The Lost Art of Raking up Profits
February 8, 2012
Although a brief encounter with Newt Gingrich left me inexplicably cold, its hard to fault his strong words for youth employment. For nearly 15 years, my neighborhood hosted a slew of school children sent out by high-minded teachers and doggedly compliant parents, to panhandle door-to-door.
It's not surprising that the young cherubs who initially had a sales pitch for the junk they carried in a wagon gave way to empty-handed teens who unceremoniously announced they were "collecting money". The same teens showed up on Halloween every year in menacing pajama bottoms, silently brandishing pillowcases.
I decided long ago to end the shameful practice of begging on my property. First, I never allowed my own kids to raise funds this way. Second, every time a tot or teenager arrived on my doorstep, he was given a choice.
My pitch was simple; I'd say, "Look, I don't need or want what you are selling. But I understand that your teacher wants you to raise money for your class project/field trip/whatever, and I'd like to help. There's a rake in my garage, and I'll pay you ten dollars in cash if you work in my yard for one hour. You can give the money to your school, or you can keep it for yourself.
Only one ever took me up on my offer. He was a strong little boy, traveling with a couple of other kids who left him on my doorstep while he pondered the possibilities. "I can spend the money on anything I want?" he asked. The little entrepreneur worked for me for months, and became my go-to guy for yanking out and shrubs and raking leaves. As far as I know, he spent his hard earned money on a new bike.
Word got around that the mean lady at my address only offered jobs, and little beggars began to avoid my door. Meanwhile, an entire generation of children was taught that demanding money from strangers is perfectly acceptable. As we devolve into a society divided between those who produce, those who don't, and those who forcibly redistribute, consider how it might have been if my lone crusade hadn't been so lonely.
Although a brief encounter with Newt Gingrich left me inexplicably cold, its hard to fault his strong words for youth employment. For nearly 15 years, my neighborhood hosted a slew of school children sent out by high-minded teachers and doggedly compliant parents, to panhandle door-to-door.
It's not surprising that the young cherubs who initially had a sales pitch for the junk they carried in a wagon gave way to empty-handed teens who unceremoniously announced they were "collecting money". The same teens showed up on Halloween every year in menacing pajama bottoms, silently brandishing pillowcases.
I decided long ago to end the shameful practice of begging on my property. First, I never allowed my own kids to raise funds this way. Second, every time a tot or teenager arrived on my doorstep, he was given a choice.
My pitch was simple; I'd say, "Look, I don't need or want what you are selling. But I understand that your teacher wants you to raise money for your class project/field trip/whatever, and I'd like to help. There's a rake in my garage, and I'll pay you ten dollars in cash if you work in my yard for one hour. You can give the money to your school, or you can keep it for yourself.
Only one ever took me up on my offer. He was a strong little boy, traveling with a couple of other kids who left him on my doorstep while he pondered the possibilities. "I can spend the money on anything I want?" he asked. The little entrepreneur worked for me for months, and became my go-to guy for yanking out and shrubs and raking leaves. As far as I know, he spent his hard earned money on a new bike.
Word got around that the mean lady at my address only offered jobs, and little beggars began to avoid my door. Meanwhile, an entire generation of children was taught that demanding money from strangers is perfectly acceptable. As we devolve into a society divided between those who produce, those who don't, and those who forcibly redistribute, consider how it might have been if my lone crusade hadn't been so lonely.
Enforcing Human Niceness
January 7, 2012
Citing his own difficulties with bullies, Governor Rick Snyder recently signed Public Act 241, making Michigan the 48th state to pass an anti-bullying law. The legislation enjoyed bipartisan support, but a few stubborn facts about the value of legislating childhood behavior were ignored in the midst of feel-good across-the-aisle back slapping and congratulatory news articles.
Usually framed by arguments for child safety and the tragedy of teen suicide, anti-bullying laws have been around for about a decade and vary from state to state. Michigan's law is relatively mild; school districts are expected to implement their own policies to prohibit bullying, as well as prepare procedures and protocols to report to authorities, notify parents, deal with victims and perpetrators, and create a paper trail of all communications proving compliance.
Arguably, if even one child's life is saved, the tremendous amount of time and trouble spent implementing a program like this is worth it, but only if it is actually effective. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be much empirical evidence that anti-bullying laws work, and some studies show that a state-mandated process can make things worse.
The Criminal Justice Review published a meta-analytic review of school-based anti-bullying programs, which concluded that the programs "...are not practically effective in reducing bullying or violent behaviors in the schools." More frightening, some psychologists say that publicly connecting suicide to bullying creates a "normalizing" effect in the minds of unstable kids, and can actually increase suicides. Psychology Today reports "with the passage of these laws, they are apparently having a reverse effect. Bullying is escalating...many schools are finding themselves defendants in anti-bully lawsuits."
Consider that only 12% of a child's time is spent with teachers who must divide their attention between as many as 30 kids throughout the day. Educators are forced to depend on complaints, anonymous tips and personal sleuthing skills, as well as decipher and apply vague terms like "substantial emotional distress". What precisely constitutes bullying behavior, and which situations require intervention? What happens when a child is traumatized by a false accusation, or a sensitive child's pain is ignored because it does not rise to some subjective standard of harm? Asking teachers to judge with the wisdom of Solomon is unfair, unrealistic, and extremely unproductive.
Costs are another concern. Will Michigan schools receive extra funding to design and implement the programs? No one knows how much taxpayers will be on the hook for in Michigan, but New Jersey recently passed an extensive new anti-bullying law that so far, has cost an additional $250,000 just for training materials. A thriving nation-wide compliance industry has blossomed in the wake of anti-bullying legislation and cashed in on schools' efforts to shield teachers and school districts from the inevitable lawsuits.
Since modern lawmakers' first impulse is to regulate all human behavior, Michigan now follows the path of most states in criminalizing childhood, forcing teachers and administrators to try to solve an intractable characteristic of human nature. In reality, the best option for families is often the most simple: find a school that suits the child. Until now, the only choices were the limited spaces in charter and cyber (online) schools, or homeschooling. In response to the overwhelming popularity of such programs, Michigan has lifted the enrollment cap on charter schools, and is considering doing the same for cyber schools.
In their zeal to manage social problems, lawmakers should restrain their natural urge to regulate and control, and fight instead for the right of parents to find solutions for their families; now that the cap is off charter schools, it's time to do the same with cyber schools.
Perhaps if Governor Snyder had enjoyed more educational choices while growing up, his experience might have been more positive. No child should be afraid of going to school, and no parent should be without choice in the matter.
***Full Disclosure: I grew up in an unenlightened era when children were expected to develop thick skins and defensive right hooks. The last childhood bully I dealt with was the improbably named Candy, from 8th grade. The only thing more repulsive than a bully is a citizenry caught in the soft, seductive web of victimhood.
Citing his own difficulties with bullies, Governor Rick Snyder recently signed Public Act 241, making Michigan the 48th state to pass an anti-bullying law. The legislation enjoyed bipartisan support, but a few stubborn facts about the value of legislating childhood behavior were ignored in the midst of feel-good across-the-aisle back slapping and congratulatory news articles.
Usually framed by arguments for child safety and the tragedy of teen suicide, anti-bullying laws have been around for about a decade and vary from state to state. Michigan's law is relatively mild; school districts are expected to implement their own policies to prohibit bullying, as well as prepare procedures and protocols to report to authorities, notify parents, deal with victims and perpetrators, and create a paper trail of all communications proving compliance.
Arguably, if even one child's life is saved, the tremendous amount of time and trouble spent implementing a program like this is worth it, but only if it is actually effective. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be much empirical evidence that anti-bullying laws work, and some studies show that a state-mandated process can make things worse.
The Criminal Justice Review published a meta-analytic review of school-based anti-bullying programs, which concluded that the programs "...are not practically effective in reducing bullying or violent behaviors in the schools." More frightening, some psychologists say that publicly connecting suicide to bullying creates a "normalizing" effect in the minds of unstable kids, and can actually increase suicides. Psychology Today reports "with the passage of these laws, they are apparently having a reverse effect. Bullying is escalating...many schools are finding themselves defendants in anti-bully lawsuits."
Consider that only 12% of a child's time is spent with teachers who must divide their attention between as many as 30 kids throughout the day. Educators are forced to depend on complaints, anonymous tips and personal sleuthing skills, as well as decipher and apply vague terms like "substantial emotional distress". What precisely constitutes bullying behavior, and which situations require intervention? What happens when a child is traumatized by a false accusation, or a sensitive child's pain is ignored because it does not rise to some subjective standard of harm? Asking teachers to judge with the wisdom of Solomon is unfair, unrealistic, and extremely unproductive.
Costs are another concern. Will Michigan schools receive extra funding to design and implement the programs? No one knows how much taxpayers will be on the hook for in Michigan, but New Jersey recently passed an extensive new anti-bullying law that so far, has cost an additional $250,000 just for training materials. A thriving nation-wide compliance industry has blossomed in the wake of anti-bullying legislation and cashed in on schools' efforts to shield teachers and school districts from the inevitable lawsuits.
Since modern lawmakers' first impulse is to regulate all human behavior, Michigan now follows the path of most states in criminalizing childhood, forcing teachers and administrators to try to solve an intractable characteristic of human nature. In reality, the best option for families is often the most simple: find a school that suits the child. Until now, the only choices were the limited spaces in charter and cyber (online) schools, or homeschooling. In response to the overwhelming popularity of such programs, Michigan has lifted the enrollment cap on charter schools, and is considering doing the same for cyber schools.
In their zeal to manage social problems, lawmakers should restrain their natural urge to regulate and control, and fight instead for the right of parents to find solutions for their families; now that the cap is off charter schools, it's time to do the same with cyber schools.
Perhaps if Governor Snyder had enjoyed more educational choices while growing up, his experience might have been more positive. No child should be afraid of going to school, and no parent should be without choice in the matter.
***Full Disclosure: I grew up in an unenlightened era when children were expected to develop thick skins and defensive right hooks. The last childhood bully I dealt with was the improbably named Candy, from 8th grade. The only thing more repulsive than a bully is a citizenry caught in the soft, seductive web of victimhood.
Will Cain Call it Quits?
Whether he has been unfairly maligned by David Axelrod's minions, or is
truly a pervert, there will be celebrations tomorrow if Herman Cain
steps down. Team Obama will benefit the most from the elimination of
the one candidate that could have fragmented two vital coalitions
necessary to re-elect the POTUS, and Republicans may have missed their
best shot at the White House.
Leaving aside the arguments of how Conservative or capable Cain is, and considering only the strategic viability of a black Republican candidate, Cain may have stripped Obama of at least 20% of his support from the black community, and perhaps more from the "guilty white" crowd that voted for Obama for emotional and racial reasons.
Although the numbers seem pretty minor, the difference going into the general election would be huge, and here's why:
In the primary, the only people voting are those who already hold strong opinions on the candidates, but they will generally support whoever wins their primary. The 40% or so who make up the Rasmussen "strongly disapprove" rating have decided to support the Republican in 2012, and because it's an incumbent year, the 40% or so who at least "somewhat approve" will probably stick with Obama. That leaves approximately 20% of likely voters who don't know enough yet to have a strong opinion. They are not likely to vote in the primary, but they are the deciding factor in the general.
So, next fall, with Obama competing against any white Republican, both sides will go in with about 40% support. The rest of the election is going to be about grabbing the majority of the undecideds. Expect a very dirty fight, without any of the black coalition or the "guilty white" vote switching sides at the last minute.
The math changes with a black Republican candidate. If Cain wins the primary, it's reasonable to expect that many would see him as the guilt-free alternative; Cain is an authentic black man who is the polar opposite of Obama.
Every campaign manager works hard to break the other guy's hard won coalitions. 14% of those who voted for Obama were black, and if 25% defected to Cain, he could add 3% to his base. Assuming that "guilty whites" might similarly jump ship for a black pro-business jobs maker, he might add another 3%.
So Cain could conceivably enter the general election with solid support of 46%. Since the extra 6% is stolen from the base of Obama, the President would start the general with only 34% approval rating. It would be nearly impossible to gain the support of 17 out of every 20 undecideds.
By contrast, no white Republican in 2012 can break racially motivated coalitions. Obama is already arguing that he needs more time, and that racist Republicans stand in the way of reform. He desperately needs to run against a pasty-faced rich establishment guy who can be portrayed as an enemy of the middle class, and Romney, Gingrich or Perry fit the bill nicely.
Obama isn't concerned about the 40% who "strongly disapprove" in Rasmussen's poll numbers, because he knows his team is very good at appealing to those in the 20% undecided category.
Part of that appeal will be the accusation that Republicans can't stand the idea of a black man running for President even on their own team.
Leaving aside the arguments of how Conservative or capable Cain is, and considering only the strategic viability of a black Republican candidate, Cain may have stripped Obama of at least 20% of his support from the black community, and perhaps more from the "guilty white" crowd that voted for Obama for emotional and racial reasons.
Although the numbers seem pretty minor, the difference going into the general election would be huge, and here's why:
In the primary, the only people voting are those who already hold strong opinions on the candidates, but they will generally support whoever wins their primary. The 40% or so who make up the Rasmussen "strongly disapprove" rating have decided to support the Republican in 2012, and because it's an incumbent year, the 40% or so who at least "somewhat approve" will probably stick with Obama. That leaves approximately 20% of likely voters who don't know enough yet to have a strong opinion. They are not likely to vote in the primary, but they are the deciding factor in the general.
So, next fall, with Obama competing against any white Republican, both sides will go in with about 40% support. The rest of the election is going to be about grabbing the majority of the undecideds. Expect a very dirty fight, without any of the black coalition or the "guilty white" vote switching sides at the last minute.
The math changes with a black Republican candidate. If Cain wins the primary, it's reasonable to expect that many would see him as the guilt-free alternative; Cain is an authentic black man who is the polar opposite of Obama.
Every campaign manager works hard to break the other guy's hard won coalitions. 14% of those who voted for Obama were black, and if 25% defected to Cain, he could add 3% to his base. Assuming that "guilty whites" might similarly jump ship for a black pro-business jobs maker, he might add another 3%.
So Cain could conceivably enter the general election with solid support of 46%. Since the extra 6% is stolen from the base of Obama, the President would start the general with only 34% approval rating. It would be nearly impossible to gain the support of 17 out of every 20 undecideds.
By contrast, no white Republican in 2012 can break racially motivated coalitions. Obama is already arguing that he needs more time, and that racist Republicans stand in the way of reform. He desperately needs to run against a pasty-faced rich establishment guy who can be portrayed as an enemy of the middle class, and Romney, Gingrich or Perry fit the bill nicely.
Obama isn't concerned about the 40% who "strongly disapprove" in Rasmussen's poll numbers, because he knows his team is very good at appealing to those in the 20% undecided category.
Part of that appeal will be the accusation that Republicans can't stand the idea of a black man running for President even on their own team.
People I Like
Mark Steyn
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Sultan Knish
Today's Politics by Freedomlover
Michelle Malkin
Where Small Towns Get the Cash
October 20, 2011
Publicly funded parks can be a precious component of life in the cities and suburbs of our country. For those not able to afford country escapes, these open spaces and verdant landscapes offer a welcome respite to noise, traffic and congested quarters.
This "pedestrian park" located in my decidedly middle class suburb, is located betwixt the busiest streets in town, and surrounded by a strip mall parking lot and its driveways. Apparently designed by someone who never lived near the 45th parallel, and openly mocked as the stupid useless arches with the ugly garbage sculpture, the entire silly little thing cost over half a million dollars. Your federal tax dollars at work.
Publicly funded parks can be a precious component of life in the cities and suburbs of our country. For those not able to afford country escapes, these open spaces and verdant landscapes offer a welcome respite to noise, traffic and congested quarters.
This "pedestrian park" located in my decidedly middle class suburb, is located betwixt the busiest streets in town, and surrounded by a strip mall parking lot and its driveways. Apparently designed by someone who never lived near the 45th parallel, and openly mocked as the stupid useless arches with the ugly garbage sculpture, the entire silly little thing cost over half a million dollars. Your federal tax dollars at work.
Welcome Back
Thanks for stopping by! After a long painful fling with Google Sites, I'm test driving a new host service and will be posting soon. Until then, here is an essay from March of this year:
My Apocalyptic Evening With Mark Steyn
Driving through foreboding fogginess Wednesday, I was struck with a creeping sense of lurking doom, which naturally put me in the perfect humor to hear Mark Steyn’s speech at Hillsdale College that evening. Luckily, he was in an “apocalyptic mood” and delivered on a promise to give listeners something to think on, or at least drink on, depending on individual preference. Introducing his topic, he said, “If you’re planning on drinking to forget, I’ll try to give you plenty you’ll want to forget.”
Steyn disclosed the brutal truth of America in decline; the insatiable appetites of activist bureaucracy, moronic budgetary philosophy, an insouciant attitude toward debt and credit, the divorce of social conservatism from fiscal conservatism, and the unpalatable fact that we choose this reality freely. He also revealed a brief glimpse of that most rare of public Steynian moods, optimism.
Reanimating the “death panel” provision of Obamacare framed Steyn’s discussion of the monstrous growth of bureaucracy, and the onerous rules pertaining to every facet of our lives. Kathleen Sebelius, he said, “didn’t consult anyone” when she put the provision for end of life counseling back into Obamacare after it had been stripped out. With hundreds of references in the law handing her the power to make rules, “..the Secretary may and shall determine pretty much anything she wants, plucked at random from the Obamacare law.” Steyn said. Bureaucratic rule making is supplanting the people’s law making process in the legislature.
“It starts with the money, it always does.” Using examples like The Cowboy Poetry Festival, The Great lakes Restoration Initiative, and NPR, Steyn mocked the spending impulses of the government, with the attendant debt burden, and warned, “America is sending a consistent and very dangerous message to the world;... its governing mechanisms and political culture do not allow for meaningful course correction. And without meaningful course correction, America is doomed.”
Fiscal conservatives often don’t understand that easy credit and irresponsible debt burdens are not just accounting issues, said Steyn, “There’s nothing virtuous about caring, compassionate progressives demonstrating how caring and compassionate they are by spending money yet to be earned by generations yet to be born.” It’s a moral issue revolving around the relationship of trust and responsibility.
Steyn notes that the effect of shoveling money at people without burdening them with responsibility for their actions yields a culture devoid of self-reliance and liberty. He insisted that the issues of fiscal conservatism and morality cannot be separated, “Entire new categories of crime have arisen in the wake of familial collapse. Millions and millions of American children are raised in transient households and moral vacuums that make just not social mobility, but even elemental character formation all but impossible.”
Decline is not a foregone conclusion, he said, even when the political class and too many people have chosen it; when everyone in Europe was rioting and demanding more government money and government programs as, “insulation from the realities of life, this was the only country in the developed world where millions and millions of people took to the streets to say, ‘No! We could do just fine, if you, the government, would get out of our pockets, get out of our lives...and stay out!’ That’s the America that has a fighting chance.”
After the speech, I scampered to the reception, where Mark was entertaining a constantly rotating knot of fans. He graciously took the time to sign books, pose for photos and expand upon his earlier remarks, as well as answer all kinds of questions. Chatting with him, I’m always struck by his generous good humor and kindness toward others. Burdened with the tasks of a cultural Cassandra, he keeps us alert to the disaster we’d rather ignore. Thank you for all that, Mr. Steyn, and I’ll see you next year.
Steyn disclosed the brutal truth of America in decline; the insatiable appetites of activist bureaucracy, moronic budgetary philosophy, an insouciant attitude toward debt and credit, the divorce of social conservatism from fiscal conservatism, and the unpalatable fact that we choose this reality freely. He also revealed a brief glimpse of that most rare of public Steynian moods, optimism.
Reanimating the “death panel” provision of Obamacare framed Steyn’s discussion of the monstrous growth of bureaucracy, and the onerous rules pertaining to every facet of our lives. Kathleen Sebelius, he said, “didn’t consult anyone” when she put the provision for end of life counseling back into Obamacare after it had been stripped out. With hundreds of references in the law handing her the power to make rules, “..the Secretary may and shall determine pretty much anything she wants, plucked at random from the Obamacare law.” Steyn said. Bureaucratic rule making is supplanting the people’s law making process in the legislature.
“It starts with the money, it always does.” Using examples like The Cowboy Poetry Festival, The Great lakes Restoration Initiative, and NPR, Steyn mocked the spending impulses of the government, with the attendant debt burden, and warned, “America is sending a consistent and very dangerous message to the world;... its governing mechanisms and political culture do not allow for meaningful course correction. And without meaningful course correction, America is doomed.”
Fiscal conservatives often don’t understand that easy credit and irresponsible debt burdens are not just accounting issues, said Steyn, “There’s nothing virtuous about caring, compassionate progressives demonstrating how caring and compassionate they are by spending money yet to be earned by generations yet to be born.” It’s a moral issue revolving around the relationship of trust and responsibility.
Steyn notes that the effect of shoveling money at people without burdening them with responsibility for their actions yields a culture devoid of self-reliance and liberty. He insisted that the issues of fiscal conservatism and morality cannot be separated, “Entire new categories of crime have arisen in the wake of familial collapse. Millions and millions of American children are raised in transient households and moral vacuums that make just not social mobility, but even elemental character formation all but impossible.”
Decline is not a foregone conclusion, he said, even when the political class and too many people have chosen it; when everyone in Europe was rioting and demanding more government money and government programs as, “insulation from the realities of life, this was the only country in the developed world where millions and millions of people took to the streets to say, ‘No! We could do just fine, if you, the government, would get out of our pockets, get out of our lives...and stay out!’ That’s the America that has a fighting chance.”
After the speech, I scampered to the reception, where Mark was entertaining a constantly rotating knot of fans. He graciously took the time to sign books, pose for photos and expand upon his earlier remarks, as well as answer all kinds of questions. Chatting with him, I’m always struck by his generous good humor and kindness toward others. Burdened with the tasks of a cultural Cassandra, he keeps us alert to the disaster we’d rather ignore. Thank you for all that, Mr. Steyn, and I’ll see you next year.