India shot down one of its own satellites the other day and is proudly proclaiming that it is now a “space poser.” (Oops, I accidentally mistyped the word and got poser instead of power. That might be prescient.) It wants to be a space power.
The point that I wanted to make, aside from the inadvertent one above was that each time a space object is shattered by smashing it to smithereens it adds to the load of “junk” that is circling the planet. This article expresses the problem.
The final paragraph sparked an idea. Since it is possible to monitor each piece of the “smithereened” satellite, India, and any other country that adds to the load of space junk, should be charged a fine for every piece that strikes the earth and does damage. A lawsuit for damages is often trebled as a deterrence to further offenses. Maybe the world court should award damage caused times three for every space junk strike recorded and reported.
In the old days, we simply tossed trash out of the car window, not worrying about any trash buildup. But that was quickly countered by laws that have, by and large, kept the highways and byways reasonably trash free. And culprits are fined significantly if they can be apprehended.
We need a “Lady Bird Johnson” to advocate for clean space-ways.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Tennessee Governor Lee's Education Plan
Governor Lee’s education plan is pure genius. He has “split the baby” without killing the baby. As I read the objections I was impressed with what seemed to be a bit of disingenuity.
The first argument was that taking the money away from local school districts would further erode their ability to educate the students who remained. Note: the plan will offer a stipend to students in failing schools to attend an alternative education venue. The plan includes a provision that will provide reimbursement funds to the schools to compensate them for the “lost student revenue.” Governor Lee answered that objection before it was raised. With great difficulty, I will refrain from speculating on the motivations of the protesters.
A second objection was that many of the failing students live in rural areas and have no access to alternate educational options, so the plan will not help them. That is a self-refuting argument. If they cannot leave because of no alternatives, the whole issue is a moot point. The objection seems to have the purpose of keeping the kids in the public schools. According to their own argument, that will happen. Perhaps it should include an incentive to initiate education options in “under served” areas. Would that please them?
The third point raised is that it is unconstitutional to take money and “give” it to religious entities. The Supreme Court has ruled on that time and time again. The most recent one that I can recall is the church school in Kansas, I believe, that was given state money to upgrade the safety of its playground. This upgrading program was open to secular schools and this school qualified. SCOTUS was clear in that legitimate state goals were achieved with the awards, and refusing that aid to the church school was not permitted.
In short, the Governor’s plan furthers the educational goal of the state. The protest that schools will “waste or not efficiently utilize” the funds falls short as well. The kids are failing in the status quo. Keeping them there serves no purpose. The upgraded funding might even help the struggling public schools.
Protesting the plan seems disingenuous at best and self serving at its worst. If everyone truly is interested in the students’ welfare, why not try something different? As the old saying goes, it is insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.
The first argument was that taking the money away from local school districts would further erode their ability to educate the students who remained. Note: the plan will offer a stipend to students in failing schools to attend an alternative education venue. The plan includes a provision that will provide reimbursement funds to the schools to compensate them for the “lost student revenue.” Governor Lee answered that objection before it was raised. With great difficulty, I will refrain from speculating on the motivations of the protesters.
A second objection was that many of the failing students live in rural areas and have no access to alternate educational options, so the plan will not help them. That is a self-refuting argument. If they cannot leave because of no alternatives, the whole issue is a moot point. The objection seems to have the purpose of keeping the kids in the public schools. According to their own argument, that will happen. Perhaps it should include an incentive to initiate education options in “under served” areas. Would that please them?
The third point raised is that it is unconstitutional to take money and “give” it to religious entities. The Supreme Court has ruled on that time and time again. The most recent one that I can recall is the church school in Kansas, I believe, that was given state money to upgrade the safety of its playground. This upgrading program was open to secular schools and this school qualified. SCOTUS was clear in that legitimate state goals were achieved with the awards, and refusing that aid to the church school was not permitted.
In short, the Governor’s plan furthers the educational goal of the state. The protest that schools will “waste or not efficiently utilize” the funds falls short as well. The kids are failing in the status quo. Keeping them there serves no purpose. The upgraded funding might even help the struggling public schools.
Protesting the plan seems disingenuous at best and self serving at its worst. If everyone truly is interested in the students’ welfare, why not try something different? As the old saying goes, it is insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)