I'm Edjumacated

Education is like health care. It's something everyone needs, but who should pay for it? Under our current system, the government both pays for and runs education, and I think we can all agree it's not working out too well. Luckily, there's another option: vouchers.

Under the voucher system, the government gives parents a certificate which they can redeem at whichever school they choose to send their children to. It's basically taxpayer-funded private education. The idea is that with everyone able to send their children to whichever school they choose, competition among schools would vastly improve school quality and create more choice.

The voucher system makes sense, because under our current system, there is no desire to innovate or produce better schools and teachers. What incentive do administrators at government-run schools have to make learning more fun, to change the school day to later in the day to better coincide with students' sleeping patterns, or to fire bad teachers? Just about none.

Also, some research indicates that private schools cost significantly less than public schools, while producing better results (provided, of course, you define "better results" as "higher test scores.") This is plausible; after all, government-run schools have no incentive to cut waste and spend money more efficiently - they're not businesses and there is no competition.

But vouchers aren't without their problems. First of all, most private schools in the United States are religious institutions, and I certainly wouldn't be very happy with my tax dollars going to teach children that the earth is six thousand years old and that evolution is an evil Communist conspiracy. Say what you will about our current system of education, but at least there's some form of accountability to the public in place - we elect school board members and can attend their meetings. Subsidizing education with taxpayer money and not giving taxpayers any say in how the schools are run amounts to taxation without representation.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this very issue, but unfortunately they came to the wrong conclusion: voucher systems that include religious schools do not violate the First Amendment. There's only two things that can change a Supreme Court ruling; either another Supreme Court ruling, or an amendment to the Constitution. Neither of those seem likely anytime soon.

But you could argue that, if a voucher system is implemented, the market would cause more nonreligious schools to open, thus decreasing the current preponderance of religious schools. However, the market would never force religious schools out completely, because many, if not most religious parents would choose to send their kids to religious schools.

In any event, I'm still completely for a voucher system. As far as I'm concerned, the farther away from children the government has to be, the better.

Your government: creating black markets since 1984

Do you ever get so amazed at the stupidity of your fellow human beings? Not mad or angry, just dumbfounded at the arrogance and complete disregard for common sense displayed.

That happened to me when I read this. Someone is being "accused" of paying people in Israel for their kidneys, and then selling them with huge markups in the United States.

Think about that for a minute. It is illegal to sell your organs in this country. But, of course, you are allowed to donate your organs if you want to. You can give it away for free, but if you try to sell it, men with guns are going to come to your house and arrest you.

The article reporting the story, being a mainstream news report, didn't go into why this law exists. The tiny amount of research I did didn't reveal anything either, so we're forced to speculate. The best I can come up with is that lawmakers were afraid criminals would kidnap innocent people and take out their organs to sell.

That makes sense ... UNTIL YOU THINK ABOUT IT LONGER THAN ONE NANOSECOND. We already have laws against kidnapping and cutting people up when they didn't consent to it. Enforce those. And what about the body parts it is legal to sell: sperm and eggs? When was the last time you heard of criminals kidnapping a man, jacking him off, and then selling his sperm? Or forcibly taking eggs out of a woman with the intention to sell them? Oh yeah, you've NEVER heard of that happening, because it doesn't happen.

See, selling your sperm is legal, and therefore subject to normal market forces. So if you need some sperm or eggs, there are various companies competing for your business. You research them and find the best one before you buy your baby-making ingredients. Also, the industry is subject to government regulation, within reason, of course. These ensure a high level of safety and security.

Outlawing the sale of organs creates a black market, which makes none of that possible. Selling your kidney makes you a criminal, so if the buyer decides not to pay you, you are completely out of luck.

Stupid government. The specific law banning the sale of organs is called the National Organ Transplant Act, and it was cosponsored by Al Gore, of all people. The year it was passed: 1984. Coincidence?

Moon landings and failures

Today marks the fortieth anniversary of the Apollo moon landings, so naturally no one is talking about anything actually significant going on in the world. Instead, the media is falling all over itself singing the praises about how great America is because we got to the moon first. What bullshit.

Why did we go to the moon? To learn new things? To continue mankind's long history of exploring the unknown? Of course not; we went there to beat the Russians. I'm sorry, but that's it. We most certainly would never have done it if it weren't for the Commies.

Why don't we ever talk about the first man in space? The first woman in space? The first artificial satellite? Oh yeah, because the Russians did all that. We Americans lost all those parts of the space race, but at least we got to the moon first. Were' so much better than those filthy reds.

Come on, people. The Cold War is over! Stop patting each other on the back for winning a minor battle in a war that ended 20 years ago.

Judd solves the world's biggest problem

The gigantic world problem I'll be solving today is overpopulation. Whether or not this is actually a problem is not really relevant to me, but it wouldn't hurt to have a solution ready if it is.

It's simple, really. Let's say a woman is pregnant. If the father wants her to have an abortion, but she keeps the baby anyway, then the father has zero legal responsibility to the child. The same rules apply if the man wants to keep the baby and the woman does not, but I suspect that that situation is relatively rare.

Of course, this is just a suggestion; I don't know how it would work if actually put into practice. I think the complete lack of discussion of father's rights in the abortion debate is terrible, and this is one way they might be taken into consideration.

In some sense, it's kind of understandable that father's rights are almost never discussed in the abortion debate. The baby is inside the woman, after all, and I'm on record as defending abortion rights simply because the baby is inside the woman. However, the man has just as much ownership in the situation the woman does, and he has as much to gain or lose from the baby being born as she does. His feelings on the situation ought to be important, and this is one way they might be taken into consideration.