Mother of All Ironies?

In the year 2011, one hundred years after the birth of Ronald Reagan, the American electorate is torn between honoring the "Great Communicator" and finally recognizing the shambles he made of the infrastructure of sentient governance in America. Almost lost in the string of pearls today recounting civil war in Libya, broken nuclear reactors, and the death of Elizabeth Taylor, was this little gem from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood:

"It is not acceptable to have just one controller in the tower [at Reagan National Airport] managing air traffic in this critical air space".

This, in response to the unassisted landing of two commercial aircraft at D.C.'s Reagan National Airport. Hello! Is anyone home? Apparently not. Or, maybe they were just sound sleepers. They? Who are we kidding?  A solo air traffic controller sleeping through his watch just a few miles from the Pentagon, White House and National Capitol?  If you can control the airspace around the nation's capitol with a single person in the tower, why do we need two pilots in the cockpit of a single aircraft? Are we really safer without an Air Traffic Controllers' union? Who would have done away with such a union? And, why? Ideology, demagoguery, or, all of the above? Certainly not reason.

It is long past time to begin to answer these questions. Can we continue to believe in the free lunch fantasy in which good things happen even though we are unwilling to pay for them?  Go figure!  Really, GO!

Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

Genie Leaves Bottle

Well, the demons have escaped. Yes, those previously bottled up in Japanese reactors near the coast, and those unleashed by Wisconsin Gov. Walker and his henchmen in Madison. Rather than recount the indignities suffered by Wisconsin teachers and civil servants, it is fair to question whether this is an isolated incident, or simply fueling similar fires all across the country.

Case in point, the recent passage of SB1 in Missouri, the "right to work" law. This disingenuous  law pretends to "allow" job seekers to accept employment in union shops without having to make mandatory dues payments to their unions. Apparently, someone has convinced the state legislature that job-seekers are avoiding Missouri because union jobs will require them to make payroll deductions for their dues. Protestors have renamed this bill the "right to work for less" law. Surely, this isn't intended to be union-busting.

Is there any other evidence of possible union-busting in current Missouri legislation? Just ask Senatrix Jane Cunningham, who has recently sponsored a particularly odious attack on Missouri teachers. Her (brainless child) Senate Bill SB372 wreaks havoc on teachers by stripping away tenure, reducing minimum pay for certain classes of teachers from $33,000 to $24,000 per year (teachers are clearly overpaid), prohibiting teachers from participating in election campaigns for their own school boards (Sieg Heil!) and they will be subjected to rigorous teaching competency evaluations annually, to wit:

 Each teacher must have an annual comprehensive, performance-based evaluation conducted. Fifty percent of the evaluation will be based on the performance of students for whom the teacher has responsibility. Fifty percent will be based on the district's teaching standards developed under section 160.045. No more than forty percent of a building's teachers will receive a standards-based score in the top thirty-three percent. Teachers must be evaluated regularly and twice annually in the final year of their continuing contract. Advance notice of evaluations will not be given. Evaluations must be maintained in the teacher's personnel file.

If all this is necessary for public school teachers, surely it must also apply to the state's elected legislators. After all, they're responsible for the entire population of the state, including the kiddos!

While you are recovering from your cerebral hernia from that last passage, you'll find comic relief in another Missouri masterpiece conceived by (you guessed it) Senator Cunningham herself. This little gem addresses the critical needs of children under the age of 16 to enter into mainstream commerce. Specifically, SB222 modifies Missouri child labor laws.

It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.

Quite clearly, these little angels don't have enough schoolwork to fill out their afternoons, so they have to turn to the busy work of commerce to keep their idle minds occupied. To top it all off, this bill was championed on the supposition that lemonade stands and lawn-mowing businesses have been unduly oppressed by existing child labor laws. I would be very circumspect about drinking any of the Kool-Aid from her kitchen.

Not to leave the latest rant without some positive rumination, here's a note of interest:

A teacher somewhere in your neighborhood tonight is grading and preparing lessons to teach your children while you are watching television. In the minute it takes you to read this, teachers all over the world are using their "free time" and often investing their own money for your child's literacy, prosperity, and future. Copy and post this if you are a teacher, love a teacher or appreciate teachers.

Why do singles and childless couples pay taxes to their local school system? For the privilege of living in an educated society.


Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post

Governor Goofs?

We're not talking about former Governor Rudolph George Prpić infamously named "Governor Goofy", by Newsweek Magazine.  We're referring to MN Governor Dayton's signature on the bill last week to authorize changes in environmental review that will, hopefully, streamline the processing of permits for siting industrial projects.

The Legislative Auditor's report, released last week, concluded that the permitting process was too lengthy and costly in Minnesota. This bill, House File 1 and Senate File 42, was purportedly designed to reduce the time taken to process environmental review applications.

A Horse named Walker

One important difference between a tyranny and a democracy is that dictatorial leadership is not constrained by the principle of a quorum, defined as "the minimum number of members of an assembly that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid". Robert's Rules of Order, the quintessential authority on parliamentary procedure, notes that the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons".

The practice of preventing attainment of a quorum, is, like filibusters and re-reading of the Constitution, a long-standing ploy to defer substantive action of a deliberative body either because there is no alternative to a dire outcome, or to protect a minority view from being desecrated by majority action. Both of our major political parties have used these and complementary procedures to effect their purposes. The conservative media have been too quick to cast the quorum rule in the light of a trick that defeats "the will of the people" in the current case of Wisconsin.

In fact, the will of the electorate is to have deliberative legislatures examining issues important to our governance. It is a perversion of any democracy to say that elections resulting in a majority of one party over the other means that minority party members should pick up their marbles and go home. Elections almost always result in a single party being in the majority. What they do with that majority, and especially, how they protect minority rights, is a measure of their mettle. Do we really want to return to the days of party bosses, where the Whip dictated the character of the vote, rather than merely calling for one? The legitimacy of a particular bill's passage is inversely proportional to the degree of "adherence to strict party lines" among its supporters.

And so, we find ourselves in the embarrassing position of having a state Governor unabashedly refusing to debate the merits of a potentially union-busting bill in Wisconsin. How dare he refuse to hear the arguments of dissention? How dare he lie about the available remedies for a budget shortfall? How dare he insert himself into limiting legislative debate? Where abides the "separation of powers" doctrine in Wisconsin? How dare he lock the doors of the state house?

I am reminded of a horse named Walker. A perfect horse to break-in a would-be ploughman. In harrowing the garden, Walker usually did what I suggested. But when it became clear that my guidance would lead us through the lilacs, he quietly came to a stop and awaited further instruction. He even looked back to verify that the reins were telling him what I really wanted him to do.

WALKER, Percheron X Standard Bred (with just a touch of Arab)

How is Walker to be remembered? Stubborn and unerring in plowing his way through the lilacs? Or, strong, unflappable, patient, willing to accept guidance but not blindly so, and willing to pull his share until the work is done. The more harrowing view is that of the south end of a northbound horse.



Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post