Do you REALLY want a fair election?

 There are two challenges that predominate today that make a "fair" election possible.  For the purposes of this discussion, define "fair" as

1. Truthful campaigning with the guaranteed right of an opponent to reply on the merits of a claim or accusation; and
2. the guarantee of honest and truthful preparation, submission, and counting of votes.

Not sure how number two can be accomplished with the current judicial climate.  One would be to go back to everyone voting on election day unless the individual would be out of his or her home town or out of the country and applied for an absentee ballot.  If applied to everyone, that would seem to be not only fair, but Constitutional.

Campaigning is a different matter, and that arguably could be solved quickly if the American people wanted to do exactly that.  Everyone is looking for an edge. Human nature doesn't ever reward or strive for "fairness," so acting as if it is, is duplicitous. Not sure if this would help the voter searching for truth, but how about:

• requiring every campaign advertisement to require also providing the opponent's answer or explanation. In print it would be on the same page as the original claim or accusation. In broadcast, it would follow immediately and be clearly labeled as the "official" reply.

• Have an independent research panel, subject to charges of perjury charges for errors, empowered to fact check each and every campaign ad, statement and reply for truthful accuracy, including a duplicitous parsing of sentences to appear to say one thing but not technically saying anything of the sort (a common practice in politics today). THAT sort of thing is lying by inviting assumptions on the part of the reader, listener, viewer. And make prosecution mandatory, not at the discretion of any prosecutor or Judge; an accusation leads to a trial, no excuses or way(s) out.

I suspect that would stop the "October Surprises" as well as the "Russian dossier" type fabrications. It would also cut the profits of news publications, stations and print shops, although each "job" would require double the space of the initial claim or accusation, so maybe it would even out.

Violations could escalate to make the rules effective: first violation would deserve a monetary fine, a second... elimination from a debate... a third, removal from the subject ballot.  

Declining Education in America should not be a surprise

No one disagrees that America's educational system is losing ground to the rest of the world at an increasing rate.  But there seems to be little agreement on why...or what to do to reverse this.

Like everyone else, I have some ideas that might bear consideration and discussion.

Let's start with some presumptions:
-the purpose of education is a function of a societies view, which is not a constant;
-the importance of education is determined by both the home and society;
-how effective education reaches defined goals is NOT defined by students.

Today, our society had become so sensitive and delicate that our history is being "sanitized" and revised so as to not "offend" anyone's sensibilities.  Discussion of the cause as well as the proofs of climate change is seen as no longer legitimate, despite many instances that cast doubt on both data and reasoning.  Can a country where facts can be distorted, history be re-written and challenge disallowed ever successfully "educate?"  Do we WANT to educate?  Define that term...

Our K-12 educational system was based on the Prussian model which had two goals: 1. indoctrinating youth to act in concert as commanded, and 2., providing reading, writing and mathematical skills sufficient to make the graduate employable and to be a worthwhile citizen of the country.  For many years, it accomplished this, but with reduced indoctrination results due to American family values and demands that insisted on independent problems solving skills, and questioning of authority due to the lessons carried over from the War for Independence and needs for survival.

As the Industrial Age developed, increased skills were needed, yet problem solving became an even more important skill.  With time,  and increased security, family interest in History lessened but continuing knowledge of History continued in schools as a "habit."  Also increased security allowed the luxury of also lessening the need to be productive in order to survive, as government began to promote a need to "support" those who could not support themselves.

Today, advancement through the grades does NOT require successfully acquiring proficiency in reading or math, and many schools are now eliminating the need to know how to write (I have no idea how these individuals will be able to record anything or communicate over any distance should our power distribution system be disabled for an extended period).  Now "social" promotion is the norm and a High School Diploma is virtually useless as a qualification for a reasonably well-paying job.

K-12 Schools no longer are places where discipline is instilled, education to facts, or the art of problem solving is the norm.  The inmates are running the institution.  Immature children are not being trained, they are being coddled.  Learning is no longer being demanded.  Those interfering with the learning process are no longer being removed from classrooms or the schools, resulting in students who wish to learn being deprived of the right to accomplish that goal.

Money is not the answer; legislation is needed to provide the authority to control our youth in schools so that they can be taught the basics needed to survive in a real world.  The "individual rights" concepts focuses on single trees as all around our forests are dying by our own hand.

Universities and Colleges are no better.  They used to be places where an aspiring individual went to develop their ability to compete, argue, convince even as they learned more about the world around them, both present and past.  They acquired advanced ability to communicate, question, and solve problems...often in intense disagreement with both classmates and Professors.  Such disagreements were valued as "teaching" exercises...to be able to argue and defend a position or point even as you learned some often very valuable things from your opposition...and you respected your opponent and the opposition, knowing that it broadened your understanding of your own point of view even as it was amended in light of newly learned strengths and weaknesses.  There used to be competition to be admitted to such place.  And, of course, you needed to pay for it.  Some graduated from High School and worked for years to put away enough money so they could take college courses and ultimately gain greater security for their family...it was a privilege to be able to achieve this, demanding dedication purpose, and hard work.

Today, attendance at a University and/or college is touted as a "right" instead of a "privilege."  But today's University is not the one that I enjoyed more than a half century ago.  Why?  While there are probably many answers, one can be sure that with the failure of High Schools to graduate youth with the skills needed to hold ordinary jobs, the Universities and Colleges now serve to do that.  However careful examination proves that such is not the case; math, writing and problem solving are no longer of any obvious interest today.  Today Universities are also, like K-12, run by the inmates; "safe spaces", "nonaggression" and "being offended" are the focus of today.  Administrators are dedicated to making their students "comfortable" and Professors are (apparently willingly) advised to not offend their students or require them to do anything with which those students disagree.  How disgustingly plebeian are the majority of today's College and University graduates.  One strongly suspects that the reason that the government makes student loans so easy to acquire is that these institutions of "learning" are great for parking a lot of our youth so they don't appear on unemployment rolls for at least 4 years...  The government apparently cares little for the low probability that a majority of recipients of these loans will get an "education" that qualifies them for a job that will enable them to live and pay off those loans...

Do we want Universities that train, rather than coddle and indoctrinate?  If so, restore competition in admittance, in grading, in performance, including a guarantee of open and challenging dialog between both students and faculty, and require students to come with a life plan, knowing why they are in a college setting (other than to please their parents).  The least desirable element should be comfort.  Learning, advancement, challenge are uncomfortable.  They require ongoing effort of a lifetime, and University should be where one learns the habits that make success possible...not an artificial comfort zone that increases the likelihood of failure in a real world.

Maybe...just maybe...if we consider honoring what used to work, once again our educational "systems" can revert to successfully preparing our putative students to not only survive but achieve success in the real world.

The Argument is NOT about Entitlement Reduction...

Only in America is lying encouraged and actually protected by the Law of the Land...especially in politics.  I have spent the better part of a month trying to analyze the arguments about what is falsely called "Entitlement" reform.  Such a misnomer...everyone who has worked at all has had part of their pay confiscated to "fund" both Social Security and Medicare, but the politicians for some reason want to call paying back what we have paid for an "Entitlement."  But that is a subject for still another day's discussion...or thought...or whatever...

Today I want to write out my understanding of the argument regarding Medicare.  The so-called Republican plan is pretty easy to get.  Ryan has written out his plan and taken whatever heat or praise that the facts of the plan elicit.  It acknowledges that right now, payments taken in return for a promise to pay in the future are, in fact, a fraud and a crime...since the funds knowingly will not be available to provide the promised benefits in the future.  So he proposes keeping the promises for those for whom it is too late to do anything themselves to cover for the fraud of the government.  But, he openly changes the Medicare system to 1) bring it closer to the people by moving control away from Washington, D.C., and into the individual states, and 2) bringing it even more in tune with the people by making the amounts available to the individual available to that individual so that he or she may chose who or what supplier of Medical Coverage should bet their coverage.

But...and there is no suggestion that this is NOT true...the amount of money will not increase and there will be a possibility of financial burden that falls on individuals.  Those who can afford it will pay toward Doctor's visits and will contribute toward services costs.

Here is the curious fact, though.  The so-called Democrat solution has exactly the same results...at least as far as reducing the dollar value of benefits is concerned.  Yes, indeed.  Sure, I know you haven't seen any video of any Democrat pushing "granny" over a cliff...but everybody is sure going off of a cliff...sometime.

The only question...and the only difference between the ideological left and right...is when and who will be blamed.  It is NOT a question of IF.

Here are the facts as I read and hear them:
1)  Both sides actually agree that nothing will change for all current citizens and current recipients who are 55 years of age or older;
2) The Ryan plan puts funding policy directly into the hands of the individual state and individual funding decisions on provider and coverage selection directly into the hands of the individual who has paid into the system.  He relies on competitive free-market competition to keep those premiums as low as possible and the benefits as inclusive as possible, but that is not controlled by government edict, but by the laws of supply and demand, which will presumably be intensified by eliminating the state laws limiting cross-state competition in the area of Health Insurance;
3) The Democrat plan (as explained by everyone who has spoken with any apparent intelligence and honesty on the subject, and as verified as much as possible by my reading of the Obamacare bill) is, of course, put into effect by Obamacare is claims to reduce costs.  Actually, it doesn't...but, again, that particular element is for another discussion.  What is important, and what Democrat spokesmen will NEVER admit, is that it also reduces benefits over time.  Yep... somebody is going off the cliff.  But no Democrat will ever have his or her direct fingerprints on the wheelchair.  Why?  Because they blame it on someone ... anyone...everyone...else.


"How can that be?" you ask.  Simple.  Obamacare over time required cost controls which effect payments to providers.  And they set up bureaucratic committees that will determine what is "proper" treatment that will be covered...read, "paid for"...by reimbursement.  It also reduces over time the amount paid to Doctors and Hospitals for specific types of care and treatment.  Note, that they still argue that these payments...even as reduced...will be the "right" amount to ensure that the patient gets total care with now additional payment by them.

What does this mean?  It means that as the payments that you were told were going to provide you with medical care get too small for Doctors and Hospitals to make a living and pay off their own huge debts, they will chose to not accept patients who are on Medicare.  And Insurance Companies who you have paid for ancillary services to avoid any additional payments for gaps in coverage will adjust their coverages to match that which the government has dictated.

The result is that the Democrat plan will also have some people...maybe people who are not yet as old as granny...pushed off of the proverbial coverage cliff.  The only difference is that Obamacare will blame the Insurance companies, the doctors and the hospitals and claim innocence of any contributory involvement.


This is very attractive to all politicians for whom results are not nearly as important as avoidance of blame.  It is also attractive to a lot of voters who embrace the concept of victim-hood and also value the concept of taking a chance of failure if that failure will ultimately be able to be blamed on someone else.

The Ryan plan acknowledge that there is no certainty of total coverage, but insures that the value that you pay into the program will come back to you...and attempts to put into individuals' hands the power to maximize the economic power that those funds represent.  Yes...it does put the responsibility of using those funds in an intelligent way on the States and the Individual.  That means that you have the power of achieving great success or abysmal failure.  Amazing concept, isn't it: Freedom of Choice is NOT Freedom from Consequences...good, ...or bad.  But there is a certain rush of excitement there...or is it the breath of FREEDOM.  You decide.

(Oh...and for you non-believers...currently, your Medicare premiums over the years total about $57,000 while the medical benefits that you use total in excess of $158,000.  In a few years those numbers will be near or above $80,000 and $230,000 respectively.  Medicare IS broke...and you need to accept that.)