Why is everything important for profit?

I know this will be sacrilegious, maybe even blasphemous, but some things, even in the US, shouldn't be done "for profit."

Three to start with: public education, prison systems, and health care.

Do I need to go into details on this? Okay, here goes.

Health care: companies that are in business, any business, to make a profit, need to maximize income, and minimize outflow. This means that a for-profit insurance company needs to get premiums as high as they can get away with, and pay out as little benefits as possible. In "regular" businesses, this can be bad; price-gouging, monopolies, and so on. In health care, when benefits are minimal, people die. Or at least, lose their homes and go bankrupt trying to pay for necessary, even life-saving, treatments. It has happened already, and often. Being a for-profit company, even if it's not in the name or description, but only in the goals of the leadership, requires putting money income above all else. In health insurance, that means money above human health and lives. Insurance companies have even rebranded their wares as "insurance products." Is that what we want for an insurance provider?

Prisons: this one's even easier. Prisons for profit makes prisoners money earnings. More prisoners means more profit, fewer prisoners means less profit. Prisons run by profit-driven companies can have no interest in preventing crimes from happening, stopping recidivism, or common-sense altering of sentencing (lighter sentences for first-timers, rehab instead of prison for drug addicts, etc.), because prisoners are profit centers; all of those lower profits and must be fought with any and all legal methods (even quasi-legal) available. Getting "career criminals" on an honest track, treating drug-addiction as medical and treating it for healing, common-sense precautions to prevent criminal behavior, all of these will reduce profits and cannot be tolerated.

Public education: okay, this one's really important to me. Remember, I'm a schoolteacher. Actually, it's kind of the same reason as health care, above. Many companies are trying to get into public education and standardized testing right now. This testing, when done right, can in fact inform instruction and increase the effectiveness of teaching. WHEN DONE RIGHT. I'm not convinced that these new tests and testing systems are being done right, and many many parents aren't either. Just look at the growing "opt-out" movement in states with the new standards and the reasons given for them. The questions are haphazard, some aren't even grade-level appropriate, the data isn't returned for months, sometimes not until the next school year; far too long to be effective in modifying instruction. And with some of the companies, the scores that are returned are a single value, with no details or even insight into the methods of the scoring. Complete opacity of the scoring. These companies genuinely seem to be interested in selling tests and testing materials and methods, not for helping instruction, but for the profits to be generated from the testing products, and possible extra profits generated from "remediation" programs because the students did poorly on the tests (according to the company who wants to sell the remediation). As with prisoners, above, students are seen as profit centers, not really even thought of by the companies as people, just an income source.

I do feel that I must mention that, since my district does in fact use the new standardized testing, of course I will proctor the tests as needed by the district administration, and I will not actively attempt to convince any student to opt out of the testing. I'll ride this out, and whatever next "new and improved" thing follows this, and do my best to help my students kindle a love of learning, and developing skills that are not limited to picking a multiple-choice answer. With what instructional time remains during the school year.

So, there it is. Even in modern capitalist America, some things really shouldn't be done expressly for profit. If the company does profit from its efforts in any of the above areas, then they're a financial success, and they deserve success. But if a company is entering these fields only because the projected earning potential, then nothing in those areas will be improved.  Health care outcomes will still be among the worst in the developed world, prisons will be the largest percentage of the population in the developed world, and the public education system will still be broken, and used as a whipping post for politicians, and the students will continue to suffer mediocre outcomes and lack of thinking skills and problem solving ability.

And, worst of all, with companies profiting from these areas, they will be able to use their earnings to control the political climate, and no reforms that actually benefit people and society will be permitted to succeed.

His Trump-iness

So, Trump spouts anti-immigrant, misogynist, often incoherent ramblings, and his poll numbers are high. Naturally, the other candidates want those numbers, so they start spouting similar nonsense. 

But what if, just as a possibility, people who like Trump aren't interested in his raving piles of crazy?

What if the people prefer a candidate who isn't so far in debt to huge money donors that they think he might, he just might, serve the public's interests rather than the huge money's? 

Yet, we don't see anybody else forgoing huge donations from the hyper-rich (except maybe Bernie Sanders, but he's on the left and he doesn't really count in the other candidates' minds). No, they love the rich folks (and their money) and are only too eager to let themselves be bought so they can be President. 

Being a flunky president, having power only at the pleasure of the rich, is better than no power at all, I guess. If you're too      poor to donate millions (or a large fraction of), that's your problem. What do you expect s President, or even Congress, to do about it? It's not really their job to help out the voters that elected them is it?

Oh wait, yes it is. Or it used to be.

Ben Carson on Syrian refugees

I heard the interview with Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon and current Republican presidential candidate, this morning.

One thing stuck with me. In answer to the interviewers question about letting Syrian refugees in, his first response was to say that, likely, at least some of them are extremists trying to sneak into the US, for what purpose he didn't say.

OK, I get that incoming refugees need to be verified that they're NOT provocateurs trying to get in, playing on sympathies. I don't know that I like the assumption that people fleeing war and persecution obviously are lying and using our own generous nature against us, but I do understand the necessity. We need to streamline the vetting, though; every refugee is examined by more than 3 separate government agencies and departments. It can take years, Years! to get through the vetting. Actual refugees stand a very good chance of being dead by the time they're allowed to escape.

That aside, what struck me was that when the interviewer pressed; "assuming we weed out the extremists, how many would you let it?" Dr. Carson's first statement was he'd let in people who have skills we need, and that's basically it.

So, the only people who can get asylum from war and persecution, and perhaps even physical or sexual assault by soldiers, are the people who are useful to us? Children, or aged or infirm, can't be useful, so they're out of luck?

For a doctor, even one who's retired, that is depressingly and frighteningly selfish, and troubling.

And it seems from the rhetoric that most (if not all) of the Republican candidates feel this way, or even worse; don't want to let anybody in, no matter their skills or their needs.

Just now, I don't think he has to worry about extremists using our generous nature against us; we don't seem to have one any more.

Same-sex Marriage in Kentucky

So, the first thing I think I need to deal with is the whole Rowan county, Kentucky thing.

Refusing to honor a Supreme Court decision and not give marriage licenses because your version of Christianity doesn't like them isn't really a religious freedom issue.

Hold on, I'm not insulting her or her views. Here's why it's not really about religious freedom: I would assume that the same-sex couples looking for marriage licenses don't follow Ms. Davis's version of Christianity, as they clearly aren't forbidden to marry.
By refusing to grant them a (by the way, secular, NOT religious) marriage license, she is forcing those people to follow her religion instead of their own.
The clerk in question is on her third marriage; her actions don't look all that different than if another town clerk had refused her 3rd license because the clerk's religion forbids divorce. Clearly Ms. Davis's own version of Christianity is OK with it, so she'd have been forced to follow the other religion's rules rather than her own. Being refused a marriage license for a marriage your religion permits because someone else's religion doesn't permit it, is the exact OPPOSITE of religious freedom.

Also, religious freedom, separation of church and state, call it whatever you want, is established in the United States for ALL religions and religious people, not just Christians, and certainly not just those Christians who don't like same-sex marriage. Just because you don't like it, and your religion forbids it, is NOT enough of a reason to deny people who aren't followers of your religion.

If your religion disapproves of same-sex marriage, then your church doesn't have to have them. You may get pushback from others, but if you're being true to your faith, let them rail at you. But, (and here's my main theme) just because your religion doesn't approve, that doesn't mean you get to force others, of other religions, to follow your guidelines.

If you personally disapprove of same-sex marriage so much that you don't want to be in any way associated with one, but your job duties require it, there are several ways to really handle a religious objection to your job duties. 

The easiest is the great American response to a horrible job: "Take this job and shove it!" If a job is trying to force you to do things that are objectionable to you, the simplest thing to do is quit and find a better job. I'm certain there are many places that would hire her in a hot second, lots of them because of her business clerk experience, or her experience in government (companies often need to deal with government departments), or even because of her, let's call it fame. She wouldn't be unemployed for long.

Another way is to go part-time, and let the county office hire another clerk, also part-time, to handle those duties she finds objectionable. Then she can stay faithful and still do as much of her job as she can, and the county is in compliance with federal rulings, even up to the Supreme Court (which, in a wonderful ironic twist, she is willing to petition for her own case, when she is defying it and its ruling about her own job).

The fact that neither of these options seems to have occurred to her makes this seem, again, like something other than a religious freedom issue. To most casual observers (I am here avoiding both her avid supporters and the real avid opposers of her statements and actions), it seems like she isn't interested in her own religious freedom so much as forcing her own religion on others who are not already followers of it.

And that, still, is not religious freedom. It's an attempt at religious oppression.

Introduction

Well, I've finally given in and am blogging. For the short version, read the info header.
I'm not really looking for thousands of followers; I'm just writing down my musings about politics, social issues, current events, and pop culture.

Whenever I hear about something on a news source, or even an "news" source, that makes me want to say something, I'll put it here. If anybody sees it, maybe I can make some folks think a little differently.

Let's get some demographic things out of the way first.
I am a white male.
I teach public school in the USA.
I'm married for several decades, and have no intention of losing her.
We have adopted internationally, and our daughter is the joy of our life.
I am of no religion, though I do believe in spirituality, "weird stuff" and God. (Why that is, I may get into at some point, if I feel it's relevant, or if someone asks, politely.)

I'll try to be courteous and at least civil. It's not my way to attack people who disagree with me; I do make an attempt to understand where they're coming from. That said, there are certain viewpoints I've tried and tried to understand, and I just can't.