Phoenix Pictures principals Mike Medavoy, Arnie Messer and Brad Fischer will produce the adaptation of “The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag,” which they describe as a complex psychological thriller with plenty of action as well as some love interest.

Despair!

A title change is likely.

As, I’m sure, will the plot, major characters and, indubitably, the denoument.

Hollyweird, just keep your hands off Heinlein, ok?

“Honestly, I think the green movement is going to damage us in ways we won’t be able to comprehend fully until we’re 60 years on the other side of it.”

And:

“The ecomommies…let’s just say I very much look forward to the day when I get to punch one of them in the t1ts.”

Yeah, I’m doing all my best writing in email.  Sorry.

Everyone should take some time to slow down, smell the roses, play with their kids.  Take a walk, take a drive…hell, take a nap.   We’ll be around when there’s something to say.

A couple fighting about which gang their 4-year-old toddler should join caused a public disturbance that resulted in the father’s arrest, Commerce City police said Thursday.

Ok, you want to have gangs because your daddies didn’t wuv you?  Fine, you just go to town, but I’m going to need you to hand over your testicles and ovaries first.

Right there…put ‘em in the box.

Joining them in he lack of contributable genetic material is that Pile of Oprah-Hype known as *coff* Dr. Phil, and his attempt to A) garner points with the Lead Perp by bailing the oxygen-wasting meatsack out of stir (hoping to gain an exclusive, no doubt), and B) now attempting to scape the goat of whatever poor flunky was sent to actually do the deed.

Seeing as how there’s a gag order on all involved, it seems odd to embark upon this odyssey at all, but perhaps Tall, Bulgy and Stupid is merely looking ahead to the first incarcerated-for-life interview. Personally, I’d suggest whatever he’s a “doctor” of review their screening procedures post-haste. Or at least acquire and fit one industrial-size (and -strength) muzzle.

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Tucson, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school’s vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen – 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil – in the possession of Redding’s classmate. Safford maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward all prescription medicines, including prescription-strength ibuprofen. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems or substance abuse, had given her the pills.

After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson presented Redding with the ibuprofen pills and informed her of her classmate’s accusations. Redding said she had never seen the pills before and agreed to a search of her possessions, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding’s backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse’s office in order to perform a strip search.

In the school nurse’s office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.

The zero tolerance policy is in place because there is not one person in administration smart enough to say, “hey, that’s just ibuprofen, confiscate it and let’s move on with our day.” That should scare the unholy crap out of everyone with school-age children.

So how do we fix it?

We spent a chunk of last evening teaching our kids math disguised as blackjack. And if they also learn to stand on a 16 when the dealer is showing a 3, then that’s just an extra-added bonus, no?

Speaking of teaching math to our children, the public school situation here in Florida is a continuing source of…anger in our household. Here the kids are subject to annual testing, the FCAT. This standardized testing actually pre-dates the No Child Left Behind Act but was adjusted in 2001 to match the new federal standards. Now the kids have to pass the tests in grade 3 to advance to grade 4 (reading only), and in grade 10 (reading and math) to graduate.

In theory, I have absolutely no problem with this. Too many kids are passed along when they should have been held back. They simply didn’t learn what was required to advance, but were promoted anyway to avoid damaging their self-confidence/self-image, whatever keyword the socialists were bandying about that particular year. It was a system that did no one any favors, least of all the promoted kids.

What I object to in this standardized testing environment is the way preparation for these tests is being handled. Last year, for instance (which for #1 Son was not a pass/fail year…something that is not specified to parents, btw, you have to find that information for yourself), it seemed to us that everything outside of prep for the FCAT writing exam just stopped. Math disappeared, science disappeared…you know, the important subjects. And then after the testing in early March, the teacher tried to cram in a half year’s worth of math before school ended in mid-May. And I’m not the only one who has noticed this trend.

Everyone with school-aged kids knows the schools teach TO these tests, instead of just teaching the material. They do this in Florida because their jobs literally rely on how well the kids do on the tests. Jeb Bush’s A+ Plan, grades schools “depending on student performance and the degree to which the bottom 25% of the school has improved compared to its past performances,” and pulls/delivers Title 1 funding appropriately. This is wrong, creates a seriously stressful environment for all involved, and will result in knowledge-gaps that our kids will pay for down the road.

Overall, our public school systems are really in dire shape. An ex-teacher with whom Ted works tells us that people fail upwards in public schools, which means the Principal/Vice Principal were likely seriously inferior teachers. I will admit that teaching and administration do not have very much to do with each other, but would like to see some actual standards applied to the people running our schools nonetheless. For example, when we had problems earlier this year with #1 Son’s teacher, and met with him, the P and VP, the Principal was quite confrontational, demanding to know what Ted thought he would accomplish by being angry at the man’s treatment of our kid (which to us was personal and extremely unprofessional) and putting them on the defensive.

*blink*

That the school administration obviously considers parents as adversaries is a major problem for me. I understand that there are truly troublesome parents out there, from the ones who just do not care, to the ones who cry about every imagined slight to their special snowflake, but you would think that functioning adults could tell the difference between them and have the ability to react to each appropriately. Then again, those devoted to bureaucracy do not like to have their little ponds stepped in, so perhaps these schools in Denver have the right idea:

Eighteen northeast Denver schools are seeking to build an autonomous school zone — freeing them from union and district rules they say are bureaucratic barriers to improving student achievement.

Principals from several of the schools met Monday with 50 community members and educators at Montbello High School to outline the proposal, which will be presented this month to the school board.

Principals from the 18 schools want to create a “zone of innovation,” giving them control over their budget, the educational program in the schools, staffing and incentives.

Of course if they suffer from the same bureaucracy at the school-level, then how exactly does that make a difference? And aren’t they just trading old bureaucracy for new with this essentially new district they’re creating?

Welcome to my headache.

Ted and I spent much of this last weekend discussing various things that are wrong, and how to fix them, and it really comes down to the fact that everything leading to the rise of the nanny-state cannot be fixed. There are too many corrupt bastards too happily taking advantage of too many acquiescent sheep. The number of sheep isn’t going to decrease, therefore there will always be corrupt bastards. And until we can start lining them up against the wall wholesale, nothing about that dynamic is ever going to change.

There are always going to be people who want to be told what to do. They need someone more powerful in charge and are fine with giving up whatever personal liberties they possess for a sense of security. How do the rest of us, who are perfectly frippin’ capable of providing our own sense of security, fight against that? There’s more sheep than there are wolves, that’s for damned sure, so how do we win? Do we all pack up and move to Montana? Buy up all the property we can get our hands on and secede? Limit immigration to those capable of demonstrating self-reliance and an IQ over 150?

How do we win?

And then won’t somebody tell me how we can do it better? Our whole lives we’re told, “one citizen, one vote.” We’re not told, however, that we’re really only voting for electors, not the actual candidates. It’s irritating, really, very star-chamber-esque. Despite arguments to the contrary, there has to be a better way… A way that didn’t originate in a time when citizens were outnumbered by buffalo, and communication was at the speed of horseback.

UPDATED TO ADD: While attempting to comply with Robb’s order (!), I ran across this article regarding Maryland’s implementation of the National Popular Vote:

A Stanford University computer scientist named John Koza has formulated a compelling and pragmatic alternative to the Electoral College. It’s called National Popular Vote (NPV), and has been hailed as “ingenious” by two New York Times editorials. (Ed: Not that that’s any particular recommendation, mind you…) In April, Maryland became the first state to pass it into law. And several other states, including Illinois and New Jersey, are likely to follow suit.

How NPV works is this: Instead of a state awarding its electors to the top vote-getter in that state’s winner-take-all presidential election, the state would give its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This would be perfectly legal because the U.S. Constitution grants states the right to determine how to cast their electoral votes, so no congressional or federal approval would be required. NPV could go into effect nationwide as soon as enough states pass it (enough states to tally 270 electoral votes—the magic number needed to elect a president). In 2008, NPV bills are expected to be introduced in all 50 states.

So, what’s the downside to this, eh?  And for that matter, what’s the upside?