Krugman extolls the cost-saving benefits of the Obamacare Death Panels... that he says don't exist

Paul Krugman, the unstable New York Times columnist and hack economist who hated deficit spending when Bush did it but loves it and wants more of it while Obama is president, really outdid himself this past Sunday. After dutifully giving his left-wing talking point of ridiculing the "death panels" that Obamacare critics insist will inevitably appear, he turns right around and praises the cost-cutting goodness of those non-existent death panels:



Sigh.

Good Day to You, Sir

In the Year of our Lord, 2010, the morons still reign

Picture a university. Picture a group of aggrieved students attending that university who take offense at a certain phrase on their diplomas. These students want that phrase removed from their diplomas. That phrase is "Year of our Lord" that precedes the date that they are receiving those diplomas.

Here is what one of the genius students has to say about this pressing issue, and I want you to take special note of something that is mentioned in this snippet:

A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to drop a reference to “Our Lord” on their diplomas, arguing it does not respect the diversity of religions on campus.

"A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly display it in their offices and homes,” said Sidra Qureshi, president of Trinity Diversity Connection. “By having the phrase ‘In the Year of Our Lord,' it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and not everyone believes in Jesus Christ...”

Heh. Did you catch it?

These students attend Trinity University; a Presbyterian university that was founded in 1869.

You know: Trinity! As in Father, SON, and Holy Spirit? That's SON, as in Jesus Christ.

I was just wondering if they will want the name of the university changed on their diploma as well.

We live in interesting times.

Good Day to You, Sir

Debating the blame on the role of teachers unions

Larry Sand, who heads the California Teachers Empowerment Network, or CTEN (see my blogroll), recently joined former Secretary of Education Rod Paige and education policy wonk Terry Moe in order to debate their counterparts over the role of teachers unions in education.

The topic was DON'T BLAME TEACHERS UNIONS FOR OUR FAILING SCHOOLS. Sand, Paige, and Moe were to argue against this motion. So who were the counterparts? The only one that really mattered to me was Randi Weingarten. She is the former head of the New York City teachers union and now heads the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which is large nationwide teachers union almost on par with the NEA. She is also one of the most repulsive and despicable people to whom I have ever been exposed.

I will never forget when Weingarten was interviewed by John Stossel in his special on education, Stupid in America, and they had this exchange:

STOSSEL: Unionized monopolies like yours fail, and in this case, it's the children who you are failing.

WEINGARTEN: We are not a unionized monopoly, and ultimately, those folks who want to say this all the time: (at this point, she leans in and begins whispering with a sneering curled lip) they don't really care about kids.

Weingarten must have really released her charm on the audience, because at the end of the debate, the audience members who were already decided one way or the other still held the same opinion at the end of the debate, but the almost all the undecideds went with the Sand, Paige, and Moe team.

If you have an hour to spare, listen to the debate right here.

Good Day to You, Sir

And with that, if you have an hour to spare,

Mattera scatters the cockroaches

Jason Mattera has become one of my heroes. The spokesman from Young America's Foundation and author of the new book Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation is especially effective when he comes up to these hypocritical statists in Congress and calls them on their own ignorant crap.

For videos of Mattera's handiwork that I have previously posted, click here.

Here are two more, with the best one being Mattera's ambush interview with Democrat (naturally) Representative David Obey of Wisconsin. As soon as Obey and his staff realize that Mattera is not there to worship at the Representative's feet, watch what happens. The video with Democrat (naturally) Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa isn't much better, with Harkin denying that he said what can easily be viewed on YouTube.

These people are shameless, and as you watch them scatter like cockroaches as Mattera shines the light of truth upon them, always keep in mind that these pieces of human filth are elected officials who are paid with yours and my hard-earned tax dollars.

Enjoy.

First up is David Obey:



I especially enjoyed Obey's female staffer with the evil little smile who says, "You guys are craaaazy." I'm not sure if she means that Mattera is crazy for thinking that there is funding in the new Health Control Law for Native American child molesters (which there is), or if she thinks Mattera is crazy for actually having the audacity to stand up to a member of our modern-day royalty that is the U.S. Congress. How DARE he?!

Then here is Tom Harkin:



Mattera's response to Harkin regarding the public education defense was GOLDEN! Way to turn it around on the Senator. Keep at 'em Jason!

Good Day to You, Sir

Senator Baucus slurs out some candid comments

Why were you not framing this whole health control debacle in this fashion before the vote, Senator Baucus? The other day, Senator Max Baucus of Montana was speaking during a Senate session, and was rather up front about the real reason why the Dems in Congress and our illustrious president so badly wanted to get this health control legislation passed. Take a listen and do try to follow along with Senator Baucus's halted and slurred delivery:



Where do I even begin when addressing the slurred slew of collectivist, socialistic drivel that poured out of that man's mouth?

First off, I thought this bill was about providing health care for all, not redistributing income.

Second thing, income is earned in this country; not "distributed." At least, that's supposed the be the way it is. With people like Baucus (and Obama, Pelosi, and Reid) in charge, that situation is changing right quick.

Third, how exactly is health care a "right," as Senator Baucus insists? How can you possibly have a right to something when someone else has to provide it? You may have the right to pursue health care, but when the government forces someone else to provide you with health care, that is not a right. I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean the government is supposed to force someone to provide me with a megaphone or a radio station.

Fourth and finally, who the hell are you, Senator Baucus, to decide how wealthy is "way too wealthy"? Baucus's comments are a perfect representation of the control-freak mentality of your typical statist who thinks he knows what is best for you.

People of Montana, I thought your state was a conservative one. How in blazes did this left-wing kleptocrat become your senator? Let me guess: he runs as a conservative at election time? I would say that it is time to clean house, but unfortunately, Baucus was just reelected in 2008. In the midterm election of 2014, please People of Montana, try to remember Senator Baucus's words of a few days ago.

Good Day to You, Sir

Dingell's freudian slip makes it all so clear

In a radio interview today, Democrat Representative John Dingell of Michigan made a very candid comment about the newly signed Obamacare law. You gotta hear this:



In case your YouTube abilities are curtailed where you are, here is what Dingell had to say in response to his radio interviewer asking him about the reason that taxes begin being collected immediately, but the provisions of Obamacare don't kick in until 2014:

Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people. (emphasis by Chanman).

Spoken like a true control-freak statist. Thank you Congresscritter Dingell.

Good Day to You, Sir

The "good and welfare" clause?

Are members of Congress all really this stupid? I know they all aren't, but this one certainly is.

Cybercast News Service (CNS) has done us all a wonderful public service over the last few months by asking prominent congresscritters to explain on the record where they find the Constitutional authority to pass these craptastic pieces of legislation like the Health Care Control Act of 2010.

Previous winners of CNS's illustration of dumbassdom include Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Blanche Lincoln, Daniel Akaka, and Roland Burris.

The latest recipient of this dubious honor is our favorite Michigan congressional representative whose Detroit city council member wife just got sentenced to the pokey for taking bribes, John Conyers:



So to recap, the health care monstrosity is authorized by the "good and welfare clause" and "a couple others." Got that?

Thank you Representative Conyers for clearing all of that up for us.

We are so screwed.

Good Day to You, Sir

Where are we on the list?

The happenings of the last 36 hours reminded me of an old quote that is often attributed to an 18th century Scottish lawyer named Alexander Tytler, but it is unknown if he really said it.

Nevertheless, any diligent examination of various countries and civilizations that have existed throughout history will show that they have risen and fallen in a similar pattern that shows the truth of that which is often attributed to Tytler. According to the quote, the pattern of the life of a successful country or civilization is as follows:

* From bondage to spiritual faith;
* From spiritual faith to great courage;
* From courage to liberty;
* From liberty to abundance;
* From abundance to complacency;
* From complacency to apathy;
* From apathy to dependence;
* From dependence back into bondage.

So where do we fall on the list? It is tempting to say we are between apathy and dependence, but the fact that a majority of Americans actually opposed Obamacare - as Congress and Obama were shoving it up our nether regions - made me optimistic enough to go with complacency to apathy. Either way, we are not in good shape regarding the future of this country. I think a reset button that brings us back to "courage to liberty" is in order.

Thoughts, anyone?

Good Day to You, Sir

Seriously, what's with the gavel?

I think Nancy Pelosi might have some kind of latent phallic issues with which to contend.

After passing one of the most intrusive, expensive, and unconstitutional bills in 40 years, Pelosi took a gloating victory lap one really big gavel. There is something so wrong with this woman.



Come November, let's make sure that Nancy has to give up her plaything and hand it to the adult who is put in charge.

Good Day to You, Sir

Using other people's money to pay for other people's lives

Now that our illustrious Congress had passed the Health Care Control and Federal Takeover Bill of 2010, I guess the question on everyone's mind must be what happens now?

It's all quite simple really. After our Statist-in-Chief signs the steaming pile of crap, we all get to pay for the lifestyle choices of people from all around the country. Someone wants to eat themselves to oblivion, smoke a few packs a day, or use all manner of body-poisoning drugs, then congratulations: the financial pain for the consequences of their bodily abuse will be sent to all of you.

This is when some braintrust always invokes the public servant argument: "But we all pay for fire and police, don't we?" To which I say, the last time I checked, there was no such thing as a FEDERAL fire department or a FEDERAL police department enforcing your local laws.

This is what these statists out there never seem to understand. When you implement these coercive laws at the federal level - as has now been done with our health care - there is nowhere to run if you don't want to live under that law. Recently, some state senators here in California tried to pass their own version of what our Congress just passed. The tab was estimated to be about $200 billion a year had it passed. It didn't pass, and now that this same crap at the federal level has been rammed through, California's version is probably dead. But let's say that California did pass that $200 Billion-per-year health care bill, but there was no federal equivalent. If I as a Californian decided that enough was enough, and I didn't want to deal with that kind of government intervention, then I would be free to move to another state that is more to my liking. If enough people did the same, then California would hopefully get the message and repeal that law.

With federal plans like this in place, however, where do I go then?

This is why when the Constitution was written, the U.S. Congress was given very few and specific areas (see Article I Section 8) in which they could make law. The rest of the countless areas of human affairs were left to the individual states or to the People themselves (see the 10th Amendment). The last I checked, Article I Section 8 says nothing about Congress having the power to make laws regarding our nation's health care. For that matter, there is nothing in there about Medicare, Social Security, or our education system either.

Once upon a time, our elected leaders recognized this fact, and only legislated in areas in which they were given specific permission from the Constitution. That time has long passed. Most Americans today have little to no knowledge of the idea of Federalism, which is the term used to describe the division of responsibilities between the individual states and the federal government.

Today showed that this ignorance (or utter contempt) of our Constitutional system of government is no better demonstrated than by a majority of our critters in Congress.

To them, I say, "Shame!"

Too bad they probably have none.

Good Day to You, Sir

Confused by all this talk of "reconciliation" and "deem and pass"?

Here is a 90-second primer. Try to keep up:



You might want to listen to this twice. I did.

Good Day to You, Sir

Sorry Armey; you had me, then you lost me

In a post from this morning, after my kudos to Dick Armey for his refreshing candor during a CNN interview, I expressed my misgivings about mainstream Republicans like Armey worming their way into the Tea Party movement.

I was right to worry.

Dick Armey is just another checkered-pants, big-spending Republican who supports illegal immigration and thinks that not only is John McCain fiscally responsible, but that no one can match McCain's fiscal responsibility. Yes, really.

Thanks for the memories Mr. Armey.

Good Day to You, Sir

Dick Armey speaks my language

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey was on CNN the other day, and I have to say, I truly enjoyed reading this transcript of his interview with CNN's Kieran Chetry and John Roberts. Even though I shortened this transcript for brevity's sake, you could still consider this a long read, but I think you will enjoy Dick Armey's candor. When Chetry or Roberts quote some of Armey's past statement, they expect him to back down and backpedal. Instead, he lays into them:

ROBERTS: If everything goes according to their plan, Democrats could have a health care reform bill on the President Obama's desk by the end of this week. But that is a rather big "if."

CHETRY: We've been talking about this morning. There are protests planned on Capitol Hill today and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is rallying tea party groups around the country to, quote, "storm the steps of Capitol Hill." His group FreedomWorks is also supporting another rally called "Kill the Bill."

And Dick Armey joins us with more now to talk about it.

First of all, might you not even have to do this if they can't get the votes in the House? It's essentially not happening.

DICK ARMEY, CHAIRMAN, FREEDOMWORKS: Well, yes. But we understand the enormous pressure that people as powerful as the speaker, and frankly, they are quite ruthless in the way they manage and manhandle their own members. The president is quite, as I said, is very, very difficult to stand in the Oval Office and say, "No, Mr. President," especially if he's of your own party.

So, we have a big search today. We have activists, volunteers from all over the country, coming to town for the express purpose of sitting down with their member from their district. The whole notion being that, look, in the final analysis, if these guys want their job back, they have to go home and reconcile their behavior in Washington with the preferences of folks back home. People back home don't want this bill.

ROBERTS: What is it about the bill that you don't like?

ARMEY: Well, first of all, the idea, if you don't find, the audacity of the government mandating to the American people: you must all buy a product that I define for you. And if you notice -- I mean, first of all, understand, this is a big bill down from what their true ambitions are.

And the idea that they would mandate --

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: But why is it --

ARMEY: -- the idea that they would resort to price controls, which have never worked.

ROBERTS: But why is it mandate for having health insurance a bad thing? There's a mandate for having car insurance.

ARMEY: Well, first of all, you have to understand, America is a nation that was founded on the concept of personal liberty, that liberty is a gift given to mankind by the Lord God Almighty and it's the duty of governments to protect your liberty.

ROBERTS: Do you have car insurance?

ARMEY: Not to trespass against your liberty.

ROBERTS: Do you have car insurance?

ARMEY: Do I have car insurance? Of course, I have car insurance.

ROBERTS: You have to have car insurance.

(CROSSTALK)

ARMEY: But that's not a federal mandate, by the way. It's a state mandate. Take that up with your state.

But still, nevertheless, it's not only that you are mandated, you must buy insurance, which is a big sock, by the way, to the insurance companies. No wonder the insurance companies are in bed with Barack Obama. How would you like it if you were peddling a product and the federal government said, "Everybody has to buy your product"? I mean --

CHETRY: Let me ask you -- let me as you --

ARMEY: -- first of all, an enormous trespass against the liberty of the individual American citizen.

CHETRY: What is it solution-wise that you can live with that you like -- that you think works? I mean, when we do poll after poll, people says they do think the system needs reform.

ARMEY: Absolutely.

First of all, according to the Harvard study, one-fourth -- get this -- one-fourth of all medical procedures that are ordered in America today are medically unnecessary. That's an enormous waste and certainly to drive up costs. Why? Because the federal government will not fix its tort laws so that government physicians are free to practice medicine without the fear of lawyers. This is an absurd waste.

CHETRY: That's something that the Obama administration is considering right now though --

ARMEY: Considering my eye.

CHETRY: -- to add into it.

ARMEY: I can tell you right now, there's no Democrat leader in Washington that is going to consider anything that will offend the trial lawyers. It's a primary source of their campaign funding. They've never done it before. It gives a little lip service to something and he expects us to buy the notion that they really would do something on tort reform.

Secondly, the president continues to complain that there's no competition among insurance companies. The biggest barrier to competition among insurance companies is government's prohibition against my right as a citizen of Texas to buy insurance from a Connecticut company. Now, I can buy cars made any place in the nation, even across seas, but they restrict my ability to buy insurance.

If they want competition between the some 1,100 insurance companies in the country, let me choose from among them...

{SNIP}

CHETRY: I want to ask you one other question about what you said, something that you said at a tea party rally. "Nearly every important office in D.C. is occupied by someone with an aggressive dislike for our heritage, our freedom, our history and our Constitution." Do you really believe that?

ARMEY: Absolutely. I don't have a doubt that.

I lived with liberals all my life. Liberals simply do not appreciate and respect America. They don't understand the genius and the wonder of the American constitution. You know, my own view is, they think they know better. Well, you had the most important event in the cause of liberty in the history of the world when you wrote the American Constitution. And if you understand the American -- the English language, you have any respect for the fact --

CHETRY: You think they have an aggressive dislike for our freedom just because they disagree with you?

ARMEY: No. When -- look, when they trespass against our freedom by issuing mandates and what products we must buy.

I'll give you an example. Today, just by virtue of a policy memorandum written in the Department of Health and Human Services -- no law, no regulation -- a policy memorandum written among themselves. Today, if you are a Christian scientist and you do not sign up for Medicare, you lose your Social Security.

Nobody put that into law. Where did it come from? It came from their pure audacity and their need to be in charge.

So, you take a person, who, by religious conviction, has never attended a physician in his entire life and will never do so, and you say you must sign up for this federal government program or you lose your life-savings which you were forced to put into a bad program in the first place. Now, are you telling me that that's respect for our freedom? That is an audacity of control. And we have these folks in our family, we call them control freaks and we avoid them.

ROBERTS: Dick Armey, it's good to talk to you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.

ARMEY: Thank you very much.

I have used the term "control freaks" in the past to describe these busybody leftists and statists out there who just can't leave us alone. I think I will try to use that term more often.

I am still very wary of current or former mainstream Republicans like Armey or Sarah Palin injecting themselves into the Tea Party movement, but for what it's worth, my hat is off to Dick Armey. If we got more straight talk like that from Republicans, they wouldn't make me so exasperated in the first place.

Good Day to You, Sir

This is when I love my job

Every year, there are certain lessons which I look forward to teaching. They tend to be the lessons where I get to dismantle some commonly held, but incorrect, notion to which my students cling.

Today was one of those days.

My 8th graders are currently learning about the specific events that led to the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War/War Between the States/War for Southern Independence. You have probably heard of some or all of these events: Missouri Compromise of 1820; Compromise of 1850; Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854; Uncle Tom's Cabin; the Fugitive Slave Act; Dred Scott vs. Sanford; Bloody Kansas; John Brown's Harper's Ferry raid; Congressman Brooks breaking his cane over the head of Congressman Sumner.

There is another event that I also mention, and that is the formation in 1854 of the Republican Party. The Republican Party was formed by mostly anti-slavery Whigs who had grown weary of the Whigs' wishy-washy approach to the issue of slavery. Most of the students I teach come from Democrat homes, and I always get quite a reaction (especially from my black students) when they find out that it was the Democrats who ruled the South and defended slavery, and it was the Republicans who wanted to end slavery, with the GOP being formed largely for that purpose.

Upon telling my 8th period class this afternoon that this was the case, one of my astonished students blurted out, "I thought it was the other way around."

Of course you did.

Good Day to You, Sir

Census form is here... DONE!

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct...

---Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States

Within that blurb from the Constitution is the requirement that every ten years, the federal government is required to count the number of people living in each state of the Union in order to determine the number of congressional representatives for each state. We know this every-ten-years process as the Census.

We got our Census form in the mail this afternoon, and it is quite comprehensive; especially when it comes to race/ethnicity. This form is absolutely obsessed with the subject of race/ethnicity. Additionally, the form also asks about the age, sex, and status of all people who are from a particular household, but are not currently living in the house. All in all, there are 10 general questions, and then 7 specific questions about each person who lives in the house.

I only answered question #1: How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010? Number of people = 4

As for the rest of the information, the federal government can bite me. The Constitution uses the specific term "enumeration" when explaining why a count must be conducted every 10 years.

The dictionary definition of "enumerate" is as follows:

To count off or name one by one; list
To determine the number of; count.

Bottom line, according to the Constitution, the federal government merely needs a head count of the number of people in my household. The rest of the details of my life and that of my family is really none of the federal government's business. Besides, I already told you about the letter I received the other day from the Census Bureau that explains whey they ask all these additional questions on the Census form: to make sure that my community gets its "fair share" of Uncle Sugar's largess that was first confiscated from John and Jane Q. Citizen taxpayer. I am of the opinion that we need to be receiving less of our "fair share" of federal dollars that have been taken from taxpayers and let those taxpayers keep their own money instead.

Good Day to You, Sir

Sac Bee editorial board beclowns itself on global warming and AB-32

I know it's Monday night - almost Tuesday - but I finally got an opportunity to read the Sunday paper. This is how I roll in the Chanman household! What can I say? I have kids, a wife, and a life.

As usual, I was treated to my expected helping of left-wing statist nonsense in the Bee's Forum section. Quite often, the nonsense comes from syndicated columnists - *cough* Paul Krugman - or those wackos at the New America Foundation. This time, however, the nonsense comes straight from the editorial board of the Bee itself.

With an editorial entitled AB 32 foes are slick - and predictable, how can I not find something to criticize?

I mentioned this legal monstrosity the other day, but just to recap, I will let the California Air Resources Board (CARB) explain this one:

In 2006, the Legislature passed and Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. It directed the California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) to begin developing discrete early actions to reduce greenhouse gases while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. The reduction measures to meet the 2020 target are to be adopted by the start of 2011.

In short, this law is the Cap-and-Tax crap that the statists in the federal government only wish they could pass.

The Bee gets it wrong in the very first paragraph:

Looking for hot air about global warming?

You don't have to look very far.

You can find it in columns by George Will and other pundits who dismiss the preponderance of scientific literature that global climate change is happening, and that human activities are contributing to it....

Really, guys? You haven't heard at all about ClimateGate? You haven't heard about the attempts by so-called scientists within the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England who attempted to "hide the decline [in world temperatures]" by hiding data, destroying data, distorting data, and working to stop dissenting views from being peer-reviewed and published?

You haven't heard that Phil Jones - the primary so-called scientist from CRU has recently admitted that global temperatures haven't warmed significantly since 1995 and that average global temperatures during the middle ages - commonly called the Medieval Warming Period - may have been warmer than today after all? Eat your heart out, Hockey Stick!

You haven't been reading recently that other agencies - such as NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) - used CRU's tainted data because NASA felt that the data from GISS wasn't accurate enough?

Those controversies that I just listed only touch the surface regarding the carefully crafted cavalcade of crooked concoctions that have been forced upon us by these global warming hucksters and swallowed whole by the true-believing cultists from the Church of Global Warming, some of whose devout members apparently belong to the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee.

But why let a little counterfactual information get in the way of a good narrative. When you believe so strongly in something, I realize that it can be difficult to let it go. That happened to me when I found out that Santa Claus wasn't real, and that it had really been my parents stuffing my stocking all those Christmases. However, I was nine when I stopped believing in Santa Claus. How old must you be to stop believing in this man-made global warming nonsense? I'm talking to you, Sac Bee editorial board.

The editorial goes on to explain how any critic of AB-32 or global warming is in the pockets of the oil companies and that AB-32 won't hurt our state's economy that badly. The problem is that after reading the very first freaking paragraph of the editorial, I don't really care what else the writer has to say.

To just barrel ahead and state unequivocally that global warming is happening (so, how do you think the Yosemite glacier melted?) and that we humans are causing it with our civilization-advancing carbon dioxide-producing emissions (trees thank you), it is so disingenuous to do so and not even acknowledge that not only is there an opposing point of view, but that the integrity of the so-called global warming science upon which the Bee plants its standard has been found to be seriously flawed.

If you read the damning CRU emails or Phil Jones' admissions, you will realize that the opposing viewpoints are not just being provided by George Will or others who have accepted money from companies that use or produce fossil fuels.

I would love to see an editorial from the Bee that acknowledges that many doubts have arisen in the debate over global warming and the role of humans in that warming (that hasn't risen significantly since 1995).

I would love to see the Bee acknowledge that when AB-32 was passed in 2006, human-caused global warming hysteria was at fever pitch, and the lies and fabrications of the CRU and GISS would not be known to the public for another three years.

I would love to see the Bee declare that in light of this new information, perhaps it is time to rethink and repeal AB-32.

Good Day to You, Sir

Kind of puts the Austin IRS airplane attack in a new light

This began as a local story in today's Sacramento Bee, but I see that by the end of the day, Drudge had picked it up. The story begins like this:

It was every businessperson's nightmare.

Arriving at Harv's Metro Car Wash in midtown Wednesday afternoon were two dark-suited IRS agents demanding payment of delinquent taxes. "They were deadly serious, very aggressive, very condescending," says Harv's owner, Aaron Zeff....

And what was the amount in question that necessitated a not-so-friendly visit from the Infernal Revenue Service? Try four cents. That's: $0.04. The sick part is that through additional taxes and penalties, that $0.04 had become $202.35.

How much money was wasted - between the salaries of the two IRS agents to the gas and maintenance for their vehicle - in order to collect the $0.04? Forget the imaginary $202.31 that was tacked on to the bill. This tells you that the motivation wasn't about money. This about the pure and diabolical bureaucratic need to bully and control people, and establish who is in charge.

While suicidally flying your airplane into the side of an IRS office building is taking it too far, we Americans did used to break out the tar and feathers for situations like this. The two agents could have easily cleaned up afterwards; after all, they were at a car wash.

Good Day to You, Sir

Textbooks and the "Reagan Test"

One of my favorite books of all time is one I have extolled on this blog before, and that is A Patriot's History of the United States. One of the book's authors - Professor Larry Schweikart - is an authority mentioned in a recent article about the left-wing bias that is often found in the history textbooks of our nation's schools.

Schweikart has a very simple way of quickly evaluating any of these textbooks and seeing which way they lean politically. He calls it "the Reagan Test."

If the textbook asserts (falsely) how Reagan's tax cuts ruined the American economy and how Gorbachev ended the Cold War with his brilliance while the war-mongering Reagan provoked the Soviets with his defense buildup, then you can bet that the rest of the book gets a lot of other subjects wrong as well by giving a left-wing view of world and U.S. history.

So what do you do if the textbook doesn't get as far as the Reagan presidency, such as the ones I use? I have found that reading the sections of the book that discuss Muslim conquest can be quite enlightening. I possess a 7th grade medieval world history book - *cough* TCI's History Alive *cough* - that makes the Muslim invasion of Europe in the 700s A.D. appear as though it was the Europeans who were the aggressors.

Good Day to You, Sir

It's time to call a hoodlum a hoodlum

A school board member in Pinellas County, Florida is involved in a bit of a controversy. It seems that there is a small but hardcore group of so-called students at John Hopkins Middle School who are causing all kinds of problems and disruptions.

The school board member, Janet Clark, had the audacity to refer to these so-called students as "hoodlums." Oh crap.

Along comes the NAACP and the... International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement (?). Apparently, referring to unruly and incorrigible students as "hoodlums" is racist if those students happen to be black. Clark had made no mention of race, when she called the so-called students "hoodlums," and the dictionary definition of "hoodlum" has no racial connotation or exclusivity. I believe the NAACP and the Uhurus thou protesteth too much.

The best line from the attached article is from a fellow school board member, Mary Brown, who had the following reason for taking such umbrage at Ms. Clark using the word "hoodlum" to describe these little delinquents:

They might be disruptive. They might be in gangs. They might be many things, but they are not hoodlums," Brown said. "I feel that that statement showed insensitivity to our children, and it certainly did not offer good guidance to our staff.

Imagine if these hoodlums had been caught stealing: "They might have stolen various items from other students. They might have taken a few items and kept them without the owners' permission. They might be many things, but they are not thieves!" Brilliant reasoning, Ms. Brown.

Mark Twain knew what he was talking about when he said, "In the first place, God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made school boards."

Good Day to You, Sir

The racial bean counters are "back in business"

If a school suspends a disproportionate number of black students in relation to their percentage of population at the school, is that prima facie evidence of racism? According to President Obama's Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, the answer is apparently in the affirmative.

Recently, SecEd Duncan announced that the Civil Rights Office within the Department of Education would begin increased enforcement of what the Wall Street Journal calls, "alleged disparities in the disciplining of white and black students."

An underling of SecEd Duncan puts it this way:

"We are back in business," said Russlynn Ali, who heads the Education Department's civil-rights bureau. "Across all of the statutes under our jurisdiction, we will vigorously enforce civil-rights laws."

Oh joy. That's exactly what ails our public schools: secretly racist teachers and administrators who have it out for black students. Rather than invite scorn by suggesting that social pathologies such as an out-of-wedlock birthrate of near 70% that continues to plague black America, these bureaucratic racial bean counters take the easy way out and drag out the tired old race card.

Perhaps the "disparities" in the suspension rates reflect the overall disparities in general criminal offenses in this country.

According to the FBI's Uniform Crimes Statistics for 2008 (the most recent year for which numbers are available), blacks constituted 51.5% of the arrests for murder in the United States, even though they make up only about 13% of our population. The arrest rate for whites and hispanics (the FBI does not differentiate the two) was 46.2%, even though, collectively, the two groups make up over 90% of the remaining population.

In the name of fixing disparities in these arrest rates, do we need to start arresting more whites/Hispanics for murder and/or arresting fewer blacks for murder, even if it means that guilty black murder suspects will go free?

How about gender disparities? I don't have time right now to look up the numbers, but I will bet dollars to donuts that more male students of all races are suspended than female students in our nation's schools. Are we going to have to begin adjusting rates of suspension to match the percentage of the sexes at every school?

I get so sick of this specious argument that finds racism wherever percentages in any given group do not match the percentages of race in a general population. If we really wanted to go down that road, we would need to fire a bunch of black people from the NBA and a bunch of white people in the NHL.

In the meantime, I would be satisfied if we just fire that blooming idiot named Arne Duncan, and in 2012, his boss, Barack Obama. Oh, and while I'm on a roll, throw in Russlynn Ali while you're at it.

Good Day to You, Sir

How to flush out an anonymous disruptor

As a teacher, I will admit that one of the toughest behavior issues with which we deal is the anonymous disruptor: a student whose actions disrupt the class, but you don't know who that student is, and today's ubiquitous "don't snitch" mentality keeps the rest of the class from letting you know who the disruptor is, even if they wanted to tell you.

So how does one work around these challenges? I have found that the best method is out-and-out bribery.

Yesterday during my second period class (7th graders), I was standing at my table at the front of the room looking down at a book when a balled-up piece of paper struck me in the chest. I didn't see who threw it, but I could tell that it was most likely an errant shot meant for the big waste can directly to my right. Nevertheless, I asked the class who threw it, but naturally no one would say anything, including the errant shooter. I told the class that I wasn't going to run some huge investigation; they could either give me a name, or I would hold everyone after class for 30 seconds to give them one more opportunity to fess up, unless the shooter wanted to fess up, in which case the rest of the class would be released immediately. Still no one talked.

Later in the period, near the end of class, I was walking toward the front of the classroom with my back to the class when yet another balled-up piece of paper struck me in the back of the head and bounced off my shoulder. This was no errant throw; it was intentionally aimed at me and had found its mark. The sound from the class was equal parts giggling and gasps of astonishment. With just a few seconds before the bell rang, I didn't have much time to make a decision on what to do about this. One thing I did not do was lose my cool. Even though I was fuming inside, I remained very calm and deliberate on the outside and informed the class that they could either give up the name of who had thrown the paper or I would keep them after class for one minute instead of 30 seconds to give them an opportunity to give me a name. I despise class punishments, but with a four-minute passing period until my 3rd period class came waltzing in, that was the best I could think of in the moment. Every one of those 7th graders stood there in silence for the full minute and never gave up a name. The code of "Don't Snitch" is alive and well in our schools.

I ruminated over this matter for the rest of the day yesterday and talked with my wife about it when I got home. She teaches elementary school in another local school district, so I hit her up for ideas on how exactly to handle this situation, because quite frankly (self-congratulation alert!) it never really happens in my classes. On the one hand, it was tempting to just drop the whole thing and move on, but on the other hand, I looked at this as a power struggle that was worth digging in my heels, lest the class think that it was worth it to try something like this again if I didn't do anything about it.

My wife's solution was something that I had actually done years ago, but had forgotten all about. My first full-time teaching gig was back in 2003 as a long-term sub at a ghetto-fabulous high school in south Sacramento. It was a rough place and student behavior was atrocious. One day during class, a student unknown to me was wandering the halls outside my classroom and stopped in front of the classroom windows that looked outside. He peered in and when my students all turned to see what he was doing, he flipped off my classroom with both middle fingers. I ran to the door, but he took off, and I couldn't leave my classroom to track him down. That day, I knew exactly what to do: I offered 30 extra credit points to the first student who would give me that clown's name. The dime was dropped on him in two seconds flat.

Fast forward to last night, and my wife suggested that I do the same thing with this situation: offer extra credit to the person or persons who would squeal.

So this morning, when the class walked in, they were greeted by my email address written on the white board. I told the students that I would give 50 points extra credit to the first five students who anonymously emailed me the name of the perpetrator. That's when I found out that two different people had thrown the two pieces of paper. Once extra credit was involved, anonymity went out the window. I had students raising their hand and ready to give up the names out loud then and there if they could get the extra credit. Before that could happen, both perps knew the jig was up, and they confessed.

After a little further questioning, it turns out that I was right about the first piece of paper: he was aiming for the trash can but was afraid he would get in trouble if he fessed up. I told him that not fessing up got him in even worse trouble. As for the second thrower, he just straight up aimed it at me. I kept him after class and told him exactly how I felt about what he had done, and you bet I raised my voice in doing it. He departed with his eyes rather red and glossy. During my prep period today, I called his mother and informed her that I was suspending her son from my classroom for the next two days, and I submitted a referral to the administration. The mother was aghast at what her son had done, and she fully supported the two-day classroom suspension that I handed down. I don't know what teachers in other states can do, but according to the California Ed Code, a teacher can a suspend a student from his class for up to two days as long as the student, the student's parent(s), and the administration is alerted of this. I have alerted all three. Whether or not the student gets suspended from school is up the administration; I can only ask and recommend.

So the lesson to all you teachers out there who read this, I have now learned on two separate occasions to never underestimate the power of extra credit.

Good Day to You, Sir

All I want is what I have coming to me; all I want is my fair share!

The U.S. Census Bureau must have been channeling Charlie Brown's little sister Sally when they sent me a form letter that arrived today.

Read this taxpayer-funded letter and think about the implications of what our government is doing to our citizenry:

Dear Resident:

About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly.

Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Groves
Director, U.S. Census Bureau

First things first, do I have this correct? Did the U.S. Census Bureau spend presumably millions of dollars in postage sending out a letter to every household in America telling all of us that we are going to receive a census form? They couldn't have just included a letter like this with the census form that explains the importance of filling it out?

Secondly, let's review why it is apparently so important that the census form I will be receiving. Not once, but TWICE, the term "fair share" is used in this letter. Is this what being an American has been reduced to? Forget hard work, rugged individualism, and making something of yourself; now we are all expected to fight over our "fair share" of the gubmint swag being doled out by Uncle Sugar? Swag that is paid for by our tax dollars, no less. It's just so pathetic. This letter was pathetic.

The letter ends with a bit of helpful advice:

Go to 2010census.gov for help in completing your 2010 Census form when it arrives.

Now, in case you cannot read what I just quoted to you, the letter goes on with further assistance:

Cuando reciba su formulario del Censo del 2010, visite 2010census.gov para obtener ayuda sobre como completarlo

Khi nhan duoc don Thong De Dan So 2010, xin vao dia chi mang 2010census.gov nue can huong dan cach dien.

This statement is also written in Chinese, Korean, and Russian, but I don't have the capability of typing those with this computer.

All these various languages made me think of something I wanted to bring to your attention. Mark Krikorian of The Corner blog at National Review Online has a good idea regarding an important part of the Census form:

Fully one-quarter of the space on this year's form is taken up with questions of race and ethnicity, which are clearly illegitimate and none of the government's business (despite the New York Times' assurances to the contrary on today's editorial page). So until we succeed in building the needed wall of separation between race and state, I have a proposal. Question 9 on the census form asks "What is Person 1's race?" (and so on, for other members of the household). My initial impulse was simply to misidentify my race so as to throw a monkey wrench into the statistics; I had fun doing this on the personal-information form my college required every semester, where I was a Puerto Rican Muslim one semester, and a Samoan Buddhist the next. But lying in this constitutionally mandated process is wrong. Really — don't do it.

Instead, we should answer Question 9 by checking the last option — "Some other race" — and writing in "American." It's a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes. In fact, "American" was the plurality ancestry selection for respondents to the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.

So remember: Question 9 — "Some other race" — "American". Pass it on.

And so I have passed it on. Now go and do likewise.

Good Day to You, Sir

No paraphrase needed; she really said this!

Why do we need to pass this travesty of a health care bill? Let Nancy Pelosi tell you why, and I quote:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy....

Wow.

Good Day to You, Sir

I can't wait until they are in charge! /sarc

Even those who do not live in California may have heard about the student protests taking place at UC Berkeley and UC Davis where arrests have been made for violent acts such as firebombing the house of the Berkeley chancellor and blocking or attempting to block major freeways at both locations.

You may not know that protests have also been held at the state Capitol building in Sacramento, including on the so-called Day of Action, which I talked about on this blog since a student pulled a fire alarm (that's OK, 19 fire alarms were pulled the same day at UC Davis - and I thought middle schoolers were immature!).

A source of mine who works at the Capitol sent me a link to this YouTube video that was shot at the Capitol protest on March 4, where someone went out with a video camera and interviewed some of tomorrow's leaders on what they would do to solve this financial crisis. Imbecility abounded:



Like little children, they truly seem to think that money just grows on trees.

Good Day to You, Sir

More wishy-washiness from the Presbyterians

My family and I attend a local Presbyterian church, and I am rarely at a loss for happenings there that make my tongue cluck.

One of my biggest pet peeves would be the non-offensive and squishy sermons given by our two pastors in which they seem to tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels in an attempt to be all things to all people and not offend either side of our politically balkanized congregation. When a stand is actually taken, it has always fallen on the left side of the political spectrum; especially when it comes to extolling the virtues of Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and the other movers and shakers in the so-called Social Gospel movement, which calls for using the coercive power of government to carry out the wishes of God and Jesus.

The weekly sermon is almost always based upon a short scripture reading that is seemingly picked at random from either the Old or New Testament. The scripture is read, then the message of the sermon is based on that scripture. Rarely is anything beyond a personal anecdote used as a current example or illustration of the scripture being discussed in the sermon. Current events at the state, national, or international level are almost never mentioned; especially if the event is anything that might be considered controversial.

Today, I found out that sometimes, even the scripture itself can be excised of controversy as well.

Our pastor read from the 63rd Psalm this morning. Here is the part he read to the congregation:

1 O God, you are my God,
earnestly I seek you;
my soul thirsts for you,
my body longs for you,
in a dry and weary land
where there is no water.
2 I have seen you in the sanctuary
and beheld your power and your glory.

3 Because your love is better than life,
my lips will glorify you.

4 I will praise you as long as I live,
and in your name I will lift up my hands.

5 My soul will be satisfied as with the richest of foods;
with singing lips my mouth will praise you.

6 On my bed I remember you;
I think of you through the watches of the night.

7 Because you are my help,
I sing in the shadow of your wings.

8 My soul clings to you;
your right hand upholds me.

And then he stopped and began his sermon based on what you just read. What you just read sounds so nice and sweet: I will lift my hands in your name, oh God; I thirst for your love; Your right hand upholds me. Doesn't that all sound so non-offensive in a Kumbayah sort of way? The problem is that our pastor didn't read the entire Psalm. He skipped the last three verses. Read them and take a guess as to why:

9 They who seek my life will be destroyed;
they will go down to the depths of the earth.

10 They will be given over to the sword
and become food for jackals.

11 But the king will rejoice in God;
all who swear by God's name will praise him,
while the mouths of liars will be silenced.

If you are a Christian who thinks that God should be some sort of all-loving pacifistic camp counselor who does nothing but boost your self-esteem with His everlasting love, then verses 9, 10, and 11 of the 63rd Psalm would be a real buzzkill. These verses show the other side of God; a side that is just as essential as the one that loves you.

In today's mainline Protestant churches, God is no longer the Supreme Being of the Universe like the days of old, where His wrath and judgement came crashing down upon you if you broke His laws and got out of line. Now, God is your non-judgmental buddy and personal cheerleader who only has wonderful things to say about you, no matter what kind of sinner you are. In effect, today's mainline churches have emasculated God. He has become all carrot and no stick. That becomes all too evident when the "stick" portion of the 63rd Psalm was struck from existence in today's sermon in a fashion that would make Orwell shudder.

All you have to do is ask yourself if our lives and our society are based on all carrot and no stick. If you commit an injurious crime, are you sent to a loving and forgiving prison? Many of the pathologies in our society have arisen in a time when we have abandoned our fear of God, and instead, the only wrath that exists is from our police and legal systems. Would it not be easier to start at the source and worry about God's wrath instead?

We are supposed to be a - yes, I will say it - God-fearing people who respect God's judgment enough to take it upon ourselves to behave and do the right thing. John Adams said it best when he stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." In other words, the fear of earthly authority will never be as effective in keeping the peace as the fear of Heavenly authority.

Now, why is it that I have to point this out instead of the two seminary-trained pastors at my church?

Good Day to You, Sir

A picture speaks a trillion words

A big hat tip to my friend and fellow blogger, Darren, of Right on the Left Coast (see blogroll) for providing this link to a website that gives an easy-to-comprehend visual tutorial on what $100, $10,000, $1 million, $100 million, $1 billion, and $1 trillion look like. You won't believe the difference between a billion and a trillion. Keep the trillion visual in mind when you remind yourself that our current national debt is over $12 trillion.

Good Day to You, Sir

Will Governor "Moonbeam" become Governor "Globaloney"

From 1975 to 1983, California was under the governance of a rather strange little man named Jerry Brown, whose father, Pat Brown, had also been California's governor a decade before. Brown seemed as if he had come right from central casting. He was a strange duck who, as governor, rented a spartan apartment right across the street from the Capitol and had taken a vow of poverty and chastity while attending a Jesuit seminary (from which he later dropped out, and in the 1980s, traveled to Japan to study Buddhism); not traits you commonly see in a politician. Brown believed that Californians should stop driving and use mass transit instead. His method for carrying this out was to appoint a totally unqualified flunky named Adriana Gianturco to head the California Department of Transportation (more commonly known as CalTrans). Gianturco ordered a moratorium on the construction of new freeways in California and angered California legislators - both Republican and Democrat - so badly, that they tried to introduce a bill that would halt her pay. Throughout all this, Brown defended Gianturco to the end, and she served as head of CalTrans until 1983, when Brown left office. Brown appointed a California Supreme Court Chief Justice by the name of Rose Bird. Every death penalty case that came before Rose Bird - 61 in all - was commuted by Bird. California voters were so angered by Bird giving the death penalty... ahem... the bird, that they voted her out in 1986 by a margin of 67%-33%. Brown opposed Prop 13 in the 1978 election right up until the day it was approved by California voters, and then he did a 180 and practically claimed he wrote the thing. In 1982, Brown badly botched a crisis involving the Mediterranean Fruit Fly. Rather than saving California's $14 billion dollar fruit crop industry by ordering immediate spraying, he called for millions of trees to instead be stripped of their fruit. After much screaming and gnashing of teeth, and a nationwide threat of a quarantine on California fruit, Brown finally gave in and authorized the spraying that should have happened in the first place. In 1982, as a two-term California governor with total name recognition and momentum, Brown ran for the U.S. Senate, and was handily defeated by then-mayor of San Diego, Pete Wilson, who became governor of California in 1990. Jerry Brown was seemingly put out to pasture for good, having been permanently branded by Chicago columnist, Mike Royko, with the sobriquet, "Governor Moonbeam." You see the painting of Brown I posted? That is the official portrait that he approved to have hung with all the other portraits of California's past governors. It hangs in the Capitol to this very day; I have stood there in the hallway and gazed upon it with my own eyes.

This information should give you a little idea of why I am absolutely flabbergasted that Jerry Brown is not only running for governor of California again in 2010, but that it looks quite likely that he is going to win!

After serving for 8 years as Mayor of Oakland (a loonier city in a loony state), Brown's comeback hit high gear when he rode the 2006 Democrat wave to victory in the California Attorney General's race. It has been during his one term in that state-wide office that Brown has already shown a glimpse of his former incompetence and misguided leftism.

People are still waiting for his office to conduct an investigation of ACORN offices in California that helped investigative reporters James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles (posing as pimp and prostitute, respectively) cheat on taxes and help them open a brothel for underage Central American prostitutes.

And then there is anthropogenic global warming. A couple years ago, California, being the madcap insane asylum that it has become, took the lead on the so-called "cap and trade" nonsense that is still being debated at the national level, and passed a law that is commonly referred to as AB-32, which is California's own global warming abatement law. Naturally, this law was passed before the whole global warming/climate change fraud came crashing down within the last few months, with revelations of Climategate, the Himalayan glacier hoax, and everything else that has come to light since last November. That hasn't stopped the Church of Global Warming - including devout and zealous member G. Edmund "Jerry" Brown, Jr. - from continuing full steam ahead with their statist plans.

There is an initiative that is being proposed for the ballot in November here in California that would call for a freeze on implementation of AB-32 until the unemployment rate in California falls to at least 6.5% - it currently stands at over 12%. Even some leftists and Democrats admit that AB-32 will cause a net loss of jobs in California, and with that 12% unemployment rate, it doesn't make much sense to lose more jobs.

As Attorney General, Jerry Brown is in charge of the wording for the ballot initiatives. Here is how he has summarized this initiative that I just described to you:

Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.”

Gosh, could that summary be any more incomplete, incorrect, and inflammatory? Putting aside for a second the language of "major polluters," I would really like Jerry to explain exactly which greenhouse gas emissions "cause global warming." Notice that he did not qualify that statement about causing global warming with "possibly" or even "probably." No, the summary just says greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming as if it is an uncontested fact. Contrary to the science being settled - the statement with which we "deniers" are frequently browbeaten - even Phil Jones of East Anglia University, who is the disgraced scientist at the heart of the Climategate scandal, has now admitted that there hasn't been any significant warming since 1995, and that the Medieval Warming Period which lasted from about 900-1300 A.D. saw warmer average temperatures than we see today.

But why let fact-based dissent get in the way of a good bout of Gaia worship? All one has to do is take a look at the Attorney General's website and you will get a good idea of why AG (and probably soon-to-be Governor) Brown had no qualms about approving this ridiculously worded initiative summary. Allow me to direct you to AG Brown's California taxpayer-funded webpage that says the following:

The planet is heating up. It’s happening not because of natural processes, or gradually over thousands of years. Rather, temperatures are rising quickly and dramatically, climbing with the concentrations of greenhouse pollutants we are pouring into the atmosphere. Global climate change is happening because of human activities.

We are already seeing the effects - disappearing glaciers, shrinking snow pack, droughts, coastal erosion, bigger and more regular storms, and more extreme heat waves. Eleven of the past twelve years are on the list of the twelve warmest years since reliable record keeping began in 1850. Arctic sea ice declined in 2006 by the largest amount ever, losing an area roughly the size of Texas and California combined. The best available science tells us that these and other abrupt disruptions will intensify and spread if we don’t take decisive, dramatic action today.

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't have the strength to address them all, and you, the reader, probably don't have the strength to read it. I do have to point out the absurdity of the poo-pooing of "natural processes" and "thousands of years." Seriously? If average temperatures didn't heat up naturally over thousands of years, then Yosemite Valley would still be full of glacial ice! And again, nowhere in that statement do you see "scientists say," or "many believe," and certainly no acknowledgement of any of the recent scandals that might make one just a teensy bit skeptical. Nothing! Either Jerry Brown really approves of this claptrap, or he is too incompetent to know that it is on the official ca.gov website for his own office - again, for which I and other California taxpayers foot the bill. Either way, it shows Jerry Brown to be just as unqualified to be California's governor today, as he was three decades ago.

Good Day to You, Sir

Please... don't help

Today, March 4, was a "Day of Action" at California's schools, where the CTA encouraged teaches to stand outside their schools and hand out flyers to parents and anyone who will listen to save the jobs of teachers who are slated to be pink-slipped. Teachers were also encouraged to talk up the situation to their students.

At the high school that sits near the middle school at which I work, I heard that about 150 students staged a walkout during the morning. Word of this quickly found its way via texting to many of the students at my site. That's when the fun began.

As I tried to teach my first period class of 8th graders, we kept hearing yelling and commotion in the hallway as students who had left their classes without permission were walking down the hallway trying to agitate some sort of mass walkout. All it took was for me to remind my students that if they left my classroom, I would record it as a cut. They all stayed put. Meanwhile, the idiots in the hallway did their best to strike a blow to the man, but their efforts had fizzled out by the end of first period. In the middle of second period, it was decided to up the ante: someone pulled a fire alarm.

The 900 students of my school, along with about 500 students of the elementary school next door, all had to file out of the building. It was absolute chaos, as all the students knew why we were out there. Probably 99% of these agitators who were calling for a walkout didn't even know what they were protesting; they just wanted an excuse to spice up their day and get out of class.

We got back into the classroom just in time for second period to end and third to begin. My third period 8th graders came in to my class in a very boisterous manner, flush with excitement at what had just occurred. They were high-fiving each other and talking about the blow they had struck. They asked me what I though of all this, and I told them if their idea of helping us teachers was being obnoxious during instructional time and pulling fire alarms, then they needed to stop immediately, because they were just making the situation much more stressful.

As for who pulled the fire alarm, one thing about middle schoolers is that they cannot keep their traps shut for the life of them. By fourth period, I was overhearing hushed conversations where students were whispering to each other that they knew who had pulled the alarm. I kept one girl in particular who I had overhead tell another student that she wouldn't tell him who pulled the alarm because - get this - "You're white, and white people snitch." With a statement like that, I had to see what she knew. She refused to give up the name of the alarm puller to me, but I could tell she really did know who pulled the alarm.

So guess what? This white boy snitched! I emailed my principal and told her that she might want to have a chat with that particular student who, with the right kind of incentive or motivation, might be able to shed light on the subject of who pulled the fire alarm. As it turned out, there were several other loose-lipped students out there who had already given up the goods, but my student served as yet more solid verification. The alarm puller got a verbal beatdown from the fire marshal, a bill for fire services rendered, and five days of suspension. Five days, huh? What she did should require an instant expulsion, yet again proving my previously discussed point about why our education system is so abysmal.

Through all of this chaos today, one thing I didn't get to do very much of was actually teach. Thank you CTA.

Good Day to You, Sir

I got yer majority vote right here!

So, it appears that Barack Obama and his flunkies in Congress are set to pull the trigger on the nuclear option (they call it "reconciliation") in an effort to pass their atrocious atrocity of a health care control bill into law.

Radio host Hugh Hewitt has endorsed a wonderful idea as to how to stop this process in its tracks. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid want to bypass a filibuster and get a simple majority vote to pass this thing? Then let's give them what they want: A flood of amendments to the bill from the Republicans. Each amendment would require an up-or-down roll call vote.

Hewitt is directing people to the website of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) where they can draft and submit their own amendment that could be submitted by a congressmember on the floor. As long as the Republicans don't lose their nerve here (and Lord knows they are prone to do so), they could keep the Dems tied up with literally thousands of amendments to the original bill.

At this point, something must be done to stop this government takeover of our health care system from happening. Once it gets passed, good luck ever getting rid of it.

Good Day to You, Sir

Quotable Steyn

How much do I love the writing of Mark Steyn? All of these zingers are from just one column:

"What's happening in the developed world today isn't so very hard to understand: The 20th century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to..."

"In America, the feckless insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids. In Europe, they've reached the next stage in social democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over. The United States has a fertility rate of around 2.1, or just over two kids per couple. Greece has a fertility rate of about 1.3: 10 grandparents have six kids have four grandkids - i.e., the family tree is upside down..."

"When seeking to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, President Ford liked to say: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Which is true enough. But there's an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn't big enough to get you to give any of it back..."

"We hard-hearted, small-government guys are often damned as selfish types who care nothing for the general welfare. But, as the Greek protests make plain, nothing makes an individual more selfish than the socially equitable communitarianism of big government. Once a chap's enjoying the fruits of government health care, government-paid vacation, government-funded early retirement, and all the rest, he couldn't give a hoot about the general societal interest. He's got his, and to hell with everyone else. People's sense of entitlement endures long after the entitlement has ceased to make sense..."

"...a "European" bailout will be paid for by Germany. So the aforementioned Greek deputy prime minister, Theodoros Pangalos, has denounced the conditions of the EU deal on the grounds that the Germans stole all the bullion from the Bank of Greece during the Second World War. Welfare always breeds contempt, in nations as much as inner-city housing projects. How dare you tell us how to live! Just give us your money and push off..."

"The problem is there are never enough of "the rich" to fund the entitlement state, because in the end, it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate. In Greece, they've run out Greeks, so they'll stick it to the Germans, like French farmers do. In Germany, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick their defense tab to the Americans..."

It's Mark Steyn's world; I only write in it.

Good Day to You, Sir

He lost me in the first paragraph

In his recent New York Times (naturally) op-ed, here is how Al Gore tries to defend the indefensible:

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

"Attacks on the science of global warming," he says? Pointing out efforts to hide data, intimidate dissenters, and lie about sourcing is an attack on science?

That was just his first paragraph, mind you. Read the whole column, and you will just feel how desperate this guy is as he watches the wheels come off his gravy train.

What a detestable piece of slime.

Good Day to You, Sir