who's your nanny?

HARVARD: Because Not Everyone Can Get into Geneseo

I have to tell you, that's always been one of my favorite T-shirt slogans: Even though most of us SUNY Geneseo alums would be the first to admit the shirt is funny due to the obvious nature of the inherent joke, I bet the majority of us would also tell you we'd do Geneseo all over again even if we had the option to attend Harvard out of high school.

I got out of college with about $19k in student loans, and that's including a $6k master's degree. Now, of course, my B.S. and M.S. in elementary education and reading instruction, respectively, render me practically unmarketable outside government-run schools -- I left public school teaching in 1999 -- but I'm fairly certain I'd be just about at the same point in my life today even if I were still on the hook for $100k in education loans from an elite school like Harvard.

Over the years, and with the help of writers and economists at LewRockwell.com and the Mises Institute, I've come to realize what a collossal waste of money most colleges really are. We're a society that values credentials instead of actual education, mostly because that's the system that's driven by the state and its institutions. In the end, if you're lucky enough to graduate from college, you'll probaby look back and realize you spent tens of thousands of dollars primarily so you could party with a new crop of friends. The schooling? Well, you probably could've taught yourself most of it.

But now, along comes MIT, which has just posted its entire curriculum online for free. Why? According to Gary North, because they can.

If [other colleges] are really worth the money, they should prove this for free on-line. MIT has. Why not them?

Simple: because they are not worth the money. They know it. The parents don't know it. The illusion must go on.

Could a college make its money by teaching upper division courses on-line for 25% of today's tuition – $5,000 a year instead of $20,000 – with no room and board costs? Yes. Will any of them do this? Of course not. Why not? Because they are in debt up to their ears for educationally unnecessary real estate. They adopted a technologically defunct model before the Web.

I'm the first to admit that the "college life" can do some people a lot of good. For me, it expanded my horizons by introducing me to many different types of people I probably would've continued to prejudge based on things like looks alone. I was raised with a rather parochial mindset and needed to be on my own to start making decisions for myself. But the one reason I've always appreciated the advance of online schooling is that it shatters the myth that the only way you can learn is by sitting in a classroom listening to some guy in a turtleneck spouting the school's latest PC methodology.

MIT admits they're not going to certify your learning unless you choose to enroll in their courses. But with the curriculum posted online, they have already done far more to further actual education than any other program in the country.

The pervasive bureaucracy that infects higher education won't be eroded immediately, but if employers really want intelligent people on staff -- some don't want you to be able to think, of course -- they'll be able to reject intelligence for lack of a diploma for only so long.

Why Public Schools Must Die

Karen DeCoster is back from vacation (thank God) and is on fire as usual. In her post entitled "Invisible Masters", I found this quote from John Taylor Gatto:

Almost all Americans have had an intense school experience which occupied their entire youth, an experience during which they were drilled thoroughly in the culture and economy of the well-schooled greater society, in which individuals have been rendered helpless to do much of anything except watch television or punch buttons on a keypad.

Before you begin to blame the childish for being that way and join the chorus of those defending the general imprisonment of adults and the schooling by force of children because there isn’t any other way to handle the mob, you want to at least consider the possibility that we’ve been trained in childishness and helplessness for a reason. And that reason is that helpless people are easy to manage. Helpless people can be counted upon to act as their own jailers because they are so inadequate to complex reality they are afraid of new experience. They’re like animals whose spirits have been broken. Helpless people take orders well, they don’t have minds of their own, they are predictable, they won’t surprise corporations or governments with resistance to the newest product craze, the newest genetic patent — or by armed revolution. Helpless people can be counted on to despise independent citizens and hence they act as a fifth column in opposition to social change in the direction of personal sovereignty.

Gatto wrote The Underground History of American Education which I have heard is an absolute must-read. Similar to Robert Higgs who argues that there is no failed policy, Gatto argues that the idiocracy in which we now live was intentionally designed; the founders of the modern public school wanted to create a population which would be loyal to the State. This is exactly the world we live in. Just mention secession to most people, and they will immediately recoil in horror. They will insinuate that you are a neo-confederate or racist or unpatriotic or a crank or all of the above. The United States is a great country, they will argue. "Who are you to wish its demise? Our unity makes us strong." Such reactions are a result of the education of the masses who have been indoctrinated with collectivism.

Why All Those College Degrees?

Last week I watched a little more than half of the movie Mr. Brooks, starring Kevin Costner, William Hurt, and Demi Moore. As a movie it was little more than watchable, but one of the characters raised a question I thought was rather interesting.

Demi Moore played a well-educated police detective who inherited millions from her father, prompting either serial killer Brooks (Costner) or his alter ego (Hurt) to ask (and I paraphrase) "Why would someone who has an MBA and 60 million dollars want to be a detective?"

I really didn't pay enough attention to the movie to figure out why this character wanted to be a cop given her position in life, but I thought this particular part of the movie helped to highlight why so many people are shoved through government indoctrination centers called "colleges" (private schools excluded).

As I've written before, college is overrated. The state forces children to go to public schools until high school whether they want to or not, which then essentially compels employers to demand a college degree from prospective employees just so they can determine which ones can actually read and write. Add to this all the state and federal welfare programs for students and colleges, namely in the form of loans and subsidies, and you soon end up with skyrocketing tuition and an oversupply of college graduates who can't find jobs in a highly competitive market.

So how does this all relate to the scene in the movie? Well, this is only a theory, but because politicians use government as a jobs program and a testing ground for social experiments like affirmative action in the first place, there is almost no competitiveness inherent to government employment and thus very little merit-based advancement. The federal government alone employs over 2.7 million people who virtually can't be fired; school teachers are paid based on years logged, not academic excellence; police officers are rewarded with paid vacation when they violate civil liberties. In short, government employees are just as likely to be promoted because they're incompetent as they are for being intelligent. So college diplomas are probably viewed as one good tangible means of identifying "success."

Considering that the state keeps hiring employees even as the private sector is forced to cut back due to burdensome taxation and regulations and government mismanagement of the economy, we can probably expect the artificial demand for college "education" to continue to increase while the number of productive citizens continues to dwindle.

More Cuts, More Freedom

One significant benefit of economic crises is that they usually force bloated states to cut their budgets and subsequently become more efficient (well, efficient for monopolies, anyway).

In California, Guv-nuh Ah-nuld is faced with the prospect of cutting billions from proposed spending plans in order to balance the budget.

Slammed by an epic housing bust and massive job losses, California faces a $24 billion budget deficit and could run out of cash by late July if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature cannot reach a budget deal.

To balance the budget, the governor has proposed closing more than 200 state parks, releasing prisoners early, selling state property, laying off state workers and cutting health care.

Under the governor's plan, K-12 schools and community colleges would lose $5.3 billion over the coming year - on top of billions of dollars in recent reductions and payment delays.

The state would spend $7,806 per K-12 student in 2009-10, almost 10 percent less than two years ago, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

These cuts would only result in more economic and political freedom for California residents. Closing state parks and selling off property is a great way to repudiate debt immediately. Eliminating state programs has the dual benefit of saving taxpayers money in both the short- and long-term -- everyday maintenance costs disappear along with the state workers who would otherwise draw government-funded health and pension benefits. And many of the prisoners likely to qualify for early release would no doubt be those who have committed nonviolent "crimes" and who never should have been locked up in the first place.

Of course, you can never cut state spending without the teachers unions wailing the loudest and hardest. But despite complaints from school officials who argue that less funding will "shortchange" students and result in lower acedemic proficiency, laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, and cutting funding for educational fads will force the state to economize, which could allow it to become more productive if it took a few lessons from the private sector.

Generally, schools will weed out teachers beginning with those who don't have tenure, which is a formula for retaining many who are unmotivated and unproductive. However, if the governor instructed the districts to make these decisions based on merit (I know, fat chance), it would allow the state to weed out the worst teachers and keep only the best.

After all, this apparently is indicative of what California schools have been churning out so far:

"I think we won't be able to learn as much [if budgets are cut]," said freshman Andrew Taylor, 15. "They should put more money into schools. If you take money away from schools, you're going to end up with more people going to jail."

Seriously, folks, I'm pretty sure the only direction the state can go is up.

I ♥ Karen DeCoster

There are times when the intellectual battle against the State wears me down and leaves me discouraged. I seriously doubt the freedom which Trevor and I espouse will ever be realized in our lifetimes, but we continue on because we believe freedom is better than slavery. But for those times when I am worn down by the collectivism of the masses in "the land of the free, home of the brave", I stop by Karen DeCoster's blog for inspiration. And she always delivers. Here's a recent tirade against the public education system:

The public education system, which is a disastrous, wealth-destroying, failed endeavor, is held up as the standard by which we must all live. You go where they tell you to go, stay at the educational level they put you at, advance when they tell you to advance, slog through what they put in front of you, believe what they tell you to believe, and finish your "education" at a chronological age that somebody somewhere determined should be the age when you should be set free to live out your life. Your innate ability, your desire, your interests, your foundational knowledge - none of that matters because public education is set up to equalize and collectivize children so that they are all on the same pre-determined schedule. Still, people are surprised each time they hear about a 15-year-old attending college or an 18-year-old graduating from college. They were taught that children should all advance together through the education system based on chronological age and do exactly what every other kid their age is doing. The masses never question the irrationality of such nonsense. And you wonder why the American educational system is producing mostly professional consumers, couch potatoes, and TV-watching, amusement-demanding, non-reading robots.

Priceless!

Medical Doctors Don't Need to Be Sociologists, Too

Paulo Serodio, a naturalized U.S. citizen born and raised in Mozambique, is suing a New Jersey medical school after he was kicked out for identifying himself as a "white African-American" during a cultural exercise in a clinical skills course.

Ahh, tolerance in the land of PC, to quote Lew Rockwell, from whom I learned of this story.

This reminds me of college back in the early '90s when political correctness had already hit full stride and all sorts of Americans were being slapped with hyphenated labels. To the best of my knowledge the term "African-American" was in its infancy at this point, but everyone knew it was one that was reserved precisely for those formerly known as "blacks."

Listen, I admit the whole "white/black" thing hardly has a sophisticated ring to it when "desert sand/raw umber" would be much more accurate, but I nevertheless recall getting a kick out of asking my professors what we'd consider white South African boxer Francois Botha if he ever decided to obtain American citizenship. Thankfully I was never booted from class like Mr. Serodio.

But that brings me to a more pertinent question. Are people really not bothered by the fact that prospective doctors or engineers or scientists are being forced to sit through garbage PC courses in the first place? I mean, honestly, I really couldn't care less if my surgeon is culturally literate as long as he knows how to remove an appendix without sending me home with a staph infection.

Because the American education establishment first and foremost exists to indoctrinate its students to worship the state, even those who pursue advanced degrees apparently aren't immune to the same worthless liberal arts-type coursework foisted upon your everyday English or math major. Think about it. What's the point in enduring hours and hours of meaningless psychobabble and touchy-feely sociology classes in addition to your primary realm of study if not to brainwash the masses? You can get a law degree in two years even if you majored in art history as an undergrad; why not just do, say, three years of law school right out of high school and go to work?

Why not? Because all schooling is socialized in the U.S. We all know the vast majority of K-12 schools are run by the government, but even private colleges and universities need to be accredited by the state. Granted, some schools specializing in unique instruction may offer things like three-year bachelor's degrees, but we've been conditioned to accept the four-year degree as standard. Seriously, isn't it ironic that we reserve most of our praise for kids who go off to college and party for four years (or more) and then come home to a saturated job market and wait tables, even though the guys who spent a couple years in a trade school are usually the ones making better money and, better yet, aren't shackled with tens of thousands in education debt?

If academic institutions were allowed to compete in a free market, there would be a much wider array of options for students than exists presently. No doubt some schools would still offer an assortment of liberal arts studies for the lazy or undecided, but there would also be no-B.S. schools that dealt merely with imparting skills relevant to specific fields of study. And hey, perhaps the market would even determine that some professions would require the exact same amount of schooling as they do today under our present system, but the point is we'll never know until schools are freed from silly government mandates.

After all, there's no need to waste two years reading the classics if all you really want to do is operate on dogs and cats.

Three PIGS Charged in Partamian Death, DA Vows to Expand Police State

In the wake of the tragic, accidental death of Arman Partamian following a night of partying during a pledging event at SUNY Geneseo, three members of the PIGS fraternity are becoming familiar with the unofficial motto of the American "justice" system: "If you can't prove someone guilty of an actual crime, invent one!"

According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Devin McClain, 21, Alex Stucki, 20, and Daniel Wech, 21, have been charged in the death of Partamian on March 1.

McClain, Stucki and Wech are each facing the following charges: criminally negligent homicide, a felony; three counts of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child, one count of second-degree criminal nuisance, one count of first-degree hazing, all misdemeanors; and two counts of second-degree hazing, a violation.

All of these young men have pleaded not guilty to these charges, and rightly so. Although I don't have all the particulars surrounding the events that occurred the night Partamian died, I'm fairly confident that if Livingston County District Attorney Thomas Moran couldn't come up with any charges alleging that McClain, Stucki, and Wech intended to cause the death of their friend, they're probably innocent of any actual crimes. Even the most serious of these charges -- criminally negligent homicide -- implies the lack of intent to do harm.

Of course, that little detail doesn't matter when it comes to the state. Politicians, police officers, prosecutors, and judges all work in conjunction to craft and enforce all sorts of laws here in these United Police States of America that, ironically, intend to criminalize nonviolent behavior, which will ultimately turn us into a nation of lawbreakers.

Hence, the age-old common law standard of mens rea -- the concept that there is no crime without a "guilty mind," or no crime without intent -- has effectively been cast to the dustbin of history. Whereas the mens rea of robbery is the intent to deprive someone of his personal property, the mens rea of murder is the intent to deprive someone of his life. Note, however, that according to New York law a person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when "with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person."

Clearly it would have been helpful if some teacher along the way had told the geniuses who drafted New York's penal codes that, as a general rule of thumb, you don't use the term you're defining in the definition. While this type of arbitrary language works to the state's benefit because it ensures we really don't know what's against the law and what's not, the entire concept of "criminal negligence" is an oxymoron in the first place if we apply the moral standard of mens rea: Criminality requires intent, which is absent in the event of negligent behavior; thus, a death that results from negligence should not be considered a crime.

To be sure, this is not to say that negligence should not be punished. Certainly one could bear a civil responsibility, and therefore be required to pay a civil penalty, if his negligence results in the injury or death of an innocent person. However, criminalizing any number of acts that can be interpreted as "causing the death of another person" is a highly subjective practice that invites widespread abuse. After all, should we imprison high school girls if their ex-boyfriends decide to commit suicide after an unexpected breakup?

The remainder of the charges leveled against McClain, Stucki and Wech range from absurd to downright ignorant.

First, criminal nuisance is a catch-all charge that can be applied whenever police want to round up anyone who "knowingly" creates conditions that endanger others or contribute to unlawful activity. In other words, you may want to think twice before giving your buddies a lift to the library; certainly you know that operating a motor vehicle is a risky endeavor. Of course, this charge obviously has been applied to the Geneseo Three to hold them criminally liable for providing alcohol to a minor because Arman Partamian was only 19 years old. According to the standard of mens rea, however, this cannot morally be considered criminal behavior because Partamian willingly ingested the alcohol. Moreover, drinking laws are immoral on their face -- any adult has the natural right to consume alcohol if he chooses.

As for the ridiculous charge of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child, well, see my previous comment. Arman was an adult. Just because New York law considers anyone under 21 a "child" when it comes to the purchase or consumption of alcohol, it doesn't prove that the Geneseo Three are criminals; it merely proves the state's laws are unjust. And hazing laws are as ridiculous as "hate crime" legislation. Even if someone is murdered, the crime is murder -- it hardly matters why the crime occurred. These charges are ancillary and excessive, and smack of little more than a brutish attempt by the DA to publicly smear McClain, Stucki, and Wech as mere miscreants who abused a defenseless child, instead of as human beings who may be guilty, at worst, of poor decision-making. In short, they probably say a lot more about the character of Thomas Moran than the guys he's attempting to throw behind bars.

(Via Bennett Loudon, author of the D&C report I linked at the outset, the young men face a total of 1-1/3 to 4 years; Stucki faces an additional tampering with evidence charge -- he allegedly removed Arman's PIGS jersey -- which could add an additional 1-1/3 to 4 years.)

And speaking of Moran, it appears the Geneseo Three aren't the only ones the DA is coming after. Per the D&C:

"The out-of-control binge drinking is going to end," Moran said moments after the arraignment of the members of an unsanctioned fraternity accused of causing the death of Arman Partamian, a 19-year-old student at the State University College at Geneseo.

"We've learned that many of the off campus fraternities have been operating illegal drinking venues where students come, show their student ID, pay $5 and get a cup and then drink without limitation," Moran said.

"I'm going to do everything I can to stop every one of those parties. If I have to start charging the fraternities with tax fraud, I’ll do that," Moran said.

To this I say: Why stop there? Moran should just start charging anyone who provides alcohol to minors with criminal nuisance and the assorted bevy of drinking infractions! After all, just because people usually find themselves charged with these "crimes" only after someone gets hurt, it doesn't mean that's the "only" time they can be applied. Come on, I've read the laws! All that these frat guys and sorority gals really have to do is create the conditions that "endanger" all the other kids on campus who, uhhh, drop five bucks at parties even though they have no idea what's going on inside.

Tom Moran, it's time to be a Real American! You know being a petty tyrant and pestering drunk kids about the stupid tax code isn't going to put a dent in off-campus partying; you gotsta pull out your jackbooted thugs and start raiding these hooligans, yo! A couple full-auto AR-15s to the forehead and soon enough word will start getting around campus that you're not fooling around anymore!

After all, you're the DA in a small college town, where students learn best by participating in teachable moments, observing their instructors and participating in hands-on activities. If you really want to beat the concept of criminality into these kids' dense skulls, no better way than to demonstrate it yourself.

"We Own Your Kids"

That's what a judge in North Carolina really meant to say during a divorce hearing when he ordered three children to switch from home school to public school.

Of course, I suppose you really can't be too surprised when people expect the state to make decisions they should be making for themselves.

Thanks a lot, enablers.

Police Admit PIGS Aren't the Problem Many People Insist They Are

The Livingston County (NY) sheriff's department has told the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle that the PIGS, a fraternity at SUNY Geneseo that finds itself in the public's crosshairs after one of its pledges was found dead last weekend after drinking heavily, insists that the organization is not the menace to society that many critics allege.

"I assure you the common impression that that was a problem house where we had a lot of calls is not true," said Livingston County Sheriff John York.

I also credit staff reporter Bennett Loudon for his willingness to publicize some facts about the PIGS debunking the myths that they force pledges to drink alcohol and that they engage in hazing rituals. In fact, after our interview last Friday, Loudon quotes me fairly extensively in order to share some history about the organization as well as some of my own experiences as a member of PIGS while I was a student at SUNY Geneseo.

As I wrote last week, a typical PIGS orientation requires the consumption of alcohol, but these are activities that prospective members are made aware of well before they are even accepted as pledges. People may argue that the PIGS should be held liable for providing alcohol to minors, but allegations that they expose unsuspecting students to drinking events against their will are simply unfounded.

At the time of this writing, no charges have been filed against the PIGS organization.

Arman Partamian: Update

The New York State Police department has released the blood alcohol content of Arman Partamian, the SUNY Geneseo student who was found dead last Sunday in an off-campus house belonging to current members of my old fraternity, the PIGS.

State Police say the BAC in Partamian's heart blood registered .39 percent, and his urine registered .49 percent. However, the vitreous humor alcohol level (eyeball fluid) tested at .55 percent. That's nearly seven times the legal limit to drive of .08 percent.

The vitreous humor test is most accurate because eye fluid doesn’t break down over time, police said.

If these results are accurate, .55 percent of Partamian's blood comprised alcohol. My first thought is one of amazement, primarily because I have never experienced or learned of any PIGS orientation activity that would have accounted for such lethal intake of alcohol. And this information merely reveals Arman's BAC at the time of his death -- it doesn't indicate how many different varieties of alcohol (or other potential substances) were present in his bloodstream, how they may have gotten there, or whether some of them got there prior to Arman's consumption with the PIGS.

On the surface this surely doesn't bode well for the PIGS organization, as it currently faces public condemnation from everyone from the college president to the rank and file student body. For instance, just today a girl named Katie called me an "asshat" for failing to prematurely join the lynch mob and wrote, "[Arman] was 7 times the legal limit and was being made to run around a bonfire and drink an entire bottle of Jack [Daniels]."

As I've noted, there's a difference between forcing someone to do something against his will and requiring him to do something to which he has already consented. After all, there's a difference between pulling a girl off the sidewalk and raping her in a forest and giving her 300 bucks if she'll have sex on camera.

I haven't verified the claim that Arman was told to run around a bonfire with a bottle of liquor (this report indicates police found no evidence of anybody around a bonfire when they visited the PIGS house Saturday night). However, even if this were so, again, there's a palpable difference between forcing someone to do this despite pleas to the contrary and merely requiring it based on a consensual agreement. In short, Arman (along with his fellow "pledges") either engaged in these activities willingly or he didn't.

I can only speak to PIGS protocols that were in place when I was in college during the '90s, but the organization has always made prospective members aware that there will be certain orientation activities that require the intake of alcohol. Therefore, if that's just not your bag, you have every right and opportunity to walk away. In fact, as a 5-year member of the organization (my final year was grad school), I saw some guys do exactly that. And yet others chose to stay. I suppose you could say that's one good way to weed out people who don't belong in a "drinking club." But any way you slice it, you must admit that the PIGS let you know what to expect from the get-go.

Now, even among some critics who accept the fact that 19-year-old Arman willingly ingested alcohol, there are those who believe the PIGS should be held liable for providing alcohol to a minor. Given the severity of this tragedy, it's a virtual certainty that the police and DA will file these charges, but in reality they're neither here nor there. For one thing, drinking laws are unjust and should be abolished; but at minimum, anyone who's an adult in the eyes of the law should be able to drink alcohol. Period.

So let's just put that argument aside for now. After all, if the police were to start charging everyone on campus for this "crime," the college would essentially cease to exist almost overnight. (Are you starting to see why they don't?) Moreover, the PIGS are hardly the only organization on campus that provides alcohol to underclassmen.

So what's actually happening here is that the PIGS are being offered up as the scapegoat for any and all "untoward" behavior at SUNY Geneseo. Regardless of the particulars, many seem to say, this incident can be used to finally put an end to those "renegades" that have all the fun and steal all our girlfriends!

In no uncertain terms, if it can be proven that Arman was forced to drink against his will, then anyone responsible for such an act of aggression should be held accountable for his death. However, through a discussion with a recent Geneseo graduate and PIG alumnus who wishes to remain anonymous at this point but nevertheless has reliable knowledge of the day in question, I was told that Arman was a willing participant in last Saturday's activities. In fact, he tells me that Arman was quite well-known for being a partier, someone who loved to play drinking games and boast his drinking prowess. (If this is true, it's certainly no surprise that he fit in well with the PIGS.) Put another way, Arman wasn't exactly the doe-eyed naif that many associated with the media and college are trying to portray him as.

Furthermore, one crucial element that way too many detractors seem all to willing to overlook is that Arman suffered from Evans Syndrome, an autoimmune disease where antibodies attack red blood cells and platelets. While it may be premature to speculate (absent comprehensive autopsy results) as to whether this contributed to his death, this could explain why Arman's BAC was so high. If he suffered from a condition that reduced his blood supply, it stands to reason that any foreign substance(s) contained within his blood could comprise a higher percentage relative to someone who wasn't afflicted.

In closing, I should point out that I granted an interview this morning to Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reporter Bennet Loudon, who originally reported on this incident, and I discussed with him much of what I've written here. We shall see if the mainstream media is willing to report information debunking many of the outrageous allegations portraying the PIGS as a bunch of miscreants who exist solely to force-feed alcohol to unsuspecting admirers.

SUNY Geneseo Student Found Dead after Party

In a story that hits close to home, Geneseo State University student Arman Partamian was found dead last Sunday morning in an off-campus house, hours after apparently drinking a significant amount of alcohol the day before.

Why is this personal? Partamian was enrolled at my college alma mater and was also "pledging" my old "fraternity," the Order of the Orange Knights -- better known as PIGS -- when he died.

I use the quotes above because PIGS is a social organization, not a fraternity; and to become a member you partake in orientation, not pledging. Given this tragic situation these are relatively meaningless details, but I wanted to point out the distinction because I will revisit this point later. In short, the PIGS aren't "Greek" -- their motto, "We don't care if you don't like us," is proof positive of that -- and Geneseo is the only college in the country where you'll find them.

Alcohol-related college deaths always tend to bring the holier than thou out of the woodwork to condemn the "irresponsibility" and "recklessness" of our youth, and if this statement by Geneseo president Christopher Dahl is any indication, there's a good chance most of the fraternities and sororities at Geneseo will increasingly find themselves in the administration's crosshairs from now on:

We strongly condemn irresponsible organizations that ignore the expectations and values of the College, recruit students like Arman and then encourage behavior that puts their lives at risk. We will continue to do all that is legally within our power to eliminate the detrimental influence these renegade organizations have on our students and community.

As the president of a state university, Dahl obviously is required to worship at the alter of political correctness, but with all due respect, he can save the melodrama. For starters, he's the president of a college; if he wants to run an institution filled with mature conformers, maybe he should consider working for the Key Bank down the street instead.

Furthermore, what's worse: voluntarily joining a social club whose members like to drink, or serving as the top administrator of a public college that exists largely at the expense of coerced taxpayers? Mr. Dahl may want to be careful if he's looking for a moral debate.

And, seriously, "renegade organizations" that "put lives at risk?" President Dahl runs a small Division III school in rural upstate New York. If this hyperbole is the type of rhetoric one can expect to receive from a university president in response to off-campus weekend parties, I'd love to see how he'd react if he actually had to deal with real campus hooligans who, say, set whole communities afire and destroy private property after big football or basketball games.

Arman Partamian's death is nothing short of a tragedy, and my thoughts are with his family and friends. But the reality of the matter is that these unfortunate incidents are the exception. Clearly this fact doesn't make any alcohol-related death easier to bear, but there's not an organization on campus -- Greek or otherwise -- that sets out to do tangible harm to its pledges or any other student who attends an open party. These interactions are the epitome of voluntary association between consenting adults, as students join fraternities and sororities knowing full well that they may face hazing rituals and be subjected to ridicule.

Which brings me to my final point. I've read a couple reports that refer to the PIGS as a "drinking club." Yes, if you meet a PIG, there will be no confusion as to what one of his favorite pastimes is. It's not peculiar to find him bent over a garbage can in the I.B. at 2 a.m. on a Thursday night, or even standing behind an "enemy" DK or Omega to have his back outside the bar when punks from R.I.T. roll into town looking for a fight. Nor, incidentally, is it uncommon to find him volunteering for any number of charity events, from wheelchair basketball games to Big Brothers/Big Sisters to memorial golf fundraisers.

The reason I distinguished the PIGS from the Greek fraternities on campus is because the PIGS actually take pride in not behaving like the typical frat, which generally is known to demean its pledges by forcing them to engage in any number of denigrating, ritualisic activities throughout campus. Personally, I've always regarded this as a virtue and an exhibition of good character -- the same type, by the way, that the PIGS look for in potential members and obviously found in Arman Partamian, who spent some of his free time as a volunteer EMT with the Geneseo fire department.

Though the "littles" may be required to take part in various organized drinking activities before they get their jerseys (signifying official entry into the organization), the PIGS tell all interested parties upfront that they will be treated like equals during orientation; they simply want all their prospective brethren to have fun, hang out together, and get to know everyone in the organization as they create bonds and friendships that will last a lifetime. The fact that alcohol is involved is secondary; you don't become a PIG if you don't like to drink.

If President Dahl and his fellow critics really want to take productive measures to mitigate the potential for "binge drinking"-related student deaths, perhaps they could advocate the abolition of tyrannical laws that encourage fraternity parties in the first place by preventing young adults from drinking legally in bars and restaurants.

Or maybe instead of alienating his own students by castigating them as evil reprobates -- the vast majority of whom graduated at the top of their respective high school classes -- Mr. Dahl could accept that fact that most college kids are going to drink and work within that construct to try to form partnerships with them that could somehow reduce the potential for tragedy.

Then again, maybe there's just not an "answer" here. As difficult as it is, maybe you just have to accept the fact that sometimes people make mistakes and that accidents happen.

These are sad days in Geneseo, but blaming the PIGS or fraternities in general for decisions individuals make misses the point and tarnishes the memory of Arman Partamian, who from my vantage point made a choice to join an organization that welcomed him and made him happy.

There will always be critics and second-guessing, and there are few words to comfort parents who've lost a child. But if I may, I'll offer just one thought: If you have a son the state and its accomplices consider a "renegade," that in itself is a badge of honor and you should be damned proud.

Arman Partamian, rest in peace.

What's a Little Fascism amongst Friends?

It's bad enough that the state maintains a de facto monopoly over schooling so it can brainwash the masses in the virtues of compulsory servitude.

It's bad enough that taxpayers are forced to bankroll youth "criminal justice" programs preparing teenagers for careers in jackbooted thuggery.

But it's revolting when private school administrators willingly serve as pawns of the state, indoctrinating their own students with the canard that government police are their friends, as is the case with Little Flower, a K-8 Catholic school in Great Mills, Maryland.

But such is to be expected when churches and religious schools are on the federal dole. To accept the government's welfare bribes is to accede to its control and voluntarily become a ward of the state.

And They Say Crack Addiction Is Bad

Actually, I have no idea if they say that anymore. But I do know what else is bad: consenting to the elimination of a vertical separation of powers to feed your welfare addiction.

Maryland's bureaucratic whores can always count on their top pimp Steny Hoyer to saunter down Rte. 4 with a check from the nation's capital. Last Friday Hoyer held a press conference announcing that Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary's county schools stood to receive a $24 million handout if Congress passes Obama's "stimulus" package.

"Communities across our state and our nation are suffering," Hoyer (D-Md., 5th) said. "And, with a declining tax base and a state that is confronting a $2 billion shortfall, restricting government's ability to provide critical services and fund programs, putting localities in an increasingly difficult position. This month, I think, will go down in our history as a turning point for our nation."

Chucklehead.

I wonder how Maryland ended up with a $2 billion shortfall. Could it be because Gov. Douchebag Martin O'Malley erased a modest budget surplus upon taking office and spent Maryland into its current deficit? Hiked bevies of taxes, which often results in less revenue due to decreases in consumer spending and investment? Just a hunch.

Unlike the federal government, states don't have their own printing presses. So, apparently, when profligate governors bankrupt their states, it's up to taxpayers across the country to pick up the slack.

You're right, Steny. This month probably will go down in history as a turning point -- a big downturn.

Schooling at the Point of a Gun

Fellow Examiner blogger Andrea Hermitt writes today about states that pay for college.

Why would people be interested in sending their kids to schools funded with money stolen from coerced taxpayers? Oh yes...because Americans are among the biggest welfare kings and queens the world has ever known.

Government Indoctrination Centers Ordered to Stop Prayer

A federal judge has ordered the Santa Rosa County School District to stop promoting religion and prayer in the classroom and at school events.

U.S. District Court Judge Casey Rodgers ruled Friday after school officials admitted allegations in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

This clash between students/parents and the state epitomizes the inherent unfairness and immorality of government-sponsored schooling.

Contrary to popular opinion, these types of cases have nothing to do with so-called "free speech" rights or "separation of church and state." They have to do with coercion.

Taxpayers who happen to endorse prayer in public schools will tell you that they should be free to express their religious views in schools they pay for; those who oppose prayer in public schools will tell you that their tax dollars afford them the right to be free of such practices.

Both arguments are valid, but only up until the point where the rights of one group encroach upon the rights of another. It is immoral to forcibly relieve someone of her property (i.e., steal her money and call it taxation) and then force her to conform to rules without her consent -- whatever those rules happen to be.

Therefore, the only moral course is to abolish government schools -- to separate school and state. Parents who wish to send their kids to schools that offer prayer will easily find private ones offering such services. Likewise parents who have no need for this. And so on and so forth, as privatizing education would allow parents of all walks to customize their children's schooling when schools offering a variety of specialized services began to sprout up.

Of course, even if a majority of Americans favored the abolition of public schools, politicians and bureaucrats would fight tooth and nail to prevent this. For they understand that government schooling has absolutely nothing to do with providing "free" education (much less quality education) to children and everything to do with taking everyone's money and using it to force as many kids as possible to be indoctrinated with statist ideology.

Against Universal Preschool

I'm obviously opposed to all statist mandates, especially those that have the word "universal" in their titles, but it's nevertheless fun to read Tricia Shore's bitchslap of Our Holy Savior's plan that amounts to little more than institutionalized daycare (I mean, seriously, what do you think "zero to five" really means?).

Note to Barry O.: The problem with American education isn't that kids are "starting school behind" or that some of them are "disadvantaged" relative to any others. It's that the state condemns kids to a childhood of mediocre government schooling in the first place.

Dr. Walter Block Lays the Smack Down

On his politically correct majesties colleagues who patrol the so-called Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force at Loyola University New Orleans.

And it is good.

The Government's (Quasi-) Monopoly on Schooling

I was taken to task several years ago for commenting in a blog forum that the government has a monopoly on schooling. The dissenter insisted that there was no monopoly because private schools operate amongst their public counterparts.

Taken literally, perhaps this guy was right. But considering that even private schools and homeschoolers generally must receive accreditation from the state (save for a few exceptions) in order to operate or dispense degrees legally, the contention that public schools actually compete with private ones is purely semantic. In short, public schools have to compete with no one when their funding is guaranteed at the expense of the taxpayer.

At the very least the government retains a quasi-monopoly on education. Whether you actually have children in public schools or not, you're forced to subsidize them -- usually in the form of property taxes.

Except for select individuals who have either the affluence or the willingness to sacrifice time at home with their families to work several jobs to pay for private schooling, I'd venture to say that most people feel financially compelled to send their kids to public schools. The state's goal, after all, is to force as many kids into its indoctrination factories as possible.

And these are just some of the most apparent costs of public schools. Less noticeable is the financial hardship immediately imposed on private schools themselves by the very existence of government ones. An example of this surfaced today in a local Maryland paper, which reports that two Catholic schools could be closed due to financial and enrollment shortfalls.

A community meeting to which the public is invited will be held Monday, Dec. 15, at the school's gym to discuss [fundraising options]. It is also an opportunity for the community to show its support for the school, O'Connell said. The superintendent of schools for the Archdiocese of Washington and the secretary for education for the archdiocese are expected to attend.

Granted, any private business is responsible for its own success or failure, and these schools certainly could be suffering from mismanagement. However, because the government coerces parents into subjecting their children to public schools in the first place through heavy taxation, the state not only artificially limits private school enrollment (and, by extension, revenue) but also ensures that charitable people have that much less money that they could donate to the cause of saving their community's private schools.

Want More Black Lawyers?

Encourage law schools to get rid of affirmative action policies.

[U.S. Commission on Civil Rights] Commissioner Gail Heriot, also a professor of law at the University of San Diego (USD), wrote in this fall’s edition of the school’s “The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues” about the commission’s investigations showing what she called “troubling evidence that race-based affirmative action policies may have harmed rather than helped minority students who aspire to become attorneys.”

Heriot based her essay largely, but far from exclusively, on a study by UCLA Law Professor Richard Sander. “If his findings are correct,” she wrote, “there are today approximately 7.9% fewer, not more, practicing attorneys as a result of race-based admissions policies.”

Sander’s research indicates that without affirmative action, fewer African-Americans would be admitted to law schools, but more would eventually pass the bar exam and become practicing attorneys.

At first glance, of course, these findings seem to make no sense. But the key lies in the concept of “academic mismatch.” Heriot explains: “Students who attend schools where their academic credentials are substantially below their fellow students’ tend to perform poorly.” They consistently receive worse grades, and they drop out at far higher rates.

For an excellent libertarian defense of affirmative action policies (not laws, but policies), see this article by Stephan Kinsella.

College Is Overrated

I love this argument today from Karen DeCoster, who explains why college is hardly "necessary" and why it most certainly is not a requirement for everyone.

Artificial demand for college degrees, driven largely by state- and federally-subsidized loans along with public school teachers' entreaties to children everywhere to pursue education after high school, has resulted in skyrocketing tuition, too many colleges and students, and too much student debt -- which often culminates in loan defaults when an oversupply of graduates can't find jobs in a tight market.

Karen's spot-on analysis primarily makes me happy because it serves to vindicate some of the teachings I would share with former elementary school students back in the mid to late '90s, when I knew I had strong libertarian leanings but well before I was versed in the teachings of LewRockwell.com, Austrian economics, and libertarianism.

As many readers probably know by now, I once taught fourth grade in a public school, which was located in a low-income, inner city-type area and populated primarily with minority students. It epitomized single parenthood, broken families, and all the other perks that often tend to accompany widespread crime, drug use, and welfare subsidies. To say that the majority of students faced uphill battles to overcome problems in their home lives and communities would be an understatement, and any honest teacher knew that many of them would be lucky to graduate from high school, much less go on to have successful college careers.

I may have been a mere college graduate myself, but I would've had to have been an idiot to tell 10-year-old kids, many of whom were certifiably illiterate, that they "needed" to go to college to be successful. Inasmuch as discussions of the sort even need to take place in an elementary school classroom, it would have been borderline criminal to fill these kids' heads with such a notion when half of them hardly even wanted to be in school in the first place.

However, looking back I highly doubt many of the other teachers in my school shared my views. It was virtually common knowledge that kids were simply expected to go to college, and I'm almost certain that the principal would have written me up if I was ever caught "demoralizing" the students or "discouraging" them from "taking ownership for their education," or whatever the lofty mantra was for the year. Admittedly, I've tried hard to forget about many of the politically correct policies I was expected to swallow and regurgitate for my students back then.

Of course, I did (and do) believe that every student is responsible for his own education, and that anyone can accomplish just about anything he puts his mind to if he's willing to make the sacrifices necessary for success. When talk of college came up in my classroom, I was quick to point out that every single kid in the room was capable of getting good grades, going on to college, and getting almost anything he or she wanted in life. I most certainly did not discourage my students from aspiring to academia after high school. However, I did make it perfectly clear that they did not "need" to go to college to be successful.

What I told them was that they, in fact, would need to learn how to read, to write, to learn how to multiply and divide accurately, to think logically, to speak in coherent sentences, to respect others, and to understand that they were the only ones who could determine whether they would be successful or not.

Though the school had a 70 percent minority enrollment, there was no black, brown, or white in my classroom; aside from only a handful of "normal" students, the vast majority comprised a technicolor array of kids who were growing up on the wrong side of the tracks and needed all the proper guidance adults could provide them. I told them that the world was full of plumbers and construction workers and electricians and hair stylists and UPS drivers who probably all made more money than their humble teacher; that anyone who employed the aforementioned skills could open up her own business and learn how to do her own accounting or inventory management or interviews for new employees. But more importantly, I told them that anyone who had a decent academic skill set could find employment just about anywhere.

So thanks, Karen, for making me realize that even when I hardly knew anything, I at least knew enough not to force my students to flounder, for at least a few years anyway, in the self-righteous ramblings of their government schools.

Price Controls Cause Shortages

If you have a child in a public school, I have a question for you: How do you feel about the quality of your kid's education knowing the people in charge of it don't even understand the most basic laws of economics?

I've lived in Maryland for 12 years now, and I can recall reading about teacher shortages at some point every single year. Apparently, this year is no exception (my emphasis).

"While we have been able to fill teaching positions in Calvert County, it is becoming more challenging to hire highly qualified teachers in certain areas such as higher level sciences, special education and speech pathology," said Calvert County Public Schools Superintendent Jack Smith.

"In St. Mary’s [County] we have worked extremely hard to make sure that we hire highly qualified teachers. One difficulty that we face as a state is that Maryland does not produce enough graduates in the teaching area to fill all of the vacancies Maryland counties have,["] said Dr. Edward Weiland, director of human resources for St. Mary’s County Public Schools.

It would be amusing to listen to all this complaining if it weren't an outgrowth of pathetic economic ignorance, especially considering the fact that top county officials rake in six-figure salaries (Supt. Jack Smith makes over $150,000 a year). But I can save all the perplexed superintendents and directors of Maryland's failing public schools a lot of time: You will always face teacher shortages when you artificially set teacher salaries.

A shortage occurs when demand for a good exceeds the amount supplied at a prevailing price. In short, shortages will take place when the price of a good is too low. In Maryland, there aren't enough teachers willing to work for the prevailing wage. Because public schools do not operate on the free market, prices will not rise to meet the current demand. Hence the shortage.

In a free market, however, producers understand that the more people want a particular good, the more they're willing to pay for it. This concept was illustrated this past summer when gasoline prices "skyrocketed." Rising prices not only ensure that goods will be available to consumers who need them most by forcing everyone to economize, they also send a signal to the market that these goods are needed in the first place. This draws producers into the market to provide the demanded products in the hope of making a profit.

If Maryland politicians and bureaucrats really wanted to make sure there will be enough teachers to fill classrooms full of students, they would get out of the education business altogether and allow the private sector to provide schooling. Private school officials would automatically adjust their prices to allow for salaries that would draw teachers into the classrooms.

Don't buy lame excuses like the one Dr. Weiland offers when he claims that Maryland colleges simply aren't producing enough teachers to fill all the vacancies. I relocated from New York to accept my first full-time job as a fourth grade teacher; others would do the same if the price was right.

Interestingly enough, it turned out after three and a half years that the price wasn't "right" enough to convince me to stick with an industry that stole from taxpayers, failed to adequately discipline students, and refused to require actual learning before promoting students, so I quit.

Maryland's school leaders would do well to realize that there may be no price at which they can attract quality teachers, given that funding is forcibly extricated from taxpayers and is therefore in limited supply. Price controls are merely one problem with government schooling. Along with this also come statist "education" policies, statist "values," union demands, and any number of other undesirable workplace conditions that prevent prospective teachers from choosing to put up with them, or even preclude smart college kids from majoring in education completely.

One reason private schools often are able to attract good teachers for less money is precisely because they're not public schools, replete with the many headaches that accompany statist control.

Despite their lofty rhetoric, public school officials probably realize they can't increase prices to the point required to actually attract the "best and brightest" -- obviously there are a handful of intelligent teachers willing to teach at prevailing rates -- for if they did, they would price themselves into irrelevance as taxpayers ultimately would refuse to fork over the money and instead send their kids to cheaper (or at least more valuable) private schools. Instead, they are content to promote and produce an inferior product in order to convey the impression that they can adequately serve the educational needs of their students.

But just remember: It's all "for the children."

What's Wrong with Government Schooling?

Aside from the moral implications of state ownership of children whose parents can't afford private schooling, it's no secret that perhaps the biggest problem with public education is that no amount of money can result in the education of students who aren't expected to compete -- not necessarily even with one another, mind you, but with themselves.

The reason colleges have a slightly better chance of successfully educating their students is because, unlike elementary and high schools across the country, they can usually be selective during the admissions process. If applicants don't meet an expected standard, they won't get in. Similarly, students can be booted out if they don't maintain the school's minimum grade point average.

However, due to the vast federal influence at even the college level, the statist policies that have corrupted public schools at the primary and secondary levels have simultaneously eroded the integrity of the country's highest institutions of "learning." See this poignant story from one graduate student.

13-Year-Old Busted for Taking Medical Marijuana to School

Hey, if you're gonna get suspended for having aspirin or broken pencil sharpeners in school, you might as well go whole hog!

Sadly, no doubt the neoprohibitionists will seize on this episode as yet further proof that we need to outlaw the evil, evil plant even when used for legal pain relief. 

The Myth of Free Markets in America

George Reisman has an excellent article on the myth that laissez faire capitalism caused our current economic mess. Even better he explains how the anti-capitialistic mentality of Marx and Keynes inflitrated our educational institutions and the depressing results of having our media outlets and the dictators, slave masters, tyrants euphemistically known as elected leaders indoctrinated by these ideologies. One of our readers wondered just how the media became so anti-freedom and anti-market; look no further than our State educational system. I love this concluding paragraph:

The logical stopping point of this process is that one day everyone will end up being shackled to a wall, or at the very least being compelled to do something comparable to living in a zip code that matches his social security number. Then the government will know who everyone is, where he is, and that he can do nothing whatever without its approval and permission. And then the world will be safe from anyone attempting to do anything that benefits him and thereby allegedly harms others. At that point, the world will enjoy all the prosperity that comes from total paralysis.

The work of the Remnant never ends.

Police State: Univ. of Florida

Writes Nathaniel C.:

"I recently completed a three-day visit at UF and was amazed at how the university adminstrators treat the students like a group of serfs. 20 mph campus wide speed limit, strictly enforced. University Police barge into privately owned fraternity houses for 'safety' inspections. UFPD can also issue citations to underage students for NOT drinking. That's right, underage students can be fined for simply being in the same room while someone else is drinking. I was also issued a parking citation for not parking 'nose in.' What?? But this was the icing on the cake:

"I think I'll cross UF off my list of possible graduate schools."

'Public Education' Is an Oxymoron

Apparently one of the new perks being offered in an attempt to attract teachers to Florida public schools is the constant and omnipresent stench of B.O. throughout the school day.

A new Florida law will require elementary schools statewide to offer 150 minutes of physical education a week, a mandate that works out to be 30 minutes per day of running, jumping, and sweating.

PE teacher Michele Rivera called physical education "as important as any subject taught in schools.''

''The kids are not only getting an education that moves their bodies, they're learning lifetime healthy habits,'' she said.

It's all well and good to integrate PE into a child's education curriculum -- something private schools undoubtedly do, as well -- but don't put too much faith in schools filled with teachers who actually think doing jumping jacks is as important as mastering academic skills.

The Useless Constitution

Today The Washington Post has an article about the efficacy of Constitution Day. Supposedly this day is an opportunity for children in public schools to learn about the Constitution. In 2004 Robert Byrd inserted language into an appropriations bill forcing all schools, including universities, which receive federal funds to include a program on the Constitution. If find it deliciously ironic that Congress would pass a bill to force students to learn about the Constitution when supposedly Congress does not have this power under the Constitution, a point Thomas Woods noted as well*. Theoretically, the Constitution is not hard to interpret, at least that's the bridge the Federalists sold the people. If a power is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, then the central government has that power; if a power is not in the Constitution then the central government does not have that power. Thus, the central government doesn't have the power to regulate schools or interfere in education at all because the power to regulate schools is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. But this is irrelevant. The central government is the ultimate judge of the limit of its powers and, mirable dictu, it has decided that there are no limits on its powers. Moreover, the central government does have guns, bombs, tanks, and fighter jets, and that's all the authority it needs. Obey us or die is the mantra of the State. Just what good is a constitution which supposedly limits the power of the central government to the explicit duties listed in the Constitution yet cannot prevent the central government from unconstitutionally ordering schools to teach children this Constitution? It would be better used as Charmin.

The real point of the Constitution Day is, of course, State aggrandizement. My guess is that discussions will center on how this wonderful document allows the State to discover all types of new powers and just adapt with the times. Who needs concrete rules when we can just change them when the situation demands it? There will probably be no discussion of the opponents of the Constitution. They might be mentioned, but they will be written off as unpatriotic anarchists who have no faith in the beneficent State. They would not dare allow the students to actually read the arguments of the Anti-Federalists because such prescient truth would sow seeds of doubt in the fertile minds of future statists. Consider this quotation from my namesake, "Brutus," commenting on Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution in an 1787 letter:

"The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please. No state legislature, or any power in the state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has to do with that of another. In the business therefore of laying and collecting taxes, the idea of confederation is totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced. It is proper here to remark, that the authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important of any power that can be granted; it connects with it almost all other powers, or at least will in process of time draw all other after it; it is the great mean of protection, security, and defence, in a good government, and the great engine of oppression and tyranny in a bad one."

That is exactly our situation now. Nostradamus has nothing on Brutus.

You can read the some of the writings of other Anti-Federalists here.

*Click on Woods' podcast Who Killed the Constitution to learn more about how the centralized government doesn't even respect the document that politicians trumpet as "The Law of the Land." This is the nature of the State. The Constitution is binding on the subjects; the State does whatever it wants.

How Intelligent Can You Expect Public School Kids to Be...

...when they're taught by bleating imbeciles?

On the other hand, we might as well set ourselves to teaching children that the State prosecutes us today for the mere potential to commit a crime, even if we have no intent to do so or have harmed no one.

(Via J.D. Tuccille)

Idiocy Loves Company

Last week, Trevor commented on Gov. Martin O'Malley's "Steady Progress for Maryland Schools" tour, in which the taxpayers were forced to fork over $5.3 billion for public schools. Our illustrious mayor of the District of Criminals Columbia has decided that such foolishness should not be the exclusive province of governors and wants to spend $1.5 billion to update the DC Public Schools. Of course, this means that the program will probably cost more like $2.5 to $3.5 billion. Remember, this is the same man who spent $32 million dollars in the first three weeks for the summer jobs program which had a total budget of $14.5 million for the entire 10 week program. Moreover, the Post reports, "The plan does not specify estimated costs for each school project. Neither does it offer many details about the scope and scale of the work envisioned." That's a blank check.

Given the mayor's proclivity to spend a lot other people's money in a short period of time, he has proposed a hasty timeline to complete this work:

The most unusual aspect of the plan, which is subject to review and approval by the D.C. Council, is its short timeline. Most facilities plans try to peer 10 to 15 years into the future. Fenty, who has staked his political future on transforming the city's low-performing school system, wants at least some physical improvement to all the District's 120 schools -- 62 elementary, 12 middle, 18 high, 22 pre-K-8 and 6 special education -- between 2009 and 2014.

Why worry about actually educating children? If the buildings look nice, certainly learning must occur. Trevor's comment about O'Malley's plan is completely apposite for this situation:

In fact, here's where the smoke and mirrors come in: O'Malley wants taxpayers to believe his program will benefit teachers and students ("the schools"), but what he really intends to do -- and, amazingly, it's laid out in literal terms before our very eyes in the name of his program -- is rob taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars to build lavish new schools so as to give the impression that real learning is taking place. After all, if the schools are pretty, they must be good, right?

Just replace "O'Malley" with "Fenty." Works perfectly.

My favorite quote from the article is this one:

"I don't see how they can do major modernizations in the high schools and leave money for anything else, not if they are staying within a $250 million [annual] budget," said Mary Filardo, executive director of the 21st Century School Fund, which studies the improvement of urban schools. "And I've never heard of a master plan that doesn't have project-specific dollars associated with it."

Based on the amount of money that Fenty spends, I had no idea that the DC School System had a $250 million annual budget. Fenty wants to spend $1.5 billion over six years, which is $250 million per year, which means the entire annual budget will be devoted to improving these schools. Where is the extra money going to come from to, you know, actually operate these schools? 1)Tax revenue and 2)bond sales, which is a fancy way of saying tax revenue. I have a sinking feeling that my property tax assessment will be going up although it's clear that the housing market is in need of a correction and property values are falling. Isn't life under the State grand?

'Steady Progress,' My Patoot

Judging by Gov. Martin O'Malley's grammatical and intellectual shortcomings, as evidenced by his op-ed yesterday about the condition of Maryland's public schools, you'd think the guy actually attended public schools himself (he went to Gonzaga College H.S. and Catholic University, both private schools in Washington, D.C.).

In his article O'Malley announced his "Steady Progress for Maryland's Schools" tour, a fancy yet substantively meaningless moniker of the sort public officials love to use as justification to excuse collossal rip-offs of taxpayers in the name of public education.

With this particular boondoggle, in which the governor promises to cavort via motorcade throughout the state as he visits public school students and faculty, you can bet it'll be one that ultimately will do more to relieve Marylanders of money (property) they otherwise could have spent on their own gasoline than it will to account for any "progress for Maryland's schools."

In fact, here's where the smoke and mirrors come in: O'Malley wants taxpayers to believe his program will benefit teachers and students ("the schools"), but what he really intends to do -- and, amazingly, it's laid out in literal terms before our very eyes in the name of his program -- is rob taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars to build lavish new schools so as to give the impression that real learning is taking place. After all, if the schools are pretty, they must be good, right?

To wit (my emphasis):

As teachers, principals and administrators throughout our State return to the important work of educating Maryland's next generation, they do so this year with unprecedented levels of investment and a renewed commitment to the education and development of our future workforce in Maryland.

[...]

To ensure that every Maryland child receives a world class education, we've made an historic $5.3 billion investment in our public schools, and froze (sic) state college tuition for a third consecutive year so that higher education is accessible to more Maryland families. And to ensure that our students are not housed in temporary trailers or crumbling classrooms, we've invested an unprecedented $733 million for school construction, more than three times that of a comparable period four years ago.

O'Malley's difficulties with passive verb formation aside, someone ought to tell him that using the same word (or a variant thereof) three times in two of three consecutive paragraphs borders on redundancy. However, what bothers me more than the governor's subpar writing ability is my nagging feeling that O'Malley really, really, really wants to convince the gullible masses that his program is an "investment" when it simply cannot be in any way, shape, or form.

Economically speaking, an investment is the devotion of money or capital for the purpose of obtaining future production ("...the education and development of our future workforce in Maryland") and almost always implies the acquisition of profitable returns.

I'm not trying to pick nits here, as, generally speaking, any allocation of money that reasonably can be assumed to have resulted in welcome or positive outcomes can be considered an "investment." The problem is, outcomes often can be perceived very subjectively, especially by those who have a vested interest in the creation of welfare programs.

With any true investment comes the responsibility and necessity of measuring results and progress. However, no government can meaningfully measure results and quality -- indeed, it has no incentive to do so -- when funding is obtained by forcibly confiscating money from individuals. There's a reason the classrooms are crumbling in the first place.

Because the State is not restrained by the market, in which it must engage in voluntary cooperation with and provide goods and services demanded by consumers lest it go out of business, it by definition is inefficient. When Peter can be robbed at the point of a gun to pay Paul, you can't expect Paul to work very hard to make Peter happy. The failures of government schools are inherent to their very design.

So whether we're talking about public education or any other program monopolized by the government, it's very disingenuous to claim that money dumped into the system is done as part of some "investment." It would be much more accurate to call it what it really is: a steady stream of pilfered private property used to sustain bloated bureaucracies whose only incentives to exist are to provide public employment and perpetuate the State's authority over those expected to surrender to it.

Miseducation in the District Continues

Our illustrious mayor reportedly spent $2.3 million on an outside firm to clean up the special education crisis in the DC Public Schools. Unfortunately, the contract was scrapped after a few months.

The city’s contract with Columbus Educational Services was supposed to help D.C. rehabilitate its $300 million-plus education system by bringing in an outside consulting firm that would rapidly respond to the needs of disabled or ill children.

But Columbus “never hired the number of staff anticipated,” suffered from “internal management shortcomings” and was subject to “inadequate management and oversight” by city officials, a federal court monitor reported last week.

Statists continue in their faith that the State just has to be involved in order for services to be provided and products created. As long as the State is involved in any stage of the production of goods and services, the production of said goods and services will always be inefficient. This is because the State is not restrained by the forces of the market. Since the State runs the education system, we don't really know just what the demand for education services is nor do we know the most efficient way to deliver those services. Moreover, since the State receives it money through robbery taxation and artificially creates demand for education through truancy laws, it has no incentive to educate or do anything that it says it will do for that matter. Hence, the quote from one parent, "They don’t do anything unless you sue them[.]” If parents could take their children and money elsewhere, the education system would fix itself overnight. What's so sad is that it appears that most parents don't even consider the abolition of public schools as a viable solution. They would rather ice skate uphill than choose a truly free market in education.

Newest DC Public Schools Incentives

Our illustrious mayor of the nation's capital plans to pay middle schools students $100 every two weeks "for attending school, staying out of trouble and getting good grades under a new program meant to inspire achievement with cash," you know, things children are just supposed to do. There is no shortage of idiocy in government officials. Hans Hermann Hoppe was quite correct; the open entry into democracy has led to a fierce competition in the production of bads and our government excels at producing ever more worse ideas, products, and services each day.

Man is a moral creature. We learn early in our lives that there are things that we are just supposed to do and that sometimes there is a price to pay for doing the right thing. The very idea that good behavior should then lead to financial gain will utterly destroy the moral fabric of these children. Inevitably they will place more emphasis on the outcome and make choices purely on the question of "What can I gain from this?" Suppose these children find themselves in a position in which the right moral choice will lead to pain and suffering and bad behavior will lead to gain. Just what choice do you think the children will make? But these children who will become unscrupulous citizens will make excellent politicians in the future. Perhaps that's whole purpose of the program.

Too Cool for School

A small Texas school district is set to allow teachers to pack heat to protect against school shootings.

Still, this is an example of fighting the symptom instead of the disease. Because politically correct bureaucracy makes it virtually impossible to expel thugs from public schools, the state facilitates school violence in the first place.

Profound

From the Baltimore Sun:

Baltimore school officials reported yesterday that suspensions dropped significantly last academic year after city schools chief Andres Alonso discouraged principals from sending students home for nonviolent offenses.

Imagine that. Scientists also report that eating food tends to reduce hunger.

Should We All Learn Spanish?

Obama thinks we should.

There is no sensible reason for the state to dictate or even suggest which language(s) its citizens should speak. Left free, people will communicate in manners that allow them to fulfill their needs.

My 9-month-old attends daycare in the home of a bilingual lady who's originally from Spain, and I think it's great that he's exposed to her accent, cultural mannerisms, and the bits and pieces of the Spanish language she shares with him. It reminds me of when my grandmother would teach me words in Croatian when I was a kid, and I think it would be great if my son could learn a dozen languages.

But that doesn't mean everyone agrees with me, or that they or their children need to learn anything but English. Suggesting that there's a legitimate role for the government to play in the acquisition of particular non-English languages is no different than the notion that the state should limit our national language to English.

Whether you lean liberal (and, generally speaking, think children should be more culturally aware) or conservative (and think everyone should speak English if they live in the U.S.), there is one thing you can do that will, interestingly, see to it that your particular preference is met: advocate for the abolition of the domestic welfare-warfare (police) state.

Opening the country's borders to peaceful immigrants will expose everyone to as many cultures and languages as you and your children can handle. Further, eliminating welfare subsidies will ensure that immigrants and American citizens alike will speak English in the workplace. Because the vast majority of Americans speak English, workers would have to learn English if they wanted to hold down a job -- much like Irish, Italian, Polish, Yugoslavian, German, and Croation immigrants did in the early 20th century.

And because no one would be able to sit at home and collect a government check, the only immigrants who'd be here in the first place would be supporting themselves, just like you do. (If at this point you'd still have a problem with immigrants, that means you're a bigot and we have another discussion on our hands entirely.)

See? You get the government out of your life, you get the government out of your language by default. Sounds to me like it's a win-win. At the very least, you should be able to rest easy knowing you can spend your nights watching Deal or No Deal instead of paging through Barack's mandatory Spanish guide and prepping for your next test.

But it all starts with you. If you fail to vote for freedom, don't be surprised when the tyrants come calling to steal more of it.

But Y'All Keep Putting Your Faith in the State

This is only one of the many, many, many, many, many reasons my child(ren) will never attend public schools.

(Thanks to Wolf.)

No Wonder This Country's in the Shitter

So I'm watching Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? because there's absolutely nothing worth watching on television tonight anymore (Dexter, Weeds, and Californication are all on hiatus), and this dumbass picks 3rd grade math from the board. The question:

"If Olivia ran 36 miles in 4 hours, on average many miles did she run per hour?"

The guy actually had to use his "peek," meaning that his fate was dependent upon the 5th grader who was playing the question with him. Meaning that he had no clue how to figure out the answer.

I know. Anecdote, blah blah blah. This guy gets to fucking vote. Kill me.

Anti-Smoking Indoctrination Is Working

Normally I try to avoid telling personal stories that concern family members, but this one's rather benign (inasmuch as public dissemination goes, anyhow).

Last weekend my brother- and sister-in-law took my two nieces to the demolition derby here in southern Maryland. I know this had to be a fairly tenuous adventure because NieceOne, who's headed to second grade, was upset by the cars crashing into each other when she went to a similar event a couple years ago, so much so that she had to leave. This was both sad and understandable, as she was old enough at the time to remember that her parents' two best friends were killed in an automobile accident only a year before that. NieceTwo, on the other hand -- a year and a half her sister's junior -- just has a blast watching the cars smash while the dirt flew.

This year, everything was cool until about halfway through, when NieceOne began crying again. Her mom, thinking that her daughter was coping with the action, asked what was wrong. Was it the sight of the cars hitting each other? No. The sound of the metal crunching? No.

Then what was it?

"People are smoking!" exclaimed NieceOne, fearing that she was going to get cancer if she breathed the tinged air.

You can hardly watch television or listen to the radio nowadays without encountering the state's propaganda campaign against smoking, most notably with regard to taxpayer-funded advertising.

I purchase DirecTV's NHL package, which gives viewers access to local hockey coverage from across the country and Canada. I primarily watch Buffalo Sabres games, and I can tell you from personal experience that New York by far takes the cake when it comes to this state-subsidized garbage. During the hockey season, I swear every third or fourth commercial must have featured a different anti-smoking ad, and while some admittedly were benign, others were grotesque -- one portrayed a middle-aged man standing on crutches after he lost a leg, ostensibly due to smoking; another chronicled a lung transplant in an operating room, replete with shots of bloody scrubs and a severed lung. Whatever one's feeling about stealing from private citizens to pay for such ad campaigns, one nevertheless would be hard-pressed to admit that these commercials are appropriate for young children.

But so it goes when the state's ends justify its means. What's wrong with a little kiddie terror campaign if it gets children to shun the dreaded cancer stick, right? Sadly, the government is not the only culprit here, even if the ringleader; I've heard of private schools and church groups preaching similar horrors of smoking.

Does any of this mean that I think nine-year-olds should be lighting up? Of course not. But that's not the point.

While some politicians and anti-smoking activists insist that secondhand smoke poses significant health risks, in truth there is no consensus on the issue. Moreover, parents -- not the government -- are responsible for the moral upbringing of their children. And while we can debate the merits of state and local statutes banning smoking in public places, the government has no legitimate right to forcefully prevent individuals from smoking in privately owned venues like bars, restaurants, and homes.

However, that hasn't discouraged legislators from playing the role of petty tyrant, overstepping their authority and imposing regulations usurping the rights of individuals either to smoke or allow smoking on private property. Given the collective ignorance of Boobus Americanus these days, I suppose this shouldn't be too much of a surprise. But it's all part and parcel of the state's direct war on smokers and indirect war on the rest of us -- all supplemented by hysterical propaganda campaigns intended to terrify our kids.

"Land of the free"? "Home of the brave"? Please. We've systematically devolved into a country of sheep herded by wolves we obediently call "leaders."

Turning a Blind Eye to the State

Literally.

In an inspirational story out of Washington State, Georgenne Harvey, blinded as a teenager as a result of a congenital eye problem, ignored suggestions from doctors to institutionalize her handicapped grandson, Nicholas, in order to raise him from a baby with the help of friends and neighbors.

"Nicky," severely disabled after suffering abuse as an infant at the hands of his biological mother's boyfriend, has graduated from Federal Way High School with the Class of 2008 with Grandma and other loved ones by his side.

When Will Governors Mandate Learning?

Apparently once all our children look like pin-up models.

Man Jailed Because Daughter Failed

A man is sentenced to 180 days in jail after his 18-year-old daughter -- his adult daughter -- failed to pass a math portion of her GED.

I'm home sick today and way too tired to go off on this one. Have at it in the comments.

A Pledge Against Indoctrination

Three eighth-grade students in Minnesota have been suspended for refusing to pledge their allegiance to the state.

Lew Rockwell sums up this situation well:

The "Pledge of Allegiance" is an anti-secessionist oath of fealty to centralized government and its myths. Imposed on kids forced to attend government schools and other victims, it was written by an atheist Baptist minister and socialist after Lincoln's War. Ike added "under God" during the US Cold War against Russia, to keep the hierarchy of authority straight in everyone's mind:
1. God
2. Government
3. You

'Students Want Chance to Defend Themselves'

University of Cincinnati student, Michael Flitcraft, is lobbying college brass to allow concealed-carry on campus. As expected, the issue is being met with the requisite resistance from gun control advocates.

"I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying," said Gene Ferrara, the police chief at the University of Cincinnati. "My belief is we ought to be focusing on what we do to prevent the shooting from starting."

Some might say this is exactly what Flitcraft is doing, as not even gun-toting criminals are complete dumbasses.

What If Public Schools Were Abolished?

Lew Rockwell explains why the first locality to do it will be the envy of the country.

"The Largest Crime Ever Perpetrated on the Human Race"

Compulsory government schooling.

If by largest the owner of this quote means broadest, I'm in complete agreement.

No Limit to State Evil

Via Radley Balko, 4-year-olds allegedly handcuffed by a school "safety officer" in the Bronx for refusing to take a nap.

It's not like my wife and I plan to send my son to a public school, but I don't even want to say out loud what I'd do if I ever found out some motherfucker handcuffed my 4-year-old.

Everything Belongs to the State

Apparently even our children, as parents in California are finding out the hard way.

Read Tricia Shore's great piece today on why a free country does not prevent parents from deciding what's in the best interest of their kids.

The Sickening State

What type of education are our tax dollars buying us these days?

Via the LRC blog, Elizabeth City State University conducted a hostage drill by sending a mock gunman into a classroom filled with students to test the response of campus security. The assailant pointed a gun at assistant professor Jingbin Wang, who said, "I was prepared to die at that moment."

Most government schools around the country have already banned guns on campus, so I'm sure the mock intruder -- a campus police officer -- was confident he could pull off this little stunt with little threat to his own safety. We're left to wonder how the university would explain away a heart attack or other injury that might have been suffered as a result of this idiocy, however.

These types of drills would hardly be necessary if students and professors were allowed to defend themselves with concealed firearms in the first place. If ECSU is actually concerned about protecting the student body, it might want to consider just this type of thing, given that it took campus security 10 minutes to subdue the undercover policeman.

The LRC reader who originally sent this story said it best: "Only government could get away with calling this a drill, when it is clearly a crime."

Punished for Pennies

I've never really cared much for the penny -- not least because of the president who adorns it -- but this is hilarious. The student prank, that is, not the government school's reaction to the spending of money the state controls in the first place.

New Math, Same Crap

It's been awhile since I've had the chance to rail on the vast intellectual wasteland that is public education. Thanks to the Prince William County school district, which apparently has math class confused with art class, I have that opportunity once again.

The program de-emphasizes memorization and drills and pushes students to use more creative ways to find answers, such as drawing pictures, playing games and using objects. Prince William officials say "Investigations," which cost the county more than $1 million, teaches students why an answer is correct, prepares them for algebraic concepts on the SAT and increases passing rates on state exams.

Carol Knight, Prince William's math supervisor, said that when children break down numbers into multiples of 10 and 100, their understanding of place value and "number sense" increases.

"Memorization will only carry you so far," Knight said. "With 'Investigations,' kids understand the real values of the numbers and are not doing shortcuts. When they multiply 23 times 5, they'll do five 20s to get 100, and then add five 3s to get 15, and they put that all together and get 115. What they've done is made actual use of the numbers."

Allow me to translate: The program de-emphasizes common sense and rationality in problem solving, and at a cost of $1 million dollars to duped taxpayers, is a perfect metaphor for the atrocious value of a public school education.

When I taught fourth grade, I didn't need some million-dollar boondoggle of an "education" program to convince me that I should familiarize my students with the concept of place value or multiplication as repeated addition. In short, you teach kids that 65 times 6 is 60 times 6 plus 5 times 6 in order to explain what the shortcut of carrying digits actually means.   

To think that kids should grow up "drawing pictures and playing games" as an end to solving multiplication or division problems is sheer insanity. Let me put that another way: If you honestly think kids should waste time solving basic math problems by drawing instead of learning why a shortcut works and then implementing the shortcut from then on, you're a complete idiot.

This "problem solving" method is the mathematical equivalent of whole language, where kids are essentially encouraged to use pictures to "develop meaning" instead of using phonetic strategies to sound out words. It entirely ignores the fact that problem solving is a cumulative process, where people aren't always given the numbers that have to be calculated in the end. Teaching kids that they should use drawn-out methods to work through the mundanities of relatively simple calculations can very realistically preclude the higher order thinking that allows them to get to those calculations in the first place.

The belief that you shouldn't work as efficiently (i.e., as quickly and accurately) as possible throughout all stages of a mathematical scenario perfectly illustrates the deficiency of government schooling.

But hey, what do I know? I only lasted three and a half years teaching in public schools.