If you ask some politicians, they are. And they’re mucking up the whole political system, dag-nabbit. According to a Washington Post article, some Republican lawmakers have had it up to here with whipper-snappers voting with their feelings.
Average taxpayers in college towns, [Sorg] said, are having their votes “diluted or entirely canceled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group . . . composed of people with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce.”
Their “youthful idealism,” he added, “is focused on remaking the world, with themselves in charge, of course, rather than with the mundane humdrum of local government.”
– New Hampshire State Rep. Gregory Sorg
The solution? Proposals differ from state to state, but basically every voter would be required to show ID or proof of residence in order to vote. That would mean anyone without an appropriate ID would have to get one.
But identification costs money! That’s unconstitutional! It’s akin to the poll tax used to disenfranchise African-American voters in the 19th century!
What does this have to do with me and my money, you say? Well, since state governments can’t legally force people to buy the right (or the ID) to vote, taxpayers would have to absorb the costs.
And according to one estimate, the state of Wisconsin alone would have to pony up $2.7 million just to provide valid identification cards to voters who do not currently have them.
What do you think? Do you want to pay for that? Or are you too foolish to know?
Alexandra Wilkis Wilson took her 5th Avenue fashion sense to the world wide web, and the result – members-only designer discount site Gilt Groupe – is changing the way luxury retail is done. She sat down with TILE to talk about the online sample sale phenomenon, and to share some advice about buying designer.
Sometimes it’s true: the best way to deal with a bully is to ignore him. But everyone’s got to have a back-up plan, and it looks like the U.S. is getting fed up with the Somali pirate industry.
Back in 1801, when pirates still wore stockings, Thomas Jefferson decided to end America’s policy of paying off pirates for safe passage through the Mediterranean. The Tripoli-based scoundrels demanded bigger fees, but all they got was a war with the U.S.
Today may be another turning point; Somalian pirates have been a menace to shipping companies for years, but never before have they been so violent. The recent murder of four vacationing Americans raises the question of just how much the U.S. is willing to take to avoid a major conflict with an ugly enemy.
The U.S. is hesitant to take military action against the pirates because it’s just too big a job for an army that’s already stretched thin. The ocean is immense, piracy has roots throughout the “failed state” of Somalia, and there is no other viable economy to replace piracy with once it’s eliminated.
Facts & Figures
The average ransom for a captured ship is $5 million
The average amount of time hostages spend in captivity is 6 months
The “red zone” occupied by predatory Somalian ships is bigger than 1 million square miles of ocean
Best Quote
“Of course, I do not know what the U.S. will do in response to this latest atrocity. But Jefferson advocated an armed response and eventually war against Tripoli for far less provocation.” – Frank Lambert, professor at Purdue and an expert on the Barbary pirates
What do you think?
What company could come up with a profitable pirate-control product?
Get to it!
Check out the damage done as of the end of February 2011 in this New York Times infographic. The red numbers show number of vessels currently occupied by Somali pirates, and the white numbers show the number of civilians held hostage on each.
(credit: Bill Marsh and Scott Garapolo/The New York Times)
The Wake County school system has led the nation in fighting educational inequality for forty years. But a series of challenges have forced leaders to be creative when it comes to integration that pleases parents.
The system’s race-based attempt at integration was deemed unconstitutional in 2001, so it switched to school assignment based on socioeconomic status (wealth and income). But keeping schools balanced between high- and low-income families meant students were frequently bumped from school to school.
In 2009, a new conservative school board decided that students should be sent to the schools closest to their homes, ensuring that the racial and economic barriers in the broader community would be repeated at school. The decision sparked outrage throughout the country.
As a compromise (and a nod to the results-oriented business community), a new proposal suggests that students be permanently assigned to schools based on achievement. That way, no student is forced into a low-achieving school simply because of their race, class, or location, and school shuffling will be kept to a minimum.
Facts & Figures
Under the current integration plan, each school has 40% of students qualifying for free lunch and 60% who do not qualify
Under the new proposal, each school would have 70% of students at grade level or higher, and 30% performing below their grade level
Best Quote
“What’s the use of living in a gated community if my kids go to school and get poor all over them?” – Stephen Colbert, Fake News Reporter
What do you think?
How will students be labeled as high or low-achieving? And what happens if a low-achieving first-grader becomes a highly successful third grader?
i.e., Who’s profiting from your news feed addiction?
Facebook isn’t publicly-traded, which means you can’t buy stock in the company on any stock market. But it seems to have found plenty of well-heeled investors without reaching out to the great unwashed masses (i.e., us).
i.e., Who’s profiting from your news feed addiction?
Facebook isn’t publicly-traded, which means you can’t buy stock in the company on any stock market. But it seems to have found plenty of well-heeled investors without reaching out to the great unwashed masses (i.e., us).
Seriously, we’ve never been so excited to watch someone talk about statistics.
In just four minutes, learn everything you need to know about the relationship between income and lifespan, and how the wildly the world has changed since 1810. Very cool.
“WASHINGTON — As the players here remake the nation’s vast regulatory system, they have been grappling with a subject that is more the province of poets and philosophers than bureaucrats: what is the value of a human life?
The answer determines how much spending the government should require to prevent a single death.
To protests from business and praise from unions, environmentalists and consumer groups, one agency after another has ratcheted up the price of life, justifying tougher — and more costly — standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency set the value of a life at $9.1 million last year in proposing tighter restrictions on air pollution. The agency used numbers as low as $6.8 million during the George W. Bush administration.”
What do you think?
How much is YOUR life worth? (We’re not just talking about your net worth, either!)
“Some of New York City’s 1,600 schools would lose more than half their teachers while others would lose none under Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to lay off 4,600 teachers if the last-in, first-out policy is not changed.
…
Under the last-in, first-out policy, schools that are new, have grown heavily in recent years or are situated in high-poverty neighborhoods would be hit the hardest. Columbia Secondary School on West 123rd Street would lose 14 of its 20 teachers, or 70%.”
What do you think?
How would you handle teacher layoffs? Is there any way to balance the city budget without cutting public school jobs?
