Online learning

Tom Luna and his supporters sold one of their education reforms by pushing the idea that Idaho needs to prepare its children for online learning.  That's about all that came through to me, though I wasn't following the issue all that closely.

I never did hear why we need to prepare our children for online learning.  Perhaps it's so they can go on to enroll in one of the for profit online colleges.  I hope not, because those colleges are great at lending money and getting their students to go into debt to pay for the online learning, but they're not so great at graduating students.

Some suggest ("some;" Ha!) that Luna was mostly just trying to help his buddies in the online learning world by ensuring that Idaho provided a constant revenue stream.  Some even went so far as to suggest that Joe Scott contributed so heavily to the effort because of his interests in online learning businesses.

I'm not sure about the ostensible reasons, but I do know one thing.  The whole idea that we need to prepare kids for online learning is a crock of shit, and it stinketh.

Kids have taken to technology like a duck to water, so using a computer isn't a new, additional skill that we need to start up.  And one you can use a computer, the online learning is just another website or DVD, like any other.  There are no secret and arcane rituals or incantations that kids must know to drink of the well of knowledge online, other than perhaps "YouTube."

It's just silly.  Either Luna has no clue about the interests and abilities of kids, or he's got some hidden agenda.  Mandating that kids must take online learning courses to ensure that they can later take online learning courses is just a waste of time.  Why don't we mandate that kids must take breathing lessons to ensure that later on, they can breath?  That makes as much sense as Luna's laws.

HP

Years ago I used to like Hewlett Packard.  Had (in fact, still have) an HP 12C calculator, and an HP computer or two.  But once HP got greedy and started grossly overcharging for the ink in their printers, well, they lost my good will.

They're struggling these days, trying to recover from serial blunders by a series of CEOs.   And now I see that HP is alleging that a company it acquired, Autonomy, defrauded it by hiding the true amount of its sales history.  In other words, those geniuses on th board of directors approved a fraudulent deal.

So, just for grins, I checked out how much the directors get paid.  Turns out, an obscene amount, between $300,000 and $400,000 a year.  For 34 meetings a year.  Roughly $10,000 per meeting.  I know, I know, they do work outside the meetings.  Right.

There are 10 directors, so that's a bill of about $3,500,000 a year.  And for that they get the kind of advice that hires a succession of loser CEOs, and enters into multiple bad, or even fraudulent, transactions.

What's really going on is just rich guys logrolling, helping each other out, tossing each other lots of unearned cash.  Cronyism.  Disgusting.  Serves them right.  I'm just sorry for the employees who will take a hit.

Rawmney

Chris Christie says that Romney is still "raw" from losing the election, explaining away Romney's most recent remarks that Obama bought the election by giving free stuff to moochers and slackers and minorities.

Maybe.  Don't know him.  Can't vouch for him.  But, I'm guessing Romney is still struggling to cope with this loss.  See, I think that Romney has been a golden boy his entire life.  That's probably almost a provable fact.  Son of a Governor and wealthy man, tony schools (it's an ego rush just to get admitted to Harvard), success in church, made tons of $$, all that.  You probably recall Ann Romney describing how they struggled through college by cashing in stocks gifted to Romney.  In other words, they didn't struggle.

Anyway, I just think that ole Mitt has never not gotten whatever he wanted.  Some guys are just like that.  A combination of luck and work, and nothing really bad ever happens to them, and in fact, they always get pretty much what they want.  And I think that's Mitt.

I once had a friend, a lucky friend IMHO, tell me that he'd often takes risks and just rely on his luck to carry the day, because it mostly did.  And I think Mitt's been very lucky, his entire life, in addition to the good luck of being born with the gifts he had.  Like Ann Richards said of Bush, born on third base and thought he hit a triple.

So when your luck finally doesn't carry the day, when for the first time in your 65 years you didn't get what you wanted, that's gotta sting.  And it's gotta take some mental time to process.  You just can't believe it happened (or didn't happen as you wanted it to).  I guarandamntee you that on Wednesday post-election, Mitt woke up and wondered if it was a bad dream that he lost.

No wonder he's feeling "raw."  My heart just pumps p.., well, no, no snark, no Schadenfreud.  Let's just say I have exactly zero sympathy for the guy.  I expect his entire nuclear family has had the same fantastic fortune and luck during their lives, and are feeling the same way.  Robbed.  Tricked, somehow, out of something that should have been theirs.

Welcome to the world, Rawmneys.

Deep thought

Karl Rove is taking heat for the poor performance of his American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS money laundering operations.  Some are suggesting (using that vague phrase makes me feel all journalisty) that Rove was mostly interested in lining his own pockets by taking a cut of all the ad buys.  Mostly the rich donors are just pissed because they got no return for their investment.

You probably saw the Rove freak out when Fox News called Ohio (and therefore the election) for Obama.  Some are suggesting (!) that Rove has lost his touch because he was so wrong.  Others are suggesting (!) that Rove's not all that bright in any event.

And if the latter is the case, and if Rove was truly "Bush's Brain," as the fawning media liked to call him, that makes George Bush look really dumb.

Otter's dilemma

Gov. Otter has a bit of a dilemma on his hands.  His medicaid expansion work group unanimously recommended that Idaho accept the expanded role of Medicaid that comes with Obamacare.  If he does, lots more Idahoans will have health care, and counties will be freed up from the indigent care expense they've been carping about.

However, in a few years the State will have higher medicare expenses than currently, I think - not sure about the math* - and, of course, Otter will have signed onto the odious and scary "Obamacare." 

He's in a bit of a bind.  Because his panel, and it was all his idea and his appointments, gave a unanimous recommendation, that makes it tough to ignore. I mean, why have the panel at all if you're going to ignore what everyone on the panel says.  Had they split, he'd have more wiggle room.  But they didn't, and he's boxed in. 

Also, implementing Obamacare will piss off his homies in the Republican Gov's conference.  It just goes against their ideological grain, for one thing.  Even worse, it tends to make the hold-outs look even more unreasonable.  After all, if Butch Otter allows Obamacare, then how unreasonable and ideological must Rick Scott and Bobby Jindal be?  To the right of Otter?  That's a lonely place.

All in all, I think he'll follow the panel's recommendation.  For one thing, he was just shocked by how badly he misread the electorate that reeelcted Obama, and rejected the Luna laws.  So he might be proceeding cautiously, being a bit unsure of his read of the voters.  And, he's got the great cover of saying, hey, the independant panel made a unanimous recommendation.

*Math ... So, Obamacare will expand the number of folks eligible for Medicaid, which would indicate more spending.  OTOH, the percent paid by the feds goes up, so actual dollars spent might not increase.  Plus there's the relief from indigent that adds to the plus side of the till.  So I'm not sure that expanding Medicaid eligibility will cost Idaho anything.

Spring in my step

Still got it, one week post-election.

Oddly, a bunch of the guys who were crowing about how America's march toward socialism under the Marxist socialist communist Obama would finally be stopped have gone pretty quiet on facebook these days.  I'm so tempted to gloat, but no, I'm bigger than that.  Plus, no need to, the election said it all.

But jeez, it's tempting.

Heartless

I'm wondering about Gov. Otter's mentation these days.  See, he's got two big choices looming:  whether to set up a state health insurance exchange, or let the feds do it, and whether to allow the medicaid expansion mandated (per the S. Court, "offered") by Obama care to happen in Idaho.

He's got to be conflicted.  One one hand, he hates the fking feds and everything federal.  OTOH, he's got an ego.  If you doubt that, just have a look at his monogrammed french-cuffed shirts.  And what a legacy to leave, bringing health care to most of the 20% of Idahoan's who don't have health care.  Think of the misery and suffering and fear and uncertainty that would alleviate.  Who wouldn't want to accomplish that?

Only a really heartless person, I think.  And I don't think Gov Otter is heartless.

Now, on the exchange issue, again a conflict.  He doesn't want fking feds to run our health exchange, and lots of his cronies and supporters are desperate to have the state run it so they can keep their fingers in the pie.  Why, just a day or two ago, I read 3 letters to the editor in the Statesman from insurance brokers begging for a state exchange, because they're worried a federal on will cut them out of their piece of the action.

But, OTOH, Otter turned down the millions offered by the feds to help Idaho pay to set up the exchange.  So if Otter now chooses to set up a state exchange, his choice will have needlessly cost the state whatever it takes to set  up that exchange, apparently millions.

What to do, what to do...

Ta Da!

Okay, I've been focused on other stuff for a while now, but it's a good time to try to return to this.  I know, a political blog and I sit out the two months before a momentous election.  Stupid, in terms of getting traffic.  But, I'm not that bright a guy.

Anyway, thanks to ericn1300 for giving me a push.  I was kind of figuring that everyone had given up. 

So, my post election thoughts?  Well, first of all, Yee Hah, Pardner!  It's nice for the Blue team to notch some wins for a change.

My kids are no longer in K-12, so I wasn't all that fixated on the school "reforms" (snort), but I was paying some attention.  I planned all along to vote against them, just in the hope that the Republican good ole boys would finally take a hit.  And boy, did they.  I was watching the local broadcasts from the election night gatherings, and jeez, were the R's glum.  Did an ole Dem's heart good.  I know, schadenfreude is unbecoming and crass, but I don't get many chances, politically, so Ima indulge when I can.

I figured the Luna Laws where heading for troubled waters when my office neighbor said he wasn't following them either, but when he saw who was contributing to the effort to defeat the referendum (Bloomberg and Joe Scott he specifically mentioned), he decided to vote no.  Pretty much solely on that point.

I see that Mitch Toryanski was defeated by Brandon Durst.  I know and like Mitch, but, you know, he's a Republican so, while I feel bad for him personally, I'm happy for the outcome.  I gotta believe that his vote for the school reforms (snort) hurt him.  I also think he stepped on it when he showed up to watch Brandi Swindell do ultrasounds in the Capitol.   That linked him to the vaginal ultrasound/anti-abortion issue, and again, probably cost him some votes.

What I'm wondering now, re: Toryanski, is what he'll do for a job.  His wife used to be the head of the Office of Aging, I think, and now works for DHR.  It's common for R's to throw a patronage bone to former legislators when they need it, so it will be interesting to see if Mitch lands a state job.  He was a Deputy Attorney General before, but resigned to run for senator.