Some parents are upset at the North Garland High School in Texas. They are upset because their children were cut from the swim team. The reason they were cut is because they cannot swim. When the coach of the swim team attempted to transform the swim team into an actual, competitive swim team, rather than an adjunct of the YMCA, parents became upset. They were counting on the swim team to teach their children to swim. The North Garland High School has over one hundred members on it's swim team. The team, despite it's overwhelming superiority in numbers, does not perform well in competition. In order to make the team manageable, and competitive, the coach decided to whittle down the team. He also decided that, for the first time, he would hold tryouts for the team.
The first kids to go were those who could not swim. Now parents are angry because they feel their children have been mistreated. The Assistant Superintendent said he would talk to the coach and see about getting the kids back on the team. It seems as though, for some parents, being able to swim is a flimsy criterion for making the swim team. Let us wish North Garland the best of luck in the upcoming season.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
We Can Blame Obama, but....
Federal health care will work says Obama. If it doesn't, he is willing to take the blame. Fair enough. The problem is, if national health care doesn't work, we will be stuck with it. He will be gone someday, but federal health care will endure. We are not buying a dress or a pair of pliers. If a national health care plan is enacted and doesn't work out as promised, we will not be able to return it. And, even if we could, we would never get our money back.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
What if it Was You?
A man is in custody after FBI agents and police raided his apartment recently in New York City. We are told he is suspected of having links to al-Qaeda. We are told little else. We do not know his name, where he is being held, or the particular crimes he is accused of other than "being an associate" of al Qaeda. The crimes he is suspected of plotting, according to authorities, are unclear. If the man is tried before a secret tribunal or in a closed court, we might never know. All we do know is that a suspected terrorist was taken into custody. In these days of heightened paranoia and increased reliance on the government to protect us, that is often enough. I suspect many will be satisfied we are safer now that this unknown man is in custody for plotting unspecified crimes. Many perhaps, but hopefully not all.
What if someday the government comes for you? What if it is claimed that you are plotting a terrible outrage, so terrible in fact that the threat and scale of your plot, and the methods used to thwart it, cannot be revealed lest it inspire other malcontents and evildoers, and help them to evade detection in their plotting? You might be detained and interrogated in secret and your location be unknown to all but your interrogators. You will simply have disappeared. You could neither publicly contest your imprisonment or challenge the evidence gathered lest its existence and the methods used for its acquisition be revealed. Perhaps the verdict would be announced, perhaps not. If it were announced, chances are it would simply be stated that a "terrorist" had been apprehended, tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in an undisclosed location. The public would be satisfied that violence had been thwarted and that they are safer than they had been before.
We are not there yet, but arguments have been made and the ground prepared. It might take only one spectacular outrage to rally the public and push us to the point where the rights of the accused are viewed as obstacles to public safety rather than bulwarks of our liberty. Society is hardly defenseless. It has police and prisons to protect it. The indiviual only has the law and his rights. Unfortunatley, those laws and rights are increasingly seen as burdens when the lives and the safety of our communities are at risk.
The odds are if we surrender our rights, we will never get them back. We need those rights because the individual will always have more to fear from society than society has to fear from the individual. Nevertheless, it seems the era of "Perry Mason" has been replaced by the era of "Law and Order."
What if someday the government comes for you? What if it is claimed that you are plotting a terrible outrage, so terrible in fact that the threat and scale of your plot, and the methods used to thwart it, cannot be revealed lest it inspire other malcontents and evildoers, and help them to evade detection in their plotting? You might be detained and interrogated in secret and your location be unknown to all but your interrogators. You will simply have disappeared. You could neither publicly contest your imprisonment or challenge the evidence gathered lest its existence and the methods used for its acquisition be revealed. Perhaps the verdict would be announced, perhaps not. If it were announced, chances are it would simply be stated that a "terrorist" had been apprehended, tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in an undisclosed location. The public would be satisfied that violence had been thwarted and that they are safer than they had been before.
We are not there yet, but arguments have been made and the ground prepared. It might take only one spectacular outrage to rally the public and push us to the point where the rights of the accused are viewed as obstacles to public safety rather than bulwarks of our liberty. Society is hardly defenseless. It has police and prisons to protect it. The indiviual only has the law and his rights. Unfortunatley, those laws and rights are increasingly seen as burdens when the lives and the safety of our communities are at risk.
The odds are if we surrender our rights, we will never get them back. We need those rights because the individual will always have more to fear from society than society has to fear from the individual. Nevertheless, it seems the era of "Perry Mason" has been replaced by the era of "Law and Order."
Sunday, September 13, 2009
What's Wrong With "No"?
There are a few points I feel need to be made regarding the current debate over health care reform. The first is the criticism often made of the Republicans as the party of "no." I do not see this to be the criticism it is intended to be. Sometimes, the answer should be "no." "No" is the proper response to to an unsolicited or burdensome offer. If someone offers to paint your house or sell you a condo, most likely you would not negotiate; you would say "no." To say "no" is not necessarily a response borne of stubbornness or petulance. It can also be a response out of principal or genuine disinterest.
Secondly is the argument made by those who cite the success of social security and point to the contentious debate that preceded its enactment. This argument assumes that social security has been a success and vindicated by history. The the threat it poses to the economy, and the continuous debate over the need for its reform suggests it is not the success it is claimed to be.
Thirdly is the scorn exhibited by health care reformers toward smokers and the threat they pose to health care and society. Smoking is only one threat to public health, and certainly not the largest. Will the ire of the public some day turn to the obese, the indolent, and the reckless? The costs these groups, and others, present to health care vastly exceeds the cost represented by the ever dwindling number of smokers. The necessity of obtaining health care, and the political power over it that would result from any national health care plan, would be an irresistible tool to those who seek to modify and correct the behavior of others.
The president's willingness to take the blame if federal health care doesn't work out as he assures us is of little solace. The program, if enacted, will be here long after he is gone; indeed, long after we're gone. Not every policy advocated by the president, or bill proposed in Congress merits negotiation. Sometimes, the proper response is "no."
Secondly is the argument made by those who cite the success of social security and point to the contentious debate that preceded its enactment. This argument assumes that social security has been a success and vindicated by history. The the threat it poses to the economy, and the continuous debate over the need for its reform suggests it is not the success it is claimed to be.
Thirdly is the scorn exhibited by health care reformers toward smokers and the threat they pose to health care and society. Smoking is only one threat to public health, and certainly not the largest. Will the ire of the public some day turn to the obese, the indolent, and the reckless? The costs these groups, and others, present to health care vastly exceeds the cost represented by the ever dwindling number of smokers. The necessity of obtaining health care, and the political power over it that would result from any national health care plan, would be an irresistible tool to those who seek to modify and correct the behavior of others.
The president's willingness to take the blame if federal health care doesn't work out as he assures us is of little solace. The program, if enacted, will be here long after he is gone; indeed, long after we're gone. Not every policy advocated by the president, or bill proposed in Congress merits negotiation. Sometimes, the proper response is "no."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)