Saturday, June 19, 2010

Reason Number 478 why Public Schools are bad for America

The following is a phone conversation between Dr. Savage and Jo.
When you fail to educate generations of students you will end up with people like Jo.

Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Reason Number 368 why Public Schools are bad for America

We would be out of this economic mess if the government did not intervene, but because we fail to educate the populous on both history and economics we are not out of this economic mess. The following piece appears on the Washington Examiner.

Quote of the Day - “An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.” JFK

Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Thomas Sowell: The myth of how the Great Depression was resolved
Examiner Columnist
June 18, 2010

Sometimes you can read a book that will change your mind on some fundamental issue. Rarely, however, is there just one page that can undermine or destroy a widely-held belief. But there is such a page-- page 77 of the book "Out of Work" by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway.

The widespread belief is that government intervention is the key to getting the country out of a serious economic downturn. The example often cited is President Franklin D. Roosevelt's intervention, after the stock market crash of 1929 was followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, with its massive and long-lasting unemployment.

This is more than just a question about history. Right here and right now there is a widespread belief that the unregulated market is what got us into our present economic predicament, and that the government must "do something" to get the economy moving again. FDR's intervention in the 1930s has often been cited by those who think this way.

What is on that one page in "Out of Work" that could change people's minds? Just a simple table, giving unemployment rates for every month during the entire decade of the 1930s.

Those who think that the stock market crash in October 1929 is what caused the huge unemployment rates of the 1930s will have a hard time reconciling that belief with the data in that table.

Although the big stock market crash occurred in October 1929, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the next 12 months after that crash. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the stock market crashed-- and then began drifting generally downward over the next six months, falling to 6.3 percent by June 1930.

This was what happened in the market, before the federal government decided to "do something."

What the government decided to do in June 1930-- against the advice of literally a thousand economists, who took out newspaper ads warning against it-- was impose higher tariffs, in order to save American jobs by reducing imported goods.

This was the first massive federal intervention to rescue the economy, under President Herbert Hoover, who took pride in being the first President of the United States to intervene to try to get the economy out of an economic downturn.

Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits-- and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.

If more government regulation of business is the magic answer that so many seem to think it is, the whole history of the 1930s would have been different. An economic study in 2004 concluded that New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression. But the same story can be found on one page in "Out of Work."

While the market produced a peak unemployment rate of 9 percent-- briefly-- after the stock market crash of 1929, unemployment shot up after massive federal interventions in the economy. It rose above 20 percent in 1932 and stayed above 20 percent for 23 consecutive months, beginning in the Hoover administration and continuing during the Roosevelt administration.

As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." It is all there on that one page.

Those who are convinced that the government has to "do something" when the economy has a problem almost never bother to find out what actually happens when the government intervenes.

The very fact that we still remember the stock market crash of 1929 is remarkable, since there was a similar stock market crash in 1987 that most people have long since forgotten.

What was the difference between these two stock market crashes? The 1929 stock market crash was followed by the most catastrophic depression in American history, with as many as one-fourth of all American workers being unemployed. The 1987 stock market crash was followed by two decades of economic growth with low unemployment.

But that was only one difference. The other big difference was that the Reagan administration did not intervene in the economy after the 1987 stock market crash-- despite many outcries in the media that the government should "do something."

Examiner Columnist Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Reason Number 325 Why I don't like Public Schools

The following sets of videos are by Milton Friedman one of America's greatest economists and appear on YouTube.
We fail to educate the truth about free markets, free markets perform harmony and world peace. We fail to teach economics including the benefits of capitalism and the failures of communism.

Quote of the Day - "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand”
~Milton Friedman

Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Taxpayer Funded Socialist Indoctrination Centers

Do you want your child chanting, "I am an Obama scholar?"

This video speaks for itself.

“We live at the level of our language. Whatever we can articulate we can imagine or explore. All you have to do to educate a child is leave him alone and teach him to read. The rest is brainwashing.” `Ellen Gilcrist

Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Reason Number 311 Why I don't like Public Schools

Condoms for elementary students? Yes. You can't indoctrinate the populous with out breaking down the relationship between parent and child. Yet another reason for school choice.

The following piece appears on Todd

Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

School to Provide Condoms for 11-Year-Olds

A New England school district has approved a measure that will provide free condoms to elementary school students and direct teachers not to comply with parental wishes to the contrary.

The policy, unanimously approved by the Provincetown School Committee does not include an age limit — meaning children of any age ask for — and receive — free condoms.

The committee also directed school leaders not to honor requests from any parent who might object to their child receiving condoms. In other words mommy and daddy — you don’t have a right to prevent your 7-year-old from getting a contraceptive device.

The policy does stipulate that kids must consult with a nurse or trained counselor before getting their sexual protection – and that upset some of the committee members, according to the Provincetown Banner.

“I can see some kids opting out because of the conversation. I’m not against [the policy]. I’m just trying to put myself in that teenager’s spot,” said committee member Carrie Notaro.

“I don’t like that students can’t be discreet about this,” committee member Shannon Patrick told the newspaper. “They have to go and ask for it. I’d rather them not have the conservation [with counselors] and have the condom than not have the condom.”

School superintendent Beth Singer supported the instruction aspect of the rule – explaining that younger boys and girls might not be experienced in such adult matters.

“We’re talking about younger kids,” she told the newspaper. “They have questions they need answered on how to use them, when to use them.”

Reaction has been mixed on newspaper websites. One reader opposed to t he measure wrote, “A condom distribution policy at the elementary school? Twelve-year-old kids need condoms? When I was 12, I thought a peck on the lips was something.”

Another reader wrote, “Stupidity exists everywhere. Why not just give the kids free needles while we’re at it?”

However, a supporter of the measure praised committee members.

“If the kids really are sexually active that young these days, then they absolutely should have access to condoms. Sure, it’s demoralizing to think of 11 and 12-year-olds starting at that age, but if they are, they’re not going to stop.”

Todd Starnes is a FOX News Radio reporter and author. For more information on his books, click here.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Husband Asked Me to Pick Up Something from the Store

What was it?

Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.