Comments by myshortpencil
Posted on August 31 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's easy ChuckD. If all students can only get to the same place as the slowest, least capable kid in the class, then only 1 student achieves excellence -- the slowest, least capable kid in the class. Everyone else has to be at the same place which is no where near an excellent outcome for them. This is true not only as a matter of logic, but as a matter of 20 years observed practice and measured outcomes. Facts and truth, which you belittle as chips on a shoulder.
Posted on August 30 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A perfect explanation of why public schools are terrible. Do you want equality, equity or excellence? You can't get to excellence through equality or equity. Equity--getting every student to the same place--depends on the abilities of the worst student. If you can get to that place in 5 minutes and it takes the worst student 50 minutes to get there, guess what you're doing to the education of every other student.
Teachers have a special word for excellence. They call it privilege. Yeah, they turn a worthwhile goal into something evil. Then they say because it's evil, they can't and won't pursue it. They will pursue equity.
But equity is even worse than pursuit of the mediocre. It's the pursuit of the lowest common denominator -- which teachers love because it makes their jobs easier. It's easier to set low standards because it takes less work to reach them.
Most parents with means will do everything they can to get their children out of schools of equity. They look for schools of excellence, where students are all taught as if they are the brightest student in the classroom. Everyone gets as much of the best as they are capable of acquiring and willing to work for. Every student reaches his/her highest potential. Public schools are not the least bit interested in this, and that's why they are terrible.
Posted on August 15 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted on August 14 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jim Tedisco has been a Member of the New York State Assembly for over 13 years. Yet, we have had the worse corruption in Albany for decades. I'm not saying it's Tedisco's fault. I'm not saying Jim doesn't say the right things, or that he's not a nice guy. He's simply ineffective. His overall record is more accurately interpreted as being a loyal opponent rather than a stalworth of virtuous government. He's meh, but what are you going to do?
Posted on August 11 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When is the last time the legislature expanded our liberties? The purpose of government in the United States isn't to tell us how to live, it's to optimize our freedom. People who run for office don't even know the mission of this country.
Posted on August 8 at 12:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I don’t think the founders who drew up the Second Amendment for their own protection envisioned 49 people stacked up like firewood lying dead on a dance floor because a terrorist got loose with an assault rifle."
I imagine they envisioned far worse. They kept their guns. Give me liberty or give me death.
But let's play along. If you don't like the Second Amendment, gather the votes needed to repeal it. The idea that constitutional rights can be regulated out of existence has been flatly rejected by SCOTUS. Just recently, TX couldn't require fire extinguishers and hallways wide enough for emergency gurneys because these safety initiatives made it too hard for women to get abortions -- a "right" not even mentioned in the constitution.
As Justice Thomas observed,
"The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created
rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional
rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually
enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution
renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are
more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the
constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the
judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so
that others can assert rights that seem especially important
to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional
right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to
invent tolerable degrees of encroachment."
The invention of tolerable degrees of encroachment is exactly what all the "rethinking" about the Second Amendment is about. Many thousands more unborn babies die every year in abortion clinics than people who die from firearms. Yet we can't even require routine safety measures inside abortion clinics to promote safety.
The burden of exercising the right to bear arms is already many times more onerous than exercising the right to an abortion. The rethinking of how to increase the numerous and burdensome existing infringements of the Second Amendment has gone quite far enough.
Posted on August 8 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steven P. Goldberg, I assume you do nothing that could possibly shorten your life. You want other people telling you what you can and can't do?
Posted on August 7 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Parking is the perfect example of a public good that ought to be free, which means build the cost into the taxes government collects. Why? Because almost everyone has a car, and everyone who has a car needs a parking space. Why should people be priced out of visiting places because they can't afford the parking? This is not just a ploy to raise revenues, but a policy that sorts the wealthy from the poor.
So, what should be done when parking demand exceeds supply? It's up to the localities to solve their own zoning failures that resulted in too few parking spaces. One thing is certain, charging for parking is the lazy way out.
Posted on August 7 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The argument that we bring in jobs is NOT a reason to exempt organizations from paying taxes. Every job-creating organization would then be exempt.
As for hospitals, they have abused the non-profit status. They simply keep all the profits and pay them to themselves. But even if they paid taxes, they would simply raise their prices because who isn't going to pay whatever it costs to keep their health?
Posted on July 30 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is government pettiness at its finest. How much are we paying DEC to ensure the lobsters are 1/8th of an inch bigger than other states require. Supreme idiocy.