Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

That was terrific! A really great video. I don't really like Thompson or Christmas (don't hate 'em, don't like 'em), but I did like the video. Thanks for the link!

Posted by Abominable at December 22, 2007 11:58 AM

Thompson sure has figured out teh interwebs.

Posted by Ed Minchau at December 22, 2007 01:41 PM

Yeah, it's a Fred Thompson Christmas. Veterans Day and Memorial Day just aren't enough; let's dedicate all of the holidays to soldiers.

Seriously, this ad is not going to look like any kind of mistake or scandal. People will smile at the thought, I'm sure. But it's also preaching to the choir. It explains perfectly why he won't get the nomination: he's a Reaganite fossil.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 22, 2007 02:17 PM

Smell the fear, Dracula Jim sees the Cross!

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 22, 2007 05:15 PM

Smell the fear, Dracula Jim sees the Cross!

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 22, 2007 05:19 PM

I get an involuntary feeling of elation at thought of Fred Thompson winning the nomination. He has done absolutely nothing to claim the political center and win against either Clinton or Obama. But it's not very realistic --- Intrade lists nine Republican state primaries and Thompson is a long shot to win more than zero of them. So I will probably have to settle for being proven right about the Republican primary. It's also immature to want a schmuck to win anything. It's not as if he'd have no chance of getting elected; the Democratic nominee could suddenly get brain cancer or something.

Probably the two who would be the best for America would be McCain and Romney. Ron Paul is the only one who is right about the Iraq war; but all that that proves is that when the policy at the top is bad enough, even crackpots can sound wise in comparison.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 22, 2007 06:47 PM

He has done absolutely nothing to claim the political center and win against either Clinton or Obama.

I find the notion that Hillary! or Obama represent the political center hilarious. It just shows how far left Mr. Harris is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 22, 2007 07:01 PM

The point is that Clinton and Obama have tried to claim political center, especially Clinton. She is the furthest to the right of the Democrats on Iraq, for instance. That is a main reason that her game is shaky at the moment: she is trying to win both the nomination and the election instead of just the nomination. Now I'm not saying that she can work political magic at that effort; she's not Jefferson reincarnated. But at least she's trying.

Thompson, meanwhile, is about as well-positioned to win the election as Walter Mondale was.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 22, 2007 07:20 PM

Off topic comment:

Rand, ever since you added that Amazon thing at the top of the page, Transterrestrial causes internet explorer to crash about half the time. When you put that in you were concerned about your Linux users; how about the 90% of us who use Windows?

Posted by Ed Minchau at December 22, 2007 07:31 PM

"Thompson, meanwhile, is about as well-positioned to win the election as Walter Mondale was."

You forgot to add "in the Bizzaro-universe."

Otherwise, it would be a stupid remark and make no sense and surely you did not mean that.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 22, 2007 08:49 PM

Rather than saying Hilary is in the (exact) center, it would make more sense to say that she is a centrist. Is anyone in or even close to the exact center in national politics? Joe Lieberman is the only plausible answer I can think of. (If you want to get accurate, you'd have to start specifying more things, like which dimensions we are talking about, but I guess that takes the fun out it.)

Posted by Abominable at December 22, 2007 09:28 PM

Meanwhile when you folks get tired of hoping that the Thompson campaign is about to turn the corner, here is another windmill for Radley Balko to tilt at.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 22, 2007 11:46 PM

To those who claim Hillary is in (or near, to defer to Abominable's nitpickiness) the center, I refer you to her Christmas ad. Since when is nanny-statism centrist?

Jim: Veterans' Day for soldiers that returned home, Memorial Day for soldiers that died. I don't mind sharing the love with the soldiers that are still alive and fighting. Do you?

Posted by Math_Mage at December 22, 2007 11:46 PM

Hitlary is the political center?

She may try to portray that, but her "Merry Christmas to Me and Karl Marx" video is pure socialist agenda.

Mandatory state funded Pre-K for 3 or 4 year olds? That's Chairman Mao.

"...I want to take those profits...", isn't this what Hugo Chavez has done with nationalization of companies? Following, of course, in Castro's foot steps.

And if we disagree with her socialist agenda, will she and her socialist ilk become America's Pol Pot?

Jim,
please buy a dictionary and a couple history and political science books. Stop watching CNN and think before you type.

Posted by Steve at December 23, 2007 06:30 AM

What do you mean by mandatory? That taxpayers must pay for it or that parents who have 4 year old children must have their kids participate in it?

Posted by Abominable at December 23, 2007 09:40 AM

Both, listen to her proposals. It will be a MUST, and the funding doesn't come from the states, it's federal. I'm not so old or stupid yet that I don't know that federal tax dollars come from me and you and even Jim Harris.

My state's governor, Mike Easley tried passing this off here at the state level. It was called "Score from 4". These programs always have such CATCHY names!! The opposition said when the mandatory Kindergarten came in they were assured that the state would never go below 5 y/o for kids to be in school. One of the local opposition leaders pointed this out by saying that the same, "...and we'll never go below 4..." line was now being used. He said, "f we allow Score from 4", in 30 years we'll have Zoom from the Womb".

I agree, we don't need Hitlary teaching our kids about global villages, global warming or going around the world under the desk in th Oval Orifice.

Posted by Steve at December 23, 2007 10:04 AM

You caught my attention with your reference to Chairman Mao.

But in fact, Hillary's proposal is that parents may choose to send their children to pre-K programs -- the parents are certainly at liberty to keep their kids at home and/or out of any program offered.

As for money, there is strtong evidence that these programs pay for themselves. For one thing, it has been shown that kids who participate are less likely to go to jail - keeping your taxes lower, and of course, reducing crime has other monetary benefits as well for the average citizen. On the flip side, kids who participate are less likely to need costly special education, and are more likely to graduate high school and earn more money. Finally, although this is rather arbitrary in my opinion, Hillary is coupling paying for the the program to ending "the abuse of no-bid contracts". http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/prek/

You can read more here: http://lala.essortment.com/universalpre_rtjy.htm

Most wealthy parents I know, the ones who spend tons of their time with their pre-schoolers, still send their kids to pre-K. Last night I was at the home of an atheist couple. They got a twinkle in their eyes when they asked their daughter to tell me what she learned about God in "school". She earnestly told me that God is her invisible friend who has a special plan for her life. When I stopped laughing, I asked "Are you going to pull her out?" Her dad shook his head: "Nah, she is going to get exposed to that stuff sometime anyway, and besides, we think a diversity of ideas is good, right? She'll never hear stuff like that at home!"

Posted by Abominable at December 23, 2007 11:15 AM

Abominable, you can learn about God in kindergarten just as well as in pre-K, so why bother with the anecdote? Also, can you link to these statistical reports you refer to? Because at the moment all I see is a correlation. There could be any number of underlying causes - for example, wealthier parents or more caring parents being more likely to send their children to pre-K than poorer or more negligent parents. Anybody can lie with statistics, but it's much harder to tell the truth, and especially to distinguish the truth from lies.

Besides, we're squabbling over the finer points of one of the many "gifts" Hillary plans to bestow on us. Instead, let's look at the ad as a whole: Hillary taking money from us to "give" us gifts we may not need. This is the essence of nanny-state policy, and whether or not we actually want one or another of the programs does not make the overall message good. I am reminded of a quote from PJ O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores, where he explains how Santa Claus is a Democrat and God is a Republican: "Santa Claus is better than God in every way except one: Santa Claus doesn't exist."

Posted by Math_Mage at December 23, 2007 11:37 AM

The anecdote was my Christmas gift to Steve! I thought it might warm his cold heart. It really happened last night, but it absolutely doesn't prove anything except that kids are cute, and their parents can be too. It seemed like a funny counterpoint to Steve's fears that the kids will learn about naughty things like the possible effect atmospheric change might have on the weather.

The question about jail and pre-k needs to be constrained by community, income, and other factors. I'm certainly not an expert, and I agree that skepticism is always warrented. However, many of your concerns are addressed if you read the resulting links after using google on the following terms: prison universal pre-k

I don't understand the rest of your point. The presents Hillary can give involve leadership -- proposing and advocating laws for congress to sign. Clearly we should only vote for politicians who are going to advocate for policies we actually want. You might prefer a system with more direct democracy, but given the present system, I think Hilary's humorous listing of the policies she will push for was honest and appropriate. I enjoyed the Thompson advertisement, but Hillary's ad was more informative -- see how it got us thinking about pre-k?

Posted by Abominable at December 23, 2007 12:01 PM

For those of you who think funding for universal (but voluntary) pre-k programs is nanny-statism, I have this question: what if one of the gift boxes had been labeled "veterans programs" and another of the gifts had been labled "ballistic missile defense deployment". Would either of these gifts not be the same sort of "nanny-statism" and if not, why not? My point is that it is a politicians job to say what to do with tax dollars. I understand many of you are for less taxes and less government spending (and are for smaller and possibly even less powerful government in general). But was the complaint that Hillary was advocating programs that cost money, or is the complaint about what the money is being spent on? At first, I thought the complaint was about freedom (hence the allusions to Chairman Mao and Hitler) but that's not the complaint, right? And Hillary address the complaints about fiscal responsibility on her website. So I don't get it. But I'll shut up and listen.

Posted by Abominable at December 23, 2007 01:19 PM

"I have this question: what if one of the gift boxes had been labeled "veterans programs" and another of the gifts had been labled "ballistic missile defense deployment". Would either of these gifts not be the same sort of "nanny-statism" and if not, why not? "

Because both of those relate to the constutionally mandated function of providing a national defense and are things the private sector cannot reasonably expected to do.

Abominable,

Did you used to post as Hillary-Supporter? Your writing style seems very similar. Not being snarky, just curious.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 23, 2007 02:37 PM

I always thought of public education as a necessary for a national defense, I do not expect other people to agree with me.

Yes, I was using the name Hillary-Supporter. I emailed Rand non-anonymously when I changed the name, because I wanted to be a good guest (we're all his guests), and name changes and anonyomous posts seemed shady.

I changed my name when we were talking about gun control because I didn't want anyone to think that my kooky gun control position (yes to tanks and non-lethals and hunting rifles, but no to handguns) is the same as Hillary's by any stretch of the imagination. I wouldn't be doing Hillary or me any favors. Also, Rand issued me a challenge about Hillary, which I accepted, and so for me, court is still in session on Hillary and I haven't reached a verdict, so I guess I'm not really a supporter right now. Of course, regardless of what happened in the 90s, and regardless of what she is like as a person, I still I like her centrist policies. Universal Pre-K seems like a classic Clinton policy -- relatively cheap & fiscally responsible, cuts crime, makes it more likely that someone will earn a living and not rely on hand-outs -- it is just a modest extention of our current k-12 policy except with greater school choice -- everyone wins.

Posted by Abominable at December 23, 2007 02:55 PM

Rand,
When email fails, go to comments, even tho' I hate posting long stuff.
Mike
BTW, I'm shocked, I tell you shocked, at how off subject this relatively short thread has gotten.
Anyway, my opinion on the Thompson Christmas video:
Glenn,
Can’t argue that it’s not different. http://instapundit.com/archives2/013270.php
But a cheesy lifting of images from really great troop honoring slideshows, many of which can be found here, http://www.gcsdistributing.com/?pv=tr&tf=TM and adding some non-Christmas piano tinkles hardly constitutes a “Holiday” video.

I kinda liked Fred when he announced, he’s done nothing since then to gain my vote, and this ad’s fake sentiment has totally turned me off of Fred!

BTW, he would have been better off to buy either of the below slideshows, music and all, from GCS and pay the extra $$$’s to run them on TV.
Until Then
http://www.gcsdistributing.com/?pv=tr&tf=TDP&DT=UT
One More
http://www.gcsdistributing.com/?pv=tr&tf=TDP&DT=OM

Posted by Mike Daley at December 23, 2007 05:09 PM

“I always thought of public education as a necessary for a national defense, I do not expect other people to agree with me.”

You’re absolutely right Abominable. We gave the government a mandate many years ago to educate our children. Our goal was to ensure the country’s strength through superior mental abilities, and innovation, as well as through superior firepower. The latter, a task we left to the private sector. Our schools have steadily declined in quality, simultaneously insisting against all evidence to the contrary, that if given more resources (money) and more control of our student’s lives, they could succeed. How poor does their performance need to be before we try a different something else?

Posted by JJS at December 24, 2007 08:56 AM

We gave the government a mandate many years ago to educate our children.

Certainly Thomas Jefferson thought so. That is why he helped found the University of Virginia, which was public from the beginning.

The latter, a task we left to the private sector.

Superior firepower is certainly not a task that we left to the private sector.

Our schools have steadily declined in quality, simultaneously insisting against all evidence to the contrary,

I really don't see that public universities are so bad. For instance, UC Berkeley has graduated 25 Nobel laureates, and has had 22 of them on its faculty. Is that such a terrible record?

It's true that K-12 in the United States is mediocre, but there is an important difference between that and public universities. K-12 has a lot of local public funding and only a small fraction of federal funding. By contrast public universities (at least the ones that succeed in academics) have mainly state and federal support.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 24, 2007 10:19 AM

"Superior firepower is certainly not a task that we left to the private sector."

Boeing, LM, Northrop, General Dyanmics. These are private institutions.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 24, 2007 11:30 AM

Boeing, LM, Northrop, General Dynamics. These are private institutions.

That's brilliant, Mike --- Boeing is a private institution. As are Blackwater and the United Space Alliance. It's a good thing that the United Space Alliance is so heavily involved with the space shuttle, because you just can't trust the government to run that kind of operation.

And a Merry Christmas to you too.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 24, 2007 11:48 AM

Blech, link lost. Merry Christmas!

Posted by Jim Harris at December 24, 2007 11:50 AM

Interesting that, for Jim Harris, the outrageous case of a man sentenced to death for mistakenly killing a police officer whom he reasonably believed to be a home invader is a mere windmill to tilt at, while an entirely different case in which a man is convicted of manslaughter for leaving his house to confront a mob and killing a teenager is somehow similar.

BTW, what does any of this have to do with Fred Thompson, other than as a distraction thrown out by Jim as his weak arguments get kicked out of bounds?

Posted by Jonathan at December 24, 2007 12:10 PM

You can smell the fear. I think we may witness a 'Dewey defeats Truman' moment in Iowa. The media keep flogging it's a two man race, when clearly the voters haven't yet jelled on their choice.

I'm looking to be surprised and I think it will be for the true man of principle and depth of character. The fact that I don't have to mention whom that is says it all.

Posted by at December 24, 2007 12:12 PM

the outrageous case of a man sentenced to death for mistakenly killing a police officer whom he reasonably believed to be a home invader

Maybe the police uniform was an important clue?

an entirely different case in which a man is convicted of manslaughter for leaving his house to confront a mob and killing a teenager is somehow similar.

Sure it's similar. After all, John White was still on his property when he shot Daniel Cicciaro, who moreover was planning to attack White's family. If you can't use a gun for that, when can you?

I think we may witness a 'Dewey defeats Truman' moment in Iowa.

It would be more like a 'Gramm defeats Dole, Buchanan, Forbes, and Alexander' moment.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 24, 2007 01:11 PM

Mike Daley:
What about the sentiment is fake? To me, nothing could make this seem less fake than the sheer lack of Thompson in the ad. Look at the other candidates' Christmas ads; they all have the candidate doing/saying something for 30 seconds or a minute. Nothing is present to indicate this is a Thompson ad until the last three seconds where it says "Fred Thompson" in big letters. Not exactly a good way to do self-promotion, but a great way to remind people to honor the soldiers. Why do you spit at it? And are you seriously complaining that he took images from a slideshow? What was he supposed to do, go to Iraq with a camera and take a whole new set of pictures for us?

Lastly, and snarkily, how is "we wish you a merry Christmas" not a Christmas "tinkle"?

Abominable:
"For those of you who think funding for universal (but voluntary) pre-k programs is nanny-statism, I have this question: what if one of the gift boxes had been labeled "veterans programs" and another of the gifts had been labled "ballistic missile defense deployment". Would either of these gifts not be the same sort of "nanny-statism" and if not, why not? My point is that it is a politicians job to say what to do with tax dollars."

The gift labeled "ballistic missile defense deployment" would DEFINITELY not be nanny-statism, and the veterans programs most likely would not be. Unlike, for example, universal healthcare, defense is one of the things government is SUPPOSED to do for us. However, it'd still be dishonest to wrap these programs up as "gifts" and offer them to us as if we didn't buy them with our own money. That's what Santa Hillary is doing.

Universal pre-k? Maybe inadvisable, but it's hard to dispute that education may be related to the national defense and thus could fall within federal jurisdiction. At the same time, boosting the economy is arguably a "public use", but that doesn't justify Kelo.

"I don't understand the rest of your point. The presents Hillary can give involve leadership -- proposing and advocating laws for congress to sign. Clearly we should only vote for politicians who are going to advocate for policies we actually want. You might prefer a system with more direct democracy, but given the present system, I think Hilary's humorous listing of the policies she will push for was honest and appropriate. I enjoyed the Thompson advertisement, but Hillary's ad was more informative -- see how it got us thinking about pre-k?"

The complaint is twofold. First, that the programs Hillary advocates reveal a nanny-statist way of thinking. And second, that the way Hillary presents them - as "gifts" that she is "giving" us - is an insult to the intelligence of the viewer. It's a more informative ad than Thompson's, yes - but first, Thompson's ad wasn't MEANT to be informative, and second, Hillary's ad informs me of how little I want to vote for her, which is probably not the intended effect. (Of course, I'm not the target audience, but still...)

"The question about jail and pre-k needs to be constrained by community, income, and other factors. I'm certainly not an expert, and I agree that skepticism is always warrented. However, many of your concerns are addressed if you read the resulting links after using google on the following terms: prison universal pre-k"

It seems like they did the best job they could, given that it's basically impossible for statistics to differentiate between caring and uncaring parents.

One suggestions: Do a pilot program through the state government (where most of the K-12 education system is handled). TRY to measure the effects over the next generation. I don't know if it's possible, but it's an idea.

Posted by Math_Mage at December 24, 2007 10:44 PM

The big difference between the Thompson and Hillary vids is that the Thompson video really isn't about him - it's about other people and their sacrifices. HRC's ad is all about her and her "generosity."

If you play the Hillary video backwards, the taxpayers get their money back.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at December 25, 2007 02:04 AM

For everyone that speaks favorably of pre-K education, what are its benefits? What will a kid know when they leave pre-K that they wouldn't have learned otherwise?

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 25, 2007 03:56 AM

If all you're doing is trying to buy votes, it's a lot more effective to promise a bunch of new govt programs than it is to salute the people who serve in the military.

Posted by Jonathan at December 25, 2007 08:10 AM

Karl, Involved parents/caretakers are necessary for the cognitive development of 3 & 4 year old kids. Cognitive development requires a lot more than food & warm place to sleep. Pre-K programs can fill in the gaps for children who come from homes where there are just aren't enough resources to give the kids enough intellectual stimulation to allow them to reach their potential. Interestingly, in families which are "perfect", and where presumably pre-k isn't needed, pre-k programs show benefits for children from these families as well. Type the words "benefits" and "pre-K" into google. You'll find advocacy groups like preknow.org, you'll find research outfits like the National Institute For Early Education Research http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=123, and you'll find state programs like Georgia's Bright From the Start program. You'll be overwhelmed with the amount of data available (the kind of data that will satisfy math_mage above).
Then try typing in "overrated" and "pre-K". You'll find that the evidence for that side is underwhelming. Again, I'm not an expert, and if anyone wants to suggest any sources, I'd be interested.

Math_Mage: Again, I think the point here is that the only gifts Hillary can give involve _leadership_ on these issues. If the gift box was labeled "deploy ABM shield", again, the only gift that could be offered would be leadership on that issue - any expenses incurred by the deployment would be from the taxpayers, and as you say, that money isn't hers to give. I think we are seeing different metaphors here. And, really, that points to a problem with the advertisement -- there shouldn't have been room for multiple interpretations. But my interpretation actually makes sense, given the US Constitution, and yours, respectfully, does not! :-)

Posted by Abominable at December 25, 2007 10:47 AM

"If you play the Hillary video backwards, the taxpayers get their money back."

Ha!

I just want to see Fred and Hillary in a face to face real debate. They ask each other whatever questions they want and no moderator.

Posted by ken anthony at December 25, 2007 03:54 PM

>>the outrageous case of a man sentenced to death >>for mistakenly killing a police officer whom he >>reasonably believed to be a home invader

>Maybe the police uniform was an important clue?

Because it is physically impossible for someone to commit a crime in a realistic looking police uniform?

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/aug/28/psl-couple-bound-robbed-gunpoint-men-dressed-polic/?printer=1/

Google "home invasion and impersonating police" and you'll find a lot more. If you were going to try to invade someone's home and get away with it, isn't that one fo the first tricks you'd think of? Not all criminals are complete idiots.

Posted by J. Random American at December 26, 2007 11:54 AM

"Again, I think the point here is that the only gifts Hillary can give involve _leadership_ on these issues. If the gift box was labeled "deploy ABM shield", again, the only gift that could be offered would be leadership on that issue - any expenses incurred by the deployment would be from the taxpayers, and as you say, that money isn't hers to give. I think we are seeing different metaphors here. And, really, that points to a problem with the advertisement -- there shouldn't have been room for multiple interpretations. But my interpretation actually makes sense, given the US Constitution, and yours, respectfully, does not! :-)"

Ok, so by your interpretation, the "gifts" aren't programs bought with our money that go beyond the bounds of the federal government. Instead, they're her campaigns to get Congress to buy those programs (with our money) and go beyond the bounds of the federal government. Frankly, I don't see much difference.

Posted by Math_Mage at December 26, 2007 01:03 PM

Math_Mage: There are two questions, and I don't understand why they are being conflated.
1) Can Hillary dole out your money while pretending she is generously giving a gift?
2) Are the proposed programs good programs that the American people should invest in?

The answer to question 1 is clearly no, and my point was that it was silly to ever interpret the political advertisement that way -- it isn't lawful and it doesn't even make any sense. The truth is that has always been one of the jobs of the US President to make proposals to Congress about what should properly be done with taxpayer money.

The answer to question 2 is much more interesting. I would begin by pointing out that everyone involved in the pre-K argument seems to accept that the programs pay for themselves.

Beyond that, we could talk about the extent to which the federal governmet should be involved in state programs. I only just realized the following: Hillary's proposal is that the federal goverment would match, dollar-for-dollar, a state's own investment in pre-k programs. The federal money would be given to the state's governor, to be used as the governor determined (so long as it is for a pre-k program). There is a further requirement that the money be used to increase parental choice -- allowing them to send their kids, if they want to participate, to private pre-k programs in their community.

So, the real function of this program is to help poor states, while not discriminating against rich states. Is that an inappropriate use of federal taxes? If so, why? If not, is this particular use (matching pre-K funding dollars) inappropriate?

Posted by Abominable at December 26, 2007 02:20 PM

Abominable, I am not conflating the two questions. For #1: If that interpretation is not the proper interpretation, what is? You say it's her support for these programs, rather than the programs themselves. Never mind that the obvious interpretation is the one I got, given that the gifts are labeled "Universal Healthcare", "Out of Iraq" etc rather than "Support for Universal Healthcare", "Advocacy for withdrawal" etc. To me, your interpretation, besides requiring some refining of the obvious view of the ad, just means that she's going to TRY to impose her nanny-statist philosophy on Congress.

Also, the substance of Hillary's pre-K program that you mention leaves me with another issue. You call it helping poor states - I see an incentive for graft. There's that "only for pre-K" clause lying around, but it's easy to imagine back-alley channels for the money the feds provide (to other programs or politicians' pockets) while state government spends as much money as it can on pre-K programs to get that federal funding.

Posted by Math_Mage at December 26, 2007 03:49 PM

Math_Mage: I thought your last reply was non-responsive. Graft is a problem at all levels of government. For "nanny-state", see below. You said Hillary's proposal "goes beyond the bounds of the Federal Government" but you didn't say why you think this. You can say "nanny-state" and "graft" all you want, but the question of when the federal government may match state funding remains unanswered.

As for "nanny state", I was going to say this is an undefined term, but Wikipedia suggests this definition: "excessive state action to protect people from the consequences of their actions by restricting citizen options". Do you accept this definition? If so, how does matching state funding for pre-K with federal funds meet this definition? Even if the federal government said to each parent "If you want to send your kid to a pre-K program, here's some of Math_Mage's tax dollars for ya", it still wouldn't be nanny-stateism. For one thing, the program increases citizen options. For another, the program gives a leg up to kids at risk. It helps "teach them to fish" at the right time in their lives to do some good, before a childhood of neglect leads to poor thinking skills later on. This isn't like gun control. This doesn't restrict your freedom. It does use your tax dollars, but you have a choice: use the tax dollars for pre-K now, or use them for government mandated remedial education a few years later and/or prisons 10-15 years after that.

Posted by Abominable at December 26, 2007 04:40 PM

Post a comment