HARBESON: Are services really being rendered?
In his hysterical response to the State Board of Accounts audit for Clark County Superior Court No. 3, covering the years 2008-10, now-retired Judge Steven Fleece resorted to a typical defense of government actions — focusing on the so-called services provided rather than the coercion necessary to fund them. This tactic is particularly intriguing here because one of the primary points of contention between the SBOA and Fleece is whether or not a service even exists in the first place.
This issue of services concerns the Clark County Alcohol and Drug Program, the troubled entity that has been mentioned in previous SBOA reports for other Clark County government departments. The county has been charging an alcohol and drug fee to every driver charged with a moving traffic violation, even if the violation had nothing at all to do with drugs or alcohol and those charged did not receive alcohol and drug program services.
The SBOA claims that no alcohol and drug program service was provided to the people who were forced to pay this fee, but Fleece, who was in control of this program for years, disagrees. He says they did provide a service to these people — a pamphlet discussing the dangers of drugs and alcohol and “offering” a professional alcohol and drug assessment.
It doesn’t matter to Fleece if these people actually take advantage of and use this assessment service — the pamphlet itself is considered the service that justifies the user fee extorted from the people unlucky enough to commit a moving traffic violation in Clark County.
Fleece works very hard in his response to prove that this pamphlet is the service and therefore justifies the extra fees charged on nonalcohol and drug related moving traffic violations. As a matter of fact, Fleece is so determined that he spends nearly two full pages discussing the definition of the word “service.”
He settles on two definitions. One is from the Oxford English Dictionary of 1971: “The action of serving, helping or benefiting; conduct tending to the welfare or advantage of another.” The second is from the American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition: “An act of assistance or benefit to another or others; a favor.”
Do you think the people pulled over for speeding felt like the government did them a favor when the officer handed over a pamphlet that would cost them up to $50?
Further attempting to defend the pamphlets as a legitimate service, Fleece goes on to say that services people provide can vary in degree and the relative importance of a given service does not matter. To illustrate this, Fleece uses heart transplants and shoe polishing as examples.
It’s interesting to note here that since these service providers interact with others on a voluntary basis, they would never consider it proper to hand out pamphlets about their services to others and then after doing so, charge people $50 for the pamphlet. Instead, they simply charge people who actually use the service offered.
Can you imagine what would happen if a surgeon or shoe polisher did try to charge for pamphlets they handed out about their services? People would laugh in their faces if they arrogantly proposed that just the offer of the service is a provision of a service. Yet this is exactly the defense Fleece is offering to justify collecting what has amounted to more than $2.5 million in these so-called user fees since 2006.
For now, it appears that this has stopped because current Judge Joseph Weber has been following the SBOA recommendations. However, that doesn’t mean he’s exactly on board with what the SBOA says either because his response to the SBOA report says he is of the opinion that “there is a legitimate argument that the offer of services does itself constitute the provision of services.”
Weber’s letter also states that county officials, along with their attorneys, are interested in finding a way around this problem. Who knows what that means but wouldn’t it be nice if they’d do everyone a favor and stop charging people user fees for this service they don’t use?
— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is available to write for you. Now that you’ve read this offer, you owe her $50. Email her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com to find out where to send payment.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Defining Happiness for the Collective?
HARBESON: The pursuit of happiness
> SOUTHERN INDIANA — In the continuing effort to justify the manipulation of the market and interference in people’s lives, governments love to collect data. For a long time now, the federal government has been using straight economic measures such as the Gross National Product, the idea being that a country with strong economic output is doing well. But now government officials are looking into ways to measure happiness.
I can’t imagine a more subjective concept to measure, but the Department of Health and Human Services, with full support of the Obama Administration, has been spending your money trying to define happiness and a method of measuring it. The intended goal is to develop a new indicator for well-being, called Gross National Happiness, which proponents believe is a better way to evaluate than using economic-based measurements.
The idea of Gross National Happiness (GNH) was started by a King in a little country called Bhutan in the 1970s and the idea seems to be catching on because the country hosted a United Nations conference in New York this week to discuss the idea. [Does anyone else find it odd to hear that the United States wants to emulate a monarchy?]
Determining happiness can vary widely from individual to individual, and I don’t see how you can even measure such a thing for a collective — which may be the point. After all, it would be much harder to argue with any results of such a subjective measurement than it would be of economic data.
In addition, no matter what the GNH turned out to be, the government could use it to justify more government involvement. If the GNH determines that people are happy, then the government could justify continuing its current actions, perhaps even increasing them in an effort to get even more of the government-approved form of happiness. And if it turned out people are not happy enough, then they would of course develop all sorts of wonderful interventions intended to increase the government-approved happiness scale.
If GNH is bad enough, will the government declare a war on unhappiness? If so, we all know what that means — the problem would get worse. People would be even more unhappy, which would give the government justification to intervene more, creating a new bureaucracy to support the war. It would help in part, though, I guess because the people making money off the unhappiness war would be happy they have a job.
It feels strange to talk about any government involvement in happiness, even just the measuring of it, considering the ideas that were clearly laid out in the Declaration of Independence. Those writers understood that government can’t centrally plan happiness. It is an individual pursuit of what is often a moving target because circumstances and desires that define happiness for a given individual can change over time. For example, as people get older, happiness simply becomes a successful bowel movement.
If the government ends up developing a GNH indicator, will another one of the primary concepts that defines freedom — the pursuit of happiness — no longer be considered the responsibility of the individual?
There is good reason to be concerned if the government starts to define and measure happiness. After all, look at what’s happened to education since the government started to define and measure that concept. No one seems happy about the condition of education and there are constant efforts to reform it. And yet, society is so dependent that most people would be very unhappy if government was not involved. Taking responsibility for education is completely beyond the imagination of most people.
Could something similar happen with the individual pursuit of happiness? I don’t know but that sure is an unhappy thought.
> SOUTHERN INDIANA — In the continuing effort to justify the manipulation of the market and interference in people’s lives, governments love to collect data. For a long time now, the federal government has been using straight economic measures such as the Gross National Product, the idea being that a country with strong economic output is doing well. But now government officials are looking into ways to measure happiness.
I can’t imagine a more subjective concept to measure, but the Department of Health and Human Services, with full support of the Obama Administration, has been spending your money trying to define happiness and a method of measuring it. The intended goal is to develop a new indicator for well-being, called Gross National Happiness, which proponents believe is a better way to evaluate than using economic-based measurements.
The idea of Gross National Happiness (GNH) was started by a King in a little country called Bhutan in the 1970s and the idea seems to be catching on because the country hosted a United Nations conference in New York this week to discuss the idea. [Does anyone else find it odd to hear that the United States wants to emulate a monarchy?]
Determining happiness can vary widely from individual to individual, and I don’t see how you can even measure such a thing for a collective — which may be the point. After all, it would be much harder to argue with any results of such a subjective measurement than it would be of economic data.
In addition, no matter what the GNH turned out to be, the government could use it to justify more government involvement. If the GNH determines that people are happy, then the government could justify continuing its current actions, perhaps even increasing them in an effort to get even more of the government-approved form of happiness. And if it turned out people are not happy enough, then they would of course develop all sorts of wonderful interventions intended to increase the government-approved happiness scale.
If GNH is bad enough, will the government declare a war on unhappiness? If so, we all know what that means — the problem would get worse. People would be even more unhappy, which would give the government justification to intervene more, creating a new bureaucracy to support the war. It would help in part, though, I guess because the people making money off the unhappiness war would be happy they have a job.
It feels strange to talk about any government involvement in happiness, even just the measuring of it, considering the ideas that were clearly laid out in the Declaration of Independence. Those writers understood that government can’t centrally plan happiness. It is an individual pursuit of what is often a moving target because circumstances and desires that define happiness for a given individual can change over time. For example, as people get older, happiness simply becomes a successful bowel movement.
If the government ends up developing a GNH indicator, will another one of the primary concepts that defines freedom — the pursuit of happiness — no longer be considered the responsibility of the individual?
There is good reason to be concerned if the government starts to define and measure happiness. After all, look at what’s happened to education since the government started to define and measure that concept. No one seems happy about the condition of education and there are constant efforts to reform it. And yet, society is so dependent that most people would be very unhappy if government was not involved. Taking responsibility for education is completely beyond the imagination of most people.
Could something similar happen with the individual pursuit of happiness? I don’t know but that sure is an unhappy thought.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Simplifying the Issue of Smoking Bans
HARBESON: Care for a smoke?
> SOUTHERN INDIANA — People who want to manipulate and control others will often make issues more complex than they really are, usually by avoiding basic principles like property ownership.
This benefits those in government because, in the confusion, inconsistent laws are created, which increases conflict and the illusion that even more government interference is needed.
How do we simplify issues so people can think about them in a clear and consistent manner? It’s easy — just frame the issue as if it only involved you and a neighbor or two. I’ll use the smoking ban issue as an example.
Let’s say your neighbor smokes. You prefer to stay away from smoke but you enjoy his company and you want to watch the Final Four games with him. So you invite him over and ask him not to smoke in your home. He can choose to accept your invitation or not. He doesn’t try to force you to let him smoke in your home. He accepts your property ownership claim and understands you make the decision.
Now let’s say it’s the other way around and he invites you over to watch the game and eat. He may smoke while you are there so you can choose to accept his invitation or not. You don’t try to force him to not smoke in his home. You accept his property ownership claim and understand that he makes the decision.
This mutual respect of property ownership is what helps the two of you live peacefully as neighbors. You are free to decide how, or if, you will to interact with each other. You are free to make any arrangements and agreements you wish in regards to smoking without government involvement.
Now let’s say the same neighbor invites you in to his business as a customer to eat and watch the final championship game. He may decide to smoke. Does it now seem valid to go to the government to have them force your neighbor to not smoke or let his friends smoke because you want to be there too?
If you think this is valid, why? What has changed in the individual relationship between the two of you? You are still an invited guest and he’s still the property owner. The only difference is that rather than just eating his food, you will pay him for it.
Does this voluntary exchange create a property ownership claim that entitles you to use the government to create rules for his property that you prefer, even over his objections? If so, then why isn’t it equally valid to tell him what to do when you voluntarily enter his private residence?
Maybe you agree with me and don’t see any validity in the idea that an ownership claim in the property was created just because you became a paying customer. Many people do remain consistent at this point.
But let’s take this one step further — your neighbor offers you a job to serve food to the people watching the game. Again, he decides to allow smoking. Do you think it is now valid to go to the government and force him to ban smoking on his property? Why?
You are exactly as free to leave, or not even enter, this relationship with your neighbor as you were when he invited you to his home or invited you to his privately owned business as a customer. Never at any time did your neighbor point a gun at you and force you to enter either property, nor did he force you to work for him. At all times your relationship was based on voluntary interaction.
So what is it about the relationship that has changed that gives you, through the use of government force, a property ownership claim now, but did not exist when you were invited into his home and to his business to watch the game?
One more question to consider — if you want to use government force against your neighbor so he can’t allow smoking on his own property because you voluntarily agreed to employment, who is the aggressor in this situation?
— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson likes to keep it simple. You can send her a simple message by writing to Debbie@debbieharbeson.com.
> SOUTHERN INDIANA — People who want to manipulate and control others will often make issues more complex than they really are, usually by avoiding basic principles like property ownership.
This benefits those in government because, in the confusion, inconsistent laws are created, which increases conflict and the illusion that even more government interference is needed.
How do we simplify issues so people can think about them in a clear and consistent manner? It’s easy — just frame the issue as if it only involved you and a neighbor or two. I’ll use the smoking ban issue as an example.
Let’s say your neighbor smokes. You prefer to stay away from smoke but you enjoy his company and you want to watch the Final Four games with him. So you invite him over and ask him not to smoke in your home. He can choose to accept your invitation or not. He doesn’t try to force you to let him smoke in your home. He accepts your property ownership claim and understands you make the decision.
Now let’s say it’s the other way around and he invites you over to watch the game and eat. He may smoke while you are there so you can choose to accept his invitation or not. You don’t try to force him to not smoke in his home. You accept his property ownership claim and understand that he makes the decision.
This mutual respect of property ownership is what helps the two of you live peacefully as neighbors. You are free to decide how, or if, you will to interact with each other. You are free to make any arrangements and agreements you wish in regards to smoking without government involvement.
Now let’s say the same neighbor invites you in to his business as a customer to eat and watch the final championship game. He may decide to smoke. Does it now seem valid to go to the government to have them force your neighbor to not smoke or let his friends smoke because you want to be there too?
If you think this is valid, why? What has changed in the individual relationship between the two of you? You are still an invited guest and he’s still the property owner. The only difference is that rather than just eating his food, you will pay him for it.
Does this voluntary exchange create a property ownership claim that entitles you to use the government to create rules for his property that you prefer, even over his objections? If so, then why isn’t it equally valid to tell him what to do when you voluntarily enter his private residence?
Maybe you agree with me and don’t see any validity in the idea that an ownership claim in the property was created just because you became a paying customer. Many people do remain consistent at this point.
But let’s take this one step further — your neighbor offers you a job to serve food to the people watching the game. Again, he decides to allow smoking. Do you think it is now valid to go to the government and force him to ban smoking on his property? Why?
You are exactly as free to leave, or not even enter, this relationship with your neighbor as you were when he invited you to his home or invited you to his privately owned business as a customer. Never at any time did your neighbor point a gun at you and force you to enter either property, nor did he force you to work for him. At all times your relationship was based on voluntary interaction.
So what is it about the relationship that has changed that gives you, through the use of government force, a property ownership claim now, but did not exist when you were invited into his home and to his business to watch the game?
One more question to consider — if you want to use government force against your neighbor so he can’t allow smoking on his own property because you voluntarily agreed to employment, who is the aggressor in this situation?
— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson likes to keep it simple. You can send her a simple message by writing to Debbie@debbieharbeson.com.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Clark County Commissioner John Perkins' Political Posturing
HARBESON: The trite thing to do
> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Up to now, I have not used this space to comment about the tornado that hit the area, mostly because I knew that much of what I could say would probably sound trite. Plus, the message I proclaim here often — that the real power in a society is through individual action and voluntary association — has been communicated so beautifully and clearly by the community itself, there was nothing more to say.
But then Clark County Commissioner John Perkins opened his mouth.
At the March 13 commissioners meeting, Perkins read a statement that, in part, was nothing but political trash, attacking the motives and actions of other individuals.
The statement doesn’t start out that way. The first paragraph isn’t so bad. Sure, it’s full of blatant political pandering, as Perkins pontificates on how proud he and the other two commissioners are of the efforts of “numerous organizations and individuals who have stepped forward to assist in the tornado relief effort.”
That sounds OK, although I’m not sure anyone who helped the victims really cares what John Perkins thinks of their efforts. Those who acted in various ways did so because they saw people (and animals) who needed help. I doubt anyone was looking for a pat on the head by a politician.
But still, if Perkins would have stopped there, it might have been a nice gesture to everyone who played any part in helping, whether in person or by donations. The first paragraph is no more or less trite than what a newspaper columnist might say.
The problem is he didn’t stop there. Perkins managed to use this disaster to create a rift between the commissioners and individuals inside another government entity, the county council.
Reading the statement, it seems important for Perkins to let everyone know how hard he’s been working because he talks about the number of meetings and briefings he’s attended. Then he complains that he has “not received one phone call from any Clark County councilperson asking what they may do to help during this emergency.”
I’m not quite clear why he thinks the individuals on the council were supposed to call him. I’m sure the councilpersons are just as able as any other caring individual living in the county, and had no problem finding appropriate ways to take action and help those in need. Why would they need to call and get permission from King, I mean, Commissioner Perkins?
Perkins is also upset that the council is attempting to move forward carefully, making sure they collect all the necessary information and official advice on any possible ramifications before they make any decision in funding the cleanup.
In other words, Commissioner Perkins disagrees with the council about how best to spend taxpayer funds. He thinks the council is not working on this issue the “right” way, which is the way he wants to do it. This of course is a constant problem when spending other people’s money that’s been collected by force rather than by donations.
Now, to be fair, we all know that petty jealousies and political one-ups-man-ship can also arise within voluntary organizations. But if this happens, and you determine that you want no further involvement, you are free to simply roll your eyes at the immaturity and take your money and your time elsewhere. You can end any relationship to that organization and they will respect your individual freedom to do so and leave you alone.
Possibly the most interesting aspect of Perkins’ behavior in starting this ruckus is that he has broken one of the main goals he claims he wanted to achieve as part of holding this political office — “encouraging a more open and cordial dialogue between county officials.”
One has to wonder — did he really mean it when he announced that goal? Or was it just the typical trite tripe that seems to be the first language of longtime politicians?
— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson thinks government is trite and is looking for fresh and creative alternatives.
> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Up to now, I have not used this space to comment about the tornado that hit the area, mostly because I knew that much of what I could say would probably sound trite. Plus, the message I proclaim here often — that the real power in a society is through individual action and voluntary association — has been communicated so beautifully and clearly by the community itself, there was nothing more to say.
But then Clark County Commissioner John Perkins opened his mouth.
At the March 13 commissioners meeting, Perkins read a statement that, in part, was nothing but political trash, attacking the motives and actions of other individuals.
The statement doesn’t start out that way. The first paragraph isn’t so bad. Sure, it’s full of blatant political pandering, as Perkins pontificates on how proud he and the other two commissioners are of the efforts of “numerous organizations and individuals who have stepped forward to assist in the tornado relief effort.”
That sounds OK, although I’m not sure anyone who helped the victims really cares what John Perkins thinks of their efforts. Those who acted in various ways did so because they saw people (and animals) who needed help. I doubt anyone was looking for a pat on the head by a politician.
But still, if Perkins would have stopped there, it might have been a nice gesture to everyone who played any part in helping, whether in person or by donations. The first paragraph is no more or less trite than what a newspaper columnist might say.
The problem is he didn’t stop there. Perkins managed to use this disaster to create a rift between the commissioners and individuals inside another government entity, the county council.
Reading the statement, it seems important for Perkins to let everyone know how hard he’s been working because he talks about the number of meetings and briefings he’s attended. Then he complains that he has “not received one phone call from any Clark County councilperson asking what they may do to help during this emergency.”
I’m not quite clear why he thinks the individuals on the council were supposed to call him. I’m sure the councilpersons are just as able as any other caring individual living in the county, and had no problem finding appropriate ways to take action and help those in need. Why would they need to call and get permission from King, I mean, Commissioner Perkins?
Perkins is also upset that the council is attempting to move forward carefully, making sure they collect all the necessary information and official advice on any possible ramifications before they make any decision in funding the cleanup.
In other words, Commissioner Perkins disagrees with the council about how best to spend taxpayer funds. He thinks the council is not working on this issue the “right” way, which is the way he wants to do it. This of course is a constant problem when spending other people’s money that’s been collected by force rather than by donations.
Now, to be fair, we all know that petty jealousies and political one-ups-man-ship can also arise within voluntary organizations. But if this happens, and you determine that you want no further involvement, you are free to simply roll your eyes at the immaturity and take your money and your time elsewhere. You can end any relationship to that organization and they will respect your individual freedom to do so and leave you alone.
Possibly the most interesting aspect of Perkins’ behavior in starting this ruckus is that he has broken one of the main goals he claims he wanted to achieve as part of holding this political office — “encouraging a more open and cordial dialogue between county officials.”
One has to wonder — did he really mean it when he announced that goal? Or was it just the typical trite tripe that seems to be the first language of longtime politicians?
— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson thinks government is trite and is looking for fresh and creative alternatives.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
More on Compulsory Attendance Laws
Bueller?
— MOVIECLIPS.com
HARBESON: Here’s to open discussion
My column from last week, “Is this school or prison?” which discussed the problems associated with raising Indiana’s compulsory attendance age from 16 to 18, was very successful — so much so that it convinced a reader named Sandy to conclude that I am, indeed, a moron.
I’m glad to know that this person is no longer suffering a continual state of anxiety, as she struggled through her doubts, wondering if it was true. I feel good knowing Sandy can rest easy now.
I also heard from Kurt Fetz who wrote: “A hypothetical situation wherein an adult is forced to stay at a job for two years is not even remotely ‘similar’ to the education requirement age being raised to 18 — it’s not the same ballpark, it’s not even the same sport.”
I think Kurt is right because I neglected to consider one very important aspect for the employee — he’d still get paid. Which means the prison comparison is much more accurate. Thanks for helping me get clarity on that, Kurt.
Sandy and Kurt were not the only people who responded. Last week’s opinion caused a flurry of comments on the newspaper’s website that lasted several days. The most interesting part about the response is that this activity in itself provides several great examples of how education can work without government involvement.
First of all, people of all ages were participating and interacting with each other as they contributed to the discussion. There were no artificial separations or groupings of people according to their age. Teenagers, young adults and people in their 50s were pondering, sharing and discussing their views on a topic in which they shared a mutual interest.
Many people told personal stories about their educational experiences as teenagers. Others shared stories about people they know. These stories varied widely, clearly demonstrating why it’s so important to always look at education from the standpoint of the individual and not the collective.
Another way the responses show how education works in the real world is that information gathered in the context of daily life is much more effective than an artificially created lesson plan designed to be dumped into a student’s brain at a specific age. I saw this happen when several people displayed an ignorance of the journalism profession and the newspaper business because it led to the editor of the paper giving an impromptu lesson explaining the difference between a news article and an opinion column.
He sounded frustrated that people did not already understand the difference, which in itself also demonstrated that government compulsion does not necessarily match with everyone’s definition of an educated populace.
Another important aspect of education demonstrated by the comment activity is that people will do traditional academic activities with no compulsion at all. People voluntarily chose to read the column and some of those readers, including my friend Sandy, voluntarily chose to take time out of their lives to comment and participate in the discussion. No one compelled any of these people to read and write. They did so for their own individual reasons.
Everyone was free to read and respond and even though there are responses that seem to add little to the discussion, it was precisely because those questionable responses were there that encouraged other people to get involved. This process resulted in many thoughtful and respectful comments on the topic of government compulsion in education.
What if Sandy were compelled by the government to continue reading my columns, even after deciding that they add no value to her life? Would Sandy object to such compulsion? And if so, could she relate that experience to the experience of a teenager who has decided, for whatever reason, that a government school adds no value to the teen’s life?
Who knows how Sandy would react, the only thing we do know is that if she were compelled by the government to read my columns, the compulsion would not help Sandy at all.
Even a moron like me understands that.
— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson feels compelled to put her moronic opinions on display often.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Schools Are Prisons
COLUMN NOTES: This one caused a stir in the newspaper's comments (go to the link to read them)...almost as wild as a prison riot!
Check out the photo to the left. Is it a school or a prison? Answer at end of column.
HARBESON: Is this school or prison?
Imagine you want to leave your current job. You have decided, for whatever reason, that the position is not meeting your needs.
Even if leaving might make life hard, and it’s quite possible you will have to endure negative consequences, you are at the point where leaving and getting on with your life is the best choice.
Now imagine that your employer says you can’t leave for two years.
Next, take this scenario and imagine yourself scoffing at your employer. Imagine yourself saying you’re going to leave anyway, knowing they can’t actually kidnap you and hold you hostage. But they respond by informing you that they can “turn you in” to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles who will revoke your driver’s license for the two years they want you to stick around.
This imaginary scenario is just too unbelievable isn’t it? It’s laughable to think that an employer would try to force someone to continue showing up at a workplace for two years after he gave his notice that he was going to leave.
Nothing even close to that could ever happen in real life, right? Wrong.
Since 2006, when the compulsory school attendance age was raised from 16 to 18, creepy scenarios similar to the one described above have been happening throughout Indiana. It is not a joke to say that schools are like prisons.
Why does the government refuse to let these teenage students leave? Surely government officials don’t think a person can benefit by remaining trapped for up to two years in the very institution that has failed to serve their needs.
What’s even worse is that teenagers who do decide to leave school without graduating already face the possibility of many negative consequences and yet government officials add more punishment by making it nearly impossible for them to get a job — the one thing that could actually help turn their life around.
Trying to prevent these young people from getting driver’s licenses and jobs is treating them worse than a felon just released from a “real” prison. As a matter of fact, interfering with their ability to get a job could be the first step that helps turn one of these kids into a felon in the first place.
It’s just amazing to me that government officials would be so vindictive to these young people who simply want to break free from a system that is not working for them. It’s as if the government wants to ensure that these kids fail.
Even if a school official is genuinely concerned, he or she must know that forcing a student to stay will not help. This continued coercion could even be downright dangerous for other students, teachers and school personnel because who can predict how a given individual might respond to this government bullying.
If a teenager, for whatever reason, decides it’s in his best interest to leave school, government officials should get out of his way so he can take responsibility for his life. Instead of looking for ways to force young people to remain in a place that does not serve their needs, school officials could be focusing their energy on creating a place that teens would actually attend voluntarily — imagine the schools being so inviting and useful that the schools had to work to get kids to leave, rather than forcing them to stay.
Imprisoning young people inside a system that they want to leave is a shameful way to treat fellow human beings. But hey, I guess if you can increase the compulsory attendance age and then brag about a lowered dropout rate, then it’s all worth it because obviously education has improved, right?
— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson observes lots of creepy scenarios as she digs through government actions.
ANSWER TO QUESTION: This photo was taken by the Louisville Courier-Journal during the grand opening celebration for Charlestown High School.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
A Resolution on Government Resolutions
HARBESON: Whereas, it’s time for a resolution
> SOUTHERN INDIANA — When Indiana Rep. Bob Morris, a Republican from Fort Wayne, said he would not support a government resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts because it is a “radicalized organization,” there was a predictable feeding frenzy in response.
Once this story was in front of everyone’s nose, people smelled the rich sugary sweetness of controversy and chomped down. Hard. Most people fell right in line and dutifully framed the issue around the Girl Scouts, but the Scouts have about as much relevance to the main issue as chocolate flavor has to do with the main ingredient in the pie that maid Minnie Jackson gave to racist Hilly Holbrook in the movie, “The Help.”
Think about what gave this politician the opportunity to state his views about the Girl Scouts in the first place — a nonbinding government resolution. Shouldn’t we be discussing the very idea of these resolutions? They are basically puffed-up documents that congratulate organizations, businesses and individuals for various accomplishments and anniversaries.
In other words, these resolutions are simply another way for politicians to pander to the voters.
Knowing that, it’s easy to understand why Morris’ action annoyed all the politicians. After all, he was refusing to go along with their pandering. Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma was so desperate to pander that he handed out cookies on the House floor. That’s how important pandering is — so important that he threw his fellow party member under a busload of Thin Mints.
Why would any private voluntary association even want the approval of these people? I guess the document is something to put on the ol’ “I love me” wall, but personally I’d just keep that part of the wall empty before I would display something that showed I got a condescending pat on the head from government officials.
These resolutions also take advantage of the hard work and achievements of others. Politicians hop on the success wagons of people who have nothing to do with government — people who are simply living their lives and driving toward their own goals. I mean this literally too, because there is a government resolution this year congratulating Tony Stewart on winning the 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Championship.
I don’t know how resolutions start but I can’t imagine Mr. Stewart really cares all that much. I can’t imagine he spent last year making all those left turns, dreaming about how cool it would be to have a bunch of politicians formally congratulating him with a document full of almost as many “whereas this” and “whereas that’s” as there are laps in a Daytona race.
Adults are one thing but when I looked through the resolutions for this legislative session I noticed that most of them are written for kids who have excelled in some way. This actually does make sense.
Such resolutions can be an important part of the continuing indoctrination of the young. Lots of work goes into making sure kids blindly accept political authority and what better way to start than by giving them accolades for their accomplishments. Going back to that pie, such government accolades are the chocolate flavor that hides what the kids are really being fed.
But maybe this would all make more sense if I just wrote a resolution of my own stating my position:
I offer the following resolution on resolutions and move its adoption.
Whereas, nonbinding resolutions serve only as political pandering;
Whereas, politicians use nonbinding resolutions to create controversy;
Whereas, it makes absolutely no sense at all for private individuals and voluntary associations to accept resolutions of approval from an institution that only exists because of coercion,
Be it resolved by this columnist of the News and Tribune of Floyd and Clark counties in Indiana:
• Section 1: That all government nonbinding resolutions and any related controversy be ignored from this point forward.
• Section 2: That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to every pandering politician in the state of Indiana.
— Whereas Debbie Harbeson resides in Clark County, be it hereby resolved that any reader is invited to contact her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com
> SOUTHERN INDIANA — When Indiana Rep. Bob Morris, a Republican from Fort Wayne, said he would not support a government resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts because it is a “radicalized organization,” there was a predictable feeding frenzy in response.
Once this story was in front of everyone’s nose, people smelled the rich sugary sweetness of controversy and chomped down. Hard. Most people fell right in line and dutifully framed the issue around the Girl Scouts, but the Scouts have about as much relevance to the main issue as chocolate flavor has to do with the main ingredient in the pie that maid Minnie Jackson gave to racist Hilly Holbrook in the movie, “The Help.”
Think about what gave this politician the opportunity to state his views about the Girl Scouts in the first place — a nonbinding government resolution. Shouldn’t we be discussing the very idea of these resolutions? They are basically puffed-up documents that congratulate organizations, businesses and individuals for various accomplishments and anniversaries.
In other words, these resolutions are simply another way for politicians to pander to the voters.
Knowing that, it’s easy to understand why Morris’ action annoyed all the politicians. After all, he was refusing to go along with their pandering. Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma was so desperate to pander that he handed out cookies on the House floor. That’s how important pandering is — so important that he threw his fellow party member under a busload of Thin Mints.
Why would any private voluntary association even want the approval of these people? I guess the document is something to put on the ol’ “I love me” wall, but personally I’d just keep that part of the wall empty before I would display something that showed I got a condescending pat on the head from government officials.
These resolutions also take advantage of the hard work and achievements of others. Politicians hop on the success wagons of people who have nothing to do with government — people who are simply living their lives and driving toward their own goals. I mean this literally too, because there is a government resolution this year congratulating Tony Stewart on winning the 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Championship.
I don’t know how resolutions start but I can’t imagine Mr. Stewart really cares all that much. I can’t imagine he spent last year making all those left turns, dreaming about how cool it would be to have a bunch of politicians formally congratulating him with a document full of almost as many “whereas this” and “whereas that’s” as there are laps in a Daytona race.
Adults are one thing but when I looked through the resolutions for this legislative session I noticed that most of them are written for kids who have excelled in some way. This actually does make sense.
Such resolutions can be an important part of the continuing indoctrination of the young. Lots of work goes into making sure kids blindly accept political authority and what better way to start than by giving them accolades for their accomplishments. Going back to that pie, such government accolades are the chocolate flavor that hides what the kids are really being fed.
But maybe this would all make more sense if I just wrote a resolution of my own stating my position:
I offer the following resolution on resolutions and move its adoption.
Whereas, nonbinding resolutions serve only as political pandering;
Whereas, politicians use nonbinding resolutions to create controversy;
Whereas, it makes absolutely no sense at all for private individuals and voluntary associations to accept resolutions of approval from an institution that only exists because of coercion,
Be it resolved by this columnist of the News and Tribune of Floyd and Clark counties in Indiana:
• Section 1: That all government nonbinding resolutions and any related controversy be ignored from this point forward.
• Section 2: That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to every pandering politician in the state of Indiana.
— Whereas Debbie Harbeson resides in Clark County, be it hereby resolved that any reader is invited to contact her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
