National School Choice Week 2015

It's National School Choice Week - a week dedicated to celebrating options students have for an education.

Lest you think this is all about charters, private schools or home-schooling, please remember that charter schools in Ohio are public schools and that choosing to send a child to a traditional public school is still a choice that many parents make.

There's nothing wrong with any of the choice options available to parents these days and since it's supposed to be "for the children," what would make more sense than to allow each child to have the education that best suits them?

That's what school choice is all about:  finding the best fit for a child, regardless of what that fit might be.

Maybe some day we can let actually let the public dollars spent on a child for their education follow the child.

Imagine if K-12 school funding worked more like public funding of higher education - where a grant amount was determined based on a family's financial information and then the children could use that designated amount at any college or university that accepted them.

Under such a scenario, elementary and high schools would compete for students, offering a variety of tracks mirroring the interest of the kids while still ensuring that state minimum requirements were achieved.

Arizona did something like this with their Education Empowerment Scholarship Accounts and it's working well enough that other states could easily learn from them how to duplicate their success.

The state deposits educational funds directly into an account controlled by the parent. The parents can choose how to spend the funds using a type of debit card that is coded to allow its usage only for pre-approved expenses.

Parents can use it for tuition at any school, to pay for college or university courses while their child is still in high school, for online education, certified tutors, testing preparation like for SATs, or even a la carte public school courses (foreign languages, for example). They also have the choice to not spend it and put it toward a future college education. Anything not used in a year is allowed to accumulate.

Think about how food stamp EBT cards work and you'll have a good understanding about how the Arizona system works, except it's education items that are being purchased rather than food.

This is just one example of the many innovative ways parents, politicians and policy-makers are looking at providing a variety of educational opportunities for children today.

So celebrate your school choice options and special congrats to our state of Ohio which leads the nation in education scholarship options!

Who is responsible for your health?

This ad is from the CDC which is no longer
just the Centers for Disease Control,but is
now the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.

Forgive me for getting this wrong, but I always thought I - and I alone - was responsible for my health.

Sure, genetics play a role, but whether I was overweight or underweight , ate junk food or fruits and vegetables, exercised or not ... all that was on me.

Apparently I'm wrong.  Well, at least according to today's lead editorial in The Blade.

Yes, they do say our individual health is partially on us and the decisions we make, but they also say:

"The report notes that Ohio ranks near the top in the percentage of its adults who smoke, and of children exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes. Such things are as much a matter of individual responsibility, or its absence, as of inadequate public policy.

Really?  Inadequate public policy is to blame if you or I smoke?

Who DOESN'T know that smoking is bad for you?

In fact, people who do smoke, do so in spite of the fact that they know it's bad for them and for anyone who lives in their smoke-filled house.

How can inadequate public policy be to blame for that?

They even write:

"But it isn't just the responsibility of government to make Ohioans healthier and more productive."

Hmm... I guess I missed that responsibility in the U.S. Constitution as well as the state constitution.

For the record, I don't smoke - never have.  Neither has my husband. My sister does, but she doesn't smoke in my house and has never asked to do so.  Most smokers are considerate in that respect.

But no amount of government spending is going to make her stop. In fact, I doubt that anyone has decided to stop smoking because government spent money on an advertisement bemoaning the ill effects of the practice.

People stop smoking when THEY want to. They are the ones who must make the choice, which means it is entirely an individual responsibility and action.

The primary reason for the editorial is to call for "greater public investment" - that means spending - arguing that the more government spends on preventive care, the less it should end up spending on actual, more expensive, care as a result of bad habits.

You see, the 'logic' is that if government spends more money up front telling people how to be healthy, they'll have to spend less treating these people when they end up with costly diseases like cancer, heart disease, etc...

But first the people have to actually head the direction from the government to lead healthier lives - and that certainly isn't the case, at least, not for the majority of people.

There's an easy solution to the state spending so much money on actual care of illnesses that are preventable:  Don't.

What if the government warned people ahead of time that if they get cancer from smoking none of their health bills will be covered?  In fact, what if the government said that the cost of any illness or disease that was the result of self-inflicted activity wouldn't be covered?

Would people make better decisions knowing they'd be responsible for all the costs associated with bad habits, or that they might have to go without treatment if they couldn't afford it?

It's an interesting question and one that too few stop to consider.

But the government is all too happy to pay because, in doing so, they develop justification for telling you how to live. It is the 'logic' they use for controlling your life:  We're going to end of paying for your health care so we have the authority to tell you how to keep yourself healthy so we don't have to pay so much.

Oh, they might not say so in so many words, the bottom line is control - of your eating habits, exercise regimen and decisions.

Just look at Michele Obama's Healthy Hunger-Free Act which, as of a year ago, had 1 million kids leaving the school lunch line.

It doesn't stop.

And sadly, too many editorials are all to happy to jump on the bandwagon and advocate for even more government involvement in our daily lives, because (clearly) they know what is best and its for our own good.

News, frizzy hair solutions and hypocrisy

One of my favorite organizations is the Media Research Center - though most people have probably never heard of it.

Their sole mission, according to their website, is "to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media." They don't endorse candidates and they don't lobby for or against legislation.

And they can be pretty funny in fulfilling that mission as their Newsbusted comedy show demonstrates.

They're especially good at pointing out double standards and hypocrisy, as they did with the convening of the new Republican-controlled Congress.

First they point out how Good Morning America avoided any mention of the subject, but found plenty of time to feature a new solution to frizzy hair.

Now, you may argue that frizzy hair is more important than any mention of the makeup of the new Congress - and if you have frizzy hair, or occasional issues with such a problem as I do, the new solution may truly be the only news you're really interested in.

But a Google search for Good Morning America pops up this description of the broadcast:

Co-anchors report the morning's top headlines from a set in Times Square. The show features a combination of breaking news, interviews, in-depth reporting and weather. The program covers important issues with key figures from around the world and a wide spectrum of topics, including medicine, finance, consumer issues, computer technology, education and gardening.

hmmm...breaking news and in-depth reporting. But no news story on a new Congress?

George Stephanopoulos did mention it, warning that the new Congress would be confrontational, not cooperative, though cooperation was what the new Congress *should* do.

But in 2007 when the Democrats gained control of Congress and George W. Bush was president, the message was all about standing up to Bush and *forcing* him to go along with the Democrat agenda.  The word "impeachment" was used.

Talk about a double standard... and thank goodness we have MRC reminding us of the blatant bias.

As for me, I don't watch GMA, so I really couldn't care less about what they do, or don't, feature.  I prefer to read my news, checking multiple websites and articles from all political sides as part of my morning coffee routine.

But whether from a right-leaning or left-leaning source, I do ask one thing:  Don't be a hypocrite.

If something is "bad" when Republicans do it, it remains "bad" when Democrats do it, too.  If something is outrageous or an attack on liberty when Democrats do it, it is equally outrageous and an attack on liberty when Republicans do it.

If you condemn an act or decision or statement because you are opposed to it, you can't suddenly be all in favor of it simply because it is being said or done by someone with your same political affiliation or ideology.

It is the hypocrisy, more than anything, that completely destroys credibility, as ratings clearly show.

New Year, new posts, new Speaker of the House?

You've probably noticed that it's been a while since I posted an article here on Thurber's Thoughts. The truth is, I've been working - more than I would like - and it definitely cut into my time for commenting on things, especially things that really don't pay.

That whole "need to earn a living" thing really gets in the way of the fun stuff I like to do.

But it's a new year and I really don't want to end my Thurber's Thoughts blog, so I'm going to be posting here on a more regular basis.

In between my own posts, which are usually well-researched in order to give you information and/or perspectives on local issues that you're not getting elsewhere, I'll link to the posts being done on Ohio Watchdog, which is where I'm covering state and local issues.

I'll also do some mini commentaries - longer than the 140 characters allowed on Twitter, but less than what I'd normally do in a blog post.

I may even have some guest commentaries.

For today, here is something that my friend and National Review columnist Jim Geraghty included in his morning email about the upcoming vote for Speaker of the House.

"The outlook for Boehner would be a lot cloudier if there was an alternative who was well-liked by about 218 or so of his colleagues and who seemed genuinely interested in the job. This person would have to enjoy the trust and faith of the conservatives, while also reassuring less conservative members that his agenda for floor votes wouldn’t be endangering them. He would have to have a good feel for the political instincts and worldviews of just about every member, and know their passions and idiosyncrasies. And on just about every issue under the sun, he would have to know exactly what kind of a deal a majority of his members could live with, and what they couldn’t.

"It’s a tall order. And if Boehner wins today, it may very well be that for all of his flaws, a majority of his colleagues aren’t yet convinced that any other member can handle that task any better than Boehner can right now."

Prediction:  John Boehner will still be Speaker of the House at the end of the day.