The theory of realigning elections (sometimes called key elections, critical elections, or historic elections)is that sometimes there is a dramatic change in the political system that you can observe in one election or a couple elections in a row. Usually it coincides with the coming to power of a new coalition of voters or the movement of a large or important bloc of voters to a new coalition, these realigning elections occur when voters decidedly break in a new direction on a particularly important issues, when a new party leader emerges who takes the party in a new direction, when the regional and demographic bases of power of the two parties switches, or when there is a new rules of the political system (ie, expansion of suffrage). Because political parties in America tend to be rather stable coalitions, a sudden realignment by a voting group tends to have a longer-lasting and dramatic effect. These realigning elections seem to occur once a generation (every 30-40 years). V. O. Key, Jr. is the professor who pioneered the study of these elections.
Most experts agree that the following where clearly realigning elections- 1800 (Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson wins over Federalist John Adams), 1828 (Democrat Andrew Jackson wins over Democratic-Republican John Q. Adams), 1860 (Republican Abraham Lincoln wins over others), 1896 (Republican William McKinley wins over Democrat William Jennings Bryan), 1932 (Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt wins over Republican Herbert Hoover), 1968 (Republican Richard Nixon beats Democrat Hubert Humphrey), and 1980 (Republican Ronald Reagan beats Democrat Jimmy Carter). In each election, patterns in politics were broken and new patterns were put in place that lasted many years and large blocs of voters moved from one party to another. Based on the 30-40 years estimate, the next 'realigning election' is due 2012-2020.
Many though, because Barack Obama is black, want to say to say that the 2008 election (Democrat Barack Obama beats Republican John McCain) was a historic election, an unprecedented election, or a realigning election. Does it fit the model though?
There is support for the argument that it was a realigning election. There was an important issue that a candidate could have advanced a different view on (the War in Iraq), there were some realignments of geographical areas (surprisingly strong Democratic gains in the Northeast), and there was a change in the number of voters who declared themselves to belong to a particular party (dramatic rise in the number of voters who declared themselves to be Democrats). If Obama had run as a liberal- running on a liberal platform and advocating liberal issues and highlighting his sharp policy differences from the past- then 2008 would have been a realigning election.
But let's go back to last year. Watch the campaign commercials that Obama ran. Obama did not run as a liberal. He did not run on a platform that advocated stimulus packages, massive spending, large amounts of debt, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, nationalized healthcare, raising taxes, cap-and-tax, or government-take-overs of companies. Obama ran as a moderate. He ran as a new and different candidate, one who would not be liberal or conservative, but would reach across the aisle and be a post-partisan President. He talked about tax cuts and strong defense and ending corruption.
Obama ran as a moderate- on a moderate platform- and McCain was a moderate, and the gains in Congress for Democrats were mostly from moderate Blue Dogs, and the polls show the election map as being essentially the same as 1996-2004, so 2008 was not a historic, realigning, critical, key, or unprecedented election.
Obama's victory in 2008 is closer in its character to 1976 (Carter over Ford) or 1964 (LBJ over Goldwater) in that it represented simply dissatisfaction with the proposed candidate. The later unpopularity of Carter and LBJ did set the stage for the historic realigning elections that followed.
2012 will probably be the historic election that we are all looking for. Obama will be running as a liberal and will be seeking a mandate and approval for his policies- which this time around will be clearly liberal and far left. Voting blocs will have to move to vote for him, the map will have to change, and our nation will indeed embrace change with an Obama victory in 2012, setting the stage for likely Democrat control of government for 30-40 years and a shift in our nation farther to the left. If Obama loses, he will lose to a conservative candidate (the GOP is not going with another moderate- Romney, Pawleny, Palin, Huckabee, etc are all conservatives) running on a conservative platform, and it will mark a return to power for conservative Republicans and a move back to the right for our nation.
The recent data from 2009 supports my argument. Read Charles Krauthammer's article The Myth of '08, Demolished to see that the evidence is that 2012 will be re-aligning- areas that once consistently voted Democrat (like New Jersey) will switch and even moderate Republican candidates will be defeated by conservatives. The elections in 2010, in which Republicans will likely make big gains, will further vindicate my theory that 2008 was nothing more than just another ho-hum election and not the unprecedented, historic, realigning election that many on the left want it to be.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Black Bloc, Fascists, and WTO Protests
In today's Detroit News, there was a story about the police breaking up protests at a recent World Trade Organization meeting. The WTO is a group that is determined to make a more peaceful and prosperous world by lowering tariffs and removing barriers to trade, and there are people out there that do not like peace and prosperity, instead preferring anarchism and nationalism, and so every time the WTO has a meeting, there are protests.
These protesters typically pull themselves into what is called a Black Bloc. A black bloc is a tactic for protests and marches, whereby individuals wear black clothing, ski masks and motorcycle helmets with padding, steel-toed boots and often carrying their own shields and truncheons. The clothing is used to avoid being identified, and to theoretically, appear as one large mass, promoting solidarity, and creating a clear revolutionary presence. Tactics of a black bloc can include vandalism, rioting and street fighting, demonstrating without a permit, misleading the authorities, assisting in the escape of people arrested by the police, building barricades, and attacking police.
In Geneva, these 'peaceful protesters' set fire to cars, broke shop windows and committed other acts of violence. An 80-year-old women was knocked over and fell and had to be hospitalized, police said. These are the tactics of these 'far left' or 'far right' or 'middle way' groups who demonstrate against the WTO.
You can tell the quality of a person by the company they keep. These Black Bloc groups oppose lower tariffs, oppose capitalism, oppose the war in Iraq, and support Earth Day. Do you?
These anti-WTO protester's are an interesting mix of left-wing groups ranging from the outright communist (Autonomism) to the clearly fascist (National-Anarchism). Many of the issues and causes these groups promote are very close to the causes and issues that the Democrats support today- the main difference is in the methods used, not the goals. These left wing fascist and communist groups blame the United States for being at the root of most bad things in the world, want the US to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let the terrorists win, want to have the government play a larger and larger role in 'combating global warming' and 'supporting gay rights,' and even believe in free state-provided healthcare for everyone.
Yes indeed, there are many similarities between these Black Bloc groups and the Democratic Party. What there isn't is any similarities between the goals, methods, and agenda of this blog and those who support Black Blocs. We are clearly different in our agenda's, as I am a conservative teacher who supports lower tariffs, loves capitalism, supports the War on Terror, opposes government control to fight the myth of global warming, and loves freedom and liberty more than violence and revolutionary zeal.
Change might live on the left, but so does the Black Bloc. Pick your side.
These protesters typically pull themselves into what is called a Black Bloc. A black bloc is a tactic for protests and marches, whereby individuals wear black clothing, ski masks and motorcycle helmets with padding, steel-toed boots and often carrying their own shields and truncheons. The clothing is used to avoid being identified, and to theoretically, appear as one large mass, promoting solidarity, and creating a clear revolutionary presence. Tactics of a black bloc can include vandalism, rioting and street fighting, demonstrating without a permit, misleading the authorities, assisting in the escape of people arrested by the police, building barricades, and attacking police.
In Geneva, these 'peaceful protesters' set fire to cars, broke shop windows and committed other acts of violence. An 80-year-old women was knocked over and fell and had to be hospitalized, police said. These are the tactics of these 'far left' or 'far right' or 'middle way' groups who demonstrate against the WTO.
You can tell the quality of a person by the company they keep. These Black Bloc groups oppose lower tariffs, oppose capitalism, oppose the war in Iraq, and support Earth Day. Do you?
These anti-WTO protester's are an interesting mix of left-wing groups ranging from the outright communist (Autonomism) to the clearly fascist (National-Anarchism). Many of the issues and causes these groups promote are very close to the causes and issues that the Democrats support today- the main difference is in the methods used, not the goals. These left wing fascist and communist groups blame the United States for being at the root of most bad things in the world, want the US to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let the terrorists win, want to have the government play a larger and larger role in 'combating global warming' and 'supporting gay rights,' and even believe in free state-provided healthcare for everyone.
Yes indeed, there are many similarities between these Black Bloc groups and the Democratic Party. What there isn't is any similarities between the goals, methods, and agenda of this blog and those who support Black Blocs. We are clearly different in our agenda's, as I am a conservative teacher who supports lower tariffs, loves capitalism, supports the War on Terror, opposes government control to fight the myth of global warming, and loves freedom and liberty more than violence and revolutionary zeal.
Change might live on the left, but so does the Black Bloc. Pick your side.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those darned kids
As theblogprof points out, at the end of pretty much every single episode of Scooby Doo, the bad ghost/ghoul/monster that was trying to scare everyone away from the truth is unmasked as a fraud for all to see, only to say "I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those darned kids." From the beginning, this was my theory on the whole global warming issue, and it looks like those darned bloggers and Freedom of Information acts have unmasked the ghost of global warming and revealed it for the fraud that it is.
The 'Global Warming Issue' was built on several bad premises. First is that the globe is warming. Contrary to Al Gore telling me it is, the data is not conclusive that the Earth is warming at all- we had a warm 1990's, but the data is not clear that this decade was all that warm. In order to persuade people that the Earth indeed is warming, data has been doctored, cherry-picked, and massaged to produce some sort of result that does show that the Earth is warming. But since Earth is emerging from a recent Little Ice Age, I would not be terribly shocked if eventually trends would indeed show that we are warming up.
The next part of the Issue is that this warming trend will continue in one direction, and will also accelerate and we'll get warmer and warmer and then turn into Venus. It is a nice theory, and to back it up, they've relied on computer modeling that can't even predict tomorrows weather accurately, and the computer models themselves have used doctored data and illogical calculations to produce this run-away-global-warming model. It is at this point that I become an unbeliever, since I don't see any possibility of run-away global warming, rather I see a billions of year trend of warming and cooling and the Earth being mightier than us puny humans.
The next part of the Issue is that this global warming is man-made. As evidence of this, 'scientists' break out their theories and show some stuff working in some labs. But just because I have a theory that I can pull a coin out of your ear and do it once doesn't mean that everyone everywhere has coins falling out of their ears. In reality, humans impact on the environment, especially the global temperatures, is very limited. A volcano going off does more to impact the globe than you driving your SUV, and thus the ultimate cause of any warming is natural, not man-made. That's not to say that you shouldn't be mindful of your environment, but the proper approach is the exact opposite of what Global Warming Believers want, and the proper approach is increased private property rights and less tragedies of the commons.
There are people out there though who Believe- they hate God and attack anyone who believes in him, but they worship at the alter of the Green God and believe in man-made run-away global warming in spite of the lack of evidence, the faulty data, and the bad premises. They then advance to the next stage, which is that this man-made global warming is very very bad and a bigger threat to everyone's life than war, poverty, hunger, or any other really bad issue. If the globe warms than bad stuff will occur- you name it, global warming believers believe that it will happen. In reality what might happen is a better growing environment for many crops and expanding food supply, warmer weather demanding less energy to heat homes and businesses, and a generally spring-like feel to the world. Global warming actually might be good for everyone, if you can get over the fact that polar bears might have to migrate farther north (oh, the horror!).
Yes, the global warming myth is increasingly being proved to be just that- a myth. And those who fight the most to keep this myth in place are in reality those who are benefiting from the myth- Al Gore has made millions on peddling this myth, makers of wind turbines and solar panels have made millions more, and most government bureaucrats and corruption agents are out there peddling the myth while making money off of it. So be one of those darned kids, and expose the myth, and laugh at anyone who tries to sell it to you, because in the end, like at the end of most Scooby Doo cartoons, the whole thing is only worth one big laugh.
The 'Global Warming Issue' was built on several bad premises. First is that the globe is warming. Contrary to Al Gore telling me it is, the data is not conclusive that the Earth is warming at all- we had a warm 1990's, but the data is not clear that this decade was all that warm. In order to persuade people that the Earth indeed is warming, data has been doctored, cherry-picked, and massaged to produce some sort of result that does show that the Earth is warming. But since Earth is emerging from a recent Little Ice Age, I would not be terribly shocked if eventually trends would indeed show that we are warming up.
The next part of the Issue is that this warming trend will continue in one direction, and will also accelerate and we'll get warmer and warmer and then turn into Venus. It is a nice theory, and to back it up, they've relied on computer modeling that can't even predict tomorrows weather accurately, and the computer models themselves have used doctored data and illogical calculations to produce this run-away-global-warming model. It is at this point that I become an unbeliever, since I don't see any possibility of run-away global warming, rather I see a billions of year trend of warming and cooling and the Earth being mightier than us puny humans.
The next part of the Issue is that this global warming is man-made. As evidence of this, 'scientists' break out their theories and show some stuff working in some labs. But just because I have a theory that I can pull a coin out of your ear and do it once doesn't mean that everyone everywhere has coins falling out of their ears. In reality, humans impact on the environment, especially the global temperatures, is very limited. A volcano going off does more to impact the globe than you driving your SUV, and thus the ultimate cause of any warming is natural, not man-made. That's not to say that you shouldn't be mindful of your environment, but the proper approach is the exact opposite of what Global Warming Believers want, and the proper approach is increased private property rights and less tragedies of the commons.
There are people out there though who Believe- they hate God and attack anyone who believes in him, but they worship at the alter of the Green God and believe in man-made run-away global warming in spite of the lack of evidence, the faulty data, and the bad premises. They then advance to the next stage, which is that this man-made global warming is very very bad and a bigger threat to everyone's life than war, poverty, hunger, or any other really bad issue. If the globe warms than bad stuff will occur- you name it, global warming believers believe that it will happen. In reality what might happen is a better growing environment for many crops and expanding food supply, warmer weather demanding less energy to heat homes and businesses, and a generally spring-like feel to the world. Global warming actually might be good for everyone, if you can get over the fact that polar bears might have to migrate farther north (oh, the horror!).
Yes, the global warming myth is increasingly being proved to be just that- a myth. And those who fight the most to keep this myth in place are in reality those who are benefiting from the myth- Al Gore has made millions on peddling this myth, makers of wind turbines and solar panels have made millions more, and most government bureaucrats and corruption agents are out there peddling the myth while making money off of it. So be one of those darned kids, and expose the myth, and laugh at anyone who tries to sell it to you, because in the end, like at the end of most Scooby Doo cartoons, the whole thing is only worth one big laugh.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Detroit's Coon Man
In April I wrote about a story that I saw in the Detroit News about the Coon Man (Coon Hunting, A Bear Named Obama, Teleprompters, Queen Touching, and Bush Fighting Zombies), and today there was a follow up to it in the Detroit News. Here is what I wrote when the story first came out:
After Obama and the Democrats in Congress are done with our entire nation, will it be more or less like Detroit? Will wild animals roam streets that were once filled with industrious and happy people? Will crime and corruption run rampant? Will people be forced to buy and sell goods on the black market to supplement official government welfare checks? Once Obama and the Democrats have forced cap-and-tax, nationalized healthcare, more 'stimulus' projects, and massive interest-bearing debt on our nation, will our country look more or less like Detroit?
Detroit, for those of you who do not know, is a Democrat city. They hold all the political positions in the city, and elect not just Democrats, but the most liberal Democrats that there are. So if you want to see what happens when liberal Democrats win office, look to Detroit- it is an example of what happens after years of Democrat control. Detroit not a short 50 years ago was a gleaming city of hope, progress, industry, and innovation, and after 50 years of Democrat control, it is a city where people hunt through deserted streets looking for raccoons to kill to feed hungry families.
Next, according to the Detroit News, a new industry is starting up in Detroit, and I suspect that it actually is the fast-growing industry in the city (other than working for the government). The new industry is urban hunting and skinning. Yes, like a scene out of I Am Legend, the wilderness is retaking the city of Detroit, and the animal population is moving into areas that were once inhabited by productive men. Years of Democrat control in action!Today the Detroit News has a follow-up story about Detroit's Coon Man, who is busy hunting away finding meals for people for the holidays. This is great reporting, by the way, and the type of stuff that makes you want to buy a newspaper- it isn't slanted, biased, or massaged to produce some sort of political action- it is simply a great story well reported on. But as I read it, I do come to some conclusions.
The story in the Detroit News is the story of a young 69-year old entrepreneur, who has to supplement his Social Security checks by hunting raccoons in the city of Detroit. Apparently this guy kills coons with the help of his rifle and coon dog, butchers the meat, and sells it to local residents, and he also sells the skins- but doesn't pay taxes on these sales (must be a Democrat). The meat is not USDA approved (probably something to do with rabies), but the video about the story (go to the link for the article to watch it and howl with laughter) shows coon meat being served with liver and onions and Faygo red pop- just the way mom made it!
After Obama and the Democrats in Congress are done with our entire nation, will it be more or less like Detroit? Will wild animals roam streets that were once filled with industrious and happy people? Will crime and corruption run rampant? Will people be forced to buy and sell goods on the black market to supplement official government welfare checks? Once Obama and the Democrats have forced cap-and-tax, nationalized healthcare, more 'stimulus' projects, and massive interest-bearing debt on our nation, will our country look more or less like Detroit?
Detroit, for those of you who do not know, is a Democrat city. They hold all the political positions in the city, and elect not just Democrats, but the most liberal Democrats that there are. So if you want to see what happens when liberal Democrats win office, look to Detroit- it is an example of what happens after years of Democrat control. Detroit not a short 50 years ago was a gleaming city of hope, progress, industry, and innovation, and after 50 years of Democrat control, it is a city where people hunt through deserted streets looking for raccoons to kill to feed hungry families.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Conservative Club Derecognized Over Horowitz
Via Students For Academic Freedom we find out that Central Michigan University has derecognized and revoked the registered student organization privileges of Campus Conservatives for hosting nationally-known conservative author and commentator David Horowitz on Oct. 14, 2008.
Student Life assistant director Tom Idema sent an e-mail message dated Friday to Campus Conservatives president Bryant Greiner indicating the school’s oldest political club and only outlet for conservative students was no longer “recognized as a registered student organization and granted the privileges that are associated with being a RSO.”
No explanation or reason was given for the de-recognizing of the club, but sources indicate that it was because Tom didn't like David Harowitz and decided to abuse the power of the office to get revenge on those who were bringing Mr. Harowitz in to speak. Apparently Tom is an intolerant, hate-filled man who likes to discriminate against others who do not share his views, and is willing to use and abuse the power of his position at a public university to force his hate-filled intolerant views on others.
Tom Idema didn't even have the authority to take this measure, as according to the student handbook, there is a process that one has to go through before revoking the standing of a registered student organization, which includes notification and a hearing that affords a student organization its due process rights, neither of which were done. Tom apparently doesn't care though about due process, individual rights, liberty, freedom, or diversity, instead pushing a liberal agenda and attempting to shut down any group that offers up alternative views.
Without standing as a registered student organization, Campus Conservatives was unable to reserve a room at any CMU facilities, and are being forced to meet as fugitives in public rooms within facilities. But this is the not the first time that publicly-funded CMU has attempted to destroy conservative voices on campus.
CMU has tried repeatedly since February to charge Campus Conservatives for security provided by school police officers at last October’s event with Horowitz. The organization has steadfastly refused to pay for police protection, citing a letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education legal defense group to then-CMU president Michael Rao warning that such a charge would be unconstitutional under the decision Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement . CMU has made no attempts to charge any other student organization for police services, singling out only the conservative voices on campus for expressing voices that the university disagrees with.
In October 2001, CMU students were prohibited from displaying the American flag on doors to student dorms because it was “offensive” to Muslim students. Under threat of litigation from FIRE, the unconstitutional prohibition was dropped.
For more information about this story, including how you can help, please contact cmucampusconservatives@gmail.com.
To contact your legislator about this event and encourage them to cease funding a public university that acts in such a manner, find and email your Michigan House member by clicking here.
To contact someone at Central Michigan University to express your outrage, try contacting Student life at studentlife@cmich.edu, or Alumni Relations at alumni@cmich.edu, or the Student Ombuds Office at ombuds@cmich.edu, or contact members of the Board of Trustees by going to this link and then emailing various members.
Student Life assistant director Tom Idema sent an e-mail message dated Friday to Campus Conservatives president Bryant Greiner indicating the school’s oldest political club and only outlet for conservative students was no longer “recognized as a registered student organization and granted the privileges that are associated with being a RSO.”
No explanation or reason was given for the de-recognizing of the club, but sources indicate that it was because Tom didn't like David Harowitz and decided to abuse the power of the office to get revenge on those who were bringing Mr. Harowitz in to speak. Apparently Tom is an intolerant, hate-filled man who likes to discriminate against others who do not share his views, and is willing to use and abuse the power of his position at a public university to force his hate-filled intolerant views on others.
Tom Idema didn't even have the authority to take this measure, as according to the student handbook, there is a process that one has to go through before revoking the standing of a registered student organization, which includes notification and a hearing that affords a student organization its due process rights, neither of which were done. Tom apparently doesn't care though about due process, individual rights, liberty, freedom, or diversity, instead pushing a liberal agenda and attempting to shut down any group that offers up alternative views.
Without standing as a registered student organization, Campus Conservatives was unable to reserve a room at any CMU facilities, and are being forced to meet as fugitives in public rooms within facilities. But this is the not the first time that publicly-funded CMU has attempted to destroy conservative voices on campus.
CMU has tried repeatedly since February to charge Campus Conservatives for security provided by school police officers at last October’s event with Horowitz. The organization has steadfastly refused to pay for police protection, citing a letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education legal defense group to then-CMU president Michael Rao warning that such a charge would be unconstitutional under the decision Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement . CMU has made no attempts to charge any other student organization for police services, singling out only the conservative voices on campus for expressing voices that the university disagrees with.
In October 2001, CMU students were prohibited from displaying the American flag on doors to student dorms because it was “offensive” to Muslim students. Under threat of litigation from FIRE, the unconstitutional prohibition was dropped.
For more information about this story, including how you can help, please contact cmucampusconservatives@gmail.com.
To contact your legislator about this event and encourage them to cease funding a public university that acts in such a manner, find and email your Michigan House member by clicking here.
To contact someone at Central Michigan University to express your outrage, try contacting Student life at studentlife@cmich.edu, or Alumni Relations at alumni@cmich.edu, or the Student Ombuds Office at ombuds@cmich.edu, or contact members of the Board of Trustees by going to this link and then emailing various members.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Commerce Deparment Revises GDP Numbers
Although I don't like to celebrate, I can't help but have questions about how the Commerce Department's estimate of economic growth was so off. Instead of the gross domestic product growing at a 'robust and energetic' rate of 3.5 percent as reported a month ago, it turns out the economy only grew at an anemic and halting rate of 2.8 percent last quarter.
One of the most important jobs of the Commerce Department is to simply calculate one statistic, and this government agency can't even do that accurately. And it was not off by a small amount either- the difference between 3.5 and 2.8 is the difference between 3.5 and 4.7- and those are meaningful differences.
Do not be fooled by that 2.8 GDP growth rate either- that growth rate includes government spending, which was a mind boggling number last quarter. Imagine if you dropped massive amounts of spending on your credit card for several months- would you be any richer and more prosperous because of that? No, you wouldn't- the growth rate would be artificial and in the long-run dangerously bad, because of the interest you would have to pay on that debt. And yet, this is what our government is doing today- engaging in a reckless spending policy that is dangerous and going to destroy our nation.
One of the most important jobs of the Commerce Department is to simply calculate one statistic, and this government agency can't even do that accurately. And it was not off by a small amount either- the difference between 3.5 and 2.8 is the difference between 3.5 and 4.7- and those are meaningful differences.
Do not be fooled by that 2.8 GDP growth rate either- that growth rate includes government spending, which was a mind boggling number last quarter. Imagine if you dropped massive amounts of spending on your credit card for several months- would you be any richer and more prosperous because of that? No, you wouldn't- the growth rate would be artificial and in the long-run dangerously bad, because of the interest you would have to pay on that debt. And yet, this is what our government is doing today- engaging in a reckless spending policy that is dangerous and going to destroy our nation.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Assisted Suicide Funding is in the Healthcare Bill
Over at First Thoughts I saw this post that is an interest to anyone who is following the attempts by the Democrats to nationalize 1/6 of the US economy- Senate Version of Obamacare May Require Public Option to Cover Assisted Suicide.
That's right boys and girls, in addition to your tax money going to support abortion (likely in Senate version) and supporting panels that will consul seniors to just die instead of costing the system more (Death Panels Are in the Healthcare Bill ), your tax money is also going to be funding people who kill other people.
Check out section 1323 of the bill creating the public option (p. 183), beginning at page 186:
(F) PROTECTING ACCESS TO END OF LIFE CARE.—A community health insurance option offered under this section shall be prohibited from limiting access to end of life care.
If assisted suicide, or even euthanasia, are legally considered forms of “end of life care” in a particular state–as it is now the case in Oregon, Washington, and Montana–it seems to me that the community health insurance option would be required to provide “access” to assisted suicide under this clause.
This 'healthcare bill' has to be one of the most morbid bills ever- a bill that gives money and support and funding to killing people in many different ways. It is not shocking that people who value human life oppose its passage. What is stunning to me is that people who value human life support its passage. IT GIVES MONEY TO KILL PEOPLE. Abortion, death panels, assisted suicide- they're all in the bill. What kind of a country pays to kill people?
That's right boys and girls, in addition to your tax money going to support abortion (likely in Senate version) and supporting panels that will consul seniors to just die instead of costing the system more (Death Panels Are in the Healthcare Bill ), your tax money is also going to be funding people who kill other people.
Check out section 1323 of the bill creating the public option (p. 183), beginning at page 186:
(F) PROTECTING ACCESS TO END OF LIFE CARE.—A community health insurance option offered under this section shall be prohibited from limiting access to end of life care.
If assisted suicide, or even euthanasia, are legally considered forms of “end of life care” in a particular state–as it is now the case in Oregon, Washington, and Montana–it seems to me that the community health insurance option would be required to provide “access” to assisted suicide under this clause.
This 'healthcare bill' has to be one of the most morbid bills ever- a bill that gives money and support and funding to killing people in many different ways. It is not shocking that people who value human life oppose its passage. What is stunning to me is that people who value human life support its passage. IT GIVES MONEY TO KILL PEOPLE. Abortion, death panels, assisted suicide- they're all in the bill. What kind of a country pays to kill people?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Not Understanding Healthcare Supporters
The healthcare debate frustrates me and confuses me because I simply don't understand why certain groups are supporting the drive for nationalized healthcare. The AARP is urging its dwindling members to back a proposal that will cut from Medicare, provide funds for assisted suicide and death panels, and encourage the system to start rationing healthcare. Why would the AARP support this agenda? Why are you still a member of the AARP?
Why does the UAW support the healthcare plan by the Democrats? If I'm GM or Chrysler or Ford and I have two options of paying for healthcare for my employees or shoving them on the government plan and saving all that money, I'm shoving them on the government plan. The UAW is supporting a plan that would trade the quality coverage it has already bargained for with the government plan.
Although perhaps UAW understands that the fix is in- the government plan will a better plan than whatever the UAW has, because it will be funded on the backs of taxpayers to the cost of trillions of dollars over ten years, and trillions more over the next 10 years, if the United States lasts that long as a nation with that kind of spending and debt.
I don't understand the debate at all- there is no money for this program, it will raise costs, it will cause millions to be dropped from current plans, it will destroy the private insurance industry and lead to a loss in all of those tax dollars that industry provides, and it has many controversial and polarizing provisions in it like money for abortions (cut out of House version but in Senate version), money for assisted suicide, money for death panels, and many other controversial provisions.
The way this bill is being sold is by having people each share their sob story- that's anecdotal evidence that is nice, but should not be determining whether the bill is passed or not. Senator Debbie Stabenow is running a special interest lobbying group on her official Senate webpage (is that legal?) called Health Care People's Lobby (people's lobby... paging Soviet Russia...) where she encourages people to email her their sob stories about dealing with the insurance industry. Almost 10,000 people have emailed her various stories of how they where not able to take more advantage of an insurance system and how they were not able to get someone else to pay for their health-related procedures. This is the kind of 'evidence' that is being pushed as a reason to nationalize healthcare? I just don't understand why people are falling for this garbage argument.
Why does the UAW support the healthcare plan by the Democrats? If I'm GM or Chrysler or Ford and I have two options of paying for healthcare for my employees or shoving them on the government plan and saving all that money, I'm shoving them on the government plan. The UAW is supporting a plan that would trade the quality coverage it has already bargained for with the government plan.
Although perhaps UAW understands that the fix is in- the government plan will a better plan than whatever the UAW has, because it will be funded on the backs of taxpayers to the cost of trillions of dollars over ten years, and trillions more over the next 10 years, if the United States lasts that long as a nation with that kind of spending and debt.
I don't understand the debate at all- there is no money for this program, it will raise costs, it will cause millions to be dropped from current plans, it will destroy the private insurance industry and lead to a loss in all of those tax dollars that industry provides, and it has many controversial and polarizing provisions in it like money for abortions (cut out of House version but in Senate version), money for assisted suicide, money for death panels, and many other controversial provisions.
The way this bill is being sold is by having people each share their sob story- that's anecdotal evidence that is nice, but should not be determining whether the bill is passed or not. Senator Debbie Stabenow is running a special interest lobbying group on her official Senate webpage (is that legal?) called Health Care People's Lobby (people's lobby... paging Soviet Russia...) where she encourages people to email her their sob stories about dealing with the insurance industry. Almost 10,000 people have emailed her various stories of how they where not able to take more advantage of an insurance system and how they were not able to get someone else to pay for their health-related procedures. This is the kind of 'evidence' that is being pushed as a reason to nationalize healthcare? I just don't understand why people are falling for this garbage argument.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Business is Personal
On an episode of the NBC show The Office, the intern Ryan betrays the boss Micheal, and in his defense, he says "It was just business, it wasn't personal." Micheal replies back "Business is personal."
Business is personal. In the United States, it means that I can make a personal decision to buy a good, and a seller can make a personal decision to sell a good. We both mutually and freely arrive at this point. We both gain something they want, and what each side wants is a personal decision that they are making. No one forces anyone to make this exchange, it is done purely based on personal reasons. It doesn't matter if you are selling paper or buying a hamburger, the exchange is a personal one. Under a capitalistic system, business thrives, and business is personal, thus personal relationship thrive.
Ryan didn't understand that, and that's why he never made any sales. He thought business was some sort of system, full of buzzwords and gimmicks, and that business could be managed and planned into success. He is antisocial and does not like people and does not like to be personal with people, and that's why he doesn't understand business and does not make any sales.
Today on the radio I heard that Stefanie Spielman, wife of NFL and Ohio State star Chris Spielman, has died after a lengthy battle with breast cancer. She was only 42.
The government wants to encourage women to delay getting breast exams until the age of 50. The reason for this is that it costs money to run these exams, and the government wants to save some money on the 'system'. To the government, business is not personal, and the government does not care if women like Stefanie Spielman live or die. She was first diagnosed with cancer at the age of 30- that is 20 years before the government 'recommends' screening. After beating cancer the first time, she had several more kids and did great things for another dozen years before finally losing the long battle.
But if the government had its way, it would not have paid for all of those costly operations, paid for all of those costs tests, not have paid for all of those costs drugs, and given up on her after her third or fourth recurrence of breast cancer. She was a 'cost on the system', and not a person. She was just a number or a statistic, like the Jews were to Hitler, and not really a person.
Business, including health insurance and medical coverage, is personal. It is a personal decision between two consenting adults who decide on a mutually agreeable price point at which to buy insurance and at which to sell insurance. Once the government gets involved, it is no longer a personal decision, but rather an impersonal decision, and will lead to personal tragedies. We must fight to keep our decisions about goods and services we buy in our hands, and not in the hands of impersonal big government.
All business is, and always should remain, personal.
Business is personal. In the United States, it means that I can make a personal decision to buy a good, and a seller can make a personal decision to sell a good. We both mutually and freely arrive at this point. We both gain something they want, and what each side wants is a personal decision that they are making. No one forces anyone to make this exchange, it is done purely based on personal reasons. It doesn't matter if you are selling paper or buying a hamburger, the exchange is a personal one. Under a capitalistic system, business thrives, and business is personal, thus personal relationship thrive.
Ryan didn't understand that, and that's why he never made any sales. He thought business was some sort of system, full of buzzwords and gimmicks, and that business could be managed and planned into success. He is antisocial and does not like people and does not like to be personal with people, and that's why he doesn't understand business and does not make any sales.
Today on the radio I heard that Stefanie Spielman, wife of NFL and Ohio State star Chris Spielman, has died after a lengthy battle with breast cancer. She was only 42.
The government wants to encourage women to delay getting breast exams until the age of 50. The reason for this is that it costs money to run these exams, and the government wants to save some money on the 'system'. To the government, business is not personal, and the government does not care if women like Stefanie Spielman live or die. She was first diagnosed with cancer at the age of 30- that is 20 years before the government 'recommends' screening. After beating cancer the first time, she had several more kids and did great things for another dozen years before finally losing the long battle.
But if the government had its way, it would not have paid for all of those costly operations, paid for all of those costs tests, not have paid for all of those costs drugs, and given up on her after her third or fourth recurrence of breast cancer. She was a 'cost on the system', and not a person. She was just a number or a statistic, like the Jews were to Hitler, and not really a person.
Business, including health insurance and medical coverage, is personal. It is a personal decision between two consenting adults who decide on a mutually agreeable price point at which to buy insurance and at which to sell insurance. Once the government gets involved, it is no longer a personal decision, but rather an impersonal decision, and will lead to personal tragedies. We must fight to keep our decisions about goods and services we buy in our hands, and not in the hands of impersonal big government.
All business is, and always should remain, personal.
Fraud and Waste in Federal Government
Over the summer I got in many debates with liberals who supported the government's plan to nationalize the healthcare system. One of the most frequent pieces of evidence cited to support their argument was that currently there is a lot of waste and fraud in the system, and that when the federal government runs your insurance plan, that will all be eliminated. Because the government will run such an efficient system with no waste and fraud, these liberals would argue, it will be able to provide quality insurance to high risk individuals who never paid a dime into the system.
When faced with this logic, I would laugh, and question the assumption that the government will have less fraud and waste than private companies, especially the dramatically less rates needed to fund the magic system of to each according to their needs that liberals are promising.
This week my logic is reinforced by two points. First, the U.S. Office of Budget and Management this week announced that taxpayers lost at least $98 billion through waste and fraud in fiscal year 2009. That’s up $26 billion from last year. The Medicare and Medicaid programs counted for more than half the total—about $54.2 billion. Most of that went out for erroneous payments and outright fraud. With the massive power of the federal government supporting every move, the government still lost AT LEAST $98 billion, and I bet you that the number is much much higher than that in reality (a lot of what a liberal auditing private companies would call 'waste and fraud' is not counted when it is the government doing it). Oh, and amount of waste and fraud is not going down after the election of 'make government more efficient' and 'get rid of the special interests' Barack Obama to President- it is going up, almost as if Obama is doing the exact opposite of everything he promised to do and yet exactly the stuff I predicted he would do.
The other interesting story this week is that the according to the best and the brightest people in our nation's government, publishing official statistics meant to demonstrate the competence and transparency of the best that government has to offer, over $6.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent in hundreds of nonexistent congressional districts. That's right, the federal government 'created and saved jobs' and spent stimulus money in districts that don't exist (like Puerto Rico's 99th Congressional District). Joe Biden says it isn't a big deal- that the numbers the government published were totally made up and had no basis in reality, so don't get upset about it. But that doesn't comfort me and demonstrate to me that government can run a more efficient, less corrupt, less fraudulent, and less wasteful operation than private industry.
The very foundations of this healthcare bill are called into question every day using logic and common sense, and to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter. The bill that the Democrats are producing could be proved to do everything that conservatives say it is going to do, and Democrats and Obama would still support it. Because its intent is not to make health care costs go down (in fact, it will make them go up) and it is not to cover more people (most people will lose coverage under their old plans), but the whole point of this healthcare bill is to expand the government power over your life. They want to control your life. They want to control your liberty. And they want to control your property. Government is, as it has always been, the biggest threat to your natural god-given rights, and we can see that today in the Obama administration backed by Democratic Congressman.
When faced with this logic, I would laugh, and question the assumption that the government will have less fraud and waste than private companies, especially the dramatically less rates needed to fund the magic system of to each according to their needs that liberals are promising.
This week my logic is reinforced by two points. First, the U.S. Office of Budget and Management this week announced that taxpayers lost at least $98 billion through waste and fraud in fiscal year 2009. That’s up $26 billion from last year. The Medicare and Medicaid programs counted for more than half the total—about $54.2 billion. Most of that went out for erroneous payments and outright fraud. With the massive power of the federal government supporting every move, the government still lost AT LEAST $98 billion, and I bet you that the number is much much higher than that in reality (a lot of what a liberal auditing private companies would call 'waste and fraud' is not counted when it is the government doing it). Oh, and amount of waste and fraud is not going down after the election of 'make government more efficient' and 'get rid of the special interests' Barack Obama to President- it is going up, almost as if Obama is doing the exact opposite of everything he promised to do and yet exactly the stuff I predicted he would do.
The other interesting story this week is that the according to the best and the brightest people in our nation's government, publishing official statistics meant to demonstrate the competence and transparency of the best that government has to offer, over $6.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent in hundreds of nonexistent congressional districts. That's right, the federal government 'created and saved jobs' and spent stimulus money in districts that don't exist (like Puerto Rico's 99th Congressional District). Joe Biden says it isn't a big deal- that the numbers the government published were totally made up and had no basis in reality, so don't get upset about it. But that doesn't comfort me and demonstrate to me that government can run a more efficient, less corrupt, less fraudulent, and less wasteful operation than private industry.
The very foundations of this healthcare bill are called into question every day using logic and common sense, and to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter. The bill that the Democrats are producing could be proved to do everything that conservatives say it is going to do, and Democrats and Obama would still support it. Because its intent is not to make health care costs go down (in fact, it will make them go up) and it is not to cover more people (most people will lose coverage under their old plans), but the whole point of this healthcare bill is to expand the government power over your life. They want to control your life. They want to control your liberty. And they want to control your property. Government is, as it has always been, the biggest threat to your natural god-given rights, and we can see that today in the Obama administration backed by Democratic Congressman.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Granholm Improves Her Radical Stats
Michigan lame-duck Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm lately has been burnishing her credentials to work in the Obama administration when she is done being Michigan's governor. She already has demonstrated that she can take a successful state and utterly destroy it and drive all of the commerce out of it with high taxes and high regulation, so Obama already had his eye on her, even considering her for the Secretary of Commerce position when he first became President. Now Granholm needs to demonstrate her radical side, so she is opening up her copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and becoming more radical (I assume she has a copy of Alinksky's book- if not, her friends in the NEA or Obama could giver her one- they have plenty of copies).
Rule #2 of being a radical is "Never go outside the expertise of your people." If you are going to organize young people, do it around an issue that they are concerned about and know a lot about, such as a scholarship that they were working towards. So Granholm is now organizing the students of our state, promising that if they pressure politicians and voters to raise taxes again in our state that maybe she'll restore funding for the Promise Grants to college students that she cut.
She addressed about 150 students at a rally in front of the Administration Building at Michigan State University, flanked by university officials and student activists. "I stand with you, but I can't do it by myself," Granholm said.
Rule #1 of a radical is "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." College kids don't have money, but there are a lot of them, and they are living in a bubble of liberal education where they don't pay any bills, so if you can get them motivated and organizing, then that type of community can put pressure to enact radical policies.
Rule #5 is "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Granholm employs ridicule often, ripping into Republicans for 'breaking the promise' even though she was the one who cut the funding for the Promise Grants. She mocks Republicans, says mean things about them, and then pretends like it is the Republicans who are playing partisan games.
Next on the list for Granholm is to "Keep the pressure on and use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose." (Rule 8). Granholm really does not care that much about the Promise Grant- what she really wants is to raise taxes. Her mthods and tactics are going to change, but she is going to work every angle that she can think of to try to raise taxes on Michigan's residents, above and beyond the already giant tax increases that she has pushed through during her time as Governor. She feels that if she can raise more revenue for the government and then redistribute that revenue to the correct people, she personally can revive the economy. So she takes more and more money for residents, funneling it into her pet projects like Cool Cities or Wind Turbines, and then when residents flee the state or lose jobs, she needs to squeeze the rock harder to wring more tax money out of it. Her goal is to fund government, and she will use whatever tactic she needs to use, even manipulating college kids by organizing them in rallies about the Promise Grants.
Rule #2 of being a radical is "Never go outside the expertise of your people." If you are going to organize young people, do it around an issue that they are concerned about and know a lot about, such as a scholarship that they were working towards. So Granholm is now organizing the students of our state, promising that if they pressure politicians and voters to raise taxes again in our state that maybe she'll restore funding for the Promise Grants to college students that she cut.
She addressed about 150 students at a rally in front of the Administration Building at Michigan State University, flanked by university officials and student activists. "I stand with you, but I can't do it by myself," Granholm said.
Rule #1 of a radical is "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." College kids don't have money, but there are a lot of them, and they are living in a bubble of liberal education where they don't pay any bills, so if you can get them motivated and organizing, then that type of community can put pressure to enact radical policies.
Rule #5 is "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Granholm employs ridicule often, ripping into Republicans for 'breaking the promise' even though she was the one who cut the funding for the Promise Grants. She mocks Republicans, says mean things about them, and then pretends like it is the Republicans who are playing partisan games.
Next on the list for Granholm is to "Keep the pressure on and use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose." (Rule 8). Granholm really does not care that much about the Promise Grant- what she really wants is to raise taxes. Her mthods and tactics are going to change, but she is going to work every angle that she can think of to try to raise taxes on Michigan's residents, above and beyond the already giant tax increases that she has pushed through during her time as Governor. She feels that if she can raise more revenue for the government and then redistribute that revenue to the correct people, she personally can revive the economy. So she takes more and more money for residents, funneling it into her pet projects like Cool Cities or Wind Turbines, and then when residents flee the state or lose jobs, she needs to squeeze the rock harder to wring more tax money out of it. Her goal is to fund government, and she will use whatever tactic she needs to use, even manipulating college kids by organizing them in rallies about the Promise Grants.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Meet Gary Samore!
In today's segment of "Meet your Overlords," we meet alleged former US Communist party member and current WMD Policy Czar Gary Samore. His technical title is "Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism," most people know him as the guy that is working to destroy all the United States weapons of mass destruction unilaterally as a show of good faith.
Unlike other Obama czars (Aneesh Chopra, Technology Czar, I'm looking at you), he is an expert on the science, technology and policy issues related to weapons of mass destruction, having worked on these issues as a policy advisor for various nonproliferation institutes for the last 10 years and before that working in the Department of State and National Security Council. There is no doubting his resume, as he has headed up the attempts to make sure that Iran and North Korea do not aquire nuclear weapons.
Obama may have met Mr. Samore at Harvard, where he was a teaching fellow in the late '70's, or met him in the course of his work for the Department of State or NSC, or met him through the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, where Mr. Samore was serving as VP recently. This Foundation is a major grant-making private foundation based in Chicago, and has awarded more than US$4 billion since its inception in 1978, some of which I imagine went to various causes community activist Obama raised money for during his time with ACORN. It appears that this group is a liberal group, so one might imagine that Mr. Samore also shares a liberal world view.
Like most of Obama's czars, we really don't know much about him or what he does, since he is operating beyond the power of law and was never confirmed by the Senate. If you know anything else about him, please email me and I'll update this segment of "Meet your Overlords".
NOTE to NEW READERS: New readers, please feel free to also check out some of my recent good posts like Obama is a Caudillo, The Inside Deal: Obama's Economic Program, Employment-Population Ratio Drops to 58.5%, Earth Day: Is it just one big Communist Plot?, Gifted Programs in Schools Training Future Liberals, or Obama On Inner and Outer Circles of Leadership. Also feel free to link to aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com on your blog, and bookmark conservativeteacher.blogspot.com so you can become a regular reader of the battles of a conservative teacher's attempt to advance the principles of liberty and freedom.
Unlike other Obama czars (Aneesh Chopra, Technology Czar, I'm looking at you), he is an expert on the science, technology and policy issues related to weapons of mass destruction, having worked on these issues as a policy advisor for various nonproliferation institutes for the last 10 years and before that working in the Department of State and National Security Council. There is no doubting his resume, as he has headed up the attempts to make sure that Iran and North Korea do not aquire nuclear weapons.
Obama may have met Mr. Samore at Harvard, where he was a teaching fellow in the late '70's, or met him in the course of his work for the Department of State or NSC, or met him through the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, where Mr. Samore was serving as VP recently. This Foundation is a major grant-making private foundation based in Chicago, and has awarded more than US$4 billion since its inception in 1978, some of which I imagine went to various causes community activist Obama raised money for during his time with ACORN. It appears that this group is a liberal group, so one might imagine that Mr. Samore also shares a liberal world view.
Like most of Obama's czars, we really don't know much about him or what he does, since he is operating beyond the power of law and was never confirmed by the Senate. If you know anything else about him, please email me and I'll update this segment of "Meet your Overlords".
NOTE to NEW READERS: New readers, please feel free to also check out some of my recent good posts like Obama is a Caudillo, The Inside Deal: Obama's Economic Program, Employment-Population Ratio Drops to 58.5%, Earth Day: Is it just one big Communist Plot?, Gifted Programs in Schools Training Future Liberals, or Obama On Inner and Outer Circles of Leadership. Also feel free to link to aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com on your blog, and bookmark conservativeteacher.blogspot.com so you can become a regular reader of the battles of a conservative teacher's attempt to advance the principles of liberty and freedom.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Obama Attempts to Take Over Subway
In a post last month called States Have Demonstrated That ObamaCare will Fail I wrote about how one benefit of having a federal system is that the states can experiment with public policies and find out whether they make society better or worse. Another benefit of the federal system that I teach about in my classes is that federal systems of government spread political power out and prevent one national government from having too much power and being tempted into tyranny. Well, tyranny is knocking at the door in this state, and today via the Washington Post comes this story about how the Obama administration is making yet another power grab and trying to take over powers that formerly belonged to the states.
Federal oversight of subways proposed details the latest attempts by the Obama administration to seize control of the nation's subway and light-rail systems in every state. What bothers Obama is that he is not controlling these systems and that they are being controlled at the local or state level- what they call "haphazard and ineffective" control.
Under the proposal, the U.S. Department of Transportation would do for transit what it does for airlines and Amtrak, which means run a vast inefficient bureaucracy with a poor safety record at the cost of many millions. If you thought public transportation was bad now, wait until the Democrats get their hands on it!
"We were all sitting around here scratching our heads, saying, 'Hey, we've got to do something about this,' " Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in an interview. "And we discovered that there's not much we could do, because the law wouldn't allow us to do it." And so, they went about changing the law, because power is only good if you can wield it. Checks and balances, federalism, separation of powers- relics of an older age when those things mattered. Now the administration is all about the exact opposite of those fundamental values of our society- centralization of power, control over everything, and doing it because they want to do it, whether or not they have the authority or not.
Kitty Higgins, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said "I applaud the secretary and his team for recognizing the gap in oversight in the current law. I hope that Congress will act on it swiftly." Estimates are that millions in federal funding will flow to the NTSB and other safety boards as a result of this federal power grab, further enriching the government officials who live off the sweat of taxpayers brows.
Every day that Democrats are in power, they grab for more and more control over your life, snatching up powers once reserved for states and localities and private businesses, claiming that their legitimate and just reach of power goes into every aspect of your life. Tyranny, thy name is Democrat.
Federal oversight of subways proposed details the latest attempts by the Obama administration to seize control of the nation's subway and light-rail systems in every state. What bothers Obama is that he is not controlling these systems and that they are being controlled at the local or state level- what they call "haphazard and ineffective" control.
Under the proposal, the U.S. Department of Transportation would do for transit what it does for airlines and Amtrak, which means run a vast inefficient bureaucracy with a poor safety record at the cost of many millions. If you thought public transportation was bad now, wait until the Democrats get their hands on it!
"We were all sitting around here scratching our heads, saying, 'Hey, we've got to do something about this,' " Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in an interview. "And we discovered that there's not much we could do, because the law wouldn't allow us to do it." And so, they went about changing the law, because power is only good if you can wield it. Checks and balances, federalism, separation of powers- relics of an older age when those things mattered. Now the administration is all about the exact opposite of those fundamental values of our society- centralization of power, control over everything, and doing it because they want to do it, whether or not they have the authority or not.
Kitty Higgins, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said "I applaud the secretary and his team for recognizing the gap in oversight in the current law. I hope that Congress will act on it swiftly." Estimates are that millions in federal funding will flow to the NTSB and other safety boards as a result of this federal power grab, further enriching the government officials who live off the sweat of taxpayers brows.
Every day that Democrats are in power, they grab for more and more control over your life, snatching up powers once reserved for states and localities and private businesses, claiming that their legitimate and just reach of power goes into every aspect of your life. Tyranny, thy name is Democrat.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Communism Copiers
On average, I probably use about one ream of paper a week making copies for my classes. I need tests, worksheets, readings, and data packets made, and in a given week, it probably adds up to one ream of 500 sheets of paper. And yet, each week I put at least 10 reams of paper in the copier. When I go to make my copies, the printer is always out of paper, and so I fill it, and while I am filling it, I just fill the whole thing with paper, and that adds up to about 10 reams of paper a week. There are 32 weeks of school, so that means over a given school year I use 32 reams and put 320 reams of paper in. Assuming other teachers use the copier the same amount as me, that means that I am filling up paper for another 9 teachers who free-load off the system and never refill the copier, but instead rely on my labor for their profits. And as I contemplated this everyday experience I once again was reminded of the folly of communism.
To each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities. The more money you make, the more money you are taxed, but as an outright amount and as a percentage of your income. The more you can do for society, the more society demands of you. The more jobs and healthcare that you provide to your employees, the more jobs and healthcare that government demands you give people who are not yet your employees. Whatever your abilities, the government demands that you provide that and more, so that those people who have few abilities or lack the work ethic to employ their abilities can live off the fruits of your labor.
To each according to his needs means that everyone who needs healthcare gets it, whether they paid into the system or not. It means that the government will provide houses, cars, jobs, healthcare, education, and whatever else for you that you might think that you could need. To each according to his needs means that the limitless needs of man need to be filled by the clearly limited abilities of man, with a corrupt and politically-motivated government supervising the whole affair. This is communism in a nutshell, and is exactly what the Democratic Party and Barack Obama are fighting for today.
Next time you use the copy machine, ponder the folly's of the commons- that those goods who are used by everyone and yet lack sole ownership are the very goods that are most abused. To me, it's the copier paper, but to you, it might be the coffee machine in your office or the refrigerator. No one looks after those, or to be more correct, everyone looks after those, and you see the result. Oh, usually someone steps up and does everything, and that is the great thing about man, that there are those people who will do more and rise above the system that drags them down, but it is no cause to celebrate the system that it keeps running in spite of itself. The Democrats in Congress and your President Obama are trying to put in place a system that destroys initiative, ownership, responsibility, profit, and risk-taking. They are putting in place a system very similar to communism where you are going to be taxed (or assessed fees, like in the latest healthcare bill) at greater and greater amounts so that other people can live off your hard work and effort.
To each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities. The more money you make, the more money you are taxed, but as an outright amount and as a percentage of your income. The more you can do for society, the more society demands of you. The more jobs and healthcare that you provide to your employees, the more jobs and healthcare that government demands you give people who are not yet your employees. Whatever your abilities, the government demands that you provide that and more, so that those people who have few abilities or lack the work ethic to employ their abilities can live off the fruits of your labor.
To each according to his needs means that everyone who needs healthcare gets it, whether they paid into the system or not. It means that the government will provide houses, cars, jobs, healthcare, education, and whatever else for you that you might think that you could need. To each according to his needs means that the limitless needs of man need to be filled by the clearly limited abilities of man, with a corrupt and politically-motivated government supervising the whole affair. This is communism in a nutshell, and is exactly what the Democratic Party and Barack Obama are fighting for today.
Next time you use the copy machine, ponder the folly's of the commons- that those goods who are used by everyone and yet lack sole ownership are the very goods that are most abused. To me, it's the copier paper, but to you, it might be the coffee machine in your office or the refrigerator. No one looks after those, or to be more correct, everyone looks after those, and you see the result. Oh, usually someone steps up and does everything, and that is the great thing about man, that there are those people who will do more and rise above the system that drags them down, but it is no cause to celebrate the system that it keeps running in spite of itself. The Democrats in Congress and your President Obama are trying to put in place a system that destroys initiative, ownership, responsibility, profit, and risk-taking. They are putting in place a system very similar to communism where you are going to be taxed (or assessed fees, like in the latest healthcare bill) at greater and greater amounts so that other people can live off your hard work and effort.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Employment-Population Ratio Drops to 58.5%
Mr. Nolan Finley of the Detroit News wrote:
Currently, the number is 58.5%, and dropping fast. Only 58.5% of the people in our nation have a job producing goods and services, and it is dropping fast.
Here is the graph for you to look at, as generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing the employment-population ratio from 1988 to 2009 (seasonally adjusted). If you follow the link, you can access the data in more detail, including the month-by-month numbers that I break down below. Here is the graph:
Liberal Paul Krugman once analyzed these numbers too, and came away with the conclusion that under Bush the economy boomed less than under Clinton. That's fair enough and a good analysis. By a similar measure, a conclusion that could easily be drawn when looking at the numbers today is that since the nomination and election of Barack Obama, the economy has crashed at a rate seldom seen in the history of our nation.
Using the employment-population ratio, you can see a decrease in the percentage of people employed in this nation from the nomination of Obama in June to his election win in November of 1%- 62.4% to 61.4%. From Obama's election win in November to his taking office in January another 0.9% (61.4-60.5). From Obama becoming our President in January to today (October) we see another decrease in the percentage of people employed in our nation of 2% (60.5-58.5).
One could blame it on Bush- the last 1.9% drop did occur during his administration. Over the first 89 months of Bush's Presidency, the percentage of people employed in our nation dropped by 1.9%. Over his last 9 months, it dropped by another 1.9%. But the 2% drop that has occurred since he has been gone from office is much harder to pin on him, and it is getting worse, not better, since Obama's election.
Let's take a quick look at what electing a Democratic Congress has done to the numbers. From 1994 to 2000, under a Republican Congress and a Democrat President, the percentage went up 2.2% (from 62.2 to 64.4). Under Republican control of Congress and a Republican President, the percentage of those employed as a percentage of all workers in our nation went down 1.8 % (64.6 in Jan of 2000 to 62.8 in Dec of 2005). Under Democratic control of Congress and a Republican President, the percentage went down 1.8% (62.8 to 61). Under Democratic Congress and Democrat President, the percentage went down 1.5% so far (61 to 58.5).
On the whole, Republican Congress resulted in an increase in 0.4%, Republican President a decrease of 3.6%, Democrat Congress decrease of 3.3%, and Democrat President an increase of 0.7%. These numbers can be updated in the future since we have a Democratic Congress and President currently.
I would suggest that as a voter you begin to pay more attention to who is running Congress and vote for Republicans for Congress, since when Republicans are in charge they have a better record of creating jobs and helping more people be gainfully employed. As far as the Presidency goes, so far it looks like having a Democrat as President is better than a Republican, but as more data emerges on the Obama Presidency over the next 3 years, this may change, especially if current trends hold steady.
UPDATE: Updating my numbers from October of 2009 on November of 2010 shows that the employment-population ratio dropped another 0.2%. This damages the Democrats, since there was a Democratic President and Democratic Congress in charge during this time period, and they are also accountable for any numbers through January as well. After that, with a split Congress until 2012, any adjustments will only affect Obama.
But while the economy tops every list of public concerns, job creation is not the hot topic in Washington. In fact, Democratic leaders, obsessed with reworking America, have proved more than willing to sacrifice precious jobs during the worst economic climate in a half-century.When people talk about jobs and employment, usually the number that is used is the unemployment figure. But that figure does not give you a real picture of how many people in this country do not have a productive job. Unemployment does not give you a picture of how many people out there are earning a paycheck providing goods and services. A better picture emerges when you consider the employment-population ratio. This statistic measures how many people 16 and older have a job. And when you look at that number, it is very shocking what is going on in our nation.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., rammed an energy-rationing bill through her Senate environment and Public Works Committee last week without a single Republican member in the room. The bill would greatly limit America's ability to produce the energy it needs to fuel an economic rebound. In other words, it's a job killer.
Democrats are revealing that putting the country back to work is a lesser priority than passing their social agenda. If that weren't true, they wouldn't even consider any measure that would raise taxes on job creators. Higher taxes, particularly on business, always result in fewer jobs. Both the health care and climate change bills will trigger huge tax hikes for every taxpayer.
Currently, the number is 58.5%, and dropping fast. Only 58.5% of the people in our nation have a job producing goods and services, and it is dropping fast.
Here is the graph for you to look at, as generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing the employment-population ratio from 1988 to 2009 (seasonally adjusted). If you follow the link, you can access the data in more detail, including the month-by-month numbers that I break down below. Here is the graph:
Liberal Paul Krugman once analyzed these numbers too, and came away with the conclusion that under Bush the economy boomed less than under Clinton. That's fair enough and a good analysis. By a similar measure, a conclusion that could easily be drawn when looking at the numbers today is that since the nomination and election of Barack Obama, the economy has crashed at a rate seldom seen in the history of our nation.
Using the employment-population ratio, you can see a decrease in the percentage of people employed in this nation from the nomination of Obama in June to his election win in November of 1%- 62.4% to 61.4%. From Obama's election win in November to his taking office in January another 0.9% (61.4-60.5). From Obama becoming our President in January to today (October) we see another decrease in the percentage of people employed in our nation of 2% (60.5-58.5).
One could blame it on Bush- the last 1.9% drop did occur during his administration. Over the first 89 months of Bush's Presidency, the percentage of people employed in our nation dropped by 1.9%. Over his last 9 months, it dropped by another 1.9%. But the 2% drop that has occurred since he has been gone from office is much harder to pin on him, and it is getting worse, not better, since Obama's election.
Let's take a quick look at what electing a Democratic Congress has done to the numbers. From 1994 to 2000, under a Republican Congress and a Democrat President, the percentage went up 2.2% (from 62.2 to 64.4). Under Republican control of Congress and a Republican President, the percentage of those employed as a percentage of all workers in our nation went down 1.8 % (64.6 in Jan of 2000 to 62.8 in Dec of 2005). Under Democratic control of Congress and a Republican President, the percentage went down 1.8% (62.8 to 61). Under Democratic Congress and Democrat President, the percentage went down 1.5% so far (61 to 58.5).
On the whole, Republican Congress resulted in an increase in 0.4%, Republican President a decrease of 3.6%, Democrat Congress decrease of 3.3%, and Democrat President an increase of 0.7%. These numbers can be updated in the future since we have a Democratic Congress and President currently.
I would suggest that as a voter you begin to pay more attention to who is running Congress and vote for Republicans for Congress, since when Republicans are in charge they have a better record of creating jobs and helping more people be gainfully employed. As far as the Presidency goes, so far it looks like having a Democrat as President is better than a Republican, but as more data emerges on the Obama Presidency over the next 3 years, this may change, especially if current trends hold steady.
UPDATE: Updating my numbers from October of 2009 on November of 2010 shows that the employment-population ratio dropped another 0.2%. This damages the Democrats, since there was a Democratic President and Democratic Congress in charge during this time period, and they are also accountable for any numbers through January as well. After that, with a split Congress until 2012, any adjustments will only affect Obama.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
NEA Recommends Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals
The National Education Association, or NEA, is the largest teacher's union in the country and one of the top lobbying groups in the nation. Almost every single state teacher's association, including the Michigan Education Association, or MEA, belongs to the NEA. These state associations are among the most powerful lobbying groups in their respective states. And the NEA recommends that every teacher read Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals.
On the NEA website, under "Tools and Ideas", along with lesson plans and articles on classroom management, there is a resource called "Association Representative Resources." Follow that link and then click on "Articles & Multimedia." You will see that out of all of the books in the entire world of books, the NEA recommends reading only three, one of which is Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals.
Here is the review of this book from the largest teacher's union in the country:
The NEA recommends that teachers- that your child's teacher- agitates against the rule of law in this nation, aggravates anyone who opposes the teachers and the NEA's views on issues, educates children on what to believe, and organize in such as way as to defeat any enemies of the NEA. The NEA recommends that your teacher become a radical.
I wish I was making this stuff up, and I wish that my dues were not going to fund an organization that encourages teachers to become radicals. But it is true- read it yourself.
The NEA recommends that teachers read Alinsky's book, follow his advice, and become radical proponents of a leftist agenda. Your children go in to classrooms every day, and your only hope is that teachers ignore the advice and pressure exerted on them by their own union leaders. Your best hope is that the teacher who teaches your children just pays dues to the NEA every year and supports it, but doesn't really listen to what it wants them to do in the classroom. Your best hope is that the NEA member who teaches your child doesn't 'really' belong to the NEA. You better hope that the teacher who is teaching your child today is not reading the books the NEA recommends for them to read.
The NEA and teachers- advocating radicalism in our school system.
UPDATE: Welcome Gateway Pundit readers! Feel free to look around the rest of my blog, and be sure to check out other education-themed posts!
UPDATE II: Welcome readers of Education Watch International and Designated Conservative!
On the NEA website, under "Tools and Ideas", along with lesson plans and articles on classroom management, there is a resource called "Association Representative Resources." Follow that link and then click on "Articles & Multimedia." You will see that out of all of the books in the entire world of books, the NEA recommends reading only three, one of which is Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals.
Here is the review of this book from the largest teacher's union in the country:
Saul Alinsky, who was a labor and civil-rights activist from the 1910's until he died in 1972, has written here a guidebook for those who are out to change things. Alinsky was hated and defamed by powerful enemies, proof that his tactics worked. His simple formula for success...This is the official review of this book written by the NEA. The NEA didn't choose many books to recommend that teachers read- they only choose three. And in its review of Alinsky, the NEA reviewer embraced Alinsky's radical ideas.
"Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize"
The NEA recommends that teachers- that your child's teacher- agitates against the rule of law in this nation, aggravates anyone who opposes the teachers and the NEA's views on issues, educates children on what to believe, and organize in such as way as to defeat any enemies of the NEA. The NEA recommends that your teacher become a radical.
I wish I was making this stuff up, and I wish that my dues were not going to fund an organization that encourages teachers to become radicals. But it is true- read it yourself.
The NEA recommends that teachers read Alinsky's book, follow his advice, and become radical proponents of a leftist agenda. Your children go in to classrooms every day, and your only hope is that teachers ignore the advice and pressure exerted on them by their own union leaders. Your best hope is that the teacher who teaches your children just pays dues to the NEA every year and supports it, but doesn't really listen to what it wants them to do in the classroom. Your best hope is that the NEA member who teaches your child doesn't 'really' belong to the NEA. You better hope that the teacher who is teaching your child today is not reading the books the NEA recommends for them to read.
The NEA and teachers- advocating radicalism in our school system.
UPDATE: Welcome Gateway Pundit readers! Feel free to look around the rest of my blog, and be sure to check out other education-themed posts!
UPDATE II: Welcome readers of Education Watch International and Designated Conservative!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Cults of Personality
Wandering around wikipedia, I came across this entry for "Cult of Personality":
Or sometimes cults of personality are created and advanced by people who create snappy, stubbornly catchy songs about the great leader. A frequent sight in dictatorships is videos of children singing praises to their dear leader, associating him with great leaders of the past, and celebrating their greatness. These children usually chant and sing about some sort of catch-phrase of the dictator, and supervised by a zealous government agent, they sing about the slogan and chant it until they begin to believe in it.
These dictators are able to make great progress in their agenda and change a nation to whatever they want it once the youth believe suck in all the information that is being given to them in song and art about how great the dear leader is and how obedience to the living god is the way to go. The religion of the state becomes the religion of these students, and they do not question the faith that the dear leader is indeed great, that his policies not fail, and that the reason why his policies fail is because of some plot out there by bad people (usual targets include capitalists, Jews, unsophisticated rednecks, and bankers).
If you are interested in actually seeing video's of young innocent children being brainwashed by government officials into buying into a cult of personality to worship a dear leader, they are out there. ABCnews.com, among others, reported on the snappy, stubbornly catchy tune, “Mmm mmm mmm…Barack Hussein Obama,” filmed last school year in New Jersey.
BigHollywood.com has posted 11 new videos of young children singing the praises of Obama. In one video, the 5th and 6th graders call Obama, “a modern Martin Luther.” “He’s known around the world – come on, let’s celebrate.” In another video, 5th graders sing, “You know we gotta get Barack and all of his crew/ In the White House so they can prove that.” “Change that we can believe in” is what they’re referring to. Another video, of kids ranging from pre-school to 3rd grade: “Barack Obama there is none higher/ Other politicians should call me sire … We’re the baddest of the bad/ The cool of the cool/ I’m Barack/ I rock and rule.”
Children chanting (or rapping, to be more accurate) "I'm Barack and I rule" should indeed scare you a little. Laws rule, children, not men, and 'progress' towards a society where men rule without checks and balances and limits is progress backwards. Why aren't these children using precious time studying our founding fathers? Why are they chanting about installing into power a politician and his crew rather than learning about the philosophies of Plato and Locke? Why is the teachers union silent on this issue?
Watch the video's over at BigHollywood.com if you want to see more evidence that United States President Democrat Barack Obama is becoming the center of a cult of personality and bringing our nation step by step closer to a tyranny.
A cult of personality arises when a country's leader creates an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.Sometimes cults of personality are created and advanced by government-controlled school teachers. They tell their students that a person is the second coming of someone great, or something that they have never seen before, and the students eat it up and start to believe it.
Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
Or sometimes cults of personality are created and advanced by people who create snappy, stubbornly catchy songs about the great leader. A frequent sight in dictatorships is videos of children singing praises to their dear leader, associating him with great leaders of the past, and celebrating their greatness. These children usually chant and sing about some sort of catch-phrase of the dictator, and supervised by a zealous government agent, they sing about the slogan and chant it until they begin to believe in it.
These dictators are able to make great progress in their agenda and change a nation to whatever they want it once the youth believe suck in all the information that is being given to them in song and art about how great the dear leader is and how obedience to the living god is the way to go. The religion of the state becomes the religion of these students, and they do not question the faith that the dear leader is indeed great, that his policies not fail, and that the reason why his policies fail is because of some plot out there by bad people (usual targets include capitalists, Jews, unsophisticated rednecks, and bankers).
If you are interested in actually seeing video's of young innocent children being brainwashed by government officials into buying into a cult of personality to worship a dear leader, they are out there. ABCnews.com, among others, reported on the snappy, stubbornly catchy tune, “Mmm mmm mmm…Barack Hussein Obama,” filmed last school year in New Jersey.
BigHollywood.com has posted 11 new videos of young children singing the praises of Obama. In one video, the 5th and 6th graders call Obama, “a modern Martin Luther.” “He’s known around the world – come on, let’s celebrate.” In another video, 5th graders sing, “You know we gotta get Barack and all of his crew/ In the White House so they can prove that.” “Change that we can believe in” is what they’re referring to. Another video, of kids ranging from pre-school to 3rd grade: “Barack Obama there is none higher/ Other politicians should call me sire … We’re the baddest of the bad/ The cool of the cool/ I’m Barack/ I rock and rule.”
Children chanting (or rapping, to be more accurate) "I'm Barack and I rule" should indeed scare you a little. Laws rule, children, not men, and 'progress' towards a society where men rule without checks and balances and limits is progress backwards. Why aren't these children using precious time studying our founding fathers? Why are they chanting about installing into power a politician and his crew rather than learning about the philosophies of Plato and Locke? Why is the teachers union silent on this issue?
Watch the video's over at BigHollywood.com if you want to see more evidence that United States President Democrat Barack Obama is becoming the center of a cult of personality and bringing our nation step by step closer to a tyranny.
Honor Flight
Today is Veterans Day, a day set aside to honor the veterans of our armed services who have done so much to keep our country safe. These veterans made a choice to put themselves in harms way to defend our nation, our liberties, our lives, and our property, and that makes veterans heroes of the first order.
I would especially like to thank all of the veterans who read my blog- I thank you for your courage and sacrifice and honor in the service of our nation.
If you want to contribute something, there are a lot of things you can do. One charity that I like to raise money for is called Honor Flight. Honor Flight is a non-profit organization formed to raise funds to send all World War II Veterans to see their monument free of charge.
The WW II Memorial didn’t open to the public till 2004, when the youngest of WWII vets were pushing 80. Today, only 3 million of the 16 million who served are still alive- and they are dying at a rate of nearly 1500 per day. Time is running out to give the remaining veterans one last tribute and treat them like the heroes they are, if only for one day.
Many of these veterans are on fixed incomes, and rising healthcare costs have wiped out their life savings, preventing them to seeing their memorial that was built to honor their sacrifices. There are many sponsors to help defray the cost, but it does cost the organization about $300 for every veteran that they send to DC. The veterans get breakfast, fly out to DC, are honored when they get off the plane, visit the memorial and Arlington, have lunch, and then fly home. It is a long and busy day, but I know personally that every veteran who has gone has found it to be a moving and important tribute to them.
Please consider donating some money for Honor Flight- I know times are tough, but time is literally running out for many WWII veterans. $10 from 30 people is enough for one veteran to go.
Happy Veterans Day!
I would especially like to thank all of the veterans who read my blog- I thank you for your courage and sacrifice and honor in the service of our nation.
If you want to contribute something, there are a lot of things you can do. One charity that I like to raise money for is called Honor Flight. Honor Flight is a non-profit organization formed to raise funds to send all World War II Veterans to see their monument free of charge.
The WW II Memorial didn’t open to the public till 2004, when the youngest of WWII vets were pushing 80. Today, only 3 million of the 16 million who served are still alive- and they are dying at a rate of nearly 1500 per day. Time is running out to give the remaining veterans one last tribute and treat them like the heroes they are, if only for one day.
Many of these veterans are on fixed incomes, and rising healthcare costs have wiped out their life savings, preventing them to seeing their memorial that was built to honor their sacrifices. There are many sponsors to help defray the cost, but it does cost the organization about $300 for every veteran that they send to DC. The veterans get breakfast, fly out to DC, are honored when they get off the plane, visit the memorial and Arlington, have lunch, and then fly home. It is a long and busy day, but I know personally that every veteran who has gone has found it to be a moving and important tribute to them.
Please consider donating some money for Honor Flight- I know times are tough, but time is literally running out for many WWII veterans. $10 from 30 people is enough for one veteran to go.
Happy Veterans Day!
Monday, November 9, 2009
Good Intentions Will Lead Us to Tyranny
In Tyranny: Healthcare Reform Threat to Life, Liberty, and Property I wrote:
Our founding fathers understood that the best way to insure the protection of our life, our liberty, and our property was to create a limited government. If government became unlimited, and could do whatever it felt like it wanted to do, then pressure would now exist for it to act in a tyrannical manner. Not because of evil people- it's not like we have evil dictators here- but because that is the nature of an unlimited government.
For example, a story broken by Business Week reports that earlier this week, a number of politically connected companies such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs received quantities of the H1N1 vaccine to provide to their employees who belong to high-risk groups. The author of hte blog Bible, Math, Politics and More! saw this story and realized something- that when the government is in charge of distributing healthcare, pressure will exist to do so in a corrupt and tyrannical manner, not because of evil intent, but because this is what happens when government is in charge of distributing goods and services.
Freedom and liberty are precious in this world, and are now under attack, not by evil people who seek your harm, but by people who through good intentions and intellectual reasoning would lead us into tyranny.This point often goes unremarked on, but it is an important one. The people who are pushing for healthcare reform are decent people. They really feel that by the government controlling larger and larger parts of society, the world will be a better place. My Congressman, who likely will vote for Obamacare, is a good guy- a veteran, well-educated, and a decent person. Democrats and liberals are not bad people- they are just wrong.
Our founding fathers understood that the best way to insure the protection of our life, our liberty, and our property was to create a limited government. If government became unlimited, and could do whatever it felt like it wanted to do, then pressure would now exist for it to act in a tyrannical manner. Not because of evil people- it's not like we have evil dictators here- but because that is the nature of an unlimited government.
For example, a story broken by Business Week reports that earlier this week, a number of politically connected companies such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs received quantities of the H1N1 vaccine to provide to their employees who belong to high-risk groups. The author of hte blog Bible, Math, Politics and More! saw this story and realized something- that when the government is in charge of distributing healthcare, pressure will exist to do so in a corrupt and tyrannical manner, not because of evil intent, but because this is what happens when government is in charge of distributing goods and services.
There will be times when the demand for a healthcare supply or service will exceed the demand. Some will obtain the supply or service; others, for whatever reason, will not. Those who are "in the know" or have connections will be more likely to receive it; others will not. Furthermore, it is likely that some will not only be "in the know" but will be able to circumvent whatever bureaucratic-nightmare procurement process will be in place.This is why you should oppose the Democrat's plans for healthcare, and for that matter, their plans for energy, transportation, taxes, and whatever else they want to do. Do not oppose Democrats and fight against them in elections because they are bad people- do it because they are wrong, and their policies are wrong, and their beliefs and intentions will lead our nation to a tyranny that resembles Soviet Russia more than United States of America.
You may not be near the front of the line. You may not even be told where the line is. You may see others obtain healthcare while you or your loved ones do not. You may not be able to do anything about it.
And you will start to wonder how similar this is to the Soviet Union of the 1970's and 1980's.
Obama Too Busy Playing Politics to Visit Fort Hood
After the tragedies in Fort Hood, our President visited wounded soldiers and their families and thanked Fort Hood's military leaders and hospital staff for the "amazing care they are providing." Not our sitting President- he has been busy in Washington playing politics with healthcare. It was former President George W. Bush who visited these soldiers and tried to bring them and their families a small measure of comfort.
President Barack Obama will attend a memorial service for the fallen soldiers on Tuesday. The White House did not clarify what he will be doing for the wounded soldiers, their families, or the people at the base who are working so hard. The White House also did not say how it would thank the hero's out of this tragedy.
In fact, other than an occasional statement, the White House seems more annoyed that this real tragedy happened, because it has forced them to divert their attention away from enacting the tragic healthcare bill on the American people.
Obama doesn't visit, doesn't go on national TV, and doesn't do anything big to honor the fallen after one of the worst shootings on a military base in the history of this country. It falls to former President Bush to meet with these families and soldiers, quietly and in secret so as to not make Obama look bad, while Obama works over politicians and special interest groups in Washington DC before he can make a show of a ceremony on Tuesday.
Watching how Obama treats our nation is making me increasingly angry, and this is just more evidence that we elected a President who cares most about himself and his schemes and not about other people and the tragedies of our nation.
President Barack Obama will attend a memorial service for the fallen soldiers on Tuesday. The White House did not clarify what he will be doing for the wounded soldiers, their families, or the people at the base who are working so hard. The White House also did not say how it would thank the hero's out of this tragedy.
In fact, other than an occasional statement, the White House seems more annoyed that this real tragedy happened, because it has forced them to divert their attention away from enacting the tragic healthcare bill on the American people.
Obama doesn't visit, doesn't go on national TV, and doesn't do anything big to honor the fallen after one of the worst shootings on a military base in the history of this country. It falls to former President Bush to meet with these families and soldiers, quietly and in secret so as to not make Obama look bad, while Obama works over politicians and special interest groups in Washington DC before he can make a show of a ceremony on Tuesday.
Watching how Obama treats our nation is making me increasingly angry, and this is just more evidence that we elected a President who cares most about himself and his schemes and not about other people and the tragedies of our nation.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Gary Peters Votes To Fund Abortions
In You Will Support Abortions Under New Healthcare Bill I wrote about two passages in the Democrat's healthcare bill that encouraged your taxpayer money to be spent on aborting babies. But after Demcrats fought hard to prevent a vote on this issue, morality prevailed, and a group of Democrats voted with Republicans to successfully ban federal funds for abortion under the public health insurance option in the bill and prohibit federal subsidies for purchasing health plans covering abortion.
The amendment does not impose a new federal abortion policy since it simply continues what has been the law in the United States since 1977. The vote was a roll call vote of 240-194.
Voting against this amendment was Michigan's 9th District Congressman, Democrat Gary Peters. He supports using taxpayer money to fund abortions, and felt that some of the $1.2 trillion dollars the federal government will spend under this health care bill should be used to encourage and support women who choose to abort their babies.
Gary Peters, elected out of a district that used to be solidly Republican, has now voted to increase taxes and regulation for energy, increase taxes and regulation for healthcare, and now to fund the expansion of abortions. Gary Peters is no blue-dog- based on his voting record, he is as liberal as they come, and voters in his district need to vote next election to throw him out of office before he works any longer on destroying Michigan jobs.
The amendment does not impose a new federal abortion policy since it simply continues what has been the law in the United States since 1977. The vote was a roll call vote of 240-194.
Voting against this amendment was Michigan's 9th District Congressman, Democrat Gary Peters. He supports using taxpayer money to fund abortions, and felt that some of the $1.2 trillion dollars the federal government will spend under this health care bill should be used to encourage and support women who choose to abort their babies.
Gary Peters, elected out of a district that used to be solidly Republican, has now voted to increase taxes and regulation for energy, increase taxes and regulation for healthcare, and now to fund the expansion of abortions. Gary Peters is no blue-dog- based on his voting record, he is as liberal as they come, and voters in his district need to vote next election to throw him out of office before he works any longer on destroying Michigan jobs.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Can You Spare 13K From Your Budget? Democrats Think So
According to the most recent analysis by the Congressional Budget office, the Democrat's health care bill will eventually cost families of four that make over $78,000 another 13.5K in taxes- an increase in average premiums of $8,800 plus $5,000 more in copays, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
A starting salary for a teacher in Michigan is about 30K. Teach for a couple years, earn a Masters Degree, and you're looking at 40K in salary. If you happen to marry another teacher, you're now in that area where the government thinks you owe them more money. I don't know why- there is no moral grounds to say that two young people building a family and working hard and just happen to do okay owe anybody anything in a free nation.
Health care costs are a problem in our society, and are becoming more of a problem the more government gets involved. Health care coverage is a problem in our society, and is becoming a bigger and bigger problem the more government gets involved.
But to make my family or your family cut another 13K from our budget will result in less money spent by us buying goods and services, less investments by us in businesses, less savings for our future, and the inability to pay for college for our children. It will not lead to a better nation, a more prosperous nation, when the state forces me to give them wages from my hard work so that other people can get free health care. It does not lead to a more moral, responsible, ethical society when the government intimidates me with its agents into giving up my money that I earned so that people out there can get something for nothing.
This is why we should oppose the healthcare bill. To do this, contact Congressman, attend rallies, talk to friends, and vote Republican next election. We can't afford not to. You can't afford not to.
A starting salary for a teacher in Michigan is about 30K. Teach for a couple years, earn a Masters Degree, and you're looking at 40K in salary. If you happen to marry another teacher, you're now in that area where the government thinks you owe them more money. I don't know why- there is no moral grounds to say that two young people building a family and working hard and just happen to do okay owe anybody anything in a free nation.
Health care costs are a problem in our society, and are becoming more of a problem the more government gets involved. Health care coverage is a problem in our society, and is becoming a bigger and bigger problem the more government gets involved.
But to make my family or your family cut another 13K from our budget will result in less money spent by us buying goods and services, less investments by us in businesses, less savings for our future, and the inability to pay for college for our children. It will not lead to a better nation, a more prosperous nation, when the state forces me to give them wages from my hard work so that other people can get free health care. It does not lead to a more moral, responsible, ethical society when the government intimidates me with its agents into giving up my money that I earned so that people out there can get something for nothing.
This is why we should oppose the healthcare bill. To do this, contact Congressman, attend rallies, talk to friends, and vote Republican next election. We can't afford not to. You can't afford not to.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Obama Golf Playing, Debt Making, Bitterly Divisive President
During his administration, George Bush was frequently accused of not working hard, being lazy, and generally having a frat-boy mentality to being President. One piece of evidence to support this argument was the frequency to which Bush played golf. Over and over in the media jokes were made about how lazy a President he was, and how he was often playing golf when important decisions needed to be made. It turns out that when compared to current President, Barack Obama, Bush was a workaholic.
President Obama has played 24 rounds of golf as President since February. It took Bush nearly three years to play that many rounds of golf, and yet Obama has done it in one year.
There is nothing wrong with the President playing an occasional round of golf- there is no magic number to the correct amount of golf the President plays. But for the media, which spent a lot of time building and promoting the argument that Bush spent too much time golfing and not enough time governing, it is hypocritical for them to now say nothing when Obama is playing golf a lot more than Bush ever did. The media should have consistent standards on how it covers politicians.
It is almost as if Obama is doing everything wrong that Bush did, only in an exponentially worse way. Democrats criticized Bush for the debt- Obama is piling up debt at a far far faster clip than did Bush. Democrats criticized Bush for bailing out banks and businesses- Obama gave far more money for bailouts than Bush did. Democrats criticized Bush for playing bitter partisan politics- Obama's Presidency is becoming by far the most bitter and most partisan in the history of our nation. And Democrats criticized Bush for playing golf- and now Obama has played way more golf in a year than Bush played over three.
People who voted for Obama did indeed vote for change, but I'm not sure if they understood that voting for Obama was a vote for a dramatic change for the worse. Vote Democrat for higher debt, divisive politics, and more golf playing politicians!
President Obama has played 24 rounds of golf as President since February. It took Bush nearly three years to play that many rounds of golf, and yet Obama has done it in one year.
There is nothing wrong with the President playing an occasional round of golf- there is no magic number to the correct amount of golf the President plays. But for the media, which spent a lot of time building and promoting the argument that Bush spent too much time golfing and not enough time governing, it is hypocritical for them to now say nothing when Obama is playing golf a lot more than Bush ever did. The media should have consistent standards on how it covers politicians.
It is almost as if Obama is doing everything wrong that Bush did, only in an exponentially worse way. Democrats criticized Bush for the debt- Obama is piling up debt at a far far faster clip than did Bush. Democrats criticized Bush for bailing out banks and businesses- Obama gave far more money for bailouts than Bush did. Democrats criticized Bush for playing bitter partisan politics- Obama's Presidency is becoming by far the most bitter and most partisan in the history of our nation. And Democrats criticized Bush for playing golf- and now Obama has played way more golf in a year than Bush played over three.
People who voted for Obama did indeed vote for change, but I'm not sure if they understood that voting for Obama was a vote for a dramatic change for the worse. Vote Democrat for higher debt, divisive politics, and more golf playing politicians!
The Pay Czar Is Unconstitutional
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Michael McConnell asserts that President Obama's pay czar is unconstitutional and that all of his acts and activities are in the violation of the rule of law in our nation. McConnell is a smart guy- professor at Stanford University Law School, director of its Constitutional Law Center, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a former federal judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals- so he kind of knows his stuff.
Obama's "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg recently called up top executives at private companies that work in the United States and told them that he had decided to slash their pay in half. Where does he get the just and legitimate power to do this?
Obama's "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg recently called up top executives at private companies that work in the United States and told them that he had decided to slash their pay in half. Where does he get the just and legitimate power to do this?
As part of the hastily enacted and seldom-read legislation establishing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to "require each TARP recipient to meet appropriate standards for executive compensation." To carry out this task, last June the Treasury promulgated an emergency "Interim Final Rule," waiving ordinary requirements for a public comment period.This is the government that will soon be deciding what is 'appropriate' energy use, 'appropriate' spending on healthcare, and 'appropriate' content for radio. Read the language of the kind of bills that Democrats are working to pass as laws in our nation- they are putting in unelected, unconfirmed bureaucrats who will run our lives for us. This is not protecting our freedom and property better- this is tyranny.
As part of this emergency rule, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner created the office of "Special Master" for compensation, delegated his TARP authority to set compensation standards to this officer, and appointed Mr. Feinberg (a lawyer and mediator) to this position, without obtaining Senate confirmation.
Therein lies the problem. The Appointments clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 2, provides that all "Officers of the United States" must be appointed by the president "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." This means subject to confirmation, except that "the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment" of "inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."In other words, the pay czar in unconstitutional.
There is no doubt that Mr. Feinberg is an "officer" of the United States. The Supreme Court has defined this term (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) as "any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States." Mr. Feinberg signed last week's orders setting pay levels for executives at Bank of America, AIG, Chrysler Financial, Citigroup, GMAC, General Motors and Chrysler. They have the force of law and are surely an exercise of "significant authority" pursuant to an Act of Congress. He is not a mere "employee," acting at the direction of a superior. That means his office is subject to the requirements of the Appointments Clause.
While somewhat more disputable, Mr. Feinberg's is probably an "inferior" officer, defined as one subject to supervision and removal by a member of the cabinet. Although he has substantial discretion and independence, Mr. Feinberg reports to the secretary of the Treasury, who can fire him any time for any reason. This means that Congress could, if it wished, vest the appointment of the pay czar in the secretary, without any need for Senate confirmation.
But Congress has not done so. On the contrary, it vested the authority to implement TARP's compensation provision in the secretary of the Treasury. The secretary may sub-delegate that power to someone else—but that someone must be an "officer" properly appointed "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
The power to set compensation at large American businesses is especially subject to potential abuse, favoritism, arbitrariness, or political manipulation. It is no reflection on Kenneth Feinberg, who has a sterling reputation and who appears to have approached these sensitive duties with a spirit of commendable integrity, to say that the checks and balances of the Constitution should be scrupulously observed. They were not. Because he is not a properly appointed officer of the United States, Mr. Feinberg's executive compensation decisions were unconstitutional.You vote Democrat, you get a government that supports the violation of our constitution and a government that takes away liberty, property, and life. You get a tyrannical government, the kind that our founding fathers faught against.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tim Pawlenty's Advice
Over the summer I saw Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty speak. I think he gave some good advice about how to communicate and how to win, advice that can be applied to elections and many different issues.
Governor Pawlenty said that the way that Republicans can get Democrats and Independents to vote for the Republican party is to talk about choices, talk about liberty and freedom, and to talk about all the ways that the ideals and policies of the Republican Party benefit the working man in our society. This sort of rhetoric is the same sort of rhetoric that our founding fathers used, and that President Reagan used, and it is the sort of rhetoric that conservative Republican candidates for offices around the country can use successfully.
Another important strategy for Republicans to use is to point out that what Democrats offer is everything for free, but nothing is really free in this world, and that what the Democrats are offering comes with staggering and surprising costs. Expose these costs, expose the costs of these Democrats programs, and don't argue why they are bad policies or what they won't accomplish, but talk about what they will cost in society and give voters an educated choice- your conservative policies and their costs, and the Democrats liberal policies and their costs.
One last piece of advice from Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was to focus on improving the quality of life by focusing on how to provide good paying jobs for people. The most important thing to people is to have a good job that pays well. It is not to save the globe from the threat of global warming, it is not to make sure everyone in society has top-notch health care, and it is not even to fight terror- those are all important things, but the most important thing to people is to have a good job that pays well.
Hopefully Republicans can continue to use these ideas in campaigns to successfully continue winning elections.
Governor Pawlenty said that the way that Republicans can get Democrats and Independents to vote for the Republican party is to talk about choices, talk about liberty and freedom, and to talk about all the ways that the ideals and policies of the Republican Party benefit the working man in our society. This sort of rhetoric is the same sort of rhetoric that our founding fathers used, and that President Reagan used, and it is the sort of rhetoric that conservative Republican candidates for offices around the country can use successfully.
Another important strategy for Republicans to use is to point out that what Democrats offer is everything for free, but nothing is really free in this world, and that what the Democrats are offering comes with staggering and surprising costs. Expose these costs, expose the costs of these Democrats programs, and don't argue why they are bad policies or what they won't accomplish, but talk about what they will cost in society and give voters an educated choice- your conservative policies and their costs, and the Democrats liberal policies and their costs.
One last piece of advice from Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was to focus on improving the quality of life by focusing on how to provide good paying jobs for people. The most important thing to people is to have a good job that pays well. It is not to save the globe from the threat of global warming, it is not to make sure everyone in society has top-notch health care, and it is not even to fight terror- those are all important things, but the most important thing to people is to have a good job that pays well.
Hopefully Republicans can continue to use these ideas in campaigns to successfully continue winning elections.
Teachers Professional Development Day
Every couple months, teachers in public schools around the nation have a day set aside for 'professional development.' Maybe sometimes these days are used in a professional manner that develops the teacher into a better teacher, but in my years of teaching in various districts I have been forced to give myself a full frontal lobotomy during these days just so that I didn't go crazy from frustration, anger, and boredom.
This might seem like venting and more of a journal entry, but what I am trying to do is let you all see into the education world through the little window of my mind. Perhaps after understand what goes on in education you may vote differently when people run for office on different education platforms.
At our last professional development meeting, all the social studies teachers in the district got together in one big room. An administrator came in the room and gave us a form to fill out, and then left. What that form will be used for, we are not really sure. Why the administrator wants the form filled out, also not explained. Who fills out the form, unspoken.
After sitting for an hour complaining about students, the economy, and other teachers, we get to the issue at hand, which is figuring out whether the classes that we are teaching are meeting the benchmarks that the state asks us to meet.
Teachers are driven by the system, I believe, to design classes that accomplish as little as possible, so the very first thing to do is to shame and harass any teacher that feels that the standards are too low and too easy to accomplish. If there is a teacher in the district who is having students do more, and getting high test scores, and going above and beyond, they are a threat to all the other teachers, and rather than find out what the best practices are and how that teacher is doing so well, the group savagely attacks these teachers and drags them back to the rest of the herd.
Step one is figuring out how to avoid the benchmarks, or misconstrue what they say for something else. Step two is to figure out if anyone ever hinted at possibly meeting the benchmarks, and thus 'taught that benchmark.' And step three is to fill in the document in the most unhelpful manner, making it seem as if schools and education are perfect and the problem is with students and the administration.
Oh, I know, I am really venting and some of this is unfair or unreasonable, but you really should know that because education is a government-run business, it does not respond at all to your child's concerns, it does not use time or money or resources in an economical manner, and the goal is not to leave no child behind and drive to the top, but to drag every child behind and drive towards the bottom. Moving kids through the system is our goal, just as it is in every government program.
This might seem like venting and more of a journal entry, but what I am trying to do is let you all see into the education world through the little window of my mind. Perhaps after understand what goes on in education you may vote differently when people run for office on different education platforms.
At our last professional development meeting, all the social studies teachers in the district got together in one big room. An administrator came in the room and gave us a form to fill out, and then left. What that form will be used for, we are not really sure. Why the administrator wants the form filled out, also not explained. Who fills out the form, unspoken.
After sitting for an hour complaining about students, the economy, and other teachers, we get to the issue at hand, which is figuring out whether the classes that we are teaching are meeting the benchmarks that the state asks us to meet.
Teachers are driven by the system, I believe, to design classes that accomplish as little as possible, so the very first thing to do is to shame and harass any teacher that feels that the standards are too low and too easy to accomplish. If there is a teacher in the district who is having students do more, and getting high test scores, and going above and beyond, they are a threat to all the other teachers, and rather than find out what the best practices are and how that teacher is doing so well, the group savagely attacks these teachers and drags them back to the rest of the herd.
Step one is figuring out how to avoid the benchmarks, or misconstrue what they say for something else. Step two is to figure out if anyone ever hinted at possibly meeting the benchmarks, and thus 'taught that benchmark.' And step three is to fill in the document in the most unhelpful manner, making it seem as if schools and education are perfect and the problem is with students and the administration.
Oh, I know, I am really venting and some of this is unfair or unreasonable, but you really should know that because education is a government-run business, it does not respond at all to your child's concerns, it does not use time or money or resources in an economical manner, and the goal is not to leave no child behind and drive to the top, but to drag every child behind and drive towards the bottom. Moving kids through the system is our goal, just as it is in every government program.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Education Policy in Michigan and How It is Created
One of my brothers recently was invited by the Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education to come and discuss the long range vision of education policy in the state of Michigan. This special task force composed of Republicans has been touring the state looking for both successes and failures in Michigan's education system. It was on the west side of the state and after talking to my brother about how it went, I have the following comments to pass on to you.
What the task force does is get input from parent teacher associations, student council members, administrator, teachers, board members, and students, from public schools, special education, alternative education, charter and private schools. The end goal is to develop ideas on how to improve the quality of the education system here in Michigan.
The result of these task force meetings is predictable and an indication of everything that is wrong with education in our state. Three hours of discussion produced all the wrong policy suggestions for education, suggestions politicians should not consider. The following account is a way for you to see how policy is created in our state and helpful in developing your own opinions about the future of education.
The first step in the discussion was to answer the question "What is the purpose of education?" Do that right now in your head- think about what you want the education system in our state to look like and do. Is it prepare students for college? Prepare them for future jobs? Mold good citizens? Give all students a broad base of knowledge? Or did you, like most people at this forum, say "everything!" The mission of education needs to be focused, clear, and consistent, and it can not be everything to everybody all at the same time. There is only enough time in the day, only enough resources to spend, and our state needs to think long and hard about what they want the goal of education to be.
In my opinion, our school system should move to a two-tier system- K-8 the goal is to provide a broad range of knowledge for all students, and 9-12 students will either go into a college-prep track or a job-preparation track. That's just my opinion though.
The next question the group that came to this task force meeting was asked is "what are we doing well right now in education?" Think about this question. Education is doing a lot of things well- babysitting students 8 hours a day, running great sports programs, educating a lot of top students, running a good special needs program, helping students learn how to think, giving students opportunities, offering many innovative learning styles, and nationally our K-5 program is the best in the world.
The next question the task force had us think about was "what do you want the education system to look like 10 years from now". I think the overall consensus of the task force was that we want education to do more to teach students critical thinking skills, to learn how to be innovative and creative, to teach entrepreneurship and job creation, and to have students focus more on the career paths that they are headed into after school rather than just focus on school.
The last step is the most important step, and the step that resulted in disaster for this task force and that produced information the Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education should utterly disregard. The question that was posed to us was "how do we build on what we are doing well to make our education system look like we want it to look 10 years from now?"
Here is the information the task force received, and it is a good lesson on why sometimes special interest groups should not be the ones designing the policies in our nation. The task force was told to drop all standardized testing and to just hand the money to districts with no more accountability. The task force was told that one way to increase the education levels in our state was to give more funding to teachers, have them work shorter hours, and give them more training. The task force was told that students should teach classes, as if they were subject matter and teaching experts. The task force produced a lot of garbage ideas, and in every hearing they conducted they pretty much got the same garbage.
This is why the state should not be trusted with running any sort of service industry. The failures in education are the failures of government planning and funding. The failures of education result from this idea that bureaucrats working in distant locations can issue rules and decrees and that will somehow make things better. And the failures of education and this process demonstrate that a system that ignores values and character will produce a valueless result.
The way to fix education is to increase choice, increase personal responsibility, increase local control, and increase the focus on value and character education. Students need to take classes that emphasise creativity and entrepreneurship and they need to buy into the system by making them realize just how much it is costing them to go to school (or at least their parents need to realize what the cost is for education and then demand the results to justify the cost). Standardized testing needs to be increased, but the information that comes from these tests needs to be disseminated throughout the system and analyzed and studied by everyone- teachers, students, and administrators.
Education needs to run more like a business, with the service provided being learning and the learning delivered by skilled professionals. It can not run like a government agency, answering to dozens of constituents and staffed by bureaucrats.
Please take a moment to look up your state Representative and pass on your thoughts to them about education and the types of policies that you would like to see put in place in this state. If you don't speak up, they will have only heard from others, and those others are pushing groups like that Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education to put in place policies that will only erode the educational quality of our great state.
UPDATE: Here is a story about the event... notice the utter lack of anything productive or useful mentioned in this article.
What the task force does is get input from parent teacher associations, student council members, administrator, teachers, board members, and students, from public schools, special education, alternative education, charter and private schools. The end goal is to develop ideas on how to improve the quality of the education system here in Michigan.
The result of these task force meetings is predictable and an indication of everything that is wrong with education in our state. Three hours of discussion produced all the wrong policy suggestions for education, suggestions politicians should not consider. The following account is a way for you to see how policy is created in our state and helpful in developing your own opinions about the future of education.
The first step in the discussion was to answer the question "What is the purpose of education?" Do that right now in your head- think about what you want the education system in our state to look like and do. Is it prepare students for college? Prepare them for future jobs? Mold good citizens? Give all students a broad base of knowledge? Or did you, like most people at this forum, say "everything!" The mission of education needs to be focused, clear, and consistent, and it can not be everything to everybody all at the same time. There is only enough time in the day, only enough resources to spend, and our state needs to think long and hard about what they want the goal of education to be.
In my opinion, our school system should move to a two-tier system- K-8 the goal is to provide a broad range of knowledge for all students, and 9-12 students will either go into a college-prep track or a job-preparation track. That's just my opinion though.
The next question the group that came to this task force meeting was asked is "what are we doing well right now in education?" Think about this question. Education is doing a lot of things well- babysitting students 8 hours a day, running great sports programs, educating a lot of top students, running a good special needs program, helping students learn how to think, giving students opportunities, offering many innovative learning styles, and nationally our K-5 program is the best in the world.
The next question the task force had us think about was "what do you want the education system to look like 10 years from now". I think the overall consensus of the task force was that we want education to do more to teach students critical thinking skills, to learn how to be innovative and creative, to teach entrepreneurship and job creation, and to have students focus more on the career paths that they are headed into after school rather than just focus on school.
The last step is the most important step, and the step that resulted in disaster for this task force and that produced information the Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education should utterly disregard. The question that was posed to us was "how do we build on what we are doing well to make our education system look like we want it to look 10 years from now?"
Here is the information the task force received, and it is a good lesson on why sometimes special interest groups should not be the ones designing the policies in our nation. The task force was told to drop all standardized testing and to just hand the money to districts with no more accountability. The task force was told that one way to increase the education levels in our state was to give more funding to teachers, have them work shorter hours, and give them more training. The task force was told that students should teach classes, as if they were subject matter and teaching experts. The task force produced a lot of garbage ideas, and in every hearing they conducted they pretty much got the same garbage.
This is why the state should not be trusted with running any sort of service industry. The failures in education are the failures of government planning and funding. The failures of education result from this idea that bureaucrats working in distant locations can issue rules and decrees and that will somehow make things better. And the failures of education and this process demonstrate that a system that ignores values and character will produce a valueless result.
The way to fix education is to increase choice, increase personal responsibility, increase local control, and increase the focus on value and character education. Students need to take classes that emphasise creativity and entrepreneurship and they need to buy into the system by making them realize just how much it is costing them to go to school (or at least their parents need to realize what the cost is for education and then demand the results to justify the cost). Standardized testing needs to be increased, but the information that comes from these tests needs to be disseminated throughout the system and analyzed and studied by everyone- teachers, students, and administrators.
Education needs to run more like a business, with the service provided being learning and the learning delivered by skilled professionals. It can not run like a government agency, answering to dozens of constituents and staffed by bureaucrats.
Please take a moment to look up your state Representative and pass on your thoughts to them about education and the types of policies that you would like to see put in place in this state. If you don't speak up, they will have only heard from others, and those others are pushing groups like that Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education to put in place policies that will only erode the educational quality of our great state.
UPDATE: Here is a story about the event... notice the utter lack of anything productive or useful mentioned in this article.
Monday, November 2, 2009
You Will Support Abortions Under New Healthcare Bill
Last month I wrote in a post called "Tyranny: Healthcare Reform Threat to Life, Liberty, and Property:
Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you should be against this heathcare bill because of those provisions. Of course, being pro-life means that you are against abortion, and this bill funds abortions. Being pro-choice means you support people's freedom to choose whether or not to get an abortion, and this bill forces people who are opposed to abortion to fund them, violating their freedom of choice. This healthcare bill that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are supporting and working to pass is not pro-choice or pro-life; it is pro-abortion.
Don't take my word for it- it is in the bill. Page 110 of HR 3962 says:
Furthermore, page 148 section 259 says this:
Please let everyone you know that your god-given rights to life, liberty, and property are under attack by a government that wants to impose tyranny on you. Do not support this healthcare plan, whatever rhetoric or fancy phrases or pretty poetry is used, because it openly supports with taxpayer money more abortions in our great nation.
The plan adequately address concerns that taxpayer money and government support will not be used to support or encourage abortions. It is not hard to imagine that a government that is concerned with keeping down the costs of healthcare coverage may somehow with some policy push for the abortion of special needs children who will indeed be a great cost on a national healthcare system.Many of Obama's thugs and supporters yell "you lie" at this charge and some even challenged me to a fist fight in order to force me to retract comments like this one. But the truth is that the Pelosi healthcare bill does allow taxpayer money to flow to abortion clinics, and in a way, this new healthcare bill will provide billions in funding to abortion clinics around the state.
Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you should be against this heathcare bill because of those provisions. Of course, being pro-life means that you are against abortion, and this bill funds abortions. Being pro-choice means you support people's freedom to choose whether or not to get an abortion, and this bill forces people who are opposed to abortion to fund them, violating their freedom of choice. This healthcare bill that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are supporting and working to pass is not pro-choice or pro-life; it is pro-abortion.
Don't take my word for it- it is in the bill. Page 110 of HR 3962 says:
Nothing in this healthcare bill shall be construed as preventing the health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4) (A). (4) (A) Abortion Services.Repeat- the 900 billion dollars in taxpayer money that is going to be spent on this act is not to be prevented from being spent to abort babies. The government by law is saying that the money can and indeed will be sent to abortion clinics, and you, even though you pay taxes and may be pro-life, will have your liberty taken from you to be made to support attempts to end life.
Furthermore, page 148 section 259 says this:
Nondiscrimination on Abortion and Respect for Rights of Conscience: (A) Nondiscrimination- a Federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal assistance under this act (or an amendment under this act), may not... require that any health care plan created or regulated under this act to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer to abortions.Repeat- anyone who gets money from this plan (which includes nearly every aspect of the healthcare system) will not be allowed to discriminate against anyone who wants their abortion paid for. Again, more evidence that this Pelosi, Reid, and Obama plan not only supports your tax money going to fund abortions, but prohibits it from not going to support the aborting of babies.
Please let everyone you know that your god-given rights to life, liberty, and property are under attack by a government that wants to impose tyranny on you. Do not support this healthcare plan, whatever rhetoric or fancy phrases or pretty poetry is used, because it openly supports with taxpayer money more abortions in our great nation.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Two Months To Decorate White House for Halloween- Scary Government Efficiency
From the AP:
Imagine when the government that takes two months of planning to decorate a house for Halloween runs your healthcare needs, your energy needs, and your businesses. That is scary indeed!
President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama on Saturday doled out presidential M&Ms and dried fruit mixes to more than 2,000 trick-or-treaters, marking their Halloween at a White House event partly aimed at honoring military families.It took the White House TWO months to decorate for Halloween. Two months. How long did it take you to decorate your house for Halloween? A day? Perhaps you have a massive mansion and it takes 2 days? Imagine you have the full power and money of the United States government at your disposal, and an extensive and well-trained union grounds crew- would it take 3 days to plan and decorate then? Only government could spend two months planning and working to decorate one single house for a holiday.
A big, stuffed, black spider dangled in a web of string from the top of the portico, and pumpkins had sprouted up around the columns. Meanwhile, an odd cast of figures wondered around the North Lawn, including skeletons playing musical instruments, walking trees and "Star Wars" characters. The night's arrangements took a month or two to prepare, the White House said.
Imagine when the government that takes two months of planning to decorate a house for Halloween runs your healthcare needs, your energy needs, and your businesses. That is scary indeed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)