Main Menu

blog advertising is good for you


Five Questions For Friday

I’ve got some work to do today so I’ll just throw out a few issues for you to discuss amongst yourselves, hopefully in an intelligent manner.

  1. Schools say it would cost millions of extra dollars to do remedial education for 3rd graders who don’t know how to read.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the schools job to teach children how to read, so why should it cost extra for them to do their jobs?
  2. Every Indiana politico and his mother is hoping for an Evan Bayh/Mike Pence match up, but has anyone asked when is the last time either candidate had to face a real, serious, credible  challenger?
  3. The U.S. Supreme Court has lifted restrictions on corporations and unions and their abilities to spend money on political campaigns.  Has everyone forgotten that while money helps win elections, it’s candidates who usually rise and fall on their own abilities?
  4. Indiana lawmakers are moving forward with legislation that would allow employees to take guns to work as long the weapon remains locked in the vehicle.   Whatever happened to private property rights?
  5. Got any questions of your own?

  • http://blog.masson.us/ Doug

    #Candidates “usually” rise and fall on their own ability? You look at the folks we have in Congress and can make this claim?

    #Saying “do your job” with no extra money or no additional plan as the solution to improving kids' reading seems about as effective as King Canute telling the tide to stay put.

    #Whose private property rights? The gun/vehicle owner or the business property owner?

  • agman

    Sorry to see the post about isn't it the school's job to teach so why should it cost more—-Reality check time: the reasons for academic problems for students does not come is a simple one reason fits all so individualized instruction even to one on one may be needed to address a student's needs. The answer is not simply add more reading time to a class of 20-30 or more and expect something to happen. The mandate that public education must take every student regardless of their need places a burden on any system in trying to address such needs. As stated before at a local elementary there are several emotionally and academically challenged students such that it allows for only one or two students per teacher/aide—that is, requires 100% attention to get the child through the day. Could go on—more students each year with emotional and/or learning disabilities being diagnosed as in need of special attention. Now just how does a school address need for more personalized intensified instruction without it costing more. The cost for schooling a special needs student is over 10x what it will cost for the top academically ranked student. As a retired teacher will state that much more resources are required for seeking to meet the needs of some students than others–say the same as a grandparent with grandchildren with extra needs (individualized testing, individualized instruction, etc.)—to think no cost involved in extra requirements is just not reality. But sure plays well for the “public education” critics.

  • quiggly


    I think your right that the HB and SB moves about employers not being allowed to fire employees that lawfully carry and store firearms in their vehicles while at work is exactly about property rights.
    The person that owns their vehicle has property rights that should not be allowed to be violated.

    Within their rights they should be able to have privacy and not have that invaded for crossing into an employers parking lot.

    There are search and seizure laws that require warrants and probable cause and allowing employers to fire employees that won't consent to a search of their private property is what this all about.

    One of the bills also protects citizens from seizure of their firearms by the state and local governments during time of emergency. I would say that in time of emergency is when you would need your firearms most.

    If everyone thinks this is just about guns, its not. My opinion is that this is about protecting an individuals right to privacy from government and buisnesses.

  • Dave

    The SCOTUS decision, recognizing the 1st Amendment rights of corporations, illuminates equal protection concerns about other inequities like 1/2/3 tax caps…

    An employee's auto (and other personal effects) is personal property, the parking or storage of which is a convenience provided by other property or business owners & employers.

  • Think Again

    Leave it to Dave to tie the SCOTUS decision to property tax caps. He is consistent.

    Schools get enough money to do their job. No doubt. They need to reallocate. If they need any help, I'll be glad to help. The superintendents won't like my allocations, though.

    Firearms in private cars: uh, folks–you DO realize, don't you, that those private cars are parked on someone else's private property? The business owner's property rights trump the gun/car owner's, in every court in the land. Rightfully so. And if a business owner doesn't want guns on his property, that's it. Let's flip the equation: as a worker I'd like to know what business owners do allow guns on their property. If I work at such a business, I think I have as much of a right to know that as gun owners do to carry guns. And, I'd want to know who the gun-toters are. My business owner should point them out. Let all know. If they're licensed, it's a public record, right? The legislature eneds to worry about real problems, not guns and sugar cream pie. Please, Sine Die come quickly!

    Candidates rise and fall on their own. You gave me a good chuckle, Abdul. Give me $10 million and I could elect even YOU. I'm not sure which state I'd do it in, but I don't care. With enough money any sow's ear can become a silk purse.

    Need examples? Dan Burton, Joel Deckard, Pat Bauer, Dan Quayle, Dwayne Brown, Monroe Gray, Jimk Traficant, Rod Blagoevich, Becky Skillman…it's a bipartisan thing, Abdul. Money makes ugly pretty.

  • agman

    TA–simple solution—school boards control much of the local school situation (that part not mandated by the state) so simply get enough like minded persons –and you and they convince voters of your ability to do the job, get elected, set policies and procedures that meet your goals, hire adminstrator to make it happen (of course, no school board member would ever mix setting policy with trying to dictate personally each classroom activities.) Now there might be problem when you start stepping on scared cows such as while running for office you advocate cutting some groups favorite thing that schools are to do in that community–let's say: athletics, before school day programs, after school day programs, stick only to basics (3 Rs), etc. etc.—and of course sure you can hire a very capable adminstrator for about the union wages of a carpenter–and they should be able to do all the reports, oversight, etc. with one assistant (secretary capable of handling all things). If only achieving change were so simple there would be major competition in every community to serve on the school board, town council, county government, library board, etc. etc.–with so many people with the answers its hard to believe we every got to where we are.

  • Think Again

    Agman–bneen there, ran for it, won, served, done that…doesn't work.

    The institutionalized intertia wins. Every damned time.

    Superintendents rule. They build first, ask questions later. Ramp up the central office staff beyond any reasonable need. Their fiefdoms continue. We lose. Kids lose.

    I give up.

  • agman

    TA: would disagree on point that superintendents rule—they are employees of the school board. IF the board has enough members ready willing and able to stand up for something—it can be done IF allowed by state, etc. Supers can be fired—boards set policy, boards approve hiring (even if rubber stamped). IF a majority of a board/council/commission legally seek to do something that is within their authority it can be done. Otherwise the whole system of democratic rule using representative groups falls apart. Now have been there where I was part of majority and part of minority so know feelings of fustration and feelings of being part of something believed worth pursuing.

  • pascal

    I don't think you give up. You recognize that socialist systems like schools, cannot work effectively or efficiently. So, if you want performance you must discard the leftist, communist, socialist, progressive model of instruction (because if they can't instruct there is no way in hell they can educate). As Agman says, kids are different. Those differences are in kind as well as in degree. The lack of this realization compels our “system” to be a living lie. Be all that you can be is just a slogan but lack of intellect is the major reason why 20,000 kids in Indiana, every year, for decades, has not mastered the ability to read at grade level. The other major reason is found stencilled on the foreheads of all the graduates of the look-say schools of miseducation such as Ball Stench, IU, PU, ISU, and other catchbasins for low SAT score(bottom basement) elementary education majors. NCLB is basically recycled Rousseau, Romantic rubbish.
    Most folks are not familiar with the Coleman Report. They should be because schools exist in a society. A society that degenerates as ours has must realize that degeneration is contagious and it spreads. Failing to deal with the larger problems ensures that schools get to deal directly with the results of those.
    Mitch has done a service and a dis service by picking on the key problem of reading failure. We know that he has read Real Education by Charles Murray and so we know that he has been reminded of the extreme difficulty the task of reading actually is. It is long past time to jerk hard on the choke collar our schools of miseducation (see Andrea Neal columns over the years) but doing so does not help to change the wastes of trying to make competent those who lack the ability to become competent readers. Imagine yourself misscheduled into 5th year Russian Language studies and how well you will perform in that class. I'm suggesting that these misfits for reading drop out rather than hit their heads against a wall which they cannot ever penetrate.

    They may very well have other qualities or talents which could be developed in recompense but keeping them in the socialist system guarentees them misery and the holding back of their more talented classmates as well as being a dead loss cost. What has to die is the idea that equality is a paramount goal when, in fact, inequality is easily demonstrated in schools. Lying to kids about it doesn't help.

  • joneaster


    It shouldn't cost more, but schools are being asked to do more with less. I don't care how good you are, but teaching reading to a classroom of 30 kids isn't a good situation for anyone.

    Mitch likes the common sense…aww shucks…appeal, but he needs to come to those really big classes and try to give those struggling learners the attention they need with 29 other kids craving the same attention.

    I know…electives…sports…etc. All that should go…right? Let's totally remove the hook for some kids to actually go to school. Yeah…GREAT IDEA (rolling eyes).

  • melyssa

    Diana Vice tore into Kenley on her blog. :)

    I was thrilled when I heard the Governor lead the charge to not advance children who cannot read. If you can't read, you have no chance in life.

    How DARE those educrats not pull out every stop to make sure every single one of Indiana's children can proficiently read? They don't deserve their jobs. It's time the citizens turned our anger toward the educrats and cleaned house.

  • melyssa

    Blogger, tax activist whistleblower extraordinaire, and grandmother Diana Vice tears into Kenley!


    I LOVE IT!

  • pascal

    A lot of Indiana folks supported former Senator Edwards (D-Scum) who, protected by the liberal media, managed to lie for two years while violating a host of federal election laws (like paying his bimbo $100,000 to go away). This lying weasel of a lawyer will likely (like Bill Clinton) lose his license to practice law but why not hold him to the letter of the law and ensure he gets at least 20 years in the Pen?
    I don't know of any conservative democrats who supported him but that only leaves liberal democrats who supported him and probably still do. Instead of first amendment violations by Congress (dealing with possible corruption) why not make a statement about real corruption and send this blow-dried flake up the river for 20 plus? Or, were all these “laws” just for little folk and to be selectively enforced against little old ladies?

  • Think Again

    Pascal, I'll give you your due on Edwards. What a slimeball.

    Now, to be fair: Sen. Craig stayed in the Senate til the end of his term. Minneapolis bathroom incident notwithstanding. But, back away from the prosecution keys on your keyboard. We don't prosecute for infidelity.

  • IndyErnie

    My daughter teaches forth grade. The township system where she teaches is making cutbacks in the schools, simple things like turning off lights and unplugging equipment not in use. They are also making cuts at the teaching level while keeping the current administration positions as is.
    Several of the schools in the township have assistant principals and assistants to the principal. Both positions have pretty much the same job description but, depending on how the job is titled one job pays over 20K more per year than the other this makes no since to me. Above the principals position there are several layers in the chain of command that could be condensed into other admin positions. These administration positions represent millions each year in the budget. I don't understand why a school principal can't report directly to the superintendent.
    If these schools were ran like a business we wouldn't have any issues with the budgets. If the school board elections were moved to November I believe we would see massive changes in the boards and huge changes in how these school systems function.

  • Rico

    So you feel it is your right to know who has a legal right to carry a concealed firearm? And it is incumbent upon your employer to provide you with that information about his employees? Why not mandate that business owners reveal the religious affiliations of all in his employ? Why should he not be forced to reveal the political leanings of his employees? Or whether they read pornography, or worse yet have some in their car?

    My right to carry a concealed weapon has been affirmed by my contract with the state to do just that. Is it your business? Not really. Do you have a right to know? No. While someone like yourself (who, no doubt, pisses people off on a daily basis) may want to know who does or does not carry a weapon, that doesn't make it your right to know.

  • Rico

    And, since we're being fair, Sen. Edward Kennedy, the 'Lion of the Senate', stepped on a pregnant, drowning girl to save his own ass, let her die, walked with a misdemeanor, and was held up as a Senatorial hero by the liberal elitists. How about a dose of perspective here?

  • Think Again

    Well, I'd give you perspective if you had the story half-right, Rico. As usual, you don't. Although I don't condone Sen. Kennedy's conduct that night. It was also three decades ago. Current examples are a little more productive. Plus, the voters of Massachusetts, who knew him best, saw fit to send him back multiple times.

    That's not a perfect defense, or an excuse. Just a fact.

  • Rico

    What about the story is half-right? As usual, you make a claim, then write nothing to back it up. You don't condone Sen. Kennedy's right to let a young girl die??? What a relief!

  • Dobie

    There's isn't enough money to teach children to read? What a load of bull. How about we change some priorties? Teaching a child to read should be the #1 priority any school has. Without this basic ability, any other learning is impossible.

    Get rid of the many levels of administration. Get rid of school athletics – or make the participants pay the entire cost (including upkeep on the facilities). Get rid of free before or after school activities. Get rid of music, art and gym classes if you need to. Nothing should be more important to our schools than making sure children know how to read.

  • Think Again

    Rico, gentle poster: the “facts” surrounding Mary Jo are less than clear. Like the murky water. Nowhere has any credible report indicated Kennedy knowingly or purposely “stepped on” her as you insinuate. TO be fair, far too little is known about that night.

    What happened was awful. We may never know the whole story, but he clearly didn't do the right thing. I'm not apologizing for him. He's had to make his own peace on that subject…I'm reading his memoir now…I haven't gotten to that part yet, but will gladly report to you when I do. I can tell you this: two chapters in, it's a better read than the year's other best-selling memoir from the former Alaska governor. But, he had more life stories from which to draw.

    Inflating the facts doesn't help. On this subject, it has been a favorite pastime of the far right for decades, tho.

  • pascal

    “. But, back away from the prosecution keys on your keyboard. We don't prosecute for infidelity.” This is what I find dishonest with spinners. I think I was talking about violations of Federal Election Laws. Looks like our local prosecutor is going to have to brush up on what political contributions can and cannot be used for as well. I think Edwards should do time in a penal colony for his violations of Federal election laws which charges probably would amount to 20 years plus. But, he is a slime and democrats are slimes and so he will buy his way out because he has the money to buy his way out. As for his infidelity, since liberals have made marriages merely a contract I don't see why civil prosecutions for infidelity are out of bounds.
    The other major point was that Edwards was aided in his cover ups by the media. I'll be buying National Enquirer over MSM any day. The evidence was plain, in plain sight, and MSM missed it because they are not honest.

  • Rico

    And it's been a favorite pastime of the libs to defend scumbags. I'm sure you'll get the facts from Teddy what happened on that night. And it's about as likely that Kennedy wrote his memoirs as it is that Barry wrote his. Dr. Seuss would be a more factual read. By the way, one forensic expert said there was a shoe print on Mary Jo. Of course, I don't expect you to believe that.

    Gentle poster?? Why don't you just come out of the closet and get it over with? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

  • IndyAries

    Commenting on 3 & 4:

    #3 – When did a piece of paper become a real person…a real person that our Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution speaks of ??? Those LiaRs are really bent in the head.

    #4 – I don' recall seeing anything in Article 1 Section 32 that depends upon enabling legislation. Why do we need some statute from those elected reprobates to tell me that I have the right to defend myself? My Constitution already tells me that, and there is NOTHING in Section 32 that enable the State to say anything at all about it.

    Remember, Article 1 is our BILL OF RIGHTS – no enabling legislation is needed. Indeed, the closest that any Section comes to indicating that legislation may be needed to enable it is Section 22 (Debtor laws) & 34 (Quartering of Soldiers).

    Here is the text of Section 32. It has remained unchanged by the Electorate since ratification in 1851:

    “The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”

    Here is the 1816 version at Section 20:

    “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state; and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”

    Now, here is an example where legislation is Constitutionally mandated, from our neighbors in Illinois:

    “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” — Article 1, Section 22

    Here are more example where legislation is specifically required to enable a Constitutional mandate:

    “Knowledge and learning, generally diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; and to provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all.” – Art 8 Sec 1

    “The General Assembly shall invest, in some safe and profitable manner, all such portions of the Common School fund, as have not heretofore been entrusted to the several counties; and shall make provision, by law, for the distribution, among the several counties, of the interest thereof.” – Art 8 Sec 4

    “There shall be a State Superintendent of Public Instruction, whose method of selection, tenure, duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law.” – Art 8 Sec 8

    Now, property rights are very important. BUT…..but, but, but….does an employer whos conscience says “I don't like guns” have the right to prevent me from exercising my FUNDAMENTAL right to LIFE? Sure, courts can take that away, but DUE PROCESS is needed.

    How can an elected reprobate put pen to paper, and say that I have the 'right' to protect myself outside of my home? How did we ever allow the fundamental right supposedly protected by Section 32 to be legislated upon AT ALL!

    The following Section is almost constantly being ignored by our elected reprobates:

    “No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.” — Art 1 Sec 25

    Just because some lawyer in a robe said so?

    “Whatever happened to private property rights?” — Abdul, we are NOT in Illinois. Our Indiana Constitution does NOT authorize legislation upon this fundamental RIGHT like your Illinois Constitution does.


  • wilson46201

    At the same time there's no law prohibiting an employer from firing you at will either. There's also no law requiring a property owner to permit any and all individuals bearing arms upon his private property either.

  • Govtmule

    You talk radio junkies make teaching reading sound like it's the same as painting a fence or mowing the grass- just do your job! How about an entrance exam for kindergarten in regards to reading AND math facts? I know kids who read before kindergarten. The cowards and morons involved in this policy KNOW that this would put an end for the excuse to have charter schools and other gimmicks instead of giving public schools power and resources. It's just a lie used to dismantle schools. They pay more attention to funding the prisons.

  • Think Again

    Aires–you teabaggers need to make up your mind: which is more important? The “right to bear arms” or property rights?

    Courts have been nearly unanimous on this issue, and rightfully so. Any property owner can forbid guns on his property. Period. And it should remain so.

    If your employer doesn't allow guns on his property, and it bothers you that much, quit. Almost every gun permit law in America allows the possession of that weapon only in places where it's allowable by statute.

    Have you ever thought of this? The employer may ban weapons on his property as a liability issue. Not that you, as a responsible gun owner, would ever misuse your weapon. But what if a disturbed individual breaks into your car and takes that weapon? If the employer had not forbade possession of weapons, by employees, on company property, a strong case can be amde for shared liability. Remember, civil trials are preponderance of evidence–50% plus one.

    If the Gang of 150 Idiots passes a law which forbids employers from enacting employee rules which dislalow guns on private property, it could and should be challenged in court.

    Rico–I was being polite. You oughta try it. Just how many lemons do you suck every morning to be such a sourpuss? And no credible forensic source can be found for your claim of a footprint. Too much Drudge?

  • pascal

    Liberals don't like Drudge? Most newspaper sorts have him on speed dial, after all, Monica's dress wasn't newsworthy to them nor is the Edwards bastard. The decline in print media is directly related to their bias and blind spots caused by their prejudices.
    As for Rico, he seems to get his facts right. If a doctor pays $200,000 a year in Indiana and works 2000 hours a year then the cost of tort reform not enacted is $100 per hour, in Indiana. In other States, doctors are moving out rather than be held up by lawyer/thieves. Edwards, being the poster boy for lawyer thieves.
    And, speaking of taking costs out of education, what is the real world definition of “common school” as it was understood in 1851? Even then, not all kids could be taught to read their McGuffies (kids these days cannot read at 1851 grade level either). Murray's book, Real Education, gives a quick lesson on how difficult an intellectual task it is to be able to read well. Indiana's schools of mis education graduates don't have a clue on how to teach reading.

  • wilson46201

    If Hoosier doctors still have to pay really exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums even with Indiana's major medical tort limitations, it would seem the insurance companies are gouging the doctors (and thus the patients). It might be actually cheaper for doctors to self-insure what with the limited payouts in case of a loss in the courts!

  • IndyAries

    Think Again…I suggest that you push to amend our Indiana Constitution to permit legislation of our rights protected in Article 1.

    Currently we have 'statutes' passed by LIEyers and politicians that effectively alter our Constitution without following the provisions of Article 16.

    There is NO authority whatsoever granted to the government to require government permission (via application for a 'permit') to legislate on Art 1 Sec 32, or any other Section of Article 1, except perhaps those two I've noted in a previous post.

    For the reading impaired…re-read our Section 32, and the Illinois Section 22. Does ANYONE see ANYTHING allowing the police power, or any other government intervention, in our Section 32?

    NOPE. The only legitimate role of government is to PROTECT our Constitutional Rights that We the People have ratified.

    Government might enact legislation that further protects these rights, but NOT to diminish them.

    Besides, where would government get the legitimate AUTHORITY to make any law that collides with our Constitution?

    Our Constitution quite specifically restrains government from doing so. See Article 1 Section 25:

    “No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”

    What part of “NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED…” is difficult to understand?

    If you anti-Constitution folks don't like the simple language employed in our existing Constitution, then move to amend it via Constitutional means.

    Guess it is easier for you to get a LiaR (LIEyer in a Robe) or politician to alter the Constitution via fiat 'laws' rather than amend it.

    Strictly speaking, passing a 'law' that in any way infringes on the ability of anyone to enjoy ANY of their Constitutionally-protected RIGHTS would place provisions of the Constitution in conflict with itself.

    This cannot happen. A law that restricts a right where police power is not specifically allowed, is unconstitutional. Get over it!

    If you don't like the language of Section 32, then move to amend it.

    I like the language employed in Section 9: “No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.”

    “…but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.”

    Now, do I need an enabling statute to enforce the following Section?

    “No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.” Art 1 Sec 3

    NOPE! Not only does this Section deprive government of ANY authority to 'control', but Section 25 – quoted above – is yet another bar against government intrusion.

    Why do you believe that it's fine that government cannot infringe on your religious freedoms, yet it can infringe on your right to self defense?

    If you actually believe that government has the right to infringe on Section 32, then you must believe that it can infringe upon any OTHER right.

    This isn't about 'guns', it's about RIGHTS, and it's about government abuse of authority.

    If government wants the constitutional right to legislate (i.e. control) then they should offer an amendment to We the People to grant that power to them.

    Think Again, here is a Section that I know is near and dear to you, as you've oft times commented on it:

    “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.” — Art 1 Sec 6

    Do we need the government to enact a law to tell us that no government money can be used “for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.”?

    I don't need government legislation to tell me this. I can read the clear, simple language that was ratified by the common man in 1851.

    Can I gather a large crowd of people together to consult in public…say on the sidewalk by the Statehouse, without getting permission from government? Isn't there some LAW that says I must get a permit (permission) from government BEFORE I can have such a gathering? You betcha!

    Is such a law Constitutional?

    “No law shall restrain any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good; nor from instructing their representatives; nor from applying to the General Assembly for redress of grievances.” — Art 1 Sec 31

    “NO LAW…: What part of that is difficult to understand? If one must get government permission, then one is “restrained”. Could I be arrested? YES. Arrested for exercising MY RIGHT to assemble.

    How can government even pass such a law, a law that not only collides with Section 31, but also Section 25?

    Once AGAIN, if you don't like the language of our Constitution, then take action to amend it via Article 16 — which is the ONLY way to 'legally' alter our FUNDAMENTAL LAW.

    (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art…) – Article 16

  • pascal

    All a doctor wants to do is to practice his art. All lawyers want to do is sue doctors for 30 to 50% of whatever they can steal. Often, for the cost of a letter they can be bought off by the insurance company who doesn't really wish to litigate. A better idea might be to remove medical malpractice from Torts all together and let the lawyers starve for awhile. Saving that $100 per hour plus all these stupid tests and records keeping for trials could get a whole lot more medical practice delivered to patients.
    It is a myth that Indiana has real tort reform. What is does have is too many ambulance chasers-a term of derision from back in the day when law was a profession.

  • CEWF

    Pence has made to big of a name for himself in the House, why would he risk it versus Byah? Not that I don't think he can win, but he has too much to lose.

  • Dave

    Employees & invited guests arrive as they are, with property of their own, sovereign & not the property of their hosts or employers.

    Do police have superior rights somehow, or, should they be denied entry to the properties of 2nd Amendment objectors (pursuit, investigations, etc.)?

    The concerned should pay more attention to their “guest lists.” What about traveling reps etc., with carry permits, calling on 2nd Amendment objectors? The best insurance for employers are their hiring & management practices; a reasonable hedge, not guarantee (where do those exist anyway?).

    These 2nd Amendment objections swerve into the abstraction that the Constitution is somehow a charter of negative or unenumerated rights. Exactly what guarantee or protection does an employer have, by insisting that employees not keep a firearm in their car? Answer: none.

    Legislators counterfeit “guarantees,” 99.9% of which are pretense.

  • CEWF

    Your talking about Risk Retention Groups. Many already do.

  • pascal

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487… Wherein the case for a Pulitizer Prize is documented and outfits like Gannett should be shunned. Is is not telling that duh media can't discover about Obama all those questions Meyessa asked about? Duh media would have you believe that in the history of Chicago there has only been one simon pure elected official? In the case of Obama, one would not have to dig very deep at all but, then again, with staff being short, investigative journalism has to be left to the national enquirer.

  • IndyAries

    Common School = public schools. I believe the 'common' part is that the goal was to have all public schools essentially be the same — kinda like McDonald's.

    I should be able to learn that 2+2=4 at P.S. 101 and a school in Carmel.

    “Knowledge and learning, generally diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; and to provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common (PUBLIC) Schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all.”

    Personally, I don't believe that Article 8 Section 1 provided the authority for Indiana to enact compulsory education statutes. Why?

    Look at the language employed. “it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement;”

    “to encourage”! This does NOT mean to mandate. The only 'mandate' that I can see is that the GA must “provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all.”

    In other words, the GA must provide for a general and uniform system of public schools, where tuition is without charge, and the public schools are open to all. THAT is the mandate.

    Further, the method of paying for these public schools was specifically laid out in Section 2 of Article 8:

    “The Common (PUBLIC) School fund SHALL CONSIST OF…”

    Article 9 of the 1816 Constitution spoke of education. However, the GA never funded it. That is the 'evil' that was supposedly addressed in 1851 by Article 8 Section 2.

    Quoting from a portion of Art 9 Sec 1: “The General Assembly shall from, time to time, pass such laws as shall be calculated to encourage intellectual, Scientifical, and agricultural improvement, by allowing rewards and immunities for the promotion and improvement of arts, sciences, commence, manufactures, and natural history; and to countenance and encourage the principles of humanity, honesty, industry, and morality.”

    Another quote from Sec 1 shows that they were speaking of public schools in the year 1816: “and the monies which may be raised out of the sale of any such lands, or otherwise obtained for the purposes aforesaid, shall be and remain a fund for the exclusive purpose of promoting the interest of Literature, and the sciences, and for the support of seminaries and public schools.”

    Hope this helps

  • Dave

    Public schools have more to do with adult day care than education; buggy whip “logic.”

    Those who sign on for a job presumably know how to do it & 70% failure rates (IPS, 30% grad rates) are a destructive exercise in “how not.”

    “Cowards & morons” are those hiding behind the apron strings of the nanny state. Educrats, claim “the kids” while blaming them, for their professional failures as adults.

  • patrick

    This debate has been waged previously, but I just want to say that you are 110% wrong to suggest getting rid of athletics, gym classes, and other extracurricular activities. You have to take a more realistic definition of what education is. I say education is learning, and I learned a whole heck of a lot more in athletics than I did in just about any substantive class in high school. I learned about teamwork, hard work, dedication, perseverance, sacrifice, camaraderie, and personal responsibility, just to name a few. The values I learned in athletics translated into every day life after high school and made me a better person. Athletics does this for thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of high school kids every year. Also, as you can tell, even though my high school offered athletics, I learned how to read and write as well. By the way, you should know that a lot of the athletic departments' budgets are not taken from the schools' general revenues. Most high schools have booster clubs and fundraisers to raise money for their athletic departments, which means a lot of the funding for athletic programs is not public money. In conclusion, I wish you knew how wrong you were to suggest that schools eliminate their athletic programs.

  • IndyAries

    More like 4 decades ago…but still relevant.

    “What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished drowned.” — Ted Kennedy on Katrina.

    I wonder if that was also Mar Jo's last thought. Oh, and just WHO was the father of Mar Jo's baby? Guess we'll never know, huh?

  • John Doe

    “If your employer doesn't allow guns on his property, and it bothers you that much, quit.”

    We could use this type of logic for everything:
    “If you don't like abortion being illegal in the US, move to another country.”
    “If you don't like the tax rate in the US, move to another country.”
    “If you don't like paying for welfare layabouts and bums, move to another country.”
    “If you don't like your tax dollars going to fund wars, move to another country.”
    “If you want very relaxed gun laws, move to Somalia.”

    “If the Gang of 150 Idiots passes a law which forbids employers from enacting employee rules which dislalow guns on private property, it could and should be challenged in court.”

    Well, same thing happened in Florida. State courts upheld it, so it went to a Federal Court which upheld a portion of it. I am not sure if businesses are continuing on in the appeals process or not. I guess if we are all about private property and business rights, we need to do away with fire codes and food inspections?

  • Joel Deckard

    Joel Deckard?

    I thought he was a pretty good guy.

    Who are you, ThinkAgain? I'm sure there are plenty of people who would have YOU on their list.

  • pascal

    Would it really cost $49,000,000 a year to ensure that all 3rd graders in Indiana could read at 3rd grade level? It is interesting to see Luke and Mitch dance around this issue which has never bothered any democrats. If 20,000 kids per year, for decades, have advanced to 4th grade without being able to read at grade level then that lack might be a force of nature? Neither Republican is going back to Real Education for the answers. ” Low intellectual ability is the reason why some students don't perform at grade level.” “…the bottom third of the distribution….are just not smart enough to become literate or numerate in more than a rudimentary sense.” In addition, the numbers of those who cannot read have almost uniformily, in Indiana, been mal instructed by their government school instructors posing as educators. Mitch has read this book and Luke probably has as well,so, what are they really doing? Liberating the government schools from false and stupid expectations would be welcomed by all, even the bottom third.