludes, is endless social discord over what is taught."

If you're a C-SPAN junkie, you can watch a vide of a conference on the topic through this page.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

School Choice Advances in Arizona.
Two new school choice measures in Arizona have survived a legal challenge, for now, says the Alliance for School Choice.

Even more interesting than the decision of the state Supreme Court to not hear a case challenging the "Arizona Displaced Pupil Choice Grants" (for children in foster care) and "Arizona Scholarships for Pupils with Disabilities" are the results of a recent public opinion survey.

---

The Court's decision comes on the heels of a recent poll showing a significant amount of support among Arizonans for the challenged programs. The poll found that 76 percent of Arizonans surveyed like the idea of ArizonaÂ?s disabled students being allowed to attend the school of their choice, and 64 percent support the concept of foster children getting the education of their choosing, whether that is at a public or private school.

The survey also found considerable voter support for the concept of school choice beyond the targeted programs for foster and disabled children.

When asked if they liked the idea of Â?Parents having the ability to take their tax dollars and put their child in the school of their choosing,? respondents favored the idea by a 2:1 margin.

A full copy of the poll is available at www.azschoolchoice.com. The survey was conducted by The Polling Company, Inc. in December of more than 500 Arizona residents and has a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percent.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Would You Like Some Big Nanny Lifestyle Rules With that Free Health Care?
Want "free" health care? Beware of what you wish for, and remember the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Here's a tale from Kansas, about John Grange, a Republican member of the state house:

"Health care will be another major issue to come before the Legislature, Grange said.

However, he said, he is not in favor of giving too much in the way of health care availability without some control the way of lifestyle changes.

There is likely to be a trade-off, he said, between greater availability of health care and taking care of such contributors to health problems as drinking and smoking excessively and not controlling being overweight.

Such lifestyle changes, he conceded are going to be “painful for some folks."

That sound you hear is not the shredding of the Constitution. It's just a little discomfort. You'll feel all better very soon.

["Kansas 2007 Legislator to Convene Monday," El Dorado Times, January 8] (permalink)

Must We Go Bowling?
The glut of meaningless bowl games between mediocre football teams has passed, but Greg Hansen thinks that Tucson needs another bowl game to replace the one that got away.

He makes the point that if Boise can fill a 30,000-seat stadium with a wind chill factor of 18 degrees, warmer Tucson should be more attractive:

We have so much to sell in December that it is nuts for us not to be in the bowl business; the attendant publicity is worth millions to the tourism advertising.

Fine enough. But who is going to pay for it all? This is worth asking, considering that previous attempts to run bowl games (see: Copper/Weiser Lock/Domino's/Insight.com) have not been a financial success:

"our bowl game only once (1993) turned a profit. It would have died in 1996, with a debt of $600,000, but was then absorbed by the Fiesta Bowl as it matched us with the Insight corporation, which threw $900,000 a year into the pot through 1999."

So maybe Tucson shouldn't have a bowl game. With the proliferation of bowls--more than half of all division 1 teams now play in one--each game is less distinctive.

For the sake of local residents, I hope that the mayor doesn't drag taxpayers into the mess, on the grounds that they need to pay for "fun stuff." (permalink)