Free Speech and Change Are Okay...For Some

In an article in Huffington Post, it is revealed that "progressives" have been "publicly and privately pressing Change.org to draw a line that refuses business from anti-union groups."  I wonder how they would feel if a restaurant refused a same sex couple, blacks, or Jews.


In the wake of the Scott Walker election, it is interesting to see the complaints people have about the other side voicing their opinion.


In this case, the Illinois chapter of Stand for Children authored the following resolution on change.org:

400,000 Chicago students could be locked out of Chicago classrooms because contract negotiations are starting to break down, causing a premature strike-authorization vote to occur before anyone knows what is in the contract proposal. We strongly call for all parties to bargain in good faith to reach a new agreement. Don’t hold our students hostage in a negotiation where they have no voice!

This resolution which came about because of a potential strike vote by the Chicago Teachers' Union is straight forward and it helps parents and the community understand strike votes are occurring before the contract is even being seen.  What is surprising is that progressives think they are entitled to control the debate.  They are the only folks at the table entitled to an opinion.  This of course, being the only way to win the debate, by gagging your opposition.


While change.org states "we believe in open dialogue" it is clearly not the case if a group can cause you to tape shut the mouths of the opposition.  So, the next time you see a petition from change.org ask yourself if you want to help a for profit entity that doesn't need your opinion, they will give it to you whether you like it or not.

I Hate To Tell You, But...

I hate to be the one to tell you, but the government's subsidy of school loans is why school has doubled in cost during their lifetime.  Can I get an Amen Mr. President?

As in every other commodity out there, the price we pay for any good (or service) is determined by supply and demand.  When people say Alex Rodriguez gets paid too much money I agree with them because he cheated by taking steroids, but in general I say no, they aren't.  They are paid as the market will bear because there are a limited number of players who can consistently his Major League pitching.


All things being equal, the greater the supply of some product with a given demand, the lower the price the supplier will ask and obtain for that product. Conversely, when there is a given supply and there is a rising demand, prices increase.


Don't believe me?

If a music album downloads for $10, there will be a given number of people willing to purchase them at that price.  What happens if a third party decides to subsidize the cost of downloads and pays everyone $5 to help defray the cost of purchasing that music?  More people will now decide they can afford to purchase the latest and greatest by Justin Beiber or Coldplay or whoever. After all, these $10 downloads only cost them $5.  They will now buy the downloads even though they value them less than those willing to pay the full $10 price.  Again, don't believe me?  Check my iTunes with the ridiculous number of free downloads I have for bands I would never pay for but am more than happy to clutter my music library with because they are free.

This subsidy will of course cause sales to increase.  How long will it then take for the music producer to then raise the price to $12, $15, or even $20?  The consumer isn't feeling the pinch, so why not?

This is the basic problem with government subsidy...you alter the normal market pattern and usually not in a positive way.  This is Economics 101 and for some reason Obama doesn't seem to get it.

P.S. It is offensive Mr. President, for you to ask for an "amen" like you are a preacher when all you have done for your entire Presidency is work to further remove our country from God.  Instead of using catchy phrases, maybe a little honest prayer is in order and no, I don't mean the vile from the Rev. Wright either.

Whistleblower In Trouble While The Guilty Sleep On The Job

How is sleeping on the job acceptable...whether it be at a school, hospital, or anywhere else? I ask this question with the news story about a child who photographed his teacher sleeping on the job, but was then punished for using his cellular phone during school hours.

There is something significantly wrong when the world blames the whistleblower for announcing the problem so clearly, but will not declare the issue otherwise. I do get it that students may be prohibited from using their cellular telephones during school hours, but if that is the case, prohibit them altogether. There are reasonable expectations that students will use them otherwise they would be prohibited altogether.

Moreover, the phone wasn't being used to cheat on a test. It wasn't being used to text another student about who loves who on campus. It wasn't even being used to check the weater - instead it was being used to document the lack of accountability the school's leadership had over its employees and there is something grossly wrong with punishing the person who brings a problem to your attention and you punish them for it.

Pic Of Sleeping Sub Nets Student Suspension - Oklahoma City News Story - KOCO Oklahoma City

In many ways it demonstrates a leadership that isn't. A leadership that is leading and is working to educate the children knows that this is the type of thing where we remind everyone not to use your cellular phones during school hours, but you thank the whistleblower. If there had been an emergency what would the sleeping teacher have done? What was going on in the classroom while the teacher slept - most likely not education. This is the real problem, not a teenager reporting a sleeping teacher.