The American Spectator

ORDINARY FOLKS LIKE US
Re: Robert Stacy McCain’s The Ordinary American:

Common sense ain’ t common, and “ordinary,” as it certainly applies to Joe Wurzelbacher, sure ain’t ordinary. I’m 64, conservative and Christian, and I aspire to be as “ordinary” as Joe. Thank God for him.
— Mike Smith
Niles, Michigan

Welcome back to the 1770s. The LibTories want to control hoi polloi, who exist to finance zany academic schemes devised by those more inclined to think than to observe.

What is needed now is what was needed then: Revolution. Only force will end the farce.
— David Govett
Davis, California

PRIDE BEFORE A FALL
Re: Thirsty McWormwood’s Dear Arlen:

I’ve been wondering how ol’ Arlen must be feeling about the Democrat “Big Tent” and this piece renders a nice summary. In the world of “hard hardball” the (now) junior senator from PA seems to have plunked himself on the posterior, which, I must admit, is a very impressive feat.

Hubris can deliver awesome and fascinating lessons. I hope that the RNC leadership understands the lessons here, but I’m not so sure. Hint: look beyond the spectacle of ol’ Arlen himself to the lesson about trifling with this bunch of Dems. It’s a lesson neither President Bush could master.

As to the (now) junior Senator from PA, this is what “just desserts” looks like, right?
— Reid Bogie
Waterbury, Connecticut

POOR MEANS NO CHOICES
Re: Joseph Lawler’s No One Vouching for Them:

I believe that Joseph Lawler is mistaken when he writes, “Furthermore, neither he (Obama) nor Arne Duncan entrusted their own children to the D.C. public school system, sending them to prestigious private schools instead.”

It is true that the Obama girls study at a prestigious private school, but I think Duncan lives in the Alexandria public school district, and sends his children to public school. But this explains the resistance of white suburbia to vouchers and school choice. Professionals like Duncan work hard so that they can choose their neighborhood. The primary factor in the choice of neighborhood is the quality of the school district. White upper-middle class America already has “school choice,” because they can choose where to live. Of course, this is true of Black upper-middle class America. Happily, prosperous white people generally have no problems with prosperous Black people living in their school district. They may be concerned, however, should families like Fields, or Shavazz, with average incomes of $24,300 per year, have a school choice that includes their suburban school.
— Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

All good socialists remember (if not truly understand) the teachings of Hegel, Marx and Lenin.  Hegel wrote, “The true courage of civilized nations is readiness for sacrifice in the service of the state, so that the individual counts as only one amongst many. The important thing here is not personal mettle but aligning oneself with the universal.” So, where is the surprise that Obama, his acolytes and the Democratic s are quickly willing to “consign these 1700 kids to mediocrity”?   The NEA, like all unions no matter what the level, has a fiduciary responsibility to its members, to protect its membership; the relationship between member and union is based on tshis assumption of mutual self-interests, but experienced members of unions have learned that the numerous person in position of power, much like many members of Congress, choose to supersede their interest above all others.  This is certainly the case in Washington D.C. and the strangulation of it voucher programs.     The problems with the school system are myriad, and choice is but one answer. Quality teachers want to teach. We do not fear school choice vouchers. No one tool is going to fix our nation’s schools. Choice does not address the choking levels of bureaucracy that kill both innovation and initiative. Privatizing schools, charter schools and alternative schools are a great place to start, but what is called for is more than just rhetoric about vouchers.
  What can be more revolutionary in today’s climate than going against the growing momentum of federalism? The radical (though most) logical solution is block grants to the states. If the federal government must be involved at all, let it set standards (and set them high, for American schools still produces some of the greatest minds in the world), otherwise, let the federal government get out of the way.  States have proven to be hot houses of innovation in many areas, including health care and welfare reform.  A one size fits all, such as NCLB, is a formula for waste, bureaucracy and inefficiency.  Fifty experiments in fifty states not only increases the probability of finding many solid solutions at lower costs, but it also returns authority and responsibility to where it belongs: with the people. Letting go of power is antithetical to Washington’s ethos, but this is, at least for now, the government of the people for the people.   Teachers are not the problem. Teachers are part of the solution.  And if you are reading this, please remember to thank a teacher.
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

RELATIVE WAGES
Re: Ralph R. Reiland’s The Collectivist Fix Is In:

Having bought my first and last American-designed vehicle in 1973, normally I wouldn’t have a dog in this fight. I wouldn’t buy an American design if the Government gave me the money.  The present situation bears on part of the reason I wouldn’t own one. That doesn’t mean I think the current situation is the least bit desirable nor do I think those that want American designs are going to like the outcome of Government Motors when all is said and done.

When I bought that ‘73 Ford Pinto, UAW labor cost (wage and benefit) was something like $22.00 an hour. Not long after this Chrysler was headed to its first bankruptcy.  I was making less than $3.00 so my wages and benefits cost to my employer was around $4-4.50 an hour. I had a two year degree at that time. By the time Chrysler did go bankrupt I was well into my four year degree and my cost had risen to around $7-8.00 an hour. It wasn’t until around 2000 that I actually matched the hourly rate of the average UAW worker who needs but a high school diploma to start out at $28.00 an hour. Most people with an undergraduate degree can relate to where I’m coming from here. To add insult to injury here, the people who made my current car 20 years ago make essentially the same hourly rate as their brothers in the UAW but their cost is similar to my cost after 37 years in my profession. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the UAW’s 50% higher wages and benefits cost makes everything they make cost at least $2000.00 more expensive than their non-union competitors. I used to work with rocket scientists so I’ve confirmed this with them. Why do you think Chevy is pushing the $40,000 Volt rather than a direct competitor to what is now a $21,000 Toyota Prius? How many people in this country do you think can really afford a $40,000 vehicle?