Skip to main content

Morning round-up of the local and the just plain bizarre

The Delaware DREAM act is back in the news now.  It's controversial, and it is one of the few areas I disgree with my own university.  Delaware State University needs a plan to help high-performing undocumented students like both UD and Del Tech have.

Bullying in Brandywine School District remains in the news, as the brutal video of a 7-year-old being beaten by an 11-year-old on a school bus goes viral.  Unfortunately, the News Journal uses a misleading headline that suggests the school district has taken far more sweeping corrective action than has actually been the case.

There is a non-event, sort of protest (that only draws five people) at Lewis Elementary School in Red Clay.

The Wilmington City Council rediscovers due process.  Sort of.

And in national news, President Obama and the Agriculture Department introduce legislation to tell farm parents what chores they may and may not assign to their own children.  Seriously.

But in international news, the Prime Minister of Iceland is convicted of . . . not having enough meetings.

Strange, strange world.

Comments

Hube said…
On what evidence do you base you comment against the BSD, Steve?
I didn't intend to criticize BSD; I intended to criticize the WNJ.

The article title suggested to me that some sort of massive, sweeping safety changes had been made district-wide.

When you finally get to what change was made, way down on the continuing page, it's one aide on that specific bus.

Which is a proportional response, but not what the headline led to me to believe.
Dana Garrett said…
Yes, heaven forbid that the government prohibit parents from compelling their children to engage in "hazardous occupations" in the agricultural industry lest there be an infringement of a parent's "liberty" to abuse their children in ways that are SIMILARLY prohibited by child labor laws for the non-agricultural working sector.
Hube said…
From the Dept. of Labor press release:

Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.

Yeah, can't have kids sweeping out a grain elevator or bin, or opening doors at a livestock auction! Heaven forbid!
Dana Garrett said…
All places that are either dangerous or unhealthy (e.g. grain elevators). It's ludicrous to think.that the government would arbitrarily impose these restrictions and risk alienating voting farmers. There must be a.compelling need to impose them.
Hube said…
With all due respect, government arbitrarily imposes [silly] restrictions all the time. And why would the current administration care about alienating farmers? The vast majority are red staters anyway!
Dana Garrett said…
Hube, do you really believe that government agencies impose these kind of restrictions w/ no rationale whatsoever...that they impose them just for the hell of it?
Dana Garrett said…
Well, congradts to those who opposed these rules because now the government has decided to scrap them. But notice this section of the article:

"Although family farms were actually exempted from the proposed rules, many opponents cast them as an assault on family farms and rural traditions, saying the White House wanted to keep children from doing even small chores. In fact, the rules would only have affected minors who were formally employed and on farm payrolls, preventing them from operating heavy machinery, handling tobacco crops, working in grain silos or performing other jobs considered potentially dangerous."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/white-house-child-labor-agriculture_n_1458701.html
Hube said…
Dana: Gov. officials can always come up with a rationale for new rules and restrictions. Being in the field that I am for over 20 years, I've had more of enough of my fill of people who feel the need to justify their positions by imposing just this: ridiculous rules and regulations.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...