Public schools that accept federal money have to follow federal educational mandates or risk being closed down or having the entire staff fired under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Auto companies who receive bailout money can be told by the government how they will run their business and in some cases, what kind of cars they can make.
When will people learn that when you make government a partner in your enterprise, the government always becomes the controlling partner?
The whole situation reminds me of a scene in the wonderful mafia movie GoodFellas, where the mob boss, Paul Cicero, is made a partner in a local nightclub in which many of the wiseguys hang out on Friday and Saturday nights (Bad Language Alert!):
Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning huh? Fuck you, pay me."
It's not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea. The tragedy is that in this day and age, comparing our government to the mafia isn't too far off base.
What an immature, insensitive jerk. Has the buyers' remorse set in yet?
Gallows humor? Our Dear Leader must not realize that gallows humor is supposed to be made by the man with the rope around his neck (the American taxpayer), not the executioner (the Obamessiah). Even that dependable lefty, Steve Kroft, appeared to be appalled. I look and listen to this pathetic excuse for a man and continue to be dumbfounded that he is actually our president.
Try as I might to not jump on the bandwagon, I can no longer hold my tongue. I was on the treadmill at the gym last night, and there she was on CNN's Anderson Cooper, cavorting about town with a couple of her brood in tow and enjoying every moment of the lavish attention this pathetic woman so obviously craves.
We all have read, watched, or heard about Nadya Suleman, the California octuplet mom, and her fourteen children. Many view this story as a miracle of life, while others view it as an ignorant temptation by a woman who wanted a big family, and an unethical doctor in search of fame.
The truth of the matter is that this divorced, unemployed, disabled and unsupported mother, who is also a student under debt. And even though her critical, but ultimately enabling, father gave her a new $560,000+, 2,500+ square-foot house, Suleman is financially bankrupt and cannot afford her children. As a result, of Suleman’s inability to take care of her children, the government must take action, by using taxpayers’ money, to help these children survive this tragic state of affairs.
In an NBC interview by Ann Curry, Suleman claimed that she has no intention to live off of taxpayers’ money. She stated, “If I am, if it's food stamps, it's a temporary resource. And I was so reluctant. I very much so look forward to the day when I am not getting any kind of help with food stamps, which I believe will end when I graduate in about a year or year and a half.”
Sadly, Suleman’s statement is based on hope and not reality. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture, for a single mom to raise a child to age 18, she will minimally spend between $118,590 and $250,260. Do the math, and that means this single mother with little financial means would have to cough up somewhere between $1,660,260 and $3,503,640 if she wanted to raise these kids on her own without the help of Daddy Government (read: taxpayer).
So who is really at fault here? Is it the mother who simply wanted to have more children, or the doctor who knew the result of his research and simply did not consider the consequences of his actions?
Unfortunately, there is enough blame to go around with everybody involved in the very sad situation. Dr. Michael Kamrava, Suleman’s physician and an embryo implantation specialist, should have assumed the consequences of his actions and advised his patient not to progress with the procedure. The mother should have considered the wellbeing of her previous six children, and now, her eight children--not to mention the millions of dollars it will cost taxpayers.
It is just plain wrong that California’s hardworking taxpayers should be the ones footing the bill for these very bad decisions made by individuals that are working the system. Taxpayers deserve better than this, and need to know that their precious dollars are being spent wisely--not for individuals who make selfish choices for their own personal gratification and gain.
Where exactly we go from here is uncertain but it is clear we need to address these ethical issues in order to prevent more tragic situations like this one from occurring—which has both huge human and financial costs.
It's becoming almost comical: every time the stock market begins to make a rally, our illustrious Dear Leader and his minions in congress and the Federal Reserve seem to do everything they can to reverse that rally:
In the Obama administration, terrorist attacks are no longer to be called "terrorist attacks," at least not according to Janet Napolitano, Obama's new Director of Homeland Security. During an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel (that's The Mirror to you yokels who don't sprechen Deutsch):
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
Did she say "man-caused" disasters? Sigh, these Lefties are always about "nuance" aren't they?
Even the illegal aliens can't find work, so they are self-deporting. I received this email in my inbox at work yesterday. The names have been deleted.
Dear Staff,
Yesterday I spoke with ******'s mother who informed me that ****** will be disenrolling from school in a few weeks, and moving to Mexico. I asked Mom why and she said that her husband was recently laid off from work and cannot apply for unemployment because of his illegal status here in the United States, and the same goes for Mom. In addition, they cannot apply for any public assistance either. She told me that she told the children on Sunday that their beds will have to be sold because they need money for rent. Without going in too many details, ****** and her mother came to the US in order to be safe.
So basically, they have no money to survive on while they prepare to transition to Mexico where they have family.
I contacted the homeless liaison at the district to see what assistance he can provide the family until they leave, and [our principal] suggested I email the staff to see if anyone would like to make a monetary donation.
Very Truly Yours,
[the school secretary]
I have this student in class and she is a very well-behaved, considerate, and conscientous student. I hate to see her go. On the other hand, she is a victim of poor choices made by her parents. When they came here illegally, they must have known that something like this could happen. It's a shame they have to drag their daughter down with them.
I was forwarded the text of an outstanding and devastating (to the global warm-ongers) speech given by California congressional representative Tom McClintock. The occasion for the speech was the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, held in New York City earlier this month by the Heartland Institute.
There were a couple things I especially enjoyed about McClintock's speech.
First was his sarcastic, flippant tone that he used in the delivery. Remember, I only read the text, I didn't hear him speak; yet the words he used deliciously dripped with amused contempt for these people - dubbed "Leftist Luddites" by McClintock - who want to reduce our standard of living and our life expectancy in the name of solving a crisis that does not even exist: man-made global warming. People on the left get apoplectic when you laugh at their misguided beliefs, which for them, border on the religious in their intensity. This is one of the reasons that after twenty years on the air, Rush Limbaugh still drives the left crazy. He laughs at them; he makes fun of them. McClintock does likewise in this speech.
Second, McClintock pointed out the absurd contradictions of what the Luddites want to do in order to combat our so-called climate crisis. Observe:
In fact, I had a friend who paid $45 for one of these “carbon offsets” for his Lincoln Navigator. By paying $45, this company sends him a very attractive 10-cent decal that certifies his SUV now has absolutely NO carbon footprint. But then he discovered that Priuses, which do have a carbon footprint, get to use our diamond lanes for free, while his Lincoln Navigator – which for just $45 now has no carbon footprint whatsoever – has to sit in bumper to bumper traffic with all the rest of us carbon sinners...
{Snip}
These carbon offsets are supposed to be used for such activities as planting more trees to absorb carbon dioxide. After all, young trees absorb much more of this “greenhouse gas” than old trees. But isn’t replacing old-growth timber with young-growth timber exactly what lumber companies used to do until Al Gore’s acolytes stopped them? Trees are also very important to reducing energy demand – we’re told that to conserve electricity we need to plant lots of shade trees to shield our roofs from the sun so that we don’t use our air conditioners. We’re also all supposed to install solar panels on our roofs, although they don’t work so well in the shade from our trees...
{Snip}
In fact, there are only two ways of generating vast amounts of clean electricity for electric cars and trains: hydroelectricity and nuclear power. But there’s no faster way to send these Luddites into hysterics than to mention that inconvenient truth. The politically correct replacement is solar energy. Solar energy is roughly 17 times more expensive than either nuclear power or hydroelectricity – meaning, of course around 17 times LESS electricity to run electric cars and trains. Energy conservation, then, is the answer, which is why we’re required only to use energy efficient fluorescent lights rather than the warm and fuzzy incandescent bulbs. But wait – California has banned the disposal of fluorescent lights with your trash because of the extreme environmental hazard they pose in our landfills...
That is just a taste folks. Read the rest of Tom McClintock's speech right here.
My latest issue of EducationMatters, the monthly newsletter from the Association of American Educators had an article about the abysmal state of our country's civic knowledge., based on the results of a civics quiz taken by over 2,500 Americans. The most amusing part is that of the 33 questions on the quiz, people who self-identified as elected government officials did worse than the average citizen on 31 of those questions.
Take the quiz for yourself and see if you can best the average score of elected officials and perhaps the stellar score of yours truly.
By the way, on one of the answers I got wrong, I could argue that I shouldn't have.
Pocketknives. They used to be something that men were simply expected to carry. I remember receiving one from my Dad for Christmas one year, and as a kid, I carried one quite often. Somehow, over time, I stopped carrying one. After reading this column, I have reversed course, and have added a pocketknife to the small pile of items that I stuff into my pocket in the morning. Not only to pocketknives come in handy, but they can also save a life:
...There was a time when the average boy, and the man he became, carried a pocket knife as a matter of course. As we have become more urban and less rural, many citizens have lost touch with the need to carry a knife. You see these pacified, civilized, emasculated citizens tearing at vending machine packages of potato chips with their teeth or their car keys. That would be comical, if not a bit sad... except that the stakes are a lot higher than being unable to open a Christmas present or a bag of pretzels. In some cases, the lack of the most basic technology results in the death of a human being....
I have probably 8 to 10 pocketknives that I have acquired over the years, and until I read this article, they were collecting dust in my dresser drawer. No more.
Wanna go to a Tea Party? So far, 115 cities have signed up to protest the out-of-control spending in which our government is engaging.
Go to TaxDayTeaParty.com, and see where your nearest protest will be held. Unfortunately, April 15th is a work day, so attending a protest won't be easy; but what the hell? Our salaries are being raped anyway.
I will be checking with "She Who Keeps the Calendar" to see if I can take a half day off.
"You can't take a trip to Las Vegas or down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime...."
So said President Barack Obama back on February 10 of this year. His remarks were directed toward the CEOs of companies who made a devil's bargain and accepted the bailout money that was doled out by the Democrats earlier this year.
On a visceral level, Obama's comment initially seems reasonable: How dare a financially strapped company receive the lifeblood of the American taxpayer and then spend it on hotels and parties in Sin City?!
Upon more thoughtful deliberation, there are two problems with this line of thinking.
First, putting aside the fact that this writer does not believe that the taxpayers' money should be used for this sort of thing in the first place, the bottom line is that it has indeed been given to these companies, presumably with the goal of making them financially solvent again. One of the ways that companies stay profitable is to drum up business. This is done in a myriad of ways, to include, yes, wining and dining potential clients and customers in places like Las Vegas. Like it or not, that is how business gets done. To deny this marketing strategy to companies that have accepted federal bailout dollars is to ensure that they will not be competitive in the free market, and they will most likely fall further behind, thus wasting the sweat and toil of the taxpayers.
Second, I thought Obama and the congressional Democrats are trying to stimulate the economy by creating new jobs and saving existing ones. When these companies go to Vegas and spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, who do you think benefits from that spending? The waiters and waitresses; the casino table workers; the event planners; the alcohol and food suppliers; the mechanic who repairs the vehicles of the alcohol and food suppliers; the list is endless.
On today's Drudge, there is linked an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal that brings up my latter point. In the last 90 days, over 340 events have been cancelled, costing the city an estimated $131.6 million. The article suggests that the mayor of Las Vegas should send Obama the bill for this loss of income.
As misguided as Obama's stimulus plan is, if it is to be forced upon the American taxpayer, perhaps it would be a good idea if our Dear Leader didn't sabotage our economy's attempted recovery by opening the gaffe-prone hole under his nose.
They did it again. This time, it was the actress who plays the president, Cherry Jones, who did a PSA during 24 tonight, informing us that while "the events on 24 may be fiction, climate change is not."
So go to Fox.com everyone, and find out what you can do to reduce your carbon footprint in an effort to solve the problem of global warming. At least she also uttered "global warming" and not just "climate change."
These Hollywood types are such cause junkies; and to make matters worse, their causes are usually a bunch of misdirected hokum.
Jason Mattera of Young America's Foundation and Hot Air (see blogroll) has done a wonderful recurring series of ambush interviews where he corners these Congresscritters where they live and then asks them the questions that the lamestream media should be asking, but don't.
Past targets have included John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Jack Murtha, and "Dollar Bill" Jefferson. The latest object of Mattera's ire is that pathetic Kleptocrat Charles Rangel (D-NY). Feel the arrogance of this POS as he waves off Mattera with profanity. Actually Congressman, it is my "Goddamn business"!
Right there is the attitude of too many Congresscritters out there in DC Land. They have apparently forgotten that they work for the American People, not the other way around.
Or is it that simple? A friend of mine forwarded me a ten-minute video that explains the various major forms of government, and it turns the whole left-right paradigm on its head, along with verifying what I have been saying for years: Democracy sucks!
I am a little late with this post, as the Oprah episode in question aired back on February 25th, but my lovely bride has quite a stack of unviewed episodes of Oprah on the DVR, so she got around to watching that particular episode just the other day.
I happened to be in the living room that afternoon when my wife sat down to watch Oprah - I usually retire to the office and do some blogging - but what was unique about this particular episode was that it was shot in my city of residence, Sacramento. Oprah had her investigative reporter, Lisa Ling (who is from Sacramento) do a story on the newly homeless here in the capital city. These newly homeless apparently had homes until the recent downturn with the economy. Not surprisingly, Oprah and her producers tried their best to make these Sacramentans look as sympathetic as possible, but I thought that "pathetic" was a more fitting adjective.
One family in particular caught my attention. Favor and Ryan Whitesides and their three children became homeless last year when the bank foreclosed upon their house due to the Whitesides' inability to make their payments. Now, Favor and the three kids walk the streets in an unsavory section of Sacramento because it is near the Loaves and Fishes homeless shelter where they spend their nights and the kids attend school.
I'm sure that if Oprah could have left it at that, she would have, because with each new piece of information about this family, my B***S*** detector began to go into overdrive. First, it was revealed that only the wife and the three kids, ages 13, 11, and 9, have to walk the streets and sleep in shelters with their worldly possessions in garbage bags. The husband lives in an apartment with friends. Way to live up to your husbandly and fatherly duties there, Ryan.
Next, it was revealed that the Whitesides had an adjustable rate mortgage. Disagree with me if you wish, but unless you have some damn unique circumstances, the necessity of an ARM means you shouldn't even be buying a house in the first place.
Next, it was revealed that until they lost their jobs, Favor was a home care provider, and Ryan did clerical work; both of these jobs are minimum wage or just over. But it gets better: in addition to losing their house, they also had to get rid of their... Lincoln Navigator.
Are you starting to get the picture?
But the Whitesides weren't done. At one point, Favor was being interviewed by Oprah's crew inside a homeless shelter. There is Favor, sitting on a couch in a lobby, telling her woe-is-me tale of poverty and homelessness - her brood sitting around her to remind us all that there are deprived children involved here. And what is Favor's 13 year-old daughter doing during this interview? She is sitting next to her mother, texting on a cell phone!
I am sure that there really are some hard-luck cases out there where people truly did the right thing but have still ended up in financial and residential straits. However, I must agree with radio host Neal Boortz, who often says that the reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is because the rich keep making wise choices that make them richer, and the poor keep making unwise choices that make them poorer.
Too bad Oprah, Lisa Ling, and the rest of the Oprah crew were too cowardly to question any of the unwise choices of the family that they hoisted up as the poster children of homelessness in Sacramento.
One of my few guilty pleasures of the fictional variety on television is 24.
There I was tonight, shaking with anticipation as terrorists are on the way to put the White House under siege, and Jack Bauer is - ahem - interrogating a suspect with a taser gun that Bauer had lifted off of a White House guard he pummeled.
Then cut to commercial, and what do I see? A PSA with Kiefer Sutherland telling us all about how the production staff at 24 has instituted changes in order to make their productions more "green" in an effort to combat "climate change." Oh, gag me harshly.
I clucked my tongue a bit when they cast that disgusting America-hating hag, Jeanene Garofalo, as an FBI office drone. But when you cut from Kiefer Sutherland acting like a deliciously sociopathic badass to him practically wimpering before the camera about so-called climate change, it seriously messes with my ability to suspend disbelief.
Friday is often test day in the Chanman classroom. As I was briefing my 7th period 8th graders with their instructions for the test, I imparted some last-minute piece of obscure historical information in order to further explain something about the War of 1812 that the students kept not getting. Do I remember what the obscure info was? Nope.
I must have impressed the students, because I got the question I sometimes get from my students: How do you know all this stuff? My standard answer is that I'm a history teacher; I have to know this stuff. Some students then decided to put me to the test by asking me about the Presidents, such as who was the 19th president? Rutherford B. Hayes; who was the 23rd president? Benjamin Harrison, and so on. In fairness, they picked the wrong topic, because I have had the chronological order of presidents memorized since the fifth grade. After discovering they weren't going to stump me with the presidents, someone got cute and said, "What year did Mac Dre die?"
"2002," I said - eyes began to widen.
"How about Tupac?" said another student.
"1996," I said - murmurs of amazement began to ripple through the classroom.
"What about Biggie Smalls?" said another student.
"1997," I said - Now the murmurs became a cacophany of "No way!"
"How about Aaliyah?" said another student.
I said, "This is the last one and then we have to get the test started... she died in 2001."
Of course before we could start the test, my students wanted to know how I, a lame-o 36 year-old white guy who doesn't wear saggy pants and sometimes listens to Elton John during the last few minutes of class and who was their age in 1986 (they didn't say all that, but you can bet they were thinking it), could possibly know this critical information about their favorite thuggish hip-hop artists.
In Barack Obama's speech before the joint session of Congress the other night, the quote that was easily the most absurd of the night was this little ditty:
"My budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. It reflects the stark reality of what we've inherited - a trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis, and a costly recession." Yes, that can be such a bother to inherit a trillion dollar deficit, Mr. President. Say, what is your proposal to address this "stark reality"? Oh yeah, it is to saddle us with yet another trillion-dollar deficit, and according to the spending you plan for the future, your are just getting warmed up.
As this train-wreck of an administration continues its swath, I am tempted to chuck my sign-off of "Good Day to You, Sir" and go with "We Are So Screwed" instead.
I have a friend/neighbor who works with the Republicans at the State Capitol here in our state's capital. Back on February 11, he invited me to attend a presentation/discussion about the film Frost/Nixon that was held after hours at the Capitol in the office of the Leader of the Senate Republicans. The featured speaker was a man named Ken Khachigian, who has been described as a "lion" of California GOP politics. He served as Nixon's Deputy Special Assistant, and also served as Ronald Reagan's head speechwriter. If you read The Reagan Diaries, Mr. Khachigian is mentioned several times, almost always in the vein of Met with Ken Khachigian today to talk about the convention/acceptance/upcoming speech or Had dinner with Ken Khachigian and his wife this evening.
So if you look back through many of Reagan's famous speeches, including the ones he gave at the 1980 and 1984 Republican conventions, those were Ken Khachigian's words. Here is a photo of Mr. Khachigian with President Reagan that I found on Khachigian's Wikipedia entry:
Even after Richard Nixon left office, Mr. Khachigian stayed on board as an advisor, and attended the actual series of interviews in 1977 between Nixon and David Frost, having been Nixon's head researcher for the interviews beforehand.
Mr. Khachigian requested that his presentation and any questions and answers afterward remain off the record, and I will of course honor that. I can tell you that Mr. Khachigian took us through the events leading up to the Frost/Nixon interviews, and told us what was accurate and not-so-accurate about the events depicted in the film, and the play that preceded it. It was an enjoyable and unique experience for me to have the opportunity to attend this function while surrounded by several state senators and assemblymembers. I just sat back and took it all in.
After the event ended, the cameras came out. Here is the result:
From left to right: Yours Truly, Ken Khachigian, and my friend/neighbor
You can tell which one of these three gentlemen doesn't work in politics; I'm the one not wearing the ubiquitous dark power suit.
In addition to teaching, my wife does editing projects for a to-remain-unnamed textbook company. She edits and sometimes creates questions for tests. For some projects where my wife is tasked with creating questions, she is required to come up with a theme that involves a fake website, bibliography, and labeled schematic drawing, with a series of questions based on the information found therein. For instance, she once created one of these with sharks being the theme. She came up with a list of fake websites about sharks, a bibliography of imaginary books that were all about sharks, and a drawing of a shark with its major body parts highlighted and labeled.
Recently, my wife was tasked with creating another of these test-taking themes. She was tired of animals, so she came up with the idea of basing it on military vehicles. Same thing: list of military vehicle websites and books, and a labeled drawing of a tank that points out the turret, tracks, hatch, main gun, etc. After completing the theme, my wife got an uneasy feeling about the acceptability of her creation, and checked with her editor just in case. Sure enough, her editor nixed the idea of using military vehicles, because they can't "depict guns" or show any "bias." OK, I get the whole showing guns thing - I don't agree with it, but I get it. But what exactly did the editor mean by "bias"? Bias toward boys instead of girls, since the theme was military in nature? Bias toward our country because the military vehicles were American? In both cases, what is wrong with that?
I am becoming very weary of the bias that many people have against anything masculine. Being the father of a son who is approaching the age of five, opportunities for me to experience this bias abound. For instance, I was in the military and I like guns; I own a few, and I shoot them when the opportunity arises. Naturally, my son is therefore fascinated by the military and guns as well. In today's culture, that simple statement I just made would cause many people to get the vapors and be shocked at the fact that my four-year-old son would be exposed to such horrible things. That's a crying shame, because once upon a time, the way I raise my son was nothing unusual. In some parts of the country, it still isn't. However, the overall culture of our country is one that frowns upon certain expressions of masculinity, and often seeks to extinguish it. Not allowing the depiction of a tank on a test is a prime example.
Pundits and authors are taking notice of this trend. Not long ago, columnist Ilana Mercer lamented that there are not more "Sully" Sullenbergers out there; referencing the take-charge manliness of the pilot who successfully crash-landed his airliner into the Hudson River and saved every soul on board. Said Mercer:
...Missed by the perennial purveyors of pop culture and political correctness was a story about the value of an endangered, and vital, virtue: manliness.
Witnessed in that cockpit was old-fashioned manliness. The feminization and regulation of American society over the last 20 to 30 years has meant that life-saving manliness is increasingly confined to corners where women are less likely to encroach: like the cockpit....
This "feminization" of our culture has been ongoing since the late 1960s when women became more militant, and the ideal man became more "sensitive." This change in the outlook of what makes a man became especially apparent at the movie theater. To the dustbin went the masculine actors like William Holden, Robert Ryan, and John Wayne. Instead, the ideal male leads started going to wimpier, more sensitive fellas like Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty. If the masculine actors were still used, it was often in telling roles like Holden and Ryan in "The Wild Bunch" or John Wayne in "The Shootist" where they played men past their prime who were hanging on to a way of life that was no longer tenable. In the case of Clint Eastwood in 1971's "Dirty Harry", the whole point of the movie was that his masculine character was no longer the norm, and that he was hopelessly out synch with the rest of his more sensitive San Francisco police department.
In our world today, we need look no further than the Oval Office for an example of what is considered the ideal man. I mean, seriously, can you think of many men who are less manly than Barack Obama? For another prime example, check out Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs. To me, he is the epitome of the pasty-faced anti-male persona that permeates our society:
In his book Tender Warrior, author and minister Stu Weber talks about masculinity and what it is that makes a man. He identifies four pillars: King, Warrior, Mentor, and Friend. In today's society, Weber recognizes that only some of these pillars are still respected:
Unfortunately, the King and Warrior qualities of manhood are suspect today. Of the four pillars, they are the most tarnished and eroded in our culture. Few object to a man being a mentor or a friend. Many resist the King and the Warrior. Authority and strength seem to be questionable virtues in our day. But we miss them in this turbulent, rootless culture of ours. Oh, how we miss them! Without them, we are hollow men. We are men without chests.
It's a sad time in this country when boys cannot act like boys without looks of concern from the general public who are uncomfortable with outward displays of masculinity. On the other hand, to a certain degree, I don't totally blame the general public's attitude. If you further read Weber's book, he speaks of keeping your commitments as being one of the ultimate signs of masculinity. A father walking out on his children and leaving those children to be raised without a father is a definite violation of the commitments of which Mr. Weber speaks. These fatherless children are often left to develop on their own or with their friends - who are also often fatherless - a twisted and grotesque form of what they believe to be masculinity, which menaces society rather than protects it.
These social pathologies aside, we must change course in this country in how we treat our young males. Instead of guiding and channeling their natural aggressive tendencies into something positive, too often these tendencies are treated as some sort of disease that must be purged from our midst. This must stop.
Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that we are a nation of cowards when it comes to discussing race. Watch Pat Buchanan and Michael Eric Dyson take Holder up on his challenge:
California finally has a budget! As if Californians are not already overcharged enough by our free-spending legislature, we will now have to pay even more of our hard-earned dollars if we want to continue living in the late, great state of California. The bright side, if there is one, is that had a single Republican state senator named Abel Maldonado not dug in his heels and held his ground, the budget that was passed would have not just been bad, it would have been calamitous. The not-so-bright side is that Maldonado didn't dig in his heels nearly enough.
Gone from the final bill was a 12 cent hike of the state gasoline tax on what are already the highest average gas prices in the nation. At one point, this gas tax was seemingly a done deal. Also gone was what was essentially a 5% increase of state income tax liability on what are already the highest state income taxes in the nation. Of course, instead we now have a 0.25% increase in the state income tax. Keep in mind, these increases are being imposed on an already overtaxed and overpriced state.
While these concessions by the Democrats are good news, the fact still remains that this budget includes increases on our state taxes, and not mentioned in the attached article is any news about the proposed doubling of vehicle license registration fees. I will be interested to find out if that passed as part of this budget deal.
I think what made me most angry about this whole budget ordeal was the statement made by President Pro Tem of the state senate, Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat from the Sacramento area. Duing an impassioned speech on the senate floor, Steinberg said to his Republican colleagues,
"I wish to God, that you could deviate just a little bit, just a little bit, from your philosophy, just a little bit, from the endless mantra of no new revenue, no new revenue ever, and be a participant and partner with us in solving this problem."
No, Senator Steinberg, how about you deviate just a little bit, just a little bit, from your philosophy, which, like a broken record, always includes tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. And don't you love how Steinberg uses the crafty little word "revenue" instead of "taxes." That's putting the cart before the horse. Revenue is what a government receives as a result of taxes that are paid. Using the economic theory endorsed and successfully instituted by Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II, lowering taxes actually leads to increased revenues. Apparently, there are still plenty of politicians - most on the Democrat side of the aisle - who have yet to learn this lesson. Nice try with trying to sell this boondoggle of a budget with your semantic trickery Senator Steinberg, but I'm not buying it.
While I am happy that not everything that our state legislature wanted to do to us came to fruition, the fact remains that we got royally screwed. I liken this to being mugged and then being relieved that the criminal only got away with my wallet and let me keep my cell phone. The bottom line is that I still got robbed.
Our illustrious Attorney General, Eric Holder, thinks we Americans are "cowardly" for being hesitant to talk about race in this country. I see a couple problems with this statement. First, I have the sneaking suspicion that Holder would like any conversations about race to occur in the paradigm of "black=victim, white=victimizer" and leave it at that. Second, and on a related note, how is our country supposed to talk about race when any white person who is the least bit critical about anything a minority does would immediately be labeled as a racist? Those conditions do not make for a useful dialogue.
For instance, what would some people instantly think of me if I said the following clip (which, coincidentally, happened today) shows a symptom of a decades-long culture of fatherlessness and glorification of crime and nihilism in the black community?
On a side note, this clip also shows how utterly absurd the whole sagging pants thing can be. I saw at least two combatants have to take a time-out from the melee so they could pull up their damn pants.
Two U.S. Border Patrol agents whose sentences were commuted by former President Bush after spending two years in prison for shooting a Mexican drug dealer were released from prison today.
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean will have to spend another month on house arrest, but being home with their families should be quite a consolation for that inconvenience.
President Bush was given a lot of flak by supporters of Ramos and Compean for only commuting their sentences and not giving them an outright pardon. There was a method to Bush's madness: the two men did not ask for a pardon. In an interview with radio talk host Mike Gallagher that took place just a day or two after the commutation was announced, I listened to the wife of one of the agents (I can't remember which) tell Gallagher and his audience that to receive a pardon, you have to sign document admitting guilt to your crime. Since Ramos and Compean both maintain they did nothing wrong, they refused to ask for a pardon if that meant admitting guilt. With a commutation, the two men are free to continue pursuing their case in an effort to be fully exonerated.
The man who Ramos and Compean shot (in the ass, by the way) was in the process of transporting 750 pounds of marijuana across our border. During the agents' trial, the drug dealer was given immunity by the U.S. attorney so he could testify against the agents. While the trial was going on and while the scumbag had immunity, he was caught yet again transporting hundreds of pounds of marijuana across our border. Boy, there's a reliable witness!
Thank God for President Bush seeing the light on his last day in office and signing the commutations for Ramos and Compean. Were his feet not held to the fire by many politicians, talk radio hosts, family members, and citizens, I am confident that Bush would have allowed those two men to rot in prison.
Last week's cover of Newsweek was refreshingly candid. With the red hand of the Republicans and the blue hand of the Democrats shaking on it (and don't get me started on this red = Republican, blue = Democrat business), the cover matter-of-factly declares "We Are All Socialists Now". Speak for yourself, Newsweek!
It's funny, during the Joe the Plumber phase of the presidential campaign, the lefties and the lamestream media did nothing but scoff at conservative and Republican assertions that Obama and a Democrat-controlled congress were going to impose socialism on the United States. The media either denied it, or simply retorted that President Bush had already started us down that road (I have to admit, I agree with that last assertion).
However, once Obama was safely ensconced in the Oval Office, only then did Newsweek have no problem blaring to the world that what Obama and the congress are imposing on us is blatant socialism. I was intrigued by the whole "hands shaking" imagery to symbolize socialism, because I knew I had seen it someplace before. Then it struck me. There is a group called the Democratic Socialists of America. I have even linked to their pathetic, freedom-hating, confiscation-loving website. Here is the top banner of their site:
Below the cute little peace flower is that familiar shaking of hands. Also on their homepage is a similar image that is on their donation button:
Newsweek had obviously done their homework when they designed their cover. Then again, since it's safe to bet that many of the Newsweek staff presumably belong to DSA, they didn't have to think very hard about what to put on their cover.
Listen to the humble wisdom of a true conservative president as his statements are juxtaposed with those of our megalomaniac-in-chief who currently occupies the Oval Office. The difference is astounding.
Watch a Georgia congressman introduce you to the hard, cold reality of what a congressional bill looks like, especially when that bill is the Porkulus.
One of my favorite lessons to teach my 7th and 8th graders is when I tell them about 19th century American admiral, David Farragut, who served in the U.S. Navy from the War of 1812 through the Civil War. My students, who are between the ages of 12 and 14, are amazed when I tell them that Farragut was given his first command of a ship at the age of 12. Imagine that; he was responsible for an entire ship and was giving commands to dozens of men, all at the age of 12. How far we have fallen.
Several days ago, Drudge carried a story about some Massachusetts middle school boys who have gotten into legal trouble for using their cell phones to spread around a photo of the half-naked girlfriend of the one of the boys involved. Now, in stereotypical U.S.A-circa-2009 fashion, a parent has come forward to defend his son's atrocious behavior:
"What they did, yes, it was wrong. But did they really know it was wrong? No. They're 13-year-old kids," said [Brian]Hunt.
Unlike the boy's Internet activity, Hunt admitted he never monitored his son's cell phone because, "he's a good kid."
"And, like I said, and I'll say it over and over again, these are 13-year-old boys, and I want everybody out there to remember when they were 13," said Hunt....
Shame on you Mr. Hunt for expecting so little of young men who are so old. I teach 13 year-old boys for a living; believe me, they know the difference between right and wrong. I continue to be appalled at how little we tend to hold young people accountable for their actions. And the problem is that what is considered to be a "young person" continues to creep upward.
A store locking up its condom display in order to thwart shoplifters is racist.
A group of Boston community activists are protesting what they claim is a discriminatory move to lock up condoms in a Dorchester CVS pharmacy.
The delegation of Boston civil rights leaders, health advocates and community members claims the Rhode Island-based pharmacy chain has a practice of locking up condoms at the CVS pharmacy on 778 Dudley St. and in other communities of color all over the country.(Emphasis mine)
While watching this video, pay special attention to the blondish middle-aged lady in the white dress who stands up on the left side of the screen. Sick, sick, sick. Obama is just a man, people! He is not a God!
As a teacher, I will admit that I am naturally inclined to be suspicious about news stories like this one, but after reading it, one must admit that there is quite a bit of fire with that smoke.
It seems that quite a few teachers in Chicago have developed a habit of physically abusing their students; hundreds of teachers, actually.
...An exclusive CBS 2 investigation discovered Treveon Martin is one of at least 818 Chicago Public School students, since 2003, to allege being battered by a teacher or an aide, coach, security guard, or even a principal. In most of those cases - 568 of them - Chicago Public School investigators determined the children were telling the truth....
What makes this even more intriguing is that most of these abuse cases happened during the administration Chicago Schools Superintendent, Arne Duncan. And just who is he? Why, he is Obama's pick to head the Department of Education!
..."Any founded allegation where an adult is hitting a child, hitting a student - they're going to be gone," Duncan said.
But that's not what happened under Duncan's watch. Of the 568 verified cases, only 24 led to termination. Records show one teacher who quote "battered students for several years" was simply given a "warning" by the Board of Education....
Even with the number of cases of student abuse accusations, I would still like to see more information on the specifics of these cases. Did a teacher defending himself from an attacking student count as abuse toward that student? Either way, do you think the media would care were it not Barack Obama's appointee heading the Department of Education? I do have to wonder if we will the reputation of yet another Obama nominee go south?
I know this video is making the rounds, but I felt like I had to post it anyway. President Obama held a town hall meeting in Fort Myers, Florida the other day, and what I saw made me cringe. The most cringeworthy segment came right at the end when Julio made his appearance. If you are wondering why Julio has worked at McDonalds for the last four years and can't seem to find another job, just watch the video if you haven't seen it already.
You could say to yourself that this shouldn't reflect poorly upon Obama; after all, it was Julio who was making an absolute fool of himself. However, you must realize that the people who speak at these town hall meetings are often screened beforehand, especially for a president who I have noticed will call on certain reporters at press conferences even before the reporters have raised their hands to ask a question.
Big tip of the hat to Michelle Malkin (see blogroll) for turning me on to a new website. It's called This is Why You're Fat, and it invites readers to email pictures of some of their favorite guilty culinary pleasures. I am not going to copy and paste any pictures; you need to go there yourself. I will describe my favorite which caused me to make that tongue-wagging gutteral noise that Homer Simpson makes when he sees something he likes. Try this one at your next meal: The Hamdog
A hot dog wrapped in a beef patty that’s deep fried, covered with chili, cheese, onions, served on a hoagie bun topped with two fistfuls of fries and a fried egg.
Sweet Lord in Heaven, that sounds lovely. And it looks lovely too; go check it out!
Our Dear Leader gave a painful-to-watch town hall meeting in Indiana today where he stood up in front of God and everybody and told whopper after whopper. The most surprising thing to me is that the rundown of his whoppers was provided by an article from the Associated Press, which is usually in the tank for our benevolent Messiah. An example from the article:
OBAMA: "I've appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. ... I made a mistake ... I don't want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules."
He added: "Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration."
THE FACTS: Two of his appointees, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for secretary of health and human services and Nancy Killefer as his chief compliance officer, dropped out after reports they had not paid a portion of their taxes.
Obama previously acknowledged he "screwed up" in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, hung in and achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees.
That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else...
The other painful part of the town hall meeting was watching softball question after softball question being tossed to him by members of the audience. I can see why that is when Obama was finally given a question with some teeth. A woman named Tara had the, ahem, audacity to ask Obama about the tax troubles of his cabinet nominees. What did Tara get for her trouble? Try a rousing hiss of booing from the Messiah-adoring audience. Hey man, I thought dissent was patriotic. Shouldn't they have been cheering Tara for speaking truth to power?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Prosecutors asked a federal judge Monday to send former Washington mayor Marion Barry to jail for failing to file his tax returns for the eighth time in nine years....
Barry has been the gift that keeps on giving for over twenty years now.
Many people remember the downfall of Al Campanis, general manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers who lost his job after stating in an April 6, 1987 Nightline interview, "Blacks may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager." Even though Campanis was a good friend of Jackie Robinson, he was fired and was vilified for years as yet another racist white person in a position of power, sticking it to the black man.
I bring up Campanis's statement so it can be juxtaposed with this one:
“We don’t do as well on these multiple-choice tests,” said Capt. Otis Jordan, president of the Houston Black Firefighters Association... “I compare fighting a fire, riding an apparatus, to playing football. Your best athlete might not be the straight-A student.”
This statement was made in response to a lawsuit that has been filed in Houston, Texas by seven black firefighters against that city's fire department. The lawsuit contends that the department's 100-question multiple choice Captain's promotion exam is racially biased. How exactly a test like this can be racially biased, I am not sure, but biased is what these seven black firefighters claim it to be.
Apparently, the fact that the test is multiple-choice is too much for black people to handle. Hey, don't snarl at me for saying such a thing. Otis Jordan said it; just reread the quote above. What will always amaze me is how minorities are all too willing to denigrate themselves and their race, such as with statements and lawsuits like these, and also through the constant push for so-called affirmative action and other forms of quotas. How ironic that I, as a "typical white person" (to borrow the phrase from Barack Obama), have more faith in the abilities of these firefighters than they do.
Yes, yes, I know what comes next in this common dialogue: But minorities can't make it in the "white man's world" without certain programs and protections to give them a leg up. Yeah, I understand that point. I mean, after all, a minority has yet to even be elected presid... never mind.
I keep hearing smug little lefties carp about how the only people they hear talking about a possible return of the so-called Fairness Doctrine are from the political right and radio talk hosts who would be affected.
Naturally, this isn't true. Just reference past comments from the left side of the Congressional aisle by those who would love to see the so-called Fairness Doctrine reinstated, such as Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Kerry (D-MA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY).
Now, you can add Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) to the peanut gallery. Speaking with uber lefty Bill Press on his radio show - and I noticed Bill Press's show did not include a balancing voice from the right - Stabenow and Press had the following exchange:
BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.
BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.
The way I figure, the wannabe tyrants in charge of our government want to tell people how much their salary can be, so why not tell radio stations what they can say?
I enjoy reading Charles Krauthammer due to his blunt and effective use of words. His latest column is proof of that. In criticizing the pork-laden spending, er, stimulus bill, Krauthammer gives a synopsis of how Obama's presidency is doing so far. Here's a hint:
After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
I have a couple of bizarre experiences this week at work. The first was a mother knocking on my classroom door yesterday morning with her 8th grade son in tow. She was trying to find out more information about why exactly he is failing my class. This should be no surprise seeing as how I had him last year as a 7th grader and he failed both those semesters too. In fact, he has been failing every class every year, no matter which teacher he has. Right now, he has a 0.17 GPA, and that is about the highest it has ever been. No matter; I fully expect this kid to be passed onto high school where he will most likely fail miserably and drop out by the end of his sophomore year.
In the meantime, I was dealing with one pissed-off mother, and it wasn't me at whom she was pissed. As I went over the gradebook with her and showed her all the assignments her son had not turned in, including easy assignments like daily bellwork that are turned in every Friday, I could see her getting angrier by the second. The kettle started whistling when I turned to the kid and asked him to get out his bellwork for this week. "I don't have it," was his answer. Why not? "Because I didn't do it," was his answer. That's when Mom slammed her fist onto a desk and yelled, "Boy, I will knock you across this room!"
I didn't know whether to snicker under my breath, or think about covering my butt and reporting her comment to the administration as a possible CPS matter. I have to admit, it was rather satisfying to see this kid - a perpetual disruptive class cutup - get his perpetual grin wiped off his perpetually smug little face. The problem is that when all the smoke clears, and Mom calms down, this kid will most likely end up failing this final semester of his middle school experience, and he will be academically eaten alive in high school next year. Chalk up another ugly statistic.
That same day, I called another student's father after school let out. The kid had decided to dig in his heels when I told him to remove a sweat band from his head. The rules are clear about stuff on your head in the classroom, but for whatever reason, the kid defied my instructions and instead chose to argue with me about what is and isn't acceptable to be worn on your head in the classroom.
I called the Dad on his cellphone, and when he answered, I immediately noticed a lot of whooshing background noise, like he was on the side of a busy road somewhere. After I identify myself on the phone with a parent, I always ask if he or she has time to talk. This Dad said, "Well, actually I am pulled over on the freeway and a cop is writing me a ticket." Wow! I told the Dad I could call him back later, but God love him, he told me, "Nah, we can talk. I'm just sitting here and the cop is back at his car filling out the citation. What's up?"
That's what the Democrats are starting to do with our economy. With a Democrat president and a Democrat-controlled Congress, there is not much to stop the zealous compulsion they feel to control every aspect of our lives. Two recent examples of note come to us from the Messiah himself, Barack Obama, and that bizarro congresscritter, Barney Frank.
First, Barney Frank has made public his notion that due to our financial situation, Congress and the President should dictate to private companies how much they should pay their employees. At first, this rule was only going to apply to companies receiving bailout money from taxpayers; now Frank wants to apply this rule to all private companies in this country. Roll the quote:
Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.
“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.
He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies....
Just for suggesting such an unconstitutional notion, this man should be arrested. Of course, he should have been arrested a long time ago for his dealings with Fannie Mae and his use of his position in congress to manipulate the housing market. Also, wasn't there a male prostitution ring being run out of his house by a former boyfriend? Of course, Barney knew nothing about it.
So do you think the Messiah would back up Frank's insane plan? Let us recall Obama's worrisome quote about companies and CEOs from just the other day:
"There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses -- now is not that time. And that's a message that I intend to send directly to them."
Good God! Well, thank you for clearing that up, Emperor Obama. We are so screwed!
In years when state and local budgets don't look so good (this is one of those years), California schoolteachers dread March 15, as that is the final day that they can be given a pink slip which indicates they might not be returning to their job next school year.
The trick is that just because you receive the dreaded pink slip, it doesn't necessarily mean you have lost your job, it simply means you may lose your job. Districts must cover their arses and overestimate the number of job cuts they might have to make. In many cases, either all or almost all of the pink-slipped teachers return. This year however, pink-slipped teachers might not be so lucky.
According to this article from the Sacramento Bee, almost all the major districts in the Sacramento area - Elk Grove, San Juan, Sac City, Folsom-Cordova, Twin Rivers - have already issued hundreds of pink slips. It is anyone's guess how many of those recipients will receive a final notice on the drop-dead day of May 15th.
My wife, who works in one of those aforementioned districts, came home today and informed me of the bloodletting that is scheduled to happen in her district. The word came down that any teacher hired after October 2002 is going to receive a pink slip. The juiciest part is that only certificated staff are going to have their jobs threatened; due to some kind of clause in their union contract, classified staff is safe from any layoffs for the next two years, so no one on the classified side will be receiving any layoff notices. Isn't that grand? Axe the teachers but keep the lunch ladies. God knows we need lunch ladies, but in the end, what is the mission of a school, to educate or to feed? My wife also informed me that as part of her district's shakeup, vice principals, curriculum specialists, and administrators from the district and county offices of education will be sent back to the classroom as teachers. This begs the question: were all those high-paying curriculum specialist jobs at the district offices even needed in the first place? What other kind of dead weight could be cut in our educational system, especially in the Taj Mahals that are many of our district offices?
What about the effectiveness of the teachers who are possibly being let go? The criteria for their dismissal is based solely on seniority. You could be one of those lazy teachers who hands out worksheets and reads the newspaper - it's not just a cliche', I have seen it with my own eyes - but in my wife's district, if you were hired in 2000, your job is safe. On the other hand, you could be an effective eager-beaver teacher who inspires your students to succeed and you are doing wonders with helping to raise test scores, but since you were hired in 2005, you are out of a job. This is a perfect example of one of the major reasons for the substandard education that we are seeing in California today. Until that situation changes, you are not going to see significant improvement in academic performance anytime soon.
My district actually has increasing enrollment, and so far no certificated job cuts have been announced. If they are, let's just hope the magic cutoff date is after July 2004!
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? A similar statement sounded just as ridiculous in 2005 when hip-hop idiot Kanye West told a nationwide audience that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Roll the 40-second tape if you care to relive the moment:
If you think what that moron Kanye said was meaningless, think again. For literally years afterward, I had students - particularly my black students - ask me if George W. Bush really hates black people. When I asked them why they would think such a thing, their reply would be because Kanye said so. Fast-forwarding to 2009, I came across this headline today: Nearly 1M without power 5 days after ice storm.
I'm just wondering - where is Kanye West? Where is the media outrage? Where is the left-wing blogosphere spreading the meme that Barack Obama has dropped the ball? Now keep in mind, I don't think Obama has dropped the ball at all, nor did George W. Bush drop the ball in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina; that's the whole point. This ice storm is a state and local matter, just like Katrina was a state and local matter. Nevertheless, the federal government under George W. Bush was blamed for the deplorable conditions in New Orleans days after the hurricane ended, yet the federal government under Barack Obama is not being blamed for the deplorable conditions in states like Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas days after the ice storm struck, even though hundreds of thousands of people are living without power in the middle of temperatures that were well below freezing.
Once again, another blaring example of the selective outrage and hypocrisy of the political left and the news media.
Good Day to You, Sir
Update: No sooner did I publish this post, then I quickly discovered that I am by no means the only blogger to notice this blaring double standard. For more insight on this situation click on the links to the following sites:
Do you remember this memorable Obama quote from the campaign trail? The enviro-cultists loved it:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.
“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”
After a "green" inauguration that produced hundreds of millions of pounds of carbon dioxide and tons of garbage, Obama is now providing us with another glimpse of who he really is. Man, this next four years is just gonna be a hoot!
In a recent post, fellow edublogger Mrs. Bluebird gave a quality description of students in their 7th grade year as going through "The Year of the Coma." Their brains are so occupied with growing and hormones, they cannot seem to think of much else, like, say, academics or forming a coherent sentence.
I wholly endorse Mrs. Bluebird's coma theory, but after reading a note that I found left behind in my classroom today, I would say "The Year of Brain Death" would be a more apt description. I am often amused by the content of student-to-student notes that I find or confiscate, but this one struck me with its particularly brutal brand of nihilistic shallowness. Keep in mind that this exchange was written between a 7th grade boy and a 7th grade girl who I guess (???) are friends. I have typed it exactly as it was written, and a big warning to the timid - the language gets severe:
Wuz up Nigga your dum Nigga! whats your point? That you dum thats my point So is u is more dumb than me NO NIGGA YOU R.N FUK YOU !!! when, were, and what time NEVER AND NO TIME AND NO SECOND BITCH NO DAY!! watev so hou u been Good I guess! you Same o day koo wow u hella stupid wat eve ha I got a on hush cause you know its true what eve FUCK YOU! O.K.
I mean seriously. Seriously? Am I really supposed to be able to expect any kind of academic proficiency from these two? If they don't score basic or above on the CST in April, is it really my fault?
I have to give credit where credit is due: every single Republican (and 11 Democrats) in the House of Representatives voted against Obama and Democrat's $819 billion so-called stimulus bill - excuse me, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. So good for the Republicans for taking a stand; this kleptocratic sham belongs solely to the Democrats.
Here's the problem. Where was this Republican unity when George W. Bush was doing his best impression of a socialist by signing spending bills hand-over-fist? It's great to be a tempering force on the over-exuberant whims of the party in charge, but do you know what even better? To be the party in charge! The problem is that when the Republicans ran the show in the Executive and Legislative branches, the federal government grew even larger than when Bubba was in the White House.
So where does that leave us? Even if you can get the Republicans in the House to do the right thing, then you have to deal with the nitwits in the Senate. You know, the same nitwits I just described in the previous post on Al Gore's appearance before the Senate.
In the end, in spite of the House Republicans' principled stand, the almost trillion dollar spending bill passed anyway. Yay.
Kudos to Dana Milbank! The liberal scribe for the Washington Post is usually too annoying for me to tolerate, but I must commend him for calling out Al Gore's ridiculous globaloney warming testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
What was really amusing about the piece was not the greenhouse gas-inducing hot air being blown by the Goracle (Milbank also uses this moniker), but the absolutely embarrassing rounds of ass kissing that the senators on the committee were bestowing upon the Bloated One. Republicans and Democrats alike all acted like a bunch of mafia underlings as they conferred with their capo. Just listen to some of the exchanges as noted by Milbank:
"Tennessee," gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore's home state, "has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy." If that wasn't quite enough, Corker added: "Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too..."
Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be "an almost existential impact" from the climate changes Gore described...
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: "I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you're probably right, and I'm probably wrong." He ended his question by saying: "I'm not questioning you; I'm questioning myself..."
And those snippets are just from the Republicans! They are the ones who are supposed to be principled enough not to fall for this garbage.
Barack Obama of course! So says John Ridley from PBS. Yes, PBS. Your tax dollars are paying for this drivel. Get a load of this nugget from Ridley's commentary:
Every president to hold office has espoused some version of Americanism; the truths that we hold self-evident, even when those truths are not always in evidence. But for all their grand rhetoric and mostly good deeds, none was able to seal the deal on the trifecta of equality, plurality and socioeconomic ascendancy. Obama has. Obama is the more perfect union. He is a house united. Obama is the New Generation and the hot light of a dawn that goes way beyond clever phraseology of "Morning in America."
Quite simply, quite plainly, just by virtue of his being, Obama is America, and the first true American to lead our nation.
Ridley's reference to Obama as "the hot light of a dawn" reminds me of a joke I read today:
How many mainstream news reporters does it take to change a lightbulb? None. Obama is their lightworker.
There's a new website in town, and it is tearing up the Internet: Big Hollywood.
Started by Hollywood insider and Drudge Report sous chef Andrew Breitbart, Big Hollywood provides a voice for the conservative side of Tinseltown (there are more hiding out there than you think!), and so far, the articles and posts written for the site have been absolutely fascinating. Give it a try!
Just ask Benicio del Toro. He is a left-wing actor who plays Che Guevara in a just-released biopic directed by Steven Soderbergh. Based on past interviews, it is obvious that del Toro thinks Che was a swell guy. However, when pressed by a Washington Times reporter about Che's documented brutality, did del Toro stand up for his revolutionary hero? Hell no! He walked out of the interview.
Soderbergh, another extreme leftist, recently defended his cinematic hagiography, saying,
"I've had people ask me: 'How can you make a movie about a murderer? A terrorist?'" he told reporters. "What they don't understand is that I'm in support of everyone who appears on screen. I have to be. I take the position of everyone who's on screen. I'm not judging them one way or another."
What a crock of bull! I will be the first to admit I haven't seen the movie, but I have read reviews from people who have. Soderbergh essentially glosses over or whitewashes Guevara's atrocities and shows him to be the heroic guerrilla leader that he wasn't.
By the way, this movie is over 4 hours long! You would think that in that amount of time, at least some acknowledgment could have been made about the dark side of Che Guevara.
The following is not just me bragging; it can easily be confirmed by my wife: My four-year-old son practically worships the ground upon which I tread. I mean, c'mon, isn't every four-year-old boy awed by his father?
With that in mind, I do have to be mindful of what I tell my son, because he will believe every word I say and take it at face value. While I am indeed mindful of this, problems can arise when my stated beliefs conflict with those of others, and my intellectually curious son is all too happy to share my (his) beliefs with anyone who will listen.
A little back story is needed before I give you an example. Being a history teacher, history buff, and former member of our military, there are ample conversation pieces around the house that have prompted my son to ask me anything and everything about history; especially military history. He has grilled me on World War II, wanting to know who was involved, who were the bad guys, who were the good guys, what kinds of weapons were used, etc. I told him that in World War II, the primary bad guys were the Germans and the Japanese. I then stressed that this all happened when Grandpa was a little boy, and now in 2009, Germany and Japan are our friends.
Now I need to mention one more relevant piece of information before I continue my story. Every afternoon, two very nice Japanese ladies come to my son's pre-school to teach the students rudimentary Japanese - greetings, salutations, songs, that sort of thing.
(Yeah, you know where this is going, don't you?)
A couple of days ago, my son - bless his heart, he was just trying to make conversation - told the two ladies that "During World War II, the Japanese were the bad guys." Soon after, I arrived to pick him up, but when I entered the classroom, his teacher - who is an extremely sweet lady - gave me the "come hither" signal, and we spoke quietly in the corner, where she told me what had happened. Then it got interesting. In a very sweet and roundabout way, the teacher admonished me that she hoped that I would be balanced and tell my son that even though we Americans might look at the Japanese as being the "bad guys" in World War II, I also should explain to him that "in their eyes," the Japanese might look at themselves as the good guys in that War, and that who is considered to be good and bad is based on the perception of the two opposing sides.
I was surprised by my perfectly polite, yet firm, response. Without feeling the least bit embarrassed about pressing the matter (this is huge for me!), I quietly and very sweetly told the teacher that I had to disagree with her on that one, and that there was no way I would ever tell my son what she just suggested. I ended it by saying, "I'm sorry, but if you read about what they did, the Japanese were the bad guys in World War II." I then emphasized that I had also informed my son that the Germans were the bad guys too, and that we are friendly with both countries today.
It is this kind of guilt-ridden moral equivalence that runs rampant among much of the faculty and administration in our nation's schools, both public and private. It's a good thing that my children have a heartless right-wing warmonger like me to inoculate them against the inevitable inanities that they will encounter during their education years.
Since I started teaching at my school almost 5 years ago, the campus-wide policy has been for the students to line up outside the classroom door at the beginning of each class period. It usually takes awhile to get the students lined up, and while doing so, the tardy bell will often ring with all the students still standing outside the classroom, and straggling students who should have been marked tardy are sneaking into line. Once they are all standing in line and quiet, we teachers usher them in all at once, and the students come in... usually at a very loud level.
At the beginning of this semester, I finally reached my limit. During the first week back from Christmas Break, I announced to my students that they no longer had to line up outside my door; that I would have my door open and they were free to walk into my classroom. There is a catch of course, and it has worked beautifully. I put my students on notice that once they have entered my classroom, they are there to work quietly at their desks; even if the tardy bell has yet to ring. If they don't want to come in and work - if they still want to socialize - they are free to do so... outside! Just make sure you are not still socializing when the bell rings or you are tardy; you must be in your assigned seat by the time the tardy bell rings. But once they walk into my classroom, the socializing must stop, they must take their seat, and get to work on the Bellwork. If a student comes in making noise or begins talking once he is seated, I quickly order him back outside. Doing that has made my students get the message, and so now when the tardy bell rings, instead of being an annoyingly noisy gaggle making their way to their seats and taking many minutes to get settled down, my students are silent and on task.
Whew!
In the meantime, my letter system that I described a few posts ago is still going really well. After a flurry of letters during the first few days to demonstrate my resolve and consistency, there was a huge dropoff in the number of letters issued at the end of last week and the beginning of this week. Hopefully that trend continues!
Teaching from year to year, I often notice unique trends that pop up in my classroom and on campus. It can be an article of clothing, a knick-knack (like those infernal teck-decks), or a catchphrase.
This year, I have noticed an extremely annoying tick enter the vernacular of both my 7th and 8th graders, and that would be the inclusion of the word "thingy" that is tacked on to the end of a sentence's subject. A perfect example happened this morning when a student who was absent yesterday asked me when she could make up yesterday's quiz. And how did she ask? "Mr. Chanman, can I come in after school and make up that quiz thingy?"
Or how about the other day, when during a lesson about the Bill of Rights, one of my 8th graders raised her hand and asked a question. "Mr. Chanman, you know that Constitution thingy? What is the difference between an article and an amendment?
I noticed the use of "thingy" so much last semester that when this semester began a couple of weeks ago, I made a point of warning my students against the use of it when I spent the first and second days reviewing rules and procedures.
The act of attaching "thingy" to the subject of a sentence is yet another way for the younger generation to perpetuate the Cult of Inaccuracy that was once described by Dr. Sam Blumenfeld and written about by me in a post from a couple years back. It is a way to tone down any chance of sounding interested in an academic subject. By adding "thingy," it seems the student is trying to give off an air of subtle anti-intellectualism that is so derigeur among today's youth, in order to let her fellow students know that she isn't too invested in the subject at hand.
I know it may seem petty for me to let something like this bug me, but I love the English language and I hate to see it mangled.
