Month: May 2012

A Final VNHS Dance Performance

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Last night, we went to Van Nuys HS for what will be our last performing arts performance there (most likely). It was the final show for the 2012 Dance Class at Van Nuys, and the final show that our daughter would be in. As such, it was a bittersweet moment. It brought back memories of the first time we came to Van Nuys HS in 2009 to first see their performing arts program. It’s been a journey, and we thank all the teachers that brought our daughter and her friends this far–especially Marque Coy in the technical theatre program, Mike Nakauchi in the dance program, and Randy Olea in the drama program.

On to the show… the show had three acts: a senior spotlight, followed by two normal Dance Production acts. I’m not going to comment on all the performances, just a select few that I particularly remember.

Senior Spotlight. Of course, the highlight of the senior spotlight to me was the program “Georgia”, which Erin choreographed and danced. It is hard to describe — it was a modern interpretive dance — almost primitive. I’ll edit this to add a link to the you-tube of it once it is uploaded. The other performance that I liked was “I Can Be Anything You Like!” by Mayra Martinez and Myelle Bossett (probably because I really liked the music).

Act I. A number of really good performances here. Ones I liked (and remembered) included “Time”, choreographed by Mike Nakauchi and performed by the Jazz Dance Team, “Classical Ballet”, choreogrpahy by Natalya Shoaf and performed by Layla Chatthoranongsak, Tatyana Saldana, and Natalya Shoaf, “Pure Imagination”, choreographed and performed by Layla Chatthoranongsak, “Glad to Go” choreographed and performed by Quest Sky Zeidler, “Transatlanticism” choreographed and performed by Erin Geronimi, “Love Sprung” choreographed and performed by Ronamae Septimo and Kevin Garcia, and a nice version of “Cell Block Tango”, choreographed by Tatyana Saldana and performed by Arielle Bell, Tatyana Saldana, Natalya Shoaf, Stephanie Cabrillo, Asha Morris, May Povoorian, Alex Genorilla, and Layla Chatthoranongsak.

Act II. Numbers I liked in Act II included the Senior Dance, cheoreographed by the Jazz and Hip Hop Team Officers and danced by a large number of seniors, “Pink Panther”, choreographed by Jayy Rodriquez, JDT and performed by Alex Geronilla, Layla Chatthoranongsak, Tatyana Saldana, and Natalya Shoaf, “Candy” choreographed by Joseph Cayanan, Aliam Jiles, Diane, Ronamae Septimo and performed by the Hip Hop Dance Team, and the finale “Pure Rock You”, choreographed by Mike Nakauchi and performed by everyone. This act also had another song from Chicago which was performed reasonably well, but I would have preferred if they had done “Hot Honey Rag” and had stronger tap. But that’s just me being a Chicago geek.

Upcoming Theatre, Concerts, and Dance: The remainder of May brings the Spring Railfest at Orange Empire, “The Great American Trailer Park Musical” at REP East, and it may also bring “Follies” at the Ahmanson. Oh, and May also has my daughter’s HS graduation. June is more open, but does feature both “Addams Family” and “Million Dollar Quartet” at the Pantages. July I”ve been keepling light until we know the orientation schedule at UC Berkeley and our vacation schedule. As always, open dates are subject to be filled in with productions that have yet to appear on the RADAR of Goldstar or LA Stage Alliance.

Share

The Next Horror Movie Plot: College Costs and Student Loans

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy1 Comment

I’m running scared. Why, you may ask. The answer is simple: My daughter is going off to college in a few months. She graduates in two weeks. That means there is one thing, and only one thing, on my mind: How the hell am I going to pay for college?

This is the reason that a number of articles today related to student loans and college costs have caught my eye. First, there was a long article from MSNBC on how soaring college costs have hobbled a decade. The essence of this article is that the next loan bubble to “pop” will be the student loan bubble, and that college costs have gotten out of control. Another article from USA Today talks about how student’s lament the total amount of debt, while Congress fiddles debates how to address the problem. Then there’s the article in the LA Times about the student loan blues, about how students lament taking on so many loans for college. Lastly, Friday’s Planet Money (which I haven’t listened to yet) is on the subject of figuring out the real cost of college: the “sticker price” is often not what families pay. (and of course, for those attending state colleges, this all ties into the state budget woes I’ve previously written about).

So, as this week’s bills are paid, it is time for another rant.

College costs have gotten to be ridiculous, but even more ridiculous is our system of “financial aid”. From the point of view of someone who is solidly middle class, this system seems to be designed to provide little help. If you really can’t afford college — that is, you have true financial need with nothing saved — you’ll get loads of need-based aid. College will be cheap. If you are truly rich, you don’t care what college costs. If you are middle-class? If you are in the position of having a good salary, but a large mortgage and not enough saved? Many private universities offer what are referred to as “merit” scholarships — supposedly academic, based on essays and such. Are they? It is odd that all the colleges seem to offer just about the same amount of “merit” aid. Further, that “merit” aid is reduced if you get other scholarships. I’ve come to a belief that this “merit” aid is just a fancy coupon: a way of reducing the sticker costs for those that take the effort to apply for it.

The financial aid letters don’t help. They convince a parent that college is all paid for! But when you read the letters, you see that the bulk of that payment is expected to be student loans… and even more expensive parent loans. This is the loan bubble. Colleges push the loans, and students taken them on and parents take them on. Student loans are unique among loans: there no requirement to have the ability to pay (unlike a car loan, where if you don’t have the income, you can’t buy that $300K car).  There needs to be some form of caps on the loans, based on the intended career of the student, so they don’t get into a position where they owe more than they could make in a reasonable time.

Am I arguing that student loans shouldn’t exist? No. Low-interest and interest deferred loans for students are reasonable, with caps. I’m inclined to use those for Erin, even if we pay them off for her. Helps her credit rating, and if they approve the 3.x% interest rates, the pricing is reasonable. If one doesn’t overextend, possibly using HELOC (home equity loans) may make sense as well, especially if combined with a refinance, as the interest is deductable. But normal parent loans at 7+% are ridiculous, as are private student loans at equally high rates. Further, as I noted above, there needs to be a cap on student loans based on the expected career annual earnings five years after eventual graduation with the final degree. You shouldn’t be able to borrow more than you can reasonably pay back. That’s what created the housing bubble; that’s what’s creating the scholarship bubble.

We also need to address the pricing side of the issue. I think colleges have gotten off track with their pricing, and need to learn to have “everyday low prices”. Much as one complains about the high costs of public colleges, for the middle class, often a UC education at full ride is cheaper than a private education with scholarships. We need to use the money we’re setting aside for scholarships to lower the price for everyone, and make “merit” and “need-based” scholarships in place for the truly merited and truly needy.

We also need to simplify the private scholarship process. Just as we’ve gone to a combined financial aid application, there should be a combined scholarship application where you indicate all the relevant aspects (ethinicity, club membership, and all the other special factors), submit standard letters of rec, submit a standard essay, submit transcripts to one place and it farms it out to all the applicable organizations… who can then follow up with additional questions after doing their triage. It would help them award money to qualified candidates, and help candidates find organizations.

We also need to fix the community college problem. Community colleges can be a great choice to save money. There are, however, two problems (which are related). First, there is the peer problem: all your friends are going to prestigious universities, and you are going to Podunk Community College. The pressure (and the college counselors) force you to apply to the more expensive school for the earlier years. There’s also the problem that there’s no guarantee of transferring into a prestiguous college from a community college. The answer is to having a binding transfer program: a joint application to 4-year institution and a community college, where there is clear coordination and agreement that if a particular program plan is met with appropriate grades, the student can transfer after the general education portion (first two years) is satisfied and can complete at the 4-year institution. This doesn’t exist yet, and would go a long way to reducing education costs.

With respect to general education, colleges also need to pool resources to eliminate redundancy. Again, community colleges can work as a resource here. There’s no reason that general education courses should not be combined across universities that are close to each other. This is what industry does when it does time sharing, and it maximizes effectiveness.

Of course, I haven’t addressed the question of whether most students that go to college belong in college. That’s because I do believe college is important. It teaches critical thinking; it provides a skill base that will serve the student well in the future. Although college is no guarantee of success, surveys have shown that having an AA or BS degree does make someone more likely to be employed than someone lacking a degree, and to be employed in a job that will pay better. The question is: does the increase in pay offset the cost of the education? I think the jury is still out on that one, and the answer changes as college costs rise.

I know I’ve been ranty this morning. One of the reasons I love blogging is that it allows me to work out issues by writing about them, and to share my concerns (which reduces my stress). I thank you for reading, and welcome your opinions.

Music: Emotion (Barbra Streisand): Time Machine

Share

California Budget Woes

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Over the last couple of days, I’ve been reading more (LA Times) and more (SF Chronicle) news articles about California’s deficit. This is something of great concern to me. What infuriates me even more, however, are the comments to those articles, which are so misinformed and filled with rage and hate. So, instead of jumping into that pointless arena, I’d like to share my thoughts here.

The reasons for California’s deficit are structural and many. There are large mandates written into the state constitution — often by voters — and there are other mandates that are imposed by the courts. This limits what the legislators can do. There is also the notion different pots of money — that is, money that is legislatively allocated for a particular purpose that cannot be used for other purposes. These aspects are often not know by most people. I’ve heard (although I haven’t verified) that the only real discretionary spending is about 9% of the budget, and that goes to prisons and schools. If that’s the case, it is scary, as right now people seem to be willing to spend more on prisoners than students.

So let’s look at some of the comments that infuriate me..

Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for this idiot !!!!!

  • This is a common complaint. It’s the governor’s fault. Why did we reelect governor moonbeam? And so on. The reality is that the governor can do very little by himself (this is true for Obama as well). He can propose ideas (which he has done). He can use executive orders. He can exploit the bully pulpit. But the real onus for doing something is on the state legislature, who has proven themselves loath to cut in certain areas. They cut schools because they believe the money can be made up with tuition. But that doesn’t work for prisons or social services, so the schools bear the brunt of the burden. The culprit here is the undue financial influence of lobbyists, and the unintended side effect of term limits: that politicians are always running for office, and thus need to raise reelection funds.

Answer: National Guard, fix bayonets, march every non english speaking parasite across the Mexican border. Let THEM pay for their own citizens.

  • Illegal immigration. This is often blaimed as the root cause for California problems. The “illegals” (which is often a code word for the hispanic who is different from me — I never see complains against Canadians) are costing our schools, are filling our welfare roles, are filling our prisons. Rarely do I see facts, and when I do, often they are from biased sources. Snopes refutes a lot of common claims, But there are costs that cannot be denied. The question is: what can the state do about it. Many costs (such as AFDC) are Federal programs administered and paid for by the state: thus the state has their hands tied. Often, the problem is not due to the laws on the books (after all, we all agree it is illegal), but lax enforcement of those laws–often due to the cost of law enforcement and deportation. So what is the answer here? In reality, the answer is not “deportation”, it is legalization. Remove the fear of deportation, make them legal, get folks paying taxes and helping support the services they use. But mention any notion of this, and a large conservative lobby flies up in rage. Illegal immigration is like Marijuana: the answer is to legalize and tax, not keep it illegal and pay through the nose to enforce policies. That, however, is a Federal-level decision.

Let’s just spend another billion or two on High Speed Rail.

  • High speed rail is a common whipping boy. However, what the people complaining about High Speed Rail forget is that it is being paid for with funds that were exclusively authorized for that purpose. We have the choice of not spending them, but we can’t take that money and use it for something else.

Were tired of hearing the sky is falling, meanwhile California is locked into these high paying union agreement with the Prison, Guards and others. If California declares bankruptcy, they will free themselves from the shackles of these lucrative union obligations and pensions and will have breathing room to begin again.

  • Well, first and foremost, states are not legally permitted to declare bankrupcy. Let’s talk about those union agreements and the prison guards. I’ll agree that the pension arrangements in these agreements are often egregious, and that unions have often moved beyond their original purpose. The problem is, however, that the governor cannot change them alone.  He has made proposals to deal with the pension mess–and the legislature has let those proposals die. We do need to fix the pension problem. Ideally, the approach should be to have a stronger tie to length of service to the state: I have much less of a problem paying a full pension to a 20 year employee than a 5 year employee. We also need to address ridiculous provisions in union deals that are more protectionist than cost effective. But I rarely see the discussion at that level. Further, such actions often require long-term negotiations and don’t solve the problem immediately.

California needs to get the Socialists out of office but the people who don’t care, people who work for the state and those on welfare all vote for these idiots.

  • Many commentors seem to believe “socialists” are running the government, without knowing what socialism is. According to Wikipedia, “Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. ” I have yet to see California (as a state) owing the means of production, or having the workers making the decision of what and how to produce. Rather, we seem to have the opposite, where there is excessive influence of for-profit companies and concerns.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY AND SPEND IT!  NO MORE TAXES…CUT SPENDING!

  • This is a common complaint. No more taxes. The answer is cutting. It’s not. If you have a household and you’ve cut your expenses, what do you do? You don’t solve the problem by cutting more. You get your family members to go out and get jobs: in other words, you bring in more income. Solving the deficit problem means addressing both sides of the equation: reducing expenses where you can, and bringing in more income where you can. That means enforcing laws on the books (pay your use tax folks on those online purchases), as well as raising taxes. It is foolish to look only at cutting as the solution to the problem.

You guys can spend thousands of dollars per week on fancy shoes that you might wear once ,but you can’t afford to provide the people who do the work that provides you with your excessive income with even basic services.

  • There’s a lot of class warfare here at work. We hate the rich “politicians”, we hate the rich “union bosses”. Yet, these same people want to vote for a group that wants to further intrench the power of the “rich” — but this is the rich of private industry that they like. Why is one acceptable and the other not? Note that I’m not saying both are acceptable. I think we need a part-time legislature — they spend far too much time on pointless and costly bills just to show they are useful. I also agree that many union leaders often line their pockets at the expense of their members. But we also need to increase taxes on the very wealthy so that they can do their share as well.

These are just some examples. Everytime I read comments (which I must stop doing), I have to remind myself that comments often reflect the 10% radical lunatic fringe, and many people get their jollies by commenting and being critical, instead of doing something.

California does have problems. They aren’t easy to fix, because they are all defended by special interests who often have more sway than the individual voters. We need to fix Prop 13 — not to change the tax rates, but to do a periodic reset so that people are paying taxes on a realistic valuation of their properties… and businesses pay taxes on the value of their properties. This might actually result in a reduction of overall rates. We need to fix the pension system (and more importantly, pension abuse and union rule abuse). We need to increase state funding. We need to address the illegal immigration problem in a cost effective way, but this is more of a Federal problem than one under state control, other than enforcing rules on the books. Most importantly, we have to realize this isn’t a “liberal vs. conservative’ problem–we need to realize that the problem is politicians (of whatever party) working more for particular interests than the good of the state as a whole.

Music: Dear Edwina (Original Cast): Put It In The Piggy

Share

Friday Miscellany

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Well, it’s Friday at lunch, and that means it’s time to clear out those links…

Music: Streisand Superman (Barbra Streisand): Cabin Fever

Share

Colleges and Finances

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

My lunchtime reading has also highlighted a number of articles related to colleges (particularly UC) and finances. Hopefully, they won’t ruin your lunch.

  • UC Fees Increasing… maybe. Well, that “maybe” is a highly-likely (sigh). If the state doesn’t increase funding by $125 million, it is likely the 10-campus UC system would raise tuition by 6% this fall. Further, if the initiative in November doesn’t pass, we’re looking at a mid-year tuition increase in the “range of double digits” or drastic cuts to campus programs and staffing. With the 6% increase, tuition for in-state undergraduates would rise $731 to $12,923. Sigh. I just keep reminding myself that it is still a lot less than private school tuition, even with merit scholarships. One side effect of the increasing tuition, though, is that more and more California students are going out of state. There are a number of factors that are fallout of that: some are taking advantage of a special program that gives in-state tuition to some out of state students, others are depending more on merit/need scholarships from out of state private schools (which increases their costs, and thus tuition), and it creates more space for out of state students to attend UC/CSU (bringing in out of state resident fees).
  • Paying for College. When you think about paying for college, there are a number of ways to do it. One is scholarships. The other is to reduce parental costs, freeing up cash for college. Erin’s exploring the former, and we’re doing the latter. This includes shopping for the best auto insurance quotes, and exploring refinancing. Alas, since the last ReFi, values had dropped more. This is why I’m pleased to read about the streamlining of HARP. We’re not underwater, but we’re now under 20% equity. Doing a HARP ReFi will go a large way towards making college more affordable. We won’t be able to take advantage of the other program to reduce loan balances because we’re not underwater–but that’s OK.
  • Bright College Days. Thinking about Erin going off to college has me wistfully looking back at my days at UCLA. I uncovered a few articles looking at the history of buildings in Westwood, including the buildings that used to be the Bratskeller and the BofA and the buildings that used to be Maria’s and Bullocks. Ah, the days when Westwood was a real college town…
  • Value of College. Is college worth it? That’s the on-going debate these days. A recent study shows the effect of a college degree: Only about half are working full-time, with the majority starting with less pay than expected while also dealing with huge student debts. Nearly six in 10 think they’ll end up less financially successful than their elders. Workers who graduated during the recession – from 2009 through last year – earned a median starting salary of $27,000 – or $3,000 less annually than earlier graduates. Nearly a quarter of all respondents said their current job pays much less than they’d anticipated.Female graduates earned $2,000 less than their male counterparts. Most fresh college grads said their first jobs didn’t help them advance along a career path – and that the positions didn’t even require a four-year degree. Four in 10 said they took the work just to get by. So does it pay to go to college? Is it worth between $150K-$300K over a lifetime? Well, a survey from 2011 showed that people with a bachelor’s degree make 84% more over a lifetime than high school graduates. In 1999, the premium was 75%. How much do they make? The 2011 survey showed that, on average, a doctoral degree-holder will earn $3.3 million over a lifetime, compared to $2.3 million for a college graduate and $1.3 million for those with a high school diploma. That said, people with less education in high-paying occupations can out-earn their counterparts with advanced degrees, yet within the same industry, workers with more schooling usually earn more. What is unknown is how that changed between 2011 and 2012. Still, these are important things to keep in mind when trying to decide if college is worth what you pay. Lastly, it is important to remember that college is often more than just what you learn: it is the ability to network with alumni that might open the door for you, make the connections to recommend you, or provide you with contacts. Often these are much more valuable in the end run.

 

Share

Thoughts on Gay Marriage

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

With President Obama’s announcement yesterday and the North Carolina vote the day before, the subject of gay marriage has been in the news. You can find a good analysis of it here. My thoughts, essentially, are “it’s about time” and “what’s the fuss about, anyway”. I thought I would take a few minutes during lunch to elaborate on this:

  • The government, in general, has no business dictating what are legal marriages. That goes for “traditional” as well as whatever “non-traditional” groupings you can think of. Essentially, that is the government intruding into religious space. However…
  • Given that the government does recognize such “personal corporate entities” (for lack of a better term) for the purposes of visitation, inheritance, etc., that recognition must reflect the attitude of “equal under the law”. That means interracial, interreligious, and samesex must be accepted. If a group files to be recognized by the state, it should be recognized (and yes, I do think there are some groups that should be prohibited, primarily those involving “below the age of legal consent” or “incapable of legal consent”–that is, children and animals).
  • Government recognition does not mandate religious recognition, or what is taught in religious schools. The government can’t tell religious leaders they must participate in any ceremony, or that they have to–from the point of view of what a church accepts–accept a particular view. The government can only have a say for those areas where the government provides funds: thus if a church provides a community service funded by the government, that community service must be “equal under the law”.
  • [Caveat 1: Now, this might open the can of worms of whether IRS exemptions for churches are government funding. They might be, and arguably, if a church wants to have that exemption, they must recognize same-sex marriages. You might argue that this would make churches suffer. Well, churches have always suffered for the sake of what is “morally right”. But I’ll agree that this is a muddy water, and I’d be equally happy with looking the other way on this.]
  • [Caveat 2: Yes, this extends to abortion as well. The right to abortion should be legal–to do anything else is to have the government impose one religious view on those with a different religious view. Don’t want to offer abortions? Fine. You don’t have to take government funds.]
  • However, the linked article is correct when this is called a cultural war. There are two clear camps: those who believe that the government should not be dictating morals based on a specific religious creed, and those that believe that they have to impose their religious beliefs on those they view as non- or lax-believers so that they will have a better share in the world-to-come. I think the outcome of this “war” will truly dictate the future of this great nation, and determine whether it will hold true to its founding ideals as a place where minority religions and groups are free.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

 

Share

Mandating College Standards

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

One of the big news stories today (and hence, seen in my lunchtime reading) relates to LA Unified mandating the UC/CSU A-G standards for graduating seniors. For those not familiar with these standards, they require a particular number of math, english, science, foreign language, visual/performing arts, and history classes. To be precise, what LA Unified mandated is that students must pass these courses with at least a “D” or better starting this fall, rising to a “C” by 2017. The board also reduced the number of required credits to 210 to graduate, allowing students to use extra periods to get tutoring or do remedial courses.

Lots of people are up in arms about this, believing it is mandating that all students must go to college. Lots of those complaining about this state that going to college is no guarantee of a good job, and that for many students, vocational education is sufficient.

Here are my thoughts:

  • Mandating the A-G standards does not mandate that the student go to college. All it mandates is that they have a minimum level of education that includes a reasonable level of math (enough to understand loans and problem solving), a reasonable level of history (so they know what has failed in the past), a foreign language (so they they can deal with people from other cultures), a reasonable knowledge of literature, and a basic understanding of science. It requires they be exposed to the performing arts. I’m sorry, but if we want people who can operate in society, and make intelligent choices during elections, we need this level. I’ll argue that many folks who “poo poo” science and believe much of the junk circulating on the internet are precisely those who have not learned critical thinking.
  • For those that are thinking this is something new — it isn’t. LAUSD has supposedly mandated these standards since 2005, although I remember LAUSD pushing the A-G standards when I when to high school, back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth, LAUSD had lettered districts, and we were still using mark-sense cards and FORTRAN.
  • Jobs are increasingly technical — even if they are vocational education level jobs. Mandating the A-G standards helps to ensure that even those going into vocational jobs will be able to work with the increasingly sophisticated devices and procedures found on those jobs, ensuring them greater success in that environment.
  • Critics are correct: college does not guarantee a job. However, those with a college education are statistically more likely to find employment quicker than those with only a high school education. Note that I said “only”. Vocational trade schools provide specialized skills that modify the equation. Further, those with a college degree, if they find a job, will find a better paying job than those with only high school degrees. No guarantees here, but if you go to college, you are more likely to find a better paying job.
  • Success of A-G requires good and effective teachers who can excite students. This means focusing on what must be learned, and not the specific path to how it is taught. It means de-emphasizing all the standardized testing that leads to “teach to the test”. It also means making the commitment to pay good and effective teachers what they are worth (and to weed out the poor teachers… and to do both of these based on performance, not seniority), and to have a commitment to have excellent and affordable state universities (UC, CSU) available to these students when they graduate. Alas, I’m not sure we’re going to have this with the way the budgets are going.
  • Edited to Add 5/10: Note: I do believe there should be exceptions to this policy for those kids who are incapable of meeting A-G (e.g., special education, developmentally disabled). I also think the point about good and effective teachers must go hand-in-hand with this. If teachers do not have the freedom to adapt the method of teaching these subjects to the particular students, then the goal of A-G will fail. We do need to recognize that every student learns differently–or to put it another way, there must be both “Physics for Blondes” (as we called Physics 6 at UCLA) as well as “Physics for Engineers”, and the equivalent in the humanities.

That said, high schools are failing in teaching student life skills. I believe there must be a mandatory course that teaches basic life skills. These skills would include: (a) basic cooking skills; (b) basic financial skills — balancing a checkbook, understanding common loans, understanding credit; (c) basic electrical — how to replace  a light switch; (d) basic plumbing — how to repair a sink or fix a toilet; and (e) basic technology — how to do backup, how to pick a good password, how to secure data, and understanding privacy.

P. S.: I’m also curious what people think about this quote from Supt. Deasy about whether this new policy will result in more dropouts:

“They will rise to the challenge, as they always do,” Deasy said. He stated that students do not drop out because they are held to higher standards. “Students drop out because they’re bored out of their minds.”

I’d agree. Schools need to challenge. Classes that are too easy or boring are what lead to students skipping the course. If the class is hard, most students want to attend. Those that skip hard classes would be skipping them even without these requirements.

Share

Abusing the Rules

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Yesterday, I promised a post on “gaming the system”, otherwise known as “best abuse of the rules”. I’m familiar with this, going back to some Mark’s entry in 1987 for the Obfusticated C Code Contest.

  • Flying Away. What got me thinking about this post was an article in the Sunday LA Times about frequent flyers who flew too much. You see, at one time AAmericaan AAirlines sold lifetime airtravel passes. Naturally, some people decided to abuse them and profit from them, leading American to crack down on them.
  • Ron Paul. Yes, that Ron Paul. It appears his strategy is to abuse delegate selection rules to pack delegations with his supporters. If the convention goes past a first voice, they can then vote for Paul and throw things into disarray. Don’t believe me? Read about what Paul has done in Idaho, and in Nevada, and in Maine. Here’s a good analysis of his strategy.
  • Congress. Of course, our biggest abuser of the rules is Congress itself. I’m sure you can come up with your own examples, but one of my favorites is the overuse and abuse of the filibuster rules in the Senate. Even the threat of a filibuster kills things. This is all paper and posturing; no “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” here. The latest casualty: attempts in the senate to keep student loan rates low. The Republicans want to respond to their base who want to decimate health services for women and low income people, and would rather do those cuts than tighten some tax loopholes for those making sufficient funds that college is not as expensive an issue. But then again, they are catering to a wing that is sorry women ever got the right to vote. But I digress: Congress is expert at abusing the rules: be it the aforementioned filibuster, campaign finance rules, or other quirks and oddities they can use to their advantage (and this is done by both parties, and it is wrong whomever does it).

Music: Hot Jazz and Dixieland (Louis Armstrong): Struttin’ with some Barbeque

Share