Another commentary on Vermont Tiger. For the questions click here.
question 1: There needs to be some dollar amount allotted to the student. If enrollment goes down, money goes down, people get laid off. That's life. Also, the topic of health care is inextricably tied to the increase of education costs. No valid solution can be made without creating a solution that stabilizes health care costs.
Question 2: I don't really care what Tennessee or Missouri spend on their students. We Vermonters will value the education of our children the way we value it. BUT we do need to get control of our spending. It is unsustainable and must be remedied. 1. Decouple healthcare from the rapacious insurance market. It is not a free market and should not be given the respect of one. (Yes, like our roads and our military, let's socialize it) 2. Eliminate the requirement to attend the last two years of high school. For anyone spending time in a modern high school, there are enormous amount of hours that are completely wasted, where nothing is learned and nothing is done. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of human energy. Many students are ready to work and be a part of society by the time they are 16. Let them. Provide centralized schools for the ones who are academically motivated and who want those last two years to prepare for their life. We will eliminate 1/2 the student population for the last two years of school. Plus, academically motivated students are much easier to teach and exhibit many less behavior issues which would allow much higher student to teacher ratios.
question 3. Are you kidding me? This question is so myopic. Let's just not teach them anything about the world, because they might want to see it. If people want to leave, let them. Vermont is not an easy place to live. While young people are leaving Vermont, older boomer baby types who complain about school taxes and wind turbines are moving in. The gentrification of Vermont. You can't talk about one without the other. (oh yeah, is there any study on young Vermonters who move away and then RETURN?)
Although I accept your general point of declining educational expectations, the Kansas test is bunk for two reasons and here is a good explanation why: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.asp
I think the real reason is television and marketing, but that is a story for another day.
And please, quit ranting against the arm-waving psychobabble when 2/3's of your post is just that.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
nuclear waste=evil part 2
And here is a continuation of the previous conversation:
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/02/take-a-breath.html?cid=6a00d834519c3c69e2012877903b84970c#comment-form
Daniel Foty says:
"That health care is a "right," but electricity is an optional and unnecessary extravagance?"
Well, you got it half right. I do believe that health care should be considered an inalienable right. It is not an issue that our founding fathers dealt with and I feel we, the people, need to protect the equitable access to that right (which is NOT happening now with the private/public mess that we have now).
In concerns to electricity, I never claimed that “electricity is an optional and unnecessary extravagance”. What I did mean to convey is that we can be a lot less dependent on the corporate/state to provide this need when independent sources and local production of electricity are available and through CONSERVATION which means that we can learn to use less. I believe in the decentralized view of INDEPENDENT or town-based sources of electricity. I believe that this is one of the core values of a libertarian/conservative view of governance: the promotion of individual freedom and local control of our mechanisms of survival. Dependence on large centralized corporate/governmental organizations is something I associate with the Democratic philosophy.
It is the discrepancy conservatives present that we need less gov’t influence and we need to eliminate the welfare/nanny state, but make sure you give me the cheapest electricity in the world. How can a conservative/libertarian view favor centralized top-down control of one of our modern day resources when independent, decentralized sources are available to the average citizen? I want my gov’t working on providing decentralized sources of energy and moving away from the centralized positions that are being currently advocated by people on this site and within our Republican administration.
The Brattleboro Conservative says: “Where were you and your enviro-twit friends when the plant was first proposed, in diapers perhaps?”
Well, your enviro-twit comment is quite rude and disrespectful. I am too young to have been an influence on the building of VY, but I am not too young to remember swimming between the turds that use to float on our local rivers. You and I can thank the “enviro-twits” (you can include such luminaries as George Aiken and David Deane among many other traditional conservatives in that category) to raising awareness and taking action to clean our rivers and waterways, and to clean the air we breathe and to clean the sides of our roads. They have produced real, beneficial results for our society, which is more than I can say about your attitude.
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/02/take-a-breath.html?cid=6a00d834519c3c69e2012877903b84970c#comment-form
Daniel Foty says:
"That health care is a "right," but electricity is an optional and unnecessary extravagance?"
Well, you got it half right. I do believe that health care should be considered an inalienable right. It is not an issue that our founding fathers dealt with and I feel we, the people, need to protect the equitable access to that right (which is NOT happening now with the private/public mess that we have now).
In concerns to electricity, I never claimed that “electricity is an optional and unnecessary extravagance”. What I did mean to convey is that we can be a lot less dependent on the corporate/state to provide this need when independent sources and local production of electricity are available and through CONSERVATION which means that we can learn to use less. I believe in the decentralized view of INDEPENDENT or town-based sources of electricity. I believe that this is one of the core values of a libertarian/conservative view of governance: the promotion of individual freedom and local control of our mechanisms of survival. Dependence on large centralized corporate/governmental organizations is something I associate with the Democratic philosophy.
It is the discrepancy conservatives present that we need less gov’t influence and we need to eliminate the welfare/nanny state, but make sure you give me the cheapest electricity in the world. How can a conservative/libertarian view favor centralized top-down control of one of our modern day resources when independent, decentralized sources are available to the average citizen? I want my gov’t working on providing decentralized sources of energy and moving away from the centralized positions that are being currently advocated by people on this site and within our Republican administration.
The Brattleboro Conservative says: “Where were you and your enviro-twit friends when the plant was first proposed, in diapers perhaps?”
Well, your enviro-twit comment is quite rude and disrespectful. I am too young to have been an influence on the building of VY, but I am not too young to remember swimming between the turds that use to float on our local rivers. You and I can thank the “enviro-twits” (you can include such luminaries as George Aiken and David Deane among many other traditional conservatives in that category) to raising awareness and taking action to clean our rivers and waterways, and to clean the air we breathe and to clean the sides of our roads. They have produced real, beneficial results for our society, which is more than I can say about your attitude.
Monday, February 8, 2010
nuclear waste=evil
This is a response to the conservative blog VermontTiger:
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/02/take-a-breath.html
I am disturbed by this conversation on several levels:
1. First and foremost; how can anyone talk about nuclear power without even mentioning radioactive waste? This is irresponsible to the core. The fact of the matter is that our self-indulgent, short-sighted, me-now culture cannot even talk about how we are creating a radioactive dead zone that will stay here on the beautiful banks of the Connecticut River for MILLENIA. There is no action that we are taking that is so profoundly bad for our future generations then the creation of such an evil by-product. This factor alone should eliminate any desire to build more nuclear power plants.
2. My Confusion: It is here, on the VermontTiger, that I was first introduced to the controversy that CO2 may not even be a factor in climate change (Thanks to Daniel Foty). But while my skepticism grows (I’m not totally convinced), there are others that are using reduced CO2 emissions to promote the growth of the nuclear industry. Which is it, VermontTiger? You can’t have it both ways (without being hypocritical).
3. Green Jobs: This moniker has become completely meaningless since it means whatever the speaker wants when they want it.
4. The rap against renewable energy: While, yes, the creation of solar panels is not the “greenest” of processes, much of that is tied to the use of aluminum as well as purifying silicon. Do the opinionators of this website suggest we shut down all industry that is reliant on these two resources? What would that do with our business/technology industry as a whole? Anyways, anything in the manufacturing of solar panels is small potatoes compared to the hazards of uranium mining and purification. Solar panels when they are installed will produce very clean energy for an undetermined time (the first commercial panels from the 70’s are still producing). Renewable energy also means hydropower, biomass, passive solar and solar hot water, all technologies with a low chemical footprint.
5. Probably the most disappointing aspect of this conversation is the sense of ENTITLEMENT people feel to endlessly receive unlimited amounts of cheap electricity. Vermonters survived quite well without electricity for nearly 200 years. Now, we feel the state must guarantee us cheap limitless power. Plus, there are many who feel that through measures of private and public CONSERVATION, we could significantly reduce our electricity needs. But, of course, our Republican administration favors cuts in our energy efficiency programs. And in regard to wind turbines marring our landscape, have you ever heard anyone refuse to come to VT because of those hideous powerlines scarring our mountainsides? Or those terrible scars cut by ski areas into the sides of our mountains? Or how we’ve criss-crossed our entire state with that black gooey tar?
It seems natural to me that CONSERVATIVES would be into CONSERVATION, not a technology that will leave a poisoned landscape for millennia of generations.
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/02/take-a-breath.html
I am disturbed by this conversation on several levels:
1. First and foremost; how can anyone talk about nuclear power without even mentioning radioactive waste? This is irresponsible to the core. The fact of the matter is that our self-indulgent, short-sighted, me-now culture cannot even talk about how we are creating a radioactive dead zone that will stay here on the beautiful banks of the Connecticut River for MILLENIA. There is no action that we are taking that is so profoundly bad for our future generations then the creation of such an evil by-product. This factor alone should eliminate any desire to build more nuclear power plants.
2. My Confusion: It is here, on the VermontTiger, that I was first introduced to the controversy that CO2 may not even be a factor in climate change (Thanks to Daniel Foty). But while my skepticism grows (I’m not totally convinced), there are others that are using reduced CO2 emissions to promote the growth of the nuclear industry. Which is it, VermontTiger? You can’t have it both ways (without being hypocritical).
3. Green Jobs: This moniker has become completely meaningless since it means whatever the speaker wants when they want it.
4. The rap against renewable energy: While, yes, the creation of solar panels is not the “greenest” of processes, much of that is tied to the use of aluminum as well as purifying silicon. Do the opinionators of this website suggest we shut down all industry that is reliant on these two resources? What would that do with our business/technology industry as a whole? Anyways, anything in the manufacturing of solar panels is small potatoes compared to the hazards of uranium mining and purification. Solar panels when they are installed will produce very clean energy for an undetermined time (the first commercial panels from the 70’s are still producing). Renewable energy also means hydropower, biomass, passive solar and solar hot water, all technologies with a low chemical footprint.
5. Probably the most disappointing aspect of this conversation is the sense of ENTITLEMENT people feel to endlessly receive unlimited amounts of cheap electricity. Vermonters survived quite well without electricity for nearly 200 years. Now, we feel the state must guarantee us cheap limitless power. Plus, there are many who feel that through measures of private and public CONSERVATION, we could significantly reduce our electricity needs. But, of course, our Republican administration favors cuts in our energy efficiency programs. And in regard to wind turbines marring our landscape, have you ever heard anyone refuse to come to VT because of those hideous powerlines scarring our mountainsides? Or those terrible scars cut by ski areas into the sides of our mountains? Or how we’ve criss-crossed our entire state with that black gooey tar?
It seems natural to me that CONSERVATIVES would be into CONSERVATION, not a technology that will leave a poisoned landscape for millennia of generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
