That Prayer Thing Again

4 Replies

Some folks in these parts wonder what the big deal is about county commissions or city councils inviting clergy to pray and then allowing the clergy to deliver sectarian prayers. After all most of the prayers are Christian and most of the citizens are Christian so what's the issue?

First of all, the government represents all of the people, not most of the people, so any time a government is in the position of favoring one religion over another it is in fact not acting fairly with all of its citizens. There's simply no compelling reason for an atheist or agnostic to be required to listen to prayers sanctioned by their elected leaders while attending one of their meetings. Obviously those same atheists have to accept that any citizen has the right to pray, and to do so in public if they want, but since the county commission or city council is the sole governing body for the things that directly affect its citizens (property taxes, school funding, land use, zoning, etc.) every person should have the opportunity to address that body without having to be subjected to a religious address.

Then there's what we might call the hypocrite issue. That's a polite way of pointing out that a lot of people who condone the practice of sanctioned prayers do so only if the prayers meet their standard for appropriateness. To wit this story from the NC Legislature:

A Republican legislator in North Carolina told a constituent that she has misgivings with an Islamic prayer being conducted before a legislative meeting because she doesn't "condone terrorism," the Raleigh News & Observer reported Wednesday.

In an email exchange obtained by the News & Observer, state Rep. Michele Presnell (R) was responding to a constituent who asked her if she is comfortable with a prayer to Allah taking place before the meeting. 

“No, I do not condone terrorism," Presnell responded to the constituent. 

Yeah, it's hard buying the whole idea that there's no reason for anyone to be uncomfortable dealing with an elected body that explicitly endorses prayer. It's reasonable for an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist or Muslim to assume that they'd get different treatment because of their beliefs and that's just not fair.

So Many Bills, So Little Time

Leave a reply

The bill filing deadline is fast approaching for the NC Legislature so our representatives have kicked into high gear. Here's the House Calendar for Thursday, April 11, 2013. You'll see that bills 676 through 846 were filed and as you can imagine they cover a wide variety of topics. Here are a few:

676

Harrison,
Moffitt and Fisher (Primary Sponsors) – ELIMINATE DIETETICS/NUTRITION
BOARD.

683

B.
Brown, Moffitt, Ramsey and Shepard (Primary Sponsors) – COMMONSENSE
CONSUMPTION ACT.

684

Elmore
and Stevens (Primary Sponsors) – INCREASE DRIVEWAY SAFETY ON CURVY
ROADS.

692

Szoka,
Hanes, Dockham and Samuelson (Primary Sponsors) – AMEND PREDATORY
LENDING LAW.

704

Brody,
Steinburg and Fulghum (Primary Sponsors) – STUDY AND ENCOURAGE USE OF
TELEMEDICINE.

723

Malone,
Avila, Fulghum and Davis (Primary Sponsors) – LEGAL NOTICES/REQUIRE
INTERNET PUBLICATION.

733

Pittman,
Blackwell, Bryan and Speciale (Primary Sponsors) – COMMON CORE STANDARDS
STUDY.

735

Jones,
Jordan, Arp and Riddell (Primary Sponsors) – PROTECT RELIGIOUS STUDENT
GROUPS.

749

Lambeth
and Hanes (Primary Sponsors) – LOCAL SCHOOL FLEXIBILITY.

750

Lambeth,
Glazier and Hanes (Primary Sponsors) – CHARTER SCHOOL FLEXIBILITY/PILOT.

760

Brandon,
Hardister and B. Brown (Primary Sponsors) – SUMMER READING CAMPS.

771

R.
Brawley – INFORM PATIENT/DRUG COST LESS THAN INSURANCE COPAY.

781

Harrison
– INCREASE SMALL BREWERY LIMITS.

782

Starnes,
Luebke, Jordan and Holley (Primary Sponsors) – FORTIFIED MALT BEVERAGES
ACT.

808

Boles
and Alexander (Primary Sponsors) – MERGE CEMETERY COMMISSION/FUNERAL
SERVICE BOARD.

809

Boles,
Moffitt and Murry (Primary Sponsors) – GAME NIGHTS/NONPROFIT
FUNDRAISERS.

815

Luebke,
Harrison, Adams and C. Graham (Primary Sponsors) – BAN USE OF CREDIT
HISTORY IN HIRING/FIRING.

822

Blust,
Jones, Holloway and Jordan (Primary Sponsors) – THREE-FIFTHS VOTE TO
LEVY TAXES.

829

McGrady,
Bryan, Moffitt and L. Hall (Primary Sponsors) – SALE OF GROWLERS BY
CERTAIN ABC PERMITTEES.

From the Boring But Important Files: Chained CPI

Leave a reply

This post marks the launch of a new category for this blog called Boring But Important (BBI). Today's BBI story is about chained CPI and why it might be responsible for decreases in social security. The details from Atlantic Wire:

The budget that President Obama introduced today calls for "$230 billion in savings from using a chained measure of inflation for cost-of-living adjustments throughout the Budget." Because the measure of inflation is so important when it comes paying Social Security benefits and setting tax rates, a minor technical change could have a huge ripple effect on the economy…

CPI is the Consumer Price Index, which is the most basic measure of inflation. It's an official, government-approved number produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and all kinds of government and private programs rely on the CPI to make yearly adjustments for the cost of living.

Early in the last decade, economists began to argue that CPI is not the most accurate measure of inflation, because it merely aggregates prices and doesn't take into account how people spend their money in the real world. Specifically, it doesn't account for consumers' ability to substitute one product for another when prices change. (For example, if the price of butter goes up, people can switch to margarineand save money. Click here for more discussion of the "substitution effect.") So in 2002, the BLS createdthe Chained CPI, which many experts say is a better measure of the actual "cost of living." (For some people, anyway. We'll get back to that in a bit.) That's why it's also known as Superlative CPI.

Not only is the Chained CPI more accurate, it predicts that inflation grows at a slower rate than regular CPI. In any given year, the difference between the two numbers is minor—only about one-third of one percent—but over time, the effect on budgets can be massive. Because each year's CPI is based off the previous year's number, the effect compounds, meaning a small change now creates a huge difference in the final number 10 or 20 years down the road. Switching from regular to Chained (again, a 0.3-percent difference each year) would save more than $200 billion in inflation-mandated spending over the next decade.

Anyone who's been paying attention knows that we average Americans suck at math. Maybe that's what they're counting on.

Student Privacy Concerns Raised for Tech Project Tied to Guilford County Schools

Leave a reply

inBloom is a tech project funded largely by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation that is seeking to improve education through data.  One of the school districts participating in the project is Guilford County Schools.  The inBloom initiative was announced about two months ago by what was then called the Social Learning Collaborative. Now that inBloom has been out there a while it's starting to get some attention from parents and advocates, and they aren't real keen on what they're finding as it relates to their children's privacy. There's some noise being made by some folks in New York (more about that below), but so far it doesn't seem to be of concern to anyone in Guilford County. 

Before we get to the privacy issue let's look at what inBloom is trying to do. Here's what you find on the inBloom "Vision" page of its website:

inBloom is dedicated to bringing together the data, content and tools educators need to make personalized learning a reality for every student. To achieve this vision, inBloom:

  • Offers states and districts a secure technology infrastructure to integrate data, services and applications that work together to support personalized learning.
  • Partners with education technology companies, content providers and developers to support the creation of products compatible with this infrastructure.
  • Works with states and districts to help them use this infrastructure to support educators and students.

Seems like a worthy pursuit and they go on to stress on the same webpage that "We recognize the sensitivity of storing student data and place the utmost importance on the privacy and security of that data." They have a full page dedicated to their privacy commitment.

Well as mentioned above some folks in New York aren't satisfied with inBlooms assurances. From the Village Voice:

Parents and advocates opposed to the new initiative believe it will put sensitive student information at risk and allow companies to capitalize on data that parents never consented to release.

The New York State Education Department says that districts have been sharing this kind of information for nearly a decade, and that the new initiative simply enables that data to be shared in a safer, more efficient fashion…

Disciplinary records, attendance records, special-needs records, testing records, addresses, phones numbers, email-addresses and birth-dates are among some of the data that can be shared with the third-party vendors contracting with state and city districts.

Opponents of inBloom are outraged by the prospect of corporations profiting from student information that parents never consented to release…

NYSED has a different take.
 
"I'm not sure there's consent involved. This is regular student information that when parents register a child for school. They give up," Tom Dunn, spokesman for NYSED tells the Voice.  

New things are always scary, especially to parents. Most parents understand that to a degree their childrens' information is "public" as soon as they enter the school system, but they also are accustomed to getting those release forms from school that say it's okay to use their childrens' images from a school event on the website, or if a reporter is going to be at the school for an event the parents get a form asking for permission for their child's name to be used. Thus it is entirely reasonable for parents to be upset if they find out after the fact that their childrens' personal info is being used without them proactively giving their permission.

It's also reasonable for parents to be worried because there are private, third-party vendors involved. Given the raft of data breaches at credit card companies, banks, governmental agencies and other entities entrusted with our personal info you can understand how parents might feel their children are being made vulnerable by this kind of program.

Even if the goal of the program is noble, and the intent pure, it would behoove the participating school districts to aggressively inform the parents and public of what they're doing with the students' information even if they aren't required to by law. That would go a long way towards a successful implementation of the program, and quite frankly it might be critical to the success of the program. If parents don't buy in, or actively try to opt out on behalf of their children, then the program's doomed to failure anyway so the schools might as well get buy in from the get-go.

Odd Couple Circa 2013

Leave a reply

So these two good friends and neighbors get divorced from their wives and end up building two houses on one lot, making them something like semi-roommates. From the story in the Wall Street Journal:

Now both divorced, the two friends still hang out with each other and their current girlfriends. But they are even closer neighbors: They live in nearly identical, 1,500-square-foot, three-story wood-and-glass contemporary houses, which they built on the same lot.

The tall, rectangular-shaped twin houses, each with three bedrooms and 2½ bathrooms, are separated by about 30 feet—close enough that the occupants can see into each other's windows. It's like a modern version of "The Odd Couple", says Corey Martin, who designed the project with architect Ben Kaiser of Portland-based PATH Architecture. "On some level, it's every guy's dream. They get their freedom but they're not doing it alone. There's built-in camaraderie."



The friends say their arrangement is working well. They have dinner a couple of nights a week. They share an Internet account. They still go skiing, camping, biking and hiking together. "I know when Ted is home, who is going in and out of his house, which lights are on, what he is up to," says Mr. Zehetbauer. "It's companionship. Other people come and go. The only constant is Roland," adds Mr. Wardlaw. They share the outdoor space and are currently planning a vegetable garden together.

A Fun (and Inexpensive!) Member Recognition Idea

Leave a reply

MemberTYBox
At PTAA our membership director and Ambassador Committee came up with a really fun member recognition program:

  • They ordered blank Chinese take-out boxes
  • They ordered fortune cookies with fun messages including:
    • We can see your
      future with PTAA!
    • For a good time call 336.294.4428!
    • LIKE us on Facebook!
    • Happy Anniversary from PTAA!
    • Legislation and Education. We do it all!
    • Your lucky number is 33.62.94.44.28 
  • They put eight cookies in each box and sealed the box with a sticker printed with our logo.
  • Then the ambassadors split up our member list and each agreed to visit six of them to hand deliver each a box and window cling with our logo printed on it.

It's a really creative and inexpensive way to acknowledge our members, and of course you could use it as a customer recognition tool in non-membership businesses.

IRS Should Just Hire a Bunch of Direct Marketers and Listen to My Mom

Leave a reply

During a show about how much tax revenue the IRS doesn't collect – 17% or $450 billion a year – the folks at Freakonomics talk about how a little-known unit of the British government called the Behavioral Insights Unit gooses the UK's tax collection efforts:

One of my favorite examples of this comes from a small unit in the British government called the Behavioral Insights Team.  What they do is experiment with all kinds of cheap and simple nudges.  For instance, sending out letters that appeal to the herd mentality in all of us. Here is the unit’s director, David Halpern:

David HALPERN: So what we do is we simply tell people something, which is true, which is 9 out of 10 people in Britain pay their tax on time. And by putting that single bit of information into the top of a letter, it makes people much more likely themselves to pay the tax on time.

GARDNER: So it’s peer pressure?

DUBNER: That’s exactly right — we like to run with the herd.  They also tried another super simple trick, which was just handwriting a message on the outside of the tax envelope.  This message would just say simply that the contents are important, but it’s written in hand.

HALPERN: Of course people are like ‘oh my God, but how can that possibly be practical?’ Well we’ve now just got the results in. It turns out that for every pound or every dollar that you spend on getting, you know, someone to write on the envelope, you get $2,000 return.  A one to 2,000 return. So it’s a nice simple illustration of these small things and how consequential they are.

Anyone who's spent even a week working as a direct marketer could have told you this would work. The IRS should just hire a bunch of laid off direct marketing folks and they'd pay for themselves in no time.

Later in the podcast they talk about an idea from a behavioral psychiatrist at Duke:

Dan Ariely, a behavioral psychologist at Duke, has a nice idea: to let taxpayers direct a small portion of their tax money to the parts of the government that they most care about:

Dan ARIELY: So I’m not sure what’s the right percent — five percent or ten percent.  But what if we got people to have a say about where some of the taxes go? All of a sudden you’re not looking at it as you against the government.  You’d have to look carefully at all that the government is doing for us — building libraries and roads, and education and military and so on and so forth and say, what do I care about?

My mother made this same argument when I was a kid. Her argument was that if she could earmark even one or two percent for any program/department of her choosing she'd feel better about paying her taxes in general. She also made another interesting point: taxpayers would be able to indicate with their dollars which programs they felt were most important. In essence we'd be able to tell which programs were truly valued by us, the taxpayers, and not have to trust politicians to divine what we wanted. That's why I figured it would never come to pass, and I haven't been wrong yet.

They’ve Got B.O. and Heartburn and Gas

1 Reply

Former Republican US Senator Alan Simpson, quoted in an interview by the LA Times in reference to "tea party-inspired Republicans":

He reserved his greatest contempt for the tea party-inspired Republicans who equate compromise with capitulation and view obstruction as progress. "Some of them," he said, "are as rigid as a fireplace poker, but without the occasional warmth."

He leaned forward, stabbing a bony finger into a wood conference table. "Let me tell you something, pal: If you are a legislator and you can't learn to compromise an issue without compromising yourself, get out of the business. In fact, don't ever get married, either. You don't want any part of that."

Compromise is the only way anything has ever gotten done, he went on, going back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both of which amounted to more give than take. "They don't like that," he said of the tea partyers’ unwillingness to bargain. "They get nasty. They smell bad. They've got b.o. and heartburn and gas. They're seethers."

HT to Fec for the link.