School Choice: It's Your Right

Nothing in life is guaranteed but an education certainly makes things more certain. If you weren't born into a wealthy family or fortunate enough to have the right societal connections, then the key to making your dreams more attainable is an education. As Americans we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our founding fathers realized the integral role an education had in the pursuit of the latter. Thomas Jefferson is known to have promoted the creation of a public school system. Few doubt the value of an education but many doubt the effectiveness of our current public school system.

If the government provides a service, that service must be equally available to all citizens. Currently there is equal access but unfortunately many only have access to ineffective schools. For the most part this is not intentional but simply a result of circumstance. The sad state of schools in economically poor districts is a result of a shortage of supply of competent and effective teachers and administrators. The fact is, teachers and administrators have a choice in the schools for which they work, and they often choose the more affluent higher-paying schools over their poorer counterparts. So if choice is good for teachers and administrators why is not good for students?

Choice is an essential component for improving the U.S. school system. The quality of your life may depend on the quality of your education. If your tax dollars can pay for a better alternative than the public schools in your municipality then the government should not limit your choice, and therefore your pursuit of happiness.

Those who oppose choice in school selection claim it will result in the the closure of many public schools and job loss for many public school employees. Why should these schools remain open if they are ineffective and their employees sub-par? Bad schools exist because the government continues to finance their failures. It's only natural that we take our money elsewhere if we are disappointed in the service we receive. The same should be true for public schools.

Current U.S. Wars

War in Afghanistan
War against Al Qaeda
War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on the Middle Class
War on Poverty
War on Christmas
War on Crime
War on Fundamentalism
War on AIDS
War on Cancer
War on Obesity
War against Men
War against Women
War on Want
War on Science
War on Illegal Immigration
War on Journalism
War on Guns
War on Christians
War on the Environment
War in Iraq (not officially a war)

I guess a war on taxes is out of the question, then we wouldn't be able to fund all our other wars.

Lou Dobbs: The Epitome of Neo-Journalism

The Lou Dobbs Tonight show is the second most watched broadcast on CNN after Larry King Live. 800,000 Americans tune in each night to watch this self-proclaimed journalist at work. The show pays particularly close attention to the issues of border security, illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, and free trade. The problem is, as is common with most "news" broadcasts on 24-hour news networks, Dobbs' coverage of these and other subjects is laced with his own personal opinions.

The problem with injecting opinion into news is simple: eventually the facts will be distorted to reflect and support a particular viewpoint. Dobbs is not the only so-called journalist on television guilty of this action, but is among the best at injecting his opinion into reports on issues of the day. Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and Glenn Beck are other characters who have also mastered this craft.

Fortunately not every commentator on 24-hour news networks claims to be a journalist, but the effects of their broadcasts are the same. It has become increasingly more difficult to find factual news reports. Instead, viewers find themselves watching one person's opinion of the news. Of course, this opinion has to be strong and compelling or it will never draw the ratings (read revenue) necessary to make the show worthy of broadcast. I am sure you can now see the conflict for the 24-hour news networks: accurate and straight forward reporting versus usually accurate opinion laden news that makes money.

Their choice has been pretty obvious. Faced with increasing competition and a need to distinguish themselves, 24-hour news networks have sacrificed a little integrity for a lot of cash. How else can you explain how individuals like Dobbs are allowed to place greater emphasis on their viewpoint of a story than the story itself? This turn for the worse would not be so infuriating if the networks did not pretend to be (to borrow a phrase) fair and balanced.

On top of this pretension we now have commentators like Dobbs insisting they are journalists. For the record, journalists simply report the news while commentators both report and provide commentary. Its hard to argue that Dobbs and his ilk stop at just reporting. For example, I am sure you know Dobbs' opinion of President Bush's free trade policy or Glenn Beck's opinions of Iran.

Its fair to say that there is no such thing as 24-hour news. There are a few hours of infomercials, a documentary or two, a comedic take on the current events, a few hours of commentary, and maybe a couple hours of actual straight news. Now there is even less news. Perhaps some creative lawyer should file a lawsuit for false advertising. After all, CNN doesn't stand for Cable News Network; no, CNN=Politics. Didn't you know?