Wake County, in an effort to help improve lagging grades, is thinking of implementing a no zero policy. How this will work is unclear right now but the thought is to set a minimum grade, probably 60 or 65. No student can receive below this grade. You can imagine my thoughts on the topic but I feel restrained from sharing them here since I am a Wake County School Emplyee. Feel free to respond in any way you chose.
Archive for November, 2008
Since Kay Hagan won her Senate race, she has dropped her lawsuit against Elizabeth Dole. She claims it would be a distraction and a reminder of a bitter campaign best forgotten. It may be the cynic in me, but I wonder if she had lost the race would she still have dropped the lawsuit? It would be to the Democrats advantage to keep Dole otherwise occupied if she had won. I doubt she would have dropped the suit. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. Anyone who knows Hagan and wants to respond, let me know.
I just watched this documentary in the Environmental Science class. It is fast paced, fairly entertaining documentary. There are many flaws though. One of the biggest is the environmental movements belief that businesses should develop eco-friendly products solely because it is morally right to do. They seem to ignore the purpose of business, to make money for its investors. If the product that is desired is unprofitable, the business will not produce the product.
In this movie the focus is General Motors EV1 and California attempt to force zero emission cars onto the road. It failed. The makersrs of the documentary put the major blame for this failure on GM and their desire to make money, as though it is evil to make money. They also blame the Bush administration, consumers, and the oil business. They fail to point out the weaknesses in their products. They tout the abilities of the car, which are impressive, but ignore the fact that the batteries take several hours to charge and then you can go only 60 miles to the charge, although better batteries have been created that allow for longer travel times. They do point out the “greed” of the industries involved. They assume that GM killed the EV1 solely because they didn’t want it to compete against their other products, even though, GM had done studies of the profitability of the EV1 and showed it would not be profitable in the long run. Since GM is in the business to make money, why would they produce a product that would lose money?
As far as consumers, they blame them for having too high expectations for the car. The consumers would be willing to buy the EV1 if it performed as well as their internal combustion engine cars, which, when running, it did. But the fact it took so long to charge and the limited mileage per charge was a major roadblock. The newer batteries would have helped consumer desirability, but there was still the charge time that needed to be improved. As far as I could tell from the movie, there was no attempts to improve that aspect of the vehicle.
Oil industries would, of course, oppose electric cars. They are a direct threat to their profits. The ad campaign and media blitz against the EV1 is a natural reaction, and not immoral or illegal. The oil companies, like GM, is responsible to their shareholders, not the environment. I have no problem with their opposition on the business end.
The Bush administration is singled out for the harshest criticism. It is assumed that administration officials with previous ties to the oil companies directly affected the fate of the car. The truth is unknown. It is a poor logical argument to say that previous association implies guilt. What happened in the campaign when Obama’s and McCain’s previous associations were mentioned? The people bringing them up were excoriated, especially those that mentioned Obama’s past. Similar comments about Bush and his administration are treated as poof of corruption. It is a classic guilt by association. When I did a similar thing in a paper in college, I failed the paper and was told by the teacher to never assume guilt without proof. Association is not proof.
The best way to get a business to do something you want is to make it economically desirable. If the California Air Resources Board had made some kind of tax credit or incentive for GM to make money, they would have had a better shot at GM producing the car. Again, as far as I can tell from the video, there was no incentive for GM to comply. Environmentalist need to learn to work with business and give them reasons to want to produce eco-friendly products, which has been happening lately, rather than try to force business to comply through laws and mandates. Businesses will always resist measures that will lose them money. This is true with any industry.
Scott Adams has animated some of the better Dilbert comic strips. There are about fifty of them at this MSN video site. Check out Office Hallucination. Just say BAH!
11/7/08 Harpist in the Wind by Patricia A. McKillip. Morgon and Raederle now search for answers to all the riddles. Will it lead to death or destiny? By the way, you can buy all three novels together in one book Riddle-Master.
Not/Sure The Heir of Sea and Fire by Patricia A. McKillip. When Morgon disappears after seeking out the High One, his intended Raederle of An, seeks to find out what happened to him. In the process, she discovers something about herself that could drive a wedge between Morgon and her forever.
Prop 8 passed in California. This, for those of you who don’t know, bans marriage between gays and lesbians. They still have the option for a civil union though. My question is this, why is the government even involved. The role of the government in relationships is generally to agree that a contract is binding or not. They have no other role. Whether you call it a civil union or marriage, basically it is a contract between two people to share their property, money, and any other assets. If there are children, pets, or other items that need caring for, the two people involved also agree to split the responsibility for taking care of them. That is as far as the government should go, granting people these contractual rights.
I have a simple solution to the whole matter, eliminate the term marriage from government documents and replace it with civil union. That is what the government is endorsing anyway, a contractual obligation between two people. This infers that that the couple have the right to form the contract they desire and they receive all the rights and benefits the contract entitles them to receive.
The argument for using the term marriage is a religious argument anyway. Evangelicals read the bible and interpret it a certain way. Marriage is a covenant that God has set out for those who follow him. For them it is an abomination for two people of the same sex to engage in sexual acts. Believing God has condemned these sexual acts, they believe that anyone who follows God should not engage in these acts. Inside marriage, sex is allowed and encouraged. Therefore, if it is an abomination for homosexuals to engage in sex acts, then they must not be followers of God, therefore they should not be allowed to marry. Those that support gay marriage see the bible differently. They believe God does not condemn people. He is a God of love and as long as people serve him, then their sexual preference does not matter. He will always love them. Therefore, marriage is okay because God doesn’t condemn.
Which ever side you fall on is your choice. But the government shouldn’t be taking sides on any religious matter. By recreating the contract we call marriage, into a civil union, the government removes itself from the religious argument. The civil union license could then be the governments acknowledgement that the contract the two people are entering into is valid. As long as two people or one government official, say the Justice of the Peace, witness the couple agreeing to the contract, it then doesn’t matter if there is a ceremony involved. Then the debate of whether to call the union a marriage or not falls to the churches to decide. If one church will perform a ceremony for a gay couple, that is their choice, as the interpret the bible. Another church, who interprets the bible differently, can then choose not to allow a gay couple to marry in their church.
Besides, the ideal marriage should be between two people who love each other and God. Marriage then becomes a matter of your conscience and your religious beliefs.
The following is a quote by Terry Pratchett:
You had to admire the way perfectly innocent words were mugged, ravished, stripped of all true meaning and decency and then sent to walk the gutter for Reacher Gilt, although “synergistically” had probably been a whore from the start. No one was sorry for anything because no living creature had done anything wrong; bad things had happened by spontaneous generation in some weird, chilly, geometrical otherworld, and “were to be regretted*”. [*Footnote:Another bastard phrase that’d sell itself to any weasel in a tight corner.]
Now read this and find all the “bastard quotes” in this speech. You can do this with any political speech. I chose this one because it is a current, newsworthy speech, not because I did not support the candidate.
Elizabeth Dole ran an ad in, the senatorial race, pointing out Kay Hagan attended a fund raiser with and received money from a group whose stated claim is to remove the name of God from all aspects of the government. Now Hagan is upset. She claims Dole accused her of being godless and questioned her Christianity. The ad did not do that. What Hagan is really upset about is Dole’s use of her associations with this particular group for political game. But, in the world of politics, your associates and contributors are fair game for questioning. Hagan should know this. Look at Obama and Ayers and McCain and Keating. These associations are legitimate for questioning in the political realm. Hagan now hopes the lawsuit she plans to bring against Dole will take the focus off her associates. I think it will backfire and only shed more light on her connections with these people.
Hagan is realizing the people of NC can accept a lot from their politicians but they are fairly conservative and will never accept a person who advocates for the removal of God’s name from money, the pledge, and any other government document. She should have chosen her friends better. That is a truth for anyone in politics.