About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

The War for School Choice: Columbus Sector

The Columbus Mayoral race has entered the battle for school choice in Ohio. William Todd, the GOP candidate challenging incumbent Democrat Michael Coleman, wants City Hall to take over the city’s troubled school system.

Democrats and the teachers’ union are crying foul, citing Todd’s past work in support of “for profit” charter and private schools, saying his motives are “sinister.”

Likewise, Todd has urged parents, due to the Columbus district’s lackluster performance, to take their children out the state capital’s schools. In response, the Columbus Education Association—the local arm of the NEA—has endorsed Coleman.

The Todd school proposal has become part of a statewide assault on private schools. Attorney General Marc Dann sued three Dayton-area charter schools this month citing poor academic performance. Some 30 additional schools are on Dann’s radar.

Teachers’ unions oppose private and charter schools because they challenge their hegemony and the fragile status quo. Democrats, Mayor Coleman’s party, claim the NEA and its subsidiaries as a constituency because of its advocacy for greater government involvement, including funding and curriculum selection, in our public schools. This, too, must be sinister, no?

Thus, this is a public v. private sector battle.

Unfortunately for the students who attend Columbus, Dayton, and other poorly performing districts, they won’t have the option of escaping their schools if Dann gets his way. Both Columbus and Dayton scored almost as poorly as the three Dayton schools named in AG’s suit.

Public schools could benefit from a little competition. If parents could remove their children more easily, taking with them their children’s allocated funding, inner city schools might reevaluate themselves. Then, perhaps, public schools might finally begin acting as one for the children instead of pushing down mandates for dedicated teachers to meet. It might also help, as we suggested previously, if Dann tried to shut down the 182 public schools that failed to meet minimum performance standards.

In the meantime, an entire political party seeks the status quo without addressing the structural problems that lead to bad schools and bad life outcomes in the first place.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Advocates for Youth?

Congress extended funding for a federal abstinence education program this week much to the chagrin of sex education advocates. Again, the sex ed crowd believes it is enlightened while pursuing the more destructive path.

James Wagoner of the Advocates for Youth claimed that Congressional “actions defy logic and common sense.” Wagoner’s group, with its paradoxical name, supports sex education for America’s youth because abstinence education is unrealistic. In other words, they’re going to do it anyway, so let us teach them how to do so safely, to paraphrase an old professor of mine.

According to the Washington Times story on the bill, Wagoner and his camp believe that sex education programs are effective but are “held hostage” to abstinence programs, which, says Congress James Moran of Virgina, “[prize] ideology over science and … harms [sic] our children through the provision of medically inaccurate information.”

Sex ed advocates often cite a Mathematic Policy Inc. report about four particular abstinence programs, none of which seemed to alter teen sexual behavior significantly.

Unfortunately, Wagoner, Morgan, and co. miss valuable facts regard sexual activity.

While it is true that teens these days are disposed toward early sexual encounters, it is not abstinence programs that cause the accompanying maladies. One look at television, an Abercrombie and Fitch store, or the Internet will confirm that our popular culture openly encourages such behavior. Furthermore, when public schools teach students how to engage in sexual activity “safely,” often distributing birth control (typically condoms) in the school, they, too, encourage teen sex.

It remains lost upon the sex ed crowd that abstinence is the one sure way to avoid the heartaches associated with pre- and extramarital sex. Kids will always be kids and some will always go astray, but that’s no reason to indulge their urges to their collective detriment. The consequences of Wagoner’s approach include: teen pregnancy, STDs, HIV/AIDS, and psychological harm. All of the aforementioned ultimately lead to economic hardship. Somehow, this is the logical, common sense approach and supporting it is to “advocate” for our youth.

On the same note, Wagoner’s camp typically supports abortion, government health care, welfare, and many other methods to avoid the consequences of the actions they so vehemently promote.

Such folks are quick to lambaste Americans for smoking or eating trans fats for their harmful effects; however, they ignore the harm that often follows behavior they advocate. Children don’t always heed the advice of their parents, but that doesn’t mean parents should stop offering.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dingell's Plan to Save the Planet

Congressman John Dingell of Michigan has been called “the No. 1 champion of Michigan workers.” Dingell, his campaign website makes clear, is pro-worker and pro-family.

Yet the pro-family Dingell voted against a measure that would have extended a cut in the marriage tax. Likewise, he voted against making the child tax credit permanent. Additionally, he voted against the existing Bush tax cut package as well as the cut in the capital gains tax, which increasingly affects more and more Americans, most of whom now invest, either via 401(k) or IRA.

John Dingell’s version of pro-worker/pro-family took a new twist today as the Washington Post published a piece detailing his plan to fight climate change.

After his colleagues in Congress have lambasted Republicans over gas prices, Dingell has proposed a $0.50/gallon gasoline tax to curb global warming. Secondly, he plans for homeowners to pay more, as well. Finally, Dingell proposes a carbon tax.

As a married homeowner and expectant father, I find it difficult to believe that John Dingell’s climate change war will help my family. Instead of helping workers, he plans to take away more of their incomes and make it more expensive to drive to and from the workplace. Instead of helping families raise their children, he plans on leaving fewer dollars with which to feed mouths and clothe backs.

The congressman’s proposals will only hurt workers and families, all in order to stop something that is likely mostly natural and unavoidable. While his website claims he is the top “champion of … workers,” in reality, John Dingell is anything but.

Sources:
http://www.dingellforcongress.com/issues/jobseconomy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602127_pf.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/John_Dingell.htm#Budget_+_Economy
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GOP Political Woes

Several assessments of the Republican Party’s political woes focus on a variety of reasons, depending largely upon the assessor’s lens. These woes include the Iraq War, spending, Katrina, immigration, and scandal.

Most assessments, unfortunately, offer nothing in the way of a pathway out of the political maelstrom. The few suggestions offered are, among others, winning or pulling out of Iraq, enforcing existing immigration laws, and ridding the party of corruption.

True, perhaps, but these remedies are reactionary as opposed to proactive. What the GOP needs, in addition to a new crop of conservatives who stick to first principles, is a new approach that would unify natural allies who often or almost always vote for Democrats. Such an approach was outlined in National Review magazine this past month in a John O’Sullivan piece entitled “The Wilberforce Agenda.”

The crux of O’Sullivan’s public policy idea revolves around evangelicals (that nasty bunch, again!). There are voters within evangelical churches—say, for instance, the Southern Baptist Convention—who tend to vote Democrat and those who tend to vote Republican, and for very different reasons. In other words, the evangelical bloc is not a monolithic group of mind-numbed robots who pull the lever for Pat Robertson’s favorite candidates.

Some of Democrat-voting evangelicals vote based on issues other than abortion and gay marriage, a majority of them agreeing with their GOP counterparts on the aforementioned issues. Instead, they vote based on issues like social security, welfare, etc.

What O’Sullivan proposes is not that conservative evangelicals drop the abortion or gay marriage issues, but that they grab other issues and run with them—issues that conservative and more moderate-to-liberal voters can support. He lists a few examples as a starting point: combating sex slave trade; promoting religious freedom as part of US human rights policy; advancing human rights in places like North Korea as a key part of our foreign policy strategy.

Such actions would increase the chances that the full spectrum of evangelicals might actually vote more like a voting bloc than they have in the past. It might not lead to an unbeatable GOP, but it might unite enough Americans to empower conservatives again; and, perhaps more importantly, that bloc might be powerful enough to hold the GOP’s feet to the fire more effectively next time around.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Mockery VII: Suing God

The Mockery is a column that will appear periodically when I don’t feel like writing seriously about current events. Each installment of The Mockery will be written with the intent of poking fun at some of the excesses of our modern era.

Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers has decided to sue God. Chambers filed the suit to prove his point that anyone can sue anyone else.

A fervent critic of Christians, Chambers claims that God made “terroristic threats” against him and his constituents (must be somewhere in Leviticus—“Senator Chambers and his constituents will…or else God will…). Likewise, God has allegedly instilled fear in his people by causing “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.”

Moreover, the suit claims that God has caused floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. (Perhaps God is on George W. Bush’s side, after all, eh?)

With his suit, Chambers seeks an injunction against God (perhaps “God will bring no tornadoes, hurricanes, or other terror within 500 feet of the Plaintiff”). A district judge, Richard Kopf, has expressed doubt whether or not the senator’s case has any legal basis.

While we may sympathize with Chambers’ claim that there are too many frivolous lawsuits, suing the Almighty might be construed, by God Himself, as, say, forsaking God, or denying God, etc.

Instead of using the courts—here we go again—Senator Chambers should find another way to address the Almighty’s terror. In the meantime, Chambers risks getting struck by lightning during his walk home from Lincoln…

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_fe_st/odd_suing_god
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2007/09/17/neb_state_senator_sues_god_in_protest/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+News+of+the+odd
http://www.kentucky.com/523/story/179349.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama Tax Cut

To my great surprise, I read a Bloomberg news piece about presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s tax plan, which involved—the surprise—a series of tax cuts. Likewise, Obama seeks simplification of the tax code.

Obama’s plan would work like so: He will cut $80 billion in taxes for the middle class in the form of a $500/person or $1000/family tax credit. Then, the mortgage interest reduction will extend to everyone, not just those who itemize. Finally, his plan will exempt seniors from federal income taxation.

Per typical Democrat criticisms of tax cuts, one must ask: How will Barack Obama pay for them? He plans to raise the capital gains tax rate, for starters. Secondly, he wishes to close loopholes for hedge funds and private equity firms as well as crackdown on “overseas tax havens.”

Should Obama become president, Americans should welcome his tax cuts and most of his other reforms while frowning upon the capital gains tax hike.

Obama’s goal is to soak the rich with capital gains taxes on investors, believing that only, for the most part, the wealthy invest. Such is not the case anymore, as the average taxpayer at least has a 401(k) plan and a significant portion of them also have IRAs or other brokerage accounts. The overwhelming majority of these folks plan to use the aforementioned accounts for retirement income.

A capital gains tax increase would cut into those funds and decrease the income these investors have at retirement, particularly since most Americans within ten years of my age (29) on either side will not likely see social security income, barring major, major changes.

While slashing income taxes for seniors will help them, it creates questions about the state of current IRAs, both traditional and Roth. If seniors aren’t taxed, will the government simply forget about due taxes from traditional IRAs? For those of us well outside of retirement age, will the Roth IRA be the only IRA? What happens to our traditional IRAs? How will they be taxed?

Obama would be better served by leaving the capital gains tax rate alone. His other cuts would be welcomed, but taxing capital gains at higher rates will increasingly hurt the middle class, the very folks he expresses a desire to help. Still, the idea of a liberal Democrat advocating tax cuts is, at least, a good sign, however superficial the overtures may be.

[You have just read the 100th Daytonian Town Hall blog post!]

Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auat9w87sybg&refer=home
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A True Dictator

Back in February of this year (2007), Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts lauded a Hugo Chavez program to deliver energy to the then-chilled US northeast. When Congressman Connie Mack criticized Kennedy, he defended his remarks by criticizing Mack’s vote to cut an energy-spending bill.

In May, actor Danny Glover met with Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, where praised Chavez who decided to fund a Glover film.

Meanwhile, US President George W. Bush has been called every name in the book from Hitler to dictator. Somehow, Bush’s administration is an authoritarian regime hell bent on consolidating its power.

Ironically, the small minority of American leftists and the plethora of non-US figures who deem our president to be dictatorial somehow approve and even praise the moves of the aforementioned Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez.

Here, irony strikes us because of Chavez’s governance. This week, Chavez threatened to take control of private schools that refuse to submit to his government’s oversight. In essence, the conditions will be no different for the private schools regardless of their choices. They either submit to government oversight or oversight will be thrust upon them, including a curriculum mandating the study of Che Guevara, Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx.

The move has shades of communist and fascist governments of the past.

Chavez has also consolidated his power in reality in other ways. He has nationalized the oil industry. He has proposed a constitutional overhaul that would allow him to remain in office indefinitely. He also proposed a “Bank of the South,” a regional bank that would challenge US banks, presumably with Chavez exerting a great deal of control.

Sadly, most Americans know little about Hugo Chavez. Some may have heard his name, but few really know how authoritarian he has become and the threat he poses to the interests of the United States. His ascendancy has also prompted a revival of socialism/quasi-communism in South America (e.g. Daniel Ortega).

Americans should be very wary of this (actual) dictator and his friends abroad.

Sources:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/connie_mack/
http://www.sharonherald.com/opinion/local_story_257204131.html
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VENEZUELA_SOCIALIST_EDUCATION?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B15FA3E5B0C758DDDA10894DF404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fChavez%2c%20Hugo
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

School Choice War Begins in Ohio

Ohio Attorney General Mark Dann has entered the arena of school choice by suing two Dayton-area charter schools for poor academic performance. The AG’s move is the first major act against charter schools, against which new Governor Ted Strickland has spoken so much, though with little action to this point.

New Choices Community School and Colin Powell Leadership Academy have both struggled to meet state and federal achievement benchmarks in recent years.

Dann justifies his suit because the schools’ “poor academic performance breaks a public trust.”

OEA (Ohio Education Association), the Buckeye State’s arm of the National Education Association—the nation’s largest, most powerful, and most liberal union—applauds the move, as well. The union issues reports annually excoriating charter schools. In this case, charter schools are a direct threat to the power of the NEA and OEA as well as the status quo public schools enjoy.

Ironically, the State AG is suing two private/charter schools for poor performance when 182 public schools—that is, government schools—are currently on the academic emergency list per the Ohio Department of Education’s 2006-2007 report card.

Moreover, both charter schools in question teach approximately 200 students altogether, mostly those who once attended Dayton Public Schools. While New Choices and Colin Powell only met one standard, Dayton Public Schools met only two.

Instead of pretending to solve the problems of two charter schools by removing public funding, Mark Dann should instead focus his energies on more pressing legal matters, such as violent crime, for instance. Here, Dann is merely throwing a bone to the OEA/NEA. If he really cared about solving our education woes through the Attorney General’s office, Mark Dann would be better served suing his own public schools for breaking “a public trust.”

Source articles:
http://www.whiotv.com/news/14104104/detail.html?rss=day&psp=news
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=116&ContentID=34744&Content=34857
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070912/pl_usnw/ohio_education_association_applauds_attorney_general_s_action_against_poorly_performing_dayton_charter_schools
http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2007/09/10/daily20.html?ana=from_rss
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Iraq War Opposition

Having its origins in partisanship against the Bush Administration, the current crop of Iraq War opponents—which includes members of both parties—has turned a 360 in the populist mold.

During the late 2002, early 2003 debates leading up to the war, the vast majority of politicians supported some sort of interdiction in Iraq. Quickly the country started evolving into two camps. Initially, the opposition camp was comprised mostly of Democrats who, for obvious reasons of partisanship leading up to the 2004 election cycle, began to turn from President Bush in only a matter of months.

As the war progressed, the allied and American efforts were plagued by, well, war, which is always difficult and unpredictable. The war’s leadership certainly made strategic errors, and the opposition ran with them to increase their ranks. Most notable among these strategic errors was the failure of foresight on the part of the government’s intelligence agencies to see an insurgency.

When the 2004 election strategy failed to place John Kerry in the White House, the opposition mounted a counteroffensive of sorts. The assault on Fallujah was painted as a brutal American offensive. Images of Abu Ghuraib reappeared again and again. In 2005, during my tenure in the Fertile Crescent, the unit to my immediate north, 3/1 Marines, was engaged in what was to become known (in 2006) as the Haditha affair.

Each incident was described as a sign of failure. Partisanship seemed to take on a streak of vengeance. Soon, we were told that Bush lied, that American troops were terrorizing Iraqis, starting a civil war, and otherwise harming the entire situation, among other things.

(Think back on the descriptions of Abu Ghuraib and Guantanamo Bay as Saddam Hussein’s prisons reopened under US management or their equations to Soviet gulags as if US intentions were so gruesome and her soldiers so dastardly.)

This year, as sectarian violence spiraled out of control then came under control before and during the recent surge, the opposition blossomed. Now, a majority of Americans oppose the war or support a troop withdrawal of some sort. Likewise, most politicians now seek redeployment, including prominent Republicans like John Warner.

In fact, the opposition has come so far that Senator Charles Schumer said that US troops are incapable of defending Iraqis and their grand efforts in Anbar Province did nothing to soothe the violence there. Instead, it was the tribes, Schumer said, that made the “temporary peace”—he must forget that those tribes were either indifferent or outright opposed to the US presence. In 2005, the so-called mythical al Qaeda in Iraq so brutalized localities that locals would not cooperate with Iraqis or Americans, prompting major tribes to start armed forces. Likewise, my unit was part of an Anbar offensive that began in late 2005 and has probably lasted through to this day (i.e. it takes time for a surge to bear lasting fruit).

Recently, Hollywood has lobbed another volley into the mix with Brian DePalma’s film “Redacted,” which will supposedly depict a US squad that rapes a girl and murders a family.

Thus, it seems that the war that began in a wave of populist fury over four years ago has now devolved into a populist assault on the very concept of victory, so much to the point that the upcoming report General David Petraeus is being dismissed out of hand, some calling it the “Bush report,” because, apparently, the mission deserves no second thought. Sadly, the initial opposition has held out longer than the war’s original supporters. Now, the war, once popularly supported, is now unpopular and seemingly hopeless.

Somehow, a minority of opponents hung around long enough to convert about half of everyone else to its cause. Those who will lose will be the Iraqis, who face the prospect of a prolonged civil war to fill a power vacuum possibly involving Iran, and all the Americans and our allies who sacrificed blood and treasure for a greater idea. And the beneficiaries will land in power in Washington—that’s all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Strickland and Hsu

Read the headlines recently about Ted Strickland, the Governor of Ohio, and one will find glowing speculation about his potential as a vice presidential candidate (e.g. in the Dayton Daily News). What is missing from the headlines, however, is his link (as well as Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s and Senator Sherrod Brown’s) to the Norman Hsu affair.

Hsu, a Chinese-American apparel executive and prolific campaign donor, has been in the news lately, notably for his no contest plea in a grand theft case, his failure to serve his sentence, and his questionable campaign donation activity. The last includes an average family known to the Hsu giving unusual donations to his favored candidates, including, most notably, Hillary Clinton (Los Angeles Times).

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, his Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and freshman Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown also accepted such campaign contributions. All have, since the discovery of Hsu’s indiscretions, given the money to charity or otherwise disposed of the funds.

The glaring discrepancy between the highly visible VP Strickland talk and the nearly absent Hsu news highlights a media tendency to favor Democrat candidates and politicians.

For example, during Bob Taft’s tenure, Ohio media was filled with stories about his indiscretions—and indiscretions they were—though they involved seemingly minor amounts, totaling $5,800 in unreported gifts.

I am, for one, no fan of former Governor Taft, but it says a lot about our Ohio media outlets when a Yahoo! News search yields only five hits on a query using the terms “Strickland Hsu.” Sadly, four of the five hits cited the exact same AP wire (in the Toledo Blade and Mansfield News-Journal, and on the WCMH Columbus web site).

Governor Taft’s mistakes were big news, as they should have been; but Governor Strickland’s ties to a felon have elicited little more than a thought in the media scheme. Governor Strickland was right to rid himself of the money, but he, like Hillary Clinton, should not get an automatic pass on contributions that came from a less-than-reputable, un-vetted donor involving potentially illegal patterns.

(Source articles:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/NEWS09/70831032
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/UPDATES01/70831013
http://www.wfmj.com/Global/story.asp?S=7009495)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dayton Daily Spews

Not that it is difficult to criticize the Dayton Daily News, but the paper continues its downward spiral and is in dire need of reform.

One of the headlines on today’s DDN web page read as follows: “Sign in yard irks neighbor.” The “reporter,” Angela Watson Gay, apparently gathered the data from a Troy Police blotter report.

The irked neighbor does not like a sign in another resident’s yard insinuating some distaste about the neighbor’s supposed inability to trim his yard’s plant life.

If this story passes for reporting, then the Dayton Daily News might as well be a junior high newsletter. Even if the story could be considered reporting, why does it appear on the front page of the DDN website?

Such a news selection tells little about the world’s pertinent news and even less about Miami Valley happenings. For example, the media at large expends exhaustive efforts to be a watchdog on the government and corporations; however, where are the DDN pieces digging up dirt on Montgomery County’s politicians?

Instead we get stories about a yard sign, new stores in a mall, and something that happened in the “third quarter” of a hockey game.

If the Dayton Daily News does not improve its journalistic standards, its subscriber numbers will continue to fall. Likewise, website visitors will return less and less and a new Daytonian media will be needed more than ever.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »