White House Press Secretary Tony Snow recently said that financial reasons may prevent him for serving the remainder of the Bush presidency.
"I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons." Snow said. "I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."
According to the Washington Post, Snow makes $168,000 at the White House spokesman. The former Fox News anchor-turned press secretary took a month long leave of absence earlier this year after cancer was discovered on his liver.
This is an interesting comment. It is not clear if he is referring to how tough it is to live off of only $168K a year these days, or if Snow is referring to his medical costs, but either way, the complaints seem odd coming from a Bush Republican, given their stances on minimum wage (if $168K isn't enough, how can you fight against a wage increase to $5.75 an hour?), the economy, and health care.
If he is lying, like everyone else in the Bush administration on the reasons why they left, he picked a horrible lie to try and sell, and it shows how disconnected he is to the average American family, who lives on less than half of what Snow makes.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Dress Codes in Public Schools
It's school time across the country, which means it is time to bring out the annual argument about school uniforms in public schools. About one in four public elementary schools and one in eight public middle schools in the US have policies dictating dress codes in some manner.
The argument for school uniforms: they improve the academic performance of the students by eliminating distracting clothing and creating an orderly atmosphere.
The argument against? Uniforms violate a child's constitutional right of free expression and violates the guarantee of a free public education, as uniforms can cost a family hundreds of extra dollars to suit up every child.
While I can agree that the cost is an issue, and families under certain incomes should be provided with free or reduced cost uniforms, one could argue that the cost of a uniform is still less than the cost of buying an entire school wardrobe, as theoretically the cost of clothing would decrease with school uniforms.
However, putting cost aside, I cannot get on board with the violation of the first amendment right. To say that a child is defined by what he wears is, first of all, the wrong message to begin with. Any parent arguing that has its own priorities messed up. A child can easily be herself and differentiate from others with the same clothing (as if wearing clothing from the Gap, Nike shoes, and a Yankees cap is unique anyway).
Second, it is not the intent of schools to allow for children to express their inner self whenever they want, however they want. There may be outlets for that via specific classes or activities, but the main intent of school is to learn, first and foremost.
Third, where does it say in the first amendment that similar clothing is restrictive of free speech? It doesn't, which is why most lawsuits against school uniforms fail. Parents against uniforms say it is their job, and not the schools, to say what is appropriate to wear, but even if I were to agree with that point ideally, the fact is the parents are failing on this accord, so someone has to jump in and fix it.
The argument for school uniforms: they improve the academic performance of the students by eliminating distracting clothing and creating an orderly atmosphere.
The argument against? Uniforms violate a child's constitutional right of free expression and violates the guarantee of a free public education, as uniforms can cost a family hundreds of extra dollars to suit up every child.
While I can agree that the cost is an issue, and families under certain incomes should be provided with free or reduced cost uniforms, one could argue that the cost of a uniform is still less than the cost of buying an entire school wardrobe, as theoretically the cost of clothing would decrease with school uniforms.
However, putting cost aside, I cannot get on board with the violation of the first amendment right. To say that a child is defined by what he wears is, first of all, the wrong message to begin with. Any parent arguing that has its own priorities messed up. A child can easily be herself and differentiate from others with the same clothing (as if wearing clothing from the Gap, Nike shoes, and a Yankees cap is unique anyway).
Second, it is not the intent of schools to allow for children to express their inner self whenever they want, however they want. There may be outlets for that via specific classes or activities, but the main intent of school is to learn, first and foremost.
Third, where does it say in the first amendment that similar clothing is restrictive of free speech? It doesn't, which is why most lawsuits against school uniforms fail. Parents against uniforms say it is their job, and not the schools, to say what is appropriate to wear, but even if I were to agree with that point ideally, the fact is the parents are failing on this accord, so someone has to jump in and fix it.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Yellowstone National Park
The family went to Yellowstone National Park for seven days in August 2007. We stayed in the park every night, in Grant Village. Below are the top 5 and worst 5 things about Yellowstone, which I highly recommend that everyone see at least once in their lifetime.
Top 5
1. Geysers: highest concentration of geysers in the world.
2. Grand Canyon of Yellowstone: includes multiple water falls, including a 300-foot one that dumps 37K gallons of water per second.
3. Wildlife: saw bison, black bear, coyote, elk, deer, pika, fish, osprey...
4. Nature
Bottom 5
1. traffic: the roads are all two-lanes throughout the park, but they have many pull-outs for slow traffic. Unfortunately, most drivers have huge egos and won't use them, even when they are 15 mph under the speed limit. Some say that it is a vacation and you should relax and enjoy looking at the back of a camper going 20 mph for 45 minutes on a road, but I say those people are full of shit and selfish. Yellowstone is beautiful, but not when sitting in a car on a road. If you want to enjoy the scenery, park the car and get out and look. Otherwise, drive the speed limit... if I wanted to spend my entire day in a car, I would have spent my vacation buying something at a Wal-Mart.
2. morons: I am not sure what it is about National Parks, but a lot of morons congregate here... people who can't read speed limit signs, don't know how to order food, forget how to walk on the right side on a four-foot wide wood path above boiling water.... if I wanted to spend my entire day in with morons, I would have spent my vacation buying something at a Wal-Mart.
3. food: the food is surprisingly pretty poor. Yellowstone has a vendor, Xantera, run all of the lodging and food restaurants in Yellowstone. While I expect to get hammered over the price as in any resort or protected area away from competition (and they say capitalism is bad), I didn't expect the quality to be significantly worse than dorm food.... If I wanted to spend my entire day eating bad food, I would have..... nah, it doesn't really fit here.
4. prices - gas, hotel, food, souvenirs: It is to be expected, but that doesn't mean I like it. Gas was 40 cents a gallon higher, and a poster for $16 was only $5 just 25 miles South at a visitor's center in the Grand Teton National Park. Explain that.
5. Mammoth Hot Springs: It looks neat in a picture, but in person, it is pretty bare, dry, and disappointing, compared to the rest of the attractions. It isn't that it should be skipped, but expectations need to be significantly lowered to avoid disappointment after the long drive North (unless you entered Yellowstone from the North Montana entrance, but who is doing that?).
Top 5
1. Geysers: highest concentration of geysers in the world.
2. Grand Canyon of Yellowstone: includes multiple water falls, including a 300-foot one that dumps 37K gallons of water per second.
3. Wildlife: saw bison, black bear, coyote, elk, deer, pika, fish, osprey...
4. Nature
5. Hot Springs: the hotter the water, the less living organisms, so you can tell the temperature of the spring by the colors it displays (blue is hotter)
Bottom 5
1. traffic: the roads are all two-lanes throughout the park, but they have many pull-outs for slow traffic. Unfortunately, most drivers have huge egos and won't use them, even when they are 15 mph under the speed limit. Some say that it is a vacation and you should relax and enjoy looking at the back of a camper going 20 mph for 45 minutes on a road, but I say those people are full of shit and selfish. Yellowstone is beautiful, but not when sitting in a car on a road. If you want to enjoy the scenery, park the car and get out and look. Otherwise, drive the speed limit... if I wanted to spend my entire day in a car, I would have spent my vacation buying something at a Wal-Mart.
2. morons: I am not sure what it is about National Parks, but a lot of morons congregate here... people who can't read speed limit signs, don't know how to order food, forget how to walk on the right side on a four-foot wide wood path above boiling water.... if I wanted to spend my entire day in with morons, I would have spent my vacation buying something at a Wal-Mart.
3. food: the food is surprisingly pretty poor. Yellowstone has a vendor, Xantera, run all of the lodging and food restaurants in Yellowstone. While I expect to get hammered over the price as in any resort or protected area away from competition (and they say capitalism is bad), I didn't expect the quality to be significantly worse than dorm food.... If I wanted to spend my entire day eating bad food, I would have..... nah, it doesn't really fit here.
4. prices - gas, hotel, food, souvenirs: It is to be expected, but that doesn't mean I like it. Gas was 40 cents a gallon higher, and a poster for $16 was only $5 just 25 miles South at a visitor's center in the Grand Teton National Park. Explain that.
5. Mammoth Hot Springs: It looks neat in a picture, but in person, it is pretty bare, dry, and disappointing, compared to the rest of the attractions. It isn't that it should be skipped, but expectations need to be significantly lowered to avoid disappointment after the long drive North (unless you entered Yellowstone from the North Montana entrance, but who is doing that?).
Monday, August 13, 2007
First Amendment doesn't protect you from stupidity
Every few months someone gets fired for saying something completely moronic (usually on the radio), and defenders of that person always scream that the offender's first amendment rights are being violated.
As a reminder, the First Amendment says the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.
Of course, Congress has tried to make some laws at times, such as legislation banning flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down, and the courts deal continuously with cases regarding pornography, libel, hate speech, etc.
While most people are for free speech as a concept, many don't not believe that everyone at every time has a right to say or write whatever they want. An interesting survey on people's thoughts on the first amendment from 2006 can be found here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/sofa_reports/index.aspx
But that is not the main point I am getting at. While the First Amendment does give you the right in the United States to march with the KKK, protest the President in front of the White House, and write blogs on the Internet, it doesn't mean your employer cannot fire your ass the minute they decide your comments and thoughts are harmful to them. The moment you forget this, is the moment you could be crossing the line and giving your employer undesired attention. At that point, depending on the comment and your value to the company, you may find yourself unemployed.
When people complain about Don Imus being fired, they are incorrect in their complaints. His employers have every right to fire him, regardless of whether it is fair or not, good business sense or not. Imus has no First Amendment protection to employment.
The First Amendment means that the U.S. government doesn't have the right to throw him in jail, as they do in China and Cuba when someone speaks out, if they are lucky enough to not disappear.
As a reminder, the First Amendment says the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.
Of course, Congress has tried to make some laws at times, such as legislation banning flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down, and the courts deal continuously with cases regarding pornography, libel, hate speech, etc.
While most people are for free speech as a concept, many don't not believe that everyone at every time has a right to say or write whatever they want. An interesting survey on people's thoughts on the first amendment from 2006 can be found here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/sofa_reports/index.aspx
But that is not the main point I am getting at. While the First Amendment does give you the right in the United States to march with the KKK, protest the President in front of the White House, and write blogs on the Internet, it doesn't mean your employer cannot fire your ass the minute they decide your comments and thoughts are harmful to them. The moment you forget this, is the moment you could be crossing the line and giving your employer undesired attention. At that point, depending on the comment and your value to the company, you may find yourself unemployed.
When people complain about Don Imus being fired, they are incorrect in their complaints. His employers have every right to fire him, regardless of whether it is fair or not, good business sense or not. Imus has no First Amendment protection to employment.
The First Amendment means that the U.S. government doesn't have the right to throw him in jail, as they do in China and Cuba when someone speaks out, if they are lucky enough to not disappear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)