The Joy of Free Stuff

     Most people like free stuff.  "Free" is one of the most
alluring words in the English language.  Advertisers endlessly
troll with "free" to lure customers.  "Free" is usually a lie.

     In the strictest sense "free" is always a lie.  Nothing is
free.  Someone must pay with the effort it takes to produce "free
stuff."  Even the air you breathe isn't free.  Someone must
produce food to provide the energy to inhale the air.  Free at
most means that someone else pays.

     Most of the free stuff isn't even free for the person who
gets it.  Stores abound with bottles and boxes proclaiming "25
percent more FREE."  How free is that 25 percent?

     Take an empty bottle to the store.  Ask a clerk to pour
your free 25 percent into the bottle.  If the 25 percent is really
free, the clerk will at least let you pour out your free share.  Or,
tell the clerk that you don't want to buy five bottles with 25
percent free in each.   Instead say you prefer one free bottle. 
See how far you get.  The most that "25 percent free" means is
that the price was reduced.

     Some free stuff is really free to you.  Merchants and
others give free samples to introduce new products.  Of course,
if you start buying the product, you may be paying for your free
sample.

     Some of the most costly free stuff is that for which you
pay nothing at the time you get the free stuff.  How can that be?

     Christmas gifts you receive are free, if you don't consider
the social obligation to reciprocate.   How often does someone
get a present that they don't really want?  The golden rule strikes
again.  He who has the gold makes the rules.  He who provides
the gold to pay for the gift can select the gift.

     When we rely on free stuff, we give up control of our
lives.  We get what someone else wants us to have.  Ask
teenagers about that.  Many teens aren't pleased with getting
what their parents want them to have.  They can grow out of
that problem.

     When family and friends provide free stuff they
commonly try to provide things the recipient wants.  Even then
they may fail.

     Donors who use their own resources to provide free stuff
are likely to want that free stuff to be of value to the recipient. 
Second level donors who take from producers and give to
someone else are less concerned.  They operate on the principle
of easy come easy go.  Second level donors include common
thieves and government.

     The major source of "free stuff" is government. 
Individuals endlessly demand more, more and more.  Free
education, free medical services, free roads, free rides, free food,
free housing, free cell phones, etc., etc.

     Customers are kings.  When you buy you can exercise
the full power of your kingship.  The merchant provides what
you want at a price you are willing to pay, or you don't buy.

     Those who rely on free stuff lose their kingship.  They
must settle for what their donor is willing to provide.  Ask
families trapped in failing inner city schools how they like the
free schools?

     The more people rely on free stuff from government, the
more they surrender control over their own lives.  The idea that
laws can protect the recipients of government gifts from control
by government is bogus.

     How much control do individuals have over free
government schools and roads?  Control over free government
medical services is rapidly slipping from those who receive the
free services.  The road to serfdom is paved with free stuff.

     Not only that, those who get the "free stuff" are paying
for it.  They are paying for their own enslavement.  Those who
rely on government free stuff are trapped forever to live the life
of a teenager with parents who don't know much about them, or
care.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

The Brits Are Back

     A recent article brought me to the realization that I have
been neglecting the Brits.  It has been ages (however long that
is) since I undertook to make fun of a British folly.  This doesn't
mean the Brits have given up the pursuit of the silly and
ridiculous.

     Their past antics simply set the bar so high that their
recent follies just don't stand out.  Requiring farmers to give toys
to their pigs and treating sandwich wrap as industrial waste are
hard to top.  Requiring small chested police women to wear
florescent vests was a cut above the ordinary too.

     I don't know if their latest act rises above, or falls below,
their prior achievements.  It is at least competitive.

     An Israeli company, SodaStream, produces a machine for
making carbonated drinks at home.  SodaStream's adds have
been banned from British Television.  How bad must something
be to earn a ban from British television?

     What horrors do these adds include?  Television
advertisements in Britain are regulated by something called
Clearcast.  Clearcast found the atrocity in the adds.  Supposedly
the adds denigrate the bottled drink industry.

     Can anyone even dream of anything more horrible and
dastardly than denigrating the competition?  Aren't we fortunate
that no advertiser in the USA would ever dream of suggesting
that the competition's products are inferior, or even dangerous?

     What did SodaStream try to inflict on innocent television
viewers?  According to Newsmax "SodaStream  . . .  promotes
itself as environmentally friendly because it reduces the use of
plastic bottles and aluminum cans.  The ad shows plastic bottles
disappearing as people at home use their SodaStream machines."

     Can you even imagine an advertiser in the USA daring to
suggest its product was more environmentally friendly than a
competing product?  Of course, New York mayor Blomberg
denigrated large sodas to the point of making them illegal in
New York City.  Perhaps he should be banned from television. 
Maybe he is banned from British television.

     I can imagine two possible explanations for the British ad
ban.  One is, the British bottled soda industry has a strong lobby. 
That is something we in the USA should understand.  The
makers of screw in florescent bulbs lobbied successfully for the
ban of incandescent light bulbs.  It is even reasonable to suggest
that they denigrated the incandescent light bulb industry.

     The other explanation lurks in the world of political
correctness.  Many monsters lurk in that world.  In this case two
cannons of political correctness clashed head on.  Which is the
most important?  Should one advocate for the environment or be
anti Israeli?

     SodaStream's plant is located in West Bank country
which some consider to be the domain of those people
commonly called Palestinians.  Never mind that the plant's
employees are Arabs.  To some the plant is still evil and must
not be allowed to promote its products in Britain.

     I wonder how much anguish the politically correct suffer
when forced to choose between two of their favorite children?  
Perhaps we should take a collection to provide grief counseling
for them.  On second though, not a good idea.  That would
probably be deemed politically incorrect and cause them more
grief.  On third thought, should we waste our time worrying
about the self torture experienced by those who propagate the
squirrelly ideas that flow from the world of political correctness?

     If the people supporting the ad ban were half clever they
would have banned the adds for promoting soda rather than for
encouraging the elimination of cans and bottles.  At least they
could have been at peace with themselves, assuming the
politically correct can ever be at peace with anyone.

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

Flipping the Classroom

     A recent educational innovation is sometimes called
"flipping the classroom."  It has nothing to do with obscene
gestures.  The "it was good enough for grandpa, it is good
enough for me" crowd may consider it to be obscene.

     Schools have been decrepit and counter productive dating
back to at least the time I was confined in them.  I hated school. 
Though I have been out of the school loop for decades, I still
cringe whenever school begins a new session.

     I was well aware of many of the flaws in schools long
before I served out my sentence.  Most of what I have learned I
found outside of school.  Most of what I learned while in school
didn't come from the classroom.  It is a good thing.

     My final two years in engineering school I mostly kicked
the habit of attending classes.  Usually when I did attend, the
most I got was a good nap.  Most of what transpired in the
classroom didn't make a meaningful contribution to my
education.

     Once I made a ridiculous mistake on an exam.  It was the
product of half reading the question.  The instructor wrote a
comment on the exam paper:  "Are you sleeping during the
exams now too?"

     Flipping the classroom caught my attention partly because
it addresses one of my greatest annoyances with the school
system.  I despise lectures.  Before Gutenberg lectures may have
made sense.

     Knowledge was stored in the minds and notes of the
instructors.  The students were stenographers who adsorbed the
knowledge into their own minds and notes.  Invention of the
printing press made lecturing an obsolete waste of time.

     Instructors could, and did, print out their knowledge and
distribute it to those interested  in it.  Still, most of those
instructors kept on lecturing.  Old habits die hard.  One of my
college instructors spent substantial parts of class reading the
text book to the students.

     I got an A in that class.  I also got an A in the next term
of the same subject.  My  former instructor wrote most of the
text book for that class.  I took the final exam without taking the
class.  I guess I could read the text as well as the instructor
could read it to me.  I also read much faster than he talked.

     Half of the flip in "flipping the classroom" is taking
lectures out of the classroom.  The instructor puts the lecture
material on disks, computers, the Internet, or some other place
where the students can access it anytime they want to.  They can
also pause to dwell on points they don't understand the first time
through.

     In a live lecture, if you miss it, it's gone.  If the rest of
the lecture builds on the point the student missed, he might as
well join me in a nap for the rest of the lecture.  The student can
also fast forward through material he has already learned.

     In the traditional classroom the students are treated to a
lecture, often a monologue.  Then the students are assigned
questions and problems to struggle with on their own.  In the
flipped classroom students work on the questions in class where
the teacher works with those who need help.

     As the saying goes "The proof of the pudding is in the
tasting."  How does the flipped classroom taste?

     According to an article from the Mackinac Center,
Clintondale High School had a problem.  An average of over 41
percent of freshmen were failing four basic subjects.  Clintondale
flipped.  The failure rate dropped to 15 percent the first year. 
For Clintondale students the pudding was delicious.

     There is still much more to explore in educational
innovations.  At least the wave of innovation is finally lapping at
the beach of traditional schools.  That wave will grow into a
tsunami.  The masters of the traditional schools must choose. 
They can either ride the wave to the future, or drown.

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

How Should Public Sector Unions Be Reformed?

     Last time I considered the need to reform public sector
unions. I barely got into considering the possible reforms.  This
time I will dig a little deeper.

     I briefly mentioned the need to eliminate exclusive
bargaining rights.  Unions should not be allowed to force
representation on to anyone who doesn't want to be represented. 
Likewise, unions shouldn't be forced to represent non members.

     What might this accomplish?  I will use teachers' unions
as an example.  Most union contracts require the same pay scale
for all teachers.  Tax collectors and garbage collectors don't
perform the same job merely because they are both called
collectors.

     Teachers don't all perform the same job merely because
they are all called teachers.  There is little similarity in the skills
of phys. ed. teachers and science teachers.  They have different
training, different skills, and compete in different job markets. 
The same is true of history teachers, English teachers, and many
others.

     The one size fits all pay scale doesn't work well.  It has
created a shortage of science and math teachers for so long as I
can remember.  The unions didn't create the one size fits all pay
scale.  They do cling tenaciously to it.  One claim is that all
teachers put in the same effort, thus all should get the same pay. 
This is bogus.  Employers pay for production, not effort.

     With teachers able to opt out of union representation
those who have skills more valuable than average would have
the opportunity to negotiate higher pay. (Please note, right to
work doesn't allow employees to opt out of union representation. 
All employees are still represented by the union.)  Schools
would have the opportunity to employ teachers who would not
accept the lower pay.  This would also pressure unions to
negotiate contracts with higher pay for teachers with skills that
command higher wages in the market.

     Successful enterprises must be managed to efficiently
produce products.  Any enterprise whose main mission is the
short term benefit of its employees is headed for trouble. 
Teachers' unions, and most other unions, have far too much
power over dismissal of poorly performing employees.  This too
must change if government enterprises are to efficiently provide
quality services.

     Employers, government or otherwise, must balance many
interests.  Private employers must please the customers,
investors, employees and suppliers.  In the unfree markets we
now have, they must also put much effort into pleasing
government bureaucrats.

     Generally, public employers can be cavalier, for a while
at least, about pleasing the taxpayer-customers.  Government
enterprises are even more dominated by bureaucrats than are
most private enterprises.

     The point is that any enterprise that heavily favors
pleasing any one of the interests will end up being inefficient
and wasteful.  Under the thumb of unions most government
enterprises lean way too far toward pleasing the unions.  How
much this bias pleases the individual employees is far from
clear.

     Union control over government enterprises must be rolled
back.  How to do this without going too far is unclear.  The
simple answer is to end collective bargaining for government
employees.  That seems to be going too far in the other
direction.  We should at least try less drastic measures first.

     In an environment of liberty negotiations and contracts
are voluntary.  No one is forced to participate.  Negotiations take
place between individuals and groups that believe a mutually
advantageous relationship may be possible.  When they can't
reach agreement, they go their separate ways.

     Labor negotiations should be the same.  No forced
negotiations.  The employee's remedy is the same as anyone
else's remedy.  If he doesn't like the terms offered by the
employer, he can move on.  This is the relationship nearly 90
percent of employees have with their employers.  So, don't even
bother claiming it won't work.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

Are All Unions Created Equal?

     The controversy over public sector unions isn't about to
go away.  Public sector unions, and the promises of unfunded
benefits they have extracted, will be a problem for some time
into the future.  Why don't private sector unions create the same
problems?

     Private sector unions were empowered by the federal
government.  State and local employee unions were empowered
by the states.  The public sector unions operate in a different
environment and under different rules  Not surprisingly they also
achieve different results.  Private sector unions are empowered
by laws first enacted during the administration of Franklin
Roosevelt.  He made it quite clear that he believed government
employees shouldn't be unionized.

     Private businesses have to earn profits or fade away. 
This gives them substantial incentive to not give away the farm. 
Competing businesses that give in to excessive union demands
soon fade away.  Their union contracts and benefits fade with
them.

     One exception to this is the situation where one union
represents all employees in an industry, such as autos and steel
in the 1950s.  With all employers saddled with nearly identical
union contracts, the employers passed the increased costs on to
consumers through higher prices.  When foreign firms entered
the market, the wheels started to fall off this buggy.  The U. S.
auto makers are still haunted by their long ago concessions to
the unions.

     The only limit on giveaways by public sector employers
is the limit on the ability to collect taxes.  Besides, if the
negotiators over spend, it doesn't come out of their own pockets.

     Political action by unions was quite successful in electing
union friendly negotiators to sit on the opposite side of the table.
The unions also gain enactment of laws that add to union power. 
As a result union wages and benefits bear little relationship to
the value of the services provided.

     Only in the public sector can employers long continue to
pay employees more than the value of what they produce.  In the
private sector it is a cold reality that if employees don't produce
more than $1.00 of value, the employer can't continually pay
them more than $1.00.

     Eventually that same reality comes home in the public
sector.   There are limits to what the taxpayers will and can pay
for.  We are banging against that limit.  One way of dealing
with this is privatization.  In other words, end the over paid,
under productive government jobs and replace them with private
sector jobs where employers have no choice but to keep costs
below what they can charge for the services.

     Some jobs will still remain in the public sector.  We must
deal with the unfunded benefits promised to these employees. 
All government employees who have soared into the wage and
benefits stratosphere must be brought back down to earth.

     We should start with the question, Why should unions, or
anyone else be empowered by government?  In liberty without
government interference everyone is free to interact with willing
individuals.

     Government interference disrupts this natural state by
granting some individuals the power to exploit others. 
Government action always creates winners and losers.  Not
surprisingly, the winners like it and the losers don't.  The battles
between special interests rage on.

     Government employees should have the natural right to
form voluntary associations.  That is they should be free to form
unions.  The question is, What should those unions have the
power to do?  I only have the space to slightly consider one
thing the unions shouldn't be allowed to do.

     The states should end exclusive barging rights.  Forcing
anyone to accept representation by another violates freedom of
association.  Unions should be limited to representing those who
freely join the union.

     More about this next time.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

Santa Government

     A recent survey found that 50 percent of the people in
this county believe that the USA's best days are behind us.  This
country has clearly been in economic decline for more than four
years.  This doesn't mean recovery is impossible.

     The basic problem faced by the USA is quite simple.  As
a nation we are trying to consume more than we produce.  Most
people know that this is impossible.

     For a while we can supplement our production through
borrowing from those outside the USA.  Most people also know
that this can't go on forever.  Perhaps they believe it can go on
for the rest of their lives.  After that it will be someone else's
problem.

     Still, millions simply demand that government keep the
goodies flowing.  These recipients of government largess don't
worry about where the goodies will come from.  They have child
like faith that government can somehow deliver.  Demagogues
who claim all we need do is tax the rich contribute to the false
belief.

     Young children are often taught to believe in Santa Claus
and a bottomless toy bag.  When they grow up, most face up to
the reality that there isn't any Santa Claus.  Belief in Santa
Government can, and commonly does, survive for a lifetime.

     People find it easy to believe what they want to believe. 
Not surprisingly many want to believe that someone will take
care of them.  For a time Santa Government has delivered on
some of its promises.  This reinforces the belief in Santa
Government.

     Many people don't like to be reminded that Santa
Government can give only what it takes from those who produce
it.  Cripple private sector production and Santa Government dies. 
Dead Santas don't deliver goodies.

     Our investment capital is tied up in partially completed
consumer goods.  Factories, mines, railroads, office buildings,
etc. can all be used up completing goods for us to consume. 
Thus, for a time we can consume without replacing the used up
facilities.

     This is no different from using up a sack of flour to
make bread.  You can still eat the bread.  The problem comes
when there is no replacement sack of flour to make more bread. 
By depleting investment in production facilities, Santa
Government can keep the goodies flowing for a while.

     As the investment sack empties production will drop. 
Someone will have to settle for fewer goodies.  Soon "someone"
will be spelled "everyone."

     Politicians and government making false promises are
largely responsible for creating the false belief in Santa
Government.  Government can't lead us out of the trap it set.  If
Santa Government closes the goody bag, believers in Santa
Government will rebel and vote the incumbents out of office. 
Our only hope is that millions of the true believers in Santa
Government will see the light and vote for government to reign
in spending to a sustainable level.

     For those who believe in Santa Government there is no
rational reason to reign in government spending.  They believe
Santa Government can deliver.  Instead of voting to crimp the
spending of Santa Government, they will vote against the
"Scrooges" who claim their is no Santa.

     Unless the best days of the USA are to remain behind us,
we must find the way to destroy the belief in Santa Government. 
I have been endeavoring to do this since I began writing this
column in 1994.  I  have no evidence that I have shaken even
one person's belief in Santa Government.  I hope that I have.

     There are many individuals on the national scene with far
larger audiences than I have attacking the belief in Santa
Government.  If the last election proves anything, it is that the
Santa Government cult is bigger than ever.  If individuals such
as Ron Paul and John Stossel haven't stemmed the rising tide of
belief in Santa Government, Who can?  The most anyone can do
is keep trying.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

The Pink Terror

     News items about school personnel jumping off the cliff
of absurdity when they imagine a gun, long ago became too
common place to provoke me to write about them.  Apparently
these school personnel feel neglected.  They launched a bold
new strike to gain my attention.  And, it worked.

     Schools have suspended young boys for pointing fingers
and saying bang, and for drawing pictures of guns.  One boy
was suspended for biting his sandwich into the shape of a gun. 
Gun replicas on key chains have brought down the wrath of the
school gods.

     How could the school personnel hope to leap over the bar
they set so high?  The Mount Carmel Area School District in
Pennsylvania made it over the bar without even breaking a
sweat.  The school dished out a 10-day suspension to a girl for
making a "terrorist threat" and branded her as a "threat to harm
others."

     The school also ordered the girl to have a psychological
evaluation.  The school threatened to call the police.

     Perhaps this was all part of a well-intentioned attempt to
serve egalitarianism and political correctness.  Most prior gun
charges were against boys.  Girls have now had their day.

     Of course, I now face a lecture from my grammar check
program for having used the word "girls."  This is only one of
the perils I endure to bring you this column.  The main reason I
use the grammar checker is for the humor it provides.  Among
other things, it routinely recommends that I replace "most " with
"mostness."   I'm including mostness here just to tease the
grammar checker.

     What did this naughty girl do?  While at the bus stop she
made mention of shooting a classmate.  Perhaps this sounds
serious.  How serious is a threat to shoot someone with a pink,
Hello Kitty bubble gun?  When I was in school, teachers were
more concerned about the threat to civilization from bubble gum.

     Not only that, a search of the girl's possessions found that
she didn't even have the assault weapon in her possession.  She
would probably be in solitary confinement now if she had been
carrying the dangerous weapon.  A picture of the offending
weapon on the Internet looked more like an ear syringe than a
gun.

     In defense of the school, it is never too soon to nip
violence in the bud.  How much sooner can you start than with a
five-year old kindergarten girl?  If she gets away with her
"terrorist threat," how long before marauding gangs of five-year
old girls will roam the school threatening to shoot everyone with
soap bubbles?  What could be more dangerous than squirts with
squirt guns?  One possibility is Mount Carmel Area School
personnel with jobs.

     Of course, then the school would have to remove all soap
dispensers to avoid supplying ammunition to the young terrorists. 
This could lead to dirty hands and the spread of disease.  An
epidemic might wipe out everyone in the school, including the
five-year old terrorists.  If the epidemic spread to the
surrounding community, and then the world, it might wipe out
civilization, assuming there is still some civilization to wipe out.

     Should we be grateful to the far sighted school personnel
who risked scorn and ridicule to save our civilization?  Perhaps
causing a bit of trauma to five-year old girl is a small price to
pay for saving humanity from extinction.  On the other hand, if
the personnel of the Mount Carmel Area School District are
examples of the height of our civilization, What is there left to
save?

     To be on the safe side, Should we all write to our
congress critters demanding that they outlaw pink bubble guns. 
The punishment for possession of these dastardly weapons
should be at least capital punishment for the first offense. 
Repeat offenders should be dealt with severely.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284