Fetal Defense Syndrome

Anti-abortion forces are still hard at it in South Dakota. A proposed new law there would define a homicide as justifiable if committed in the defense of an unborn child.

Opponents say the measure would provide a license to kill abortion providers, especially after language was added to the original bill extending the self defense justification to the pregnant woman’s relatives. So an enraged brother, or even crazy Uncle Goober, could shoot the doctor and his nurse for “endangering the life” of the unborn, in South Dakota, and claim justifiable homicide by self defense.

Proponents of this transparent legislative con insist that the law would not shield killers of abortion providers, but if that’s so, then there is simply no reason to propose it in the first place. A pregnant woman already has the right of self defense against someone attacking her. Relatives, or anyone else, for that matter; even strangers, are likewise entitled to come to her aid using lethal force if necessary to protect her from imminent harm. That’s already the law in most states

So what’s going on here? Who do you suppose is most likely to “endanger the life of an unborn,” if not someone who already has permission from the owner, and thus the legal right to do so? Who attempts to “endanger an unborn” without intending to endanger its owner also?

That’s right; your friendly neighborhood abortion provider is the real target of this law. Social conservatives in South Dakota want open season declared on them; and personhood status for the unborn while they’re at it.

Meanwhile down in Georgia, state Rep. Bobby Franklin, an even more ambitious religionist lawmaker, has reintroduced, for the umpteenth time, a bill that would make miscarriages a felony if the mother can’t prove there was no "human involvement." All abortions are defined as "prenatal murder" under this law, and anyone convicted would face the death penalty or life behind bars.

You can’t say I didn’t warn you.

These folks don’t give up easily.

The Enemy is Us

Officials are scrambling to come up with a response to revelations that several U.S. senators, including John McCain, and a few congressmen, were subjected to specialized "psychological operations" manipulation tactics by Army “psy-ops” officers in an effort to persuade the lawmakers to increase the number of soldiers, and funding for the Afghan war. Admiral Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was also a target of the clandestine operation. (msnbc.com)

One officer, who balked when ordered to conduct the scheme, was reportedly severely reprimanded by his superior officers. "My job in psy-ops is to play with people's heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," he’s quoted as saying. "I'm prohibited from doing that to our own people… When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you're crossing a line."

Using such tactics on U.S. citizens is (theoretically) against regulations and not to be done under any circumstances.

Serves these politicians right, doesn’t it? After all, they’re the ones who trained and set the goons loose in the first place, and now they’ve apparently gone right around full circle on their masters. Not to worry, though. Our brave politicians get the same tactics from lobbyists and special interest groups all the time. As long as there is some quid pro quo, I’m sure they can handle a few attempts at manipulation; something they too use every chance they get.

Politicians and “psy-ops” professionals are all trained to work against the enemy, and the enemy turns out to be us.

Baby Crimes and Misdemeanors

Let’s see if I have this right:

An 11 year-old Colorado grade school kid suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder is counseled by his therapist to draw pictures instead of disrupting class when he becomes agitated and upset. He does exactly as he’s told, drawing stick figures of him with a gun, pointed at four other figures, with the words: "teachers must die" to purge his angry emotions.

The school, knowing about the boy’s therapy, determines there is no threat; notify his parents and send him back to class. Later that night, however, the cops show up at the boy’s home, arrest, handcuff, and haul him off to the jail, where he’s put in a cell, fingerprinted and his mug shot taken. The kid thinks he’s never going to go home again. Then he's charged with misdemeanor interfering with staff and students at an educational facility:

Officials insist they are doing what's in the best interest of this child.

But this little kid was just minding his own business; he wasn’t interfering with anyone. He simply drew some stick figures with a caption, as his therapist instructed him to do, to calm his nerves, and it seemed to be working. No one was threatened. No weapons were involved. He went back to class and then home, hours passing without further incident.

Man, it’s a good thing those same officials aren’t riding in the car with me when some moron pulls out in front almost causing an accident. I can think of a million profane ways to kill such people, love to discus all of them with myself out loud, and I don’t even have ADD; I’m just pissed off; much better to talk about it than do it in that state of mind. Maybe I’d feel better if I drew some pictures. But, if that’s a crime, then in my best interests, I deserve a life term in Leavenworth; maybe even the death penalty.

What’s a kid supposed to do when he’s pissed off? Have these officials ever heard of the First Amendment? Have they any concept at all of the right to freedom of expression? What official in his right mind would think this totally unnecessary show of force is in the best interests of a child? 

What judge in his right mind would issue an arrest warrant for an 11 year-old boy under these facts? What policeman in his right mind would put an 11 year-old kid in handcuffs, and process him at the jail, like a hardened criminal, for a petty misdemeanor like this one, even if he did commit a misdemeanor?  I don’t think he did.

It sure doesn’t sound like a crime to me -- interfering with staff and students at an educational facility – you could get charged with that for bumping into someone accidentally in the school hallway. Your kid could be arrested for raising her hand in class to ask to go to the bathroom under that statute.

Yes, the prosecutor and all those “officials” had to dig pretty deep into the statist statute books to find that monstrosity.

No Wonder California is Broke

Daily Tech News Flash: An Anaheim California School District has been awarded $18,000 from a state grant to fund a six-week test program seeking to reduce unexcused absences by equipping 75 recalcitrant seventh and eighth grade student volunteers with handheld GPS devices at a cost of $300-$400 each.

Reducing the number of absences reportedly saves the school district $35 it otherwise would lose every time a student misses class. The students are sent an automated phone call every school day to remind them to get up and go to school. Then they must enter a code five times a day, and a coach is assigned to each student in order to make sure that they are where they're supposed to be doing what they're supposed to do.

Never-mind all the ominously statist collectivist implications of this unbelievably bizarre scenario; $18,000, it seems to me, is an awful lot of dough for a lousy 6 weeks of playing kiddie telephone tag games with a bunch of bored teenagers. I suppose the District can’t be blamed though, if they really do get $35 from the state government tit each time one junior high school kid shows up at class. That’s huge money: it’s like $250 for a movie ticket; $10 for a soda pop. I thought California was broke. How can they keep doing like this? It’s worse than outrageous; it’s obscene.

If only education in America were administered to kids like hamburgers at McDonald's, parents could get far better value, at far less cost, and many more of their kids would grow up to be PhD’s. That’s because private education would cater only to students who wanted to learn, and the focus would be on education – not socialization.

There is no good reason to force a small minority of kids to go to school every day, who aren’t even interested in a free education, much less a private pay as you go plan. Many good kids are just not suited for formal education beyond a basic level. They don’t like it; they don’t want it; and it’s not right for them anyway. They should get jobs, go to work, and contribute to the economy instead of wasting it.

California is a beautiful state. What a pity it has to come down because of nonsense like this.  

Wrestling with Public Education

Which do you suppose is worse from the perspective of a talented teenaged male athlete: beating a girl, or getting beaten by a girl?

Let me admit right up front that I’m not a big fan of wrestling; and even less so of compulsory public schools with their expensive public school sports programs.

Wrestling involves an intense, physically violent, aggressive, combative, in-your-face confrontation of raw strength and stamina at close quarters with the sweaty body of an equally motivated opponent. Kids can get hurt wrestling. Wrestling is fighting; body to body, hand to hand combat; violence. I hate violence.

And, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to support the elite sporting opportunities of a tiny privileged minority of athletically inclined public school kids. The private sector would do much better and fairer for all concerned.

All bias aside, though, I’ll try to stay logical and objective with this one.

An Iowa high school wrestler recently became the first girl to win a state tournament match when her male opponent balked and forfeited the match at the prospect of competing with her. He cited religious objections, but I think he had plenty of other good reasons. Any gentleman would have forfeited that match.

To her credit this girl is obviously one of those exceedingly rare females who can compete with boys her size in a physically demanding contact sport. The fact that she made it to the state tournament at all says that she is good at wrestling and has probably beaten many boys already at lesser contests along the way. After all, boys are probably her only source of competition. So I sympathize with her for wanting to participate, and understand her right to be treated equally at public school.

But since when has it become appropriate behavior for boys to be fighting physically in organized blood sporting contests with girls? Is there no longer any appreciation at all of the differences in sex between boys and girls in public school sports programs? If wrestling is OK should girls be boxing with the boys next?

Good boys should be taught never to strike, use force upon, or manhandle girls under any circumstances. This poor lad had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by fighting a girl and trying to pin her to the floor. There is something unseemly about high school boys and girls aggressively pawing and grappling with each other in a public wrestling match.

If the boy wins such a contest, he’s automatically a cad. There is no honor or glory in beating up a girl, even if she asked for it. If he loses, he suffers the eternal humiliation and ridicule of his peers having been beaten by a girl in a state wide contest of masculinity. No teenaged boy should be forced to consider that horrible choice.

All ended quickly here when the girl was eliminated from the tournament by losing her first match with a real opponent. So she really didn’t win anything, but managed to spoil a young man’s chance to participate at a high level in a sporting activity which is traditionally and rightly meant for the testing of men.

That’s just another of the many problems with public education: differences and individuality among human beings is hardly recognized much less celebrated in a collective.

Tort Reform: Blame the Lawyers

Here’s an economics question for you: Which do you think contributes most to the rising costs of health care: medical malpractice lawsuits, or medical mistakes? If you guessed lawsuits, you had better guess again. Medical mistakes cause enormous personal and financial damage. Lawsuits don’t recover a fraction of it.

Recently, a 2-year-old girl with a critical strep infection had to have both her feet and one hand amputated because of a five hours wait for proper treatment at a hospital emergency room. This kind of thing happens more frequently than you want to know.

Most medical malpractice passes right by without any recourse. Medical professionals, more than most of us, hate to admit their mistakes. So patients are led to believe that the bad result was not caused by a mistake. Most injured patients never even think of talking to a lawyer much less filing a lawsuit. They just endure their pain and pay the price without complaint. 

“Tort reform” is touted repeatedly today by many pundits and politicians on both the right and left as a wonderful way to cut outrageously rising health care costs. But their idea of “tort reform” has nothing to do with curbing torts, i.e. preventing medical mistakes; but a whole lot to do with curbing the rights of injured patients to seek redress for medical mistakes. “Tort reform” is a buzz label for laws which focus on lawyers instead of doctors. The plain fact, however, is that lawyers don’t make medical mistakes, doctors do.

Tort reform is a good idea, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of the victims of torts. There is plenty of room for reform in all areas of the law, but the focus of “tort reform” should involve prevention of and fair compensation for torts – not the relationship between lawyer and client. It is the tort which causes the damage, not the lawyers’ fees. Making it impossible for most people to seek redress for medical mistakes in a court of law would cut health care costs alright, but squarely on the backs of the hapless victims.

Any good lawyer will tell you that medical malpractice cases are the hardest civil cases of all to win, anyway, no matter how much merit in them. People don’t like their doctors getting sued. They love their doctors and local hospitals. For good reason, the medical profession is still held in very high esteem; much higher, in fact, than the legal profession. So blaming the lawyers is just as popular today as always.

Without big damages and an airtight case on the merits, though, supported by top notch experts with superior qualifications, few lawyers are foolish enough to take on a medical malpractice case. Lawyers won’t find many top notch experts willing to testify against their own colleagues unless they have a very good case.

Frivolous malpractice suits don’t stand a chance in court. A judge throws them out long before any jury is involved. Even when a malpractice case is proved by clear and convincing evidence, juries are just as likely to find no cause for action. Litigation is no cheap picnic for either side.

There are scores of legal and evidentiary barriers to maintaining medical malpractice cases in most states; obstacles which don’t apply to other kinds of torts. It is far easier to prove automobile negligence, for example, than medical negligence, though both occur with frighteningly equal frequency.

Look closely at the specific proposals of “tort reform” advocates and you will see that they care little to nothing about medical mistakes and what to do about them. “Tort reform” is just their way of saying with a nudge and a wink: We want more legal immunity from medical mistakes for our doctors.

It’s not lawyers who create problems; it’s laws.

Libertarians Aren’t Politicians

Libertarian Ron Paul (R-Texas) won the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second year in a row. This development has social conservatives like nationally syndicated talk show host, Kevin McCullough, in a state of hyper disgust and loathing over what he laments as the rise of libertarianism in the Republican Party.   

Mr. McCullough sees Libertarians as “radically disrespectful… libertines,” the antitheses of real conservatives, because they “actually advocated for legalized pot and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions.”

“The truth is Libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation,” McCullough claims; worse even than “liberals.” “Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers… Libertarian elements, because of their strange combination of policies that add up to anarchy without moral limits, don't mix with conservative ideals,” he concludes.

The trouble with social conservatives is that they are not content with being social conservatives; they want everyone to be social conservatives. American culture belongs to them, they think. They are statists who want to dictate American culture by means of religious and political force. That is a major problem with the Republican Party in America and the main reason why they don’t win more elections. People are afraid of right-wing extremes, and they should be.

Libertarians are conservative too, but content to be libertarian, and to let social conservatives be social conservatives. We don’t care about your culture. We believe that free individuals choose their own culture. We don’t want to force personal values on others. We know that the founding fathers of the United States of America were libertarian.

Libertarian is the only political philosophy which seeks no advantage over others by force or deception. Social conservatives on the right, and progressives on the left are all seeking some sort of political advantage. They want to force their collective visions of how society should be on all of us. They don’t hesitate to use politics as a club to have their way.  

Libertarians; most of us just want to be left alone. Libertarians aren’t politicians. That’s why we don’t win elections as our own political party. There is no potential political advantage over others by being libertarian. We don’t believe in using politics as a club.

The Republican Party could use more of us; and so could the Democrats.

Thieves & Politicians

Assuming recent news accounts of his immense wealth are accurate, Hosni Mubarak, boss of Egypt, Bela Lugosi look-alike, and perhaps the richest man in the world, leaves political office after 30 years of looting as much as $70 billion from his countrymen.

That treasure is also probably the reason why it took him so long to leave; he needed some time to take care of his spoils while he still had power. Now he’ll probably go off to somewhere like Saudi Arabia or the South of France with glad tidings and good will from the U.S.A., and all the world’s governments, to live out the rest of his life as a respected former head of state in magnificent extravagant splendor.

How does a common soldier, without any particular money making talent, business acumen, or other real life value creation experience manage that?

Why, by stealing it of course; but not like your average burglar or thief steals things. Unchecked political power allows politicians to steal values legitimately; the law is on their side. The force is on their side. They see to that. History presents a long list of these political opportunist creeps, some from the right, some from the left, and many more in between -- Authority!

In Mubarak’s case, he came to power after the political assassination of his predecessor, suspended the nation’s constitution, and then ensconced himself at the top as a blood sucking parasite for the next 30 years. As boss, he took a cut in everything that was anything happening in Egypt, all the while answering essentially to no one. The biggest development projects, monopolies, and business deals, together with all manner of political corruption, kickbacks, bribery, and graft, rendered the economy of Egypt Mubarak’s private piggy bank – pure profit with no overhead.

Bernie Madoff got 155 years in stir for his multi-billion dollar thievery. Mubarak, equally guilty and twice as despicable, will probably keep most of his ill-gotten gains to enjoy in golden retirement.

That’s the difference between thieves and politicians.

High Speed Investments in Sacrifice

Vice President Joe Biden recently announced that $53 billion will be spent by the federal government over the next six years, on top of $10.5 billion already spent, to promote construction of a national high-speed, intercity passenger rail network. The president said in his State of the Union address that he wants to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years. This, apparently is the Obama administration’s answer to cutting federal spending – Amtrak on steroids.

If $64.5 billion will be spent to promote it, we should wonder how many more billions will be spent to actually construct it, and how many billions beyond that to maintain it. It seems to me that the private sector would have picked up on this one if it were such a great idea. Private business wouldn’t touch this loser with a barge pole.

Will customers abandon their cars and flock in the billions to the new high speed rail system? I hardly think so; probably not even in the millions. Amtrak doesn’t have enough passengers now to keep it going without constant government bailouts and subsidies.  

“There are key places where we cannot afford to sacrifice as a nation, one of which is infrastructure," Biden declared. Only a conniving politician could try to make the case that we need to spend billions of taxpayer dollars we don’t have on new high speed rail infrastructure or we’ll sacrifice as a nation; it’s not lavish unnecessary spending; it’s a sacrifice if we don’t do this.

"We need to invest in a modern rail system that will help connect communities, reduce congestion and create quality, skilled manufacturing jobs that cannot be outsourced," he added. Only a slippery fork-tongued politician could say with a straight face that it is necessary to invest taxpayer money in this fashion to create outsource proof jobs; it’s not profligate spending; it’s an investment in jobs.

This new adventure is obviously not about necessary rail service for passengers in need; it’s about spending money for jobs, and Joe Biden wants to take credit for creating new American jobs where there were no jobs before with your money.

In a pitch to the TV cameras, Mr. Biden claimed that, since he came to Washington as a lawmaker, he’s taken 7,900 safe and convenient round trips on Amtrak to and from his home in Delaware. Let’s, see; that amounts to one round trip every day, seven days a week; 365 days a year for 21.64 years.

Do politicians exaggerate sometimes?

Pirate’s Paradise

A lucky group of Somali pirates were taken to a South Korean prison recently after they were captured in a commando raid on the high seas. Now it’s reported that they enjoy the quality of their lives substantially more than home in Somalia. “South Korean jail is better than decent hotels in Africa,” one pirate was quoted as saying. (Bangkok Post; 2/1/11)

The story doesn’t reveal all that much about South Korea, but it sure tells us a lot about politics in Somalia. If a decent hotel there is worse than jail in Korea, Somalia must be a very bad place to live indeed. Any wretch having the misfortune of being born in Somalia would likely be a pirate too. In a den of criminals one has little choice but to become a criminal.

Somalia is an example of a nation in which power politics has imploded the fabric of society into the lowest form of human association – right back to the savage law of the jungle. This is what can happen when politics goes too far and the parasitic thugs take too much. Terror, theft, graft, and corruption have rendered the value of the state of Somalia to its people near zero.

There isn’t much left to steal in Somalia. Those who might otherwise want to create values peacefully and honestly won’t even try because they know it would only be pillaged and plundered anyway. Few people if any live the good life in Somalia. Even pirates with all their millions in stolen loot can’t find decent accommodations. There are no longer any reasons to create decent accommodations in Somalia. There is no rule of law; no protection from criminals; only raw force.

The politicians and gangsters who gutted Somalia failed to learn a valuable lesson from their bretheren in South Korea, the United States, and the rest of the 1^st world. Had they simply resisted the temptation of taking too much, they and their subjects would probably be prosperous and thriving today instead of dissolute and desolate as they are.  

Our own politicians think they have mastered the art of taking as much as possible from the system without causing it to implode, and perhaps they have. Peaceful honest people will put up with a lot of political taking yet continue to produce. Everything has its limits, however, and there is no guarantee that this glorious state of equilibrium will continue indefinately, especially in light of our current government financial deficit spending and debt crises.

Politicians can learn something from pirates.

Sarah Palin: Who?

Sarah Palin has reportedly filed applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the names "Sarah Palin" and "Bristol Palin."  

Has this lady no shame? Apparently she thinks that just the sight and sound of her name has become a valuable money making device. Maybe she’s right. By all accounts she does make big money now on her name alone, as there’s not much substance beyond that and her all American good looks.

Now she needs a monopoly on “Sarah Palin” so she can remain first and only to cash in. And it’s working for her. Next, she’ll probably try to wrangle space for herself and daughter on Mt. Rushmore. Move over Abraham Lincoln. So far, there appear no limits to Sarah Palin’s arrogance.

Sarah Palin is the latest example of a politician in politics solely for the fame and money. To her everlasting credit, she doesn’t even try to disguise that fact. She’s clearly no diplomat, scholar, or stateswoman. If Sarah Palin has ever entertained an original political thought, the public record doesn’t disclose to us exactly what it is. She does a great job though as a magpie repeating endlessly the talking points of the social conservative religious right. She’s good at preaching to that choir.

Can you imagine George Washington quitting his important high profile job as general of the colonial army during the Revolutionary War so he could make more money with speaking engagements and starring in his own theatrical reality show? Would that have helped him become president?

Sarah Palin wasn’t making enough money as governor of Alaska, and the daily grind of work was way too hard on her. Then all of a sudden she was blessed by the political gods. After her losing stint as Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, she couldn’t resist the opportunity to capitalize on her new found fame as a rising star in the Republican party. She quit the governor job and has since pursued fame and money to the max. It doesn’t take a genius, however, to figure out that game won’t get your pretty face carved on Mt. Rushmore, much less elected president.

As an ostensible proponent of free markets and limited government, I probably will agree with much of her political spiel, but somehow, in light of everything else about Sarah Palin, it all seems so empty and phony coming from such an unabashed political opportunist.

Sarah Palin might be a momma grizzly alright, but she sure ain’t no Maggie Thatcher.

Healthcare Insurance: Solution or Problem?

The Jury is still out, but it looks like Obamacare is going down the toilet. Good riddance. It’s a Frankenstein monster which would only make the administration of health care in America worse than it is now.

Collectivists won’t give up easily though. They want a universal health care law.  Had Obamacare been set up like Social Security in the first place, they might have had their way. They might still get their way. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, whether we like them or not, have been held constitutional. So we might end up with universal health care after all.

Universal health care, to a leftist, means that the cost of everyone’s medical care should be furnished essentially by everyone else. In other words, healthy people must be forced to pay for the health care of unhealthy people, and poor people must have the same quality of health care as rich people. Anyone knows, though, that there is not enough health care on the planet to satisfy that demand.

Leftist’s think that if they can just force everyone to buy health insurance their dreams for universal health care would come true. But why insurance? Insurance only exacerbates the problem. Insurance increases the demand for medical services. Insurance for every medical expense is the primary reason why heath care is so outrageously expensive today. If we got groceries the same way we now get health care, the cost of food would explode.

If everyone had full coverage health insurance for every ailment, including preexisting conditions, the cost of health care and health care insurance premiums would spiral totally out of control. No one who has health care insurance gives a damn about keeping costs low as long as an insurance company is paying the tab. If they’ve paid premiums, they what their money’s worth. That’s human nature.

On top of that, insurance companies have their own high costs of administration. They have to pay armies of employees to administer the insurance and still operate at a profit. They are essentially a middleman in the health care business. Why pay a middleman for every item of medical expense, plus a substantial amount more for profit? Insurance is the biggest drag on the administration and costs of health care.

If congress must pass a universal health care law, it should first eliminate health insurance all together, except for catastrophic coverage, (that’s the original logical purpose for insurance anyway), and in those situations the deductibles should be high enough to discourage people from trying to milk the system.

Since premiums for such catastrophic insurance are relatively low, the cost of medical insurance would be affordable. Government could even pay the premiums for poor folks. And if no insurance were available for routine medical care, the costs of routine medical care would, with the magical benefits of free market competition, fall to reasonable sustainable affordable levels once again.

We already have Medicaid and Medicare. Why make things worse?

Education: We Need Wal-Mart

According to a recent Fox News survey, most American public school biology teachers are equivocal in their teaching of evolution science because they want to avoid ideological conflicts with students and parents. Fewer than 30% of them teach evolution as a biological fact, and 13% personally reject the idea of evolution, even the scientific method, and explicitly advocate creationism in the public classroom.

It makes me wonder about how many other basic curriculum subjects are distorted or equivocated by public school teachers who fear ideological conflicts among culturally diverse student populations. It doesn’t matter. That’s the nature of public education.

This is just another perfect example of why the immense system of expensive public schools is failing in America, and why all education should be private.

Personally, I don’t care if people believe in creationism. It’s none of my business. Evolution should not be forced on them. The scientific method should not be forced on them. It’s their life.

If the state has an interest in educating it’s citizens -- I don’t think it does -- surely it doesn’t go beyond basic reading, writing, and figuring. Once  children have learned how to read, write, and figure proficiently, they are well equipped to engage in further ideological subjects of their choice and on their own in a free society. If we must have public schools, attendance should be voluntary, and graduation should follow the sixth grade.

But we know that the state’s interest is far greater than simply teaching kids the basics. The state wants to shape their attitudes and opinions as well. It wants to turn the kids into compliant supporters of government. It wants to teach kids collective “values.” That’s just fine with most parents because all they want is free babysitting services while they carry on their own productive lives.

So the state has a virtual monopoly business running inferior compulsory education factories in hugely expensive buildings, with all the finest facilities, and armies of staff, much like it runs its prison systems.

Since kids have to be there whether they like it or not to swallow up the prescribed pabulum, little incentive exists for critical thinking or pursuing interests more compatible with their individual attributes and abilities. Thirteen of their most formative years are appropriated by the state for “socialization.”

Education is not the business of government in a free nation.

Human beings no longer need ancient methods of formalized education to learn. Formal education is way overrated. Kids today know how to communicate, type, use computers, ipads, cell phones; they’ve mastered all manner of valuable subjects they didn’t learn in school.

We live in an Internet age in which the very best teacher could teach thousands of students at once instead of just a few at a time. Poor kids can have the benefits of learning from the best of teachers today. Like Wal-Mart, the private sector could cheaply and efficiently satisfy every educational need for those who actually want to learn. Those who want creationism can buy the perfect teacher.

They’ll get no objection from me.