An infamous libertarian in southwest Idaho died -- but left a legacy: a billboard on the edge of town that cycle's through various diatribes.
Currently one states that "education is too important to be entrusted to the government."
What an amazing summation, or confession of complete failure! If one looks past this yet one more clever, all-too-easy and increasingly familiar barrage of criticisms toward the American government, the depressing aspect is that an increasing number of our citizens have become so cynical that more and more, they genuinely do not trust -- or at least, don't seem to want to trust or support our government.
This begs the question: has the American experiment finally failed?
America was established on the premise that "we, the people" could collectively determine a course of action that was fair, just and favored to at least a majority of our citizenry -- in a manner that the minority would accept the will of the majority -- knowing that they had the right for dissent and the opportunity to revise, add or delete previous actions if they could but convince a new majority of their self-perceived superior position.
In other words, rather than be left to the mercy of one omnipotent and fallible individual, that we believed in our collective wisdom to find the best course of action, along with the ability to continuously revise and improve as became warranted -- based on the abilities of people from within our ranks to convince a sufficient number of others collectively in order to create a new majority -- subject of course, that these new revisions similarly were subject to even further, later revisions or deletions.
Ours was a unique, grand experiment, that through a republican form of electing leaders to represent the masses (holding these leaders accountable to the people they both lead and represented by means of setting timelimits for office that could only be continued if re-elected) that we could best serve and maintain justice than any single monarch could.
We recognized that inherent in this republican form of democracy, there would be disagreement and not all would always get what they wanted -- but this was acceptable in the knowledge that compromise and amendment would often be needed in order to wield a majority so that those whose arguments held merit would most likely be able to help at least to some degree in the forming of our decisions. Inherent in that, was the belief that ultimately decisions would achieve a level of effectiveness and justness as a result of our collective wisdom.
The blanket statement that education is too important to be left to government implies that either our government is not motivated to seek what is best for we the people, or is not capable. Either way - if this is true - democracy in America has failed.
The implication -- assuming it is consistent with the other diatribes -- is that education should be run by private enterprise. That somehow, the profit motive as controlled by Adam Smith's "invisible hand" would be the best way to establish an educational system for empowering our citizenry for coping and competing in today's global market and world of technology.
What saddens me and worries me most is that energy and time spent on attacking the government does not seem to be an effective or constructive way of deriving necessary revisions, adjustments, additions or deletions. It does not seem to be the smartest method for trying to ascertain wise choices. Rather it seems devisive, counter-productive and destructive as it promulgates contempt, anger, intolerance and discouragement.
I don't believe that we can truly afford this degree of destructiveness nor lack of constructive effort to fully confront the immense challenges that we all face. I don't believe that with the immensity of what we face that we can spare any significant segment of our citizenry withholding efforts to work collectively toward solution.
Yes, we need diverse ideas and perspectives, but we need unity in purpose. We can not afford to fall short.
We absolutly need an educational system truly capable of equipping our citizenry as we rush to meet the challenges we face in this new global economy. And therefore, we all need for our educational system to be altered and improved. But we need to seek continuously a sense of unity, and strive to find areas of agreement from which to continually build upon.
I belive that because education is so crucial to the welfare of our citizens, it is exactly the government who should most be responsible and involved in its development and implementation. And implicit in this, should be the constant realization and consensus that any time the government falls short in its effort, it should not be abandoned, but rather should be confronted and utilized all that much more.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
My Testimony at the Idaho House Education Committee
The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Idaho House of Representatives Education Committee,
I am Kim Wardwell, a teacher in the Caldwell School District.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. As a Peace Corps Volunteer in 1979 & ‘80 in Paraguay, South America, when it was a dictatorship, I developed a deep appreciation and passion for the preservation of the democratic process in our American republic.
It is to that very point that I wish to speak in opposition to Senate Bill 1108. Previously as a high school social studies teacher, I saw many students come to realize and appreciate the brilliant foresight our founding fathers had in building in a system of checks and balances which still is fundamental in our American way of life.
I fear that if SB 1108 is enacted there will no longer be a genuine set of checks and balances to insure that our educational system stays healthy. I foresee that as district superintendents and state legislators have to cope with financial continual annual pressures, that without a system in place for checks and balances – our system will erode and deteriorate to the point where it eventually is no longer viable and robust, no longer able to produce an educated society able to compete sufficiently in the global market.
I fear most the removal of seniority as a protection for teachers. I can readily see the financial point of view of administrators in Idaho that older teachers cost local school districts about twice as much as beginning teachers. We cost more in terms of health premiums and medical expenses, and physical limitations can start to be more of a challenge, even though we continue to improve mentally, emotionally and educationally.
Without the check and balances of collective bargaining, there is little to keep superintendents from succumbing to the temptation of removing older, more expensive teachers as an expedient way to balance the budget? * I believe it won’t take too long for Idaho’s future potential teachers to decide to pursue other careers. Or even if their passion leads them to want to teach a few years while they are young, energetic and relatively inexpensive – they will realize they better get into a profession in which they can have a more reasonable expectation of being able to earn and receive full retirement benefits before they start a family and are locked into a 30-year house mortgage.
With such expediencies, I question how in the long run, we can truly expect to compete in the global market.
Honorable Members of the House of Representatives, I urge you to protect and maintain the checks and balances that collective bargaining has provided so that we can truly discern which cuts need to be made, and which are cuts of expediency that ultimately will do more harm than good.
I urge you to either vote no or significantly revise SB 1108.
Thank you for listening to me.
*Note: After a brief talk with Senator Melinda Smyser prior to the House Ed Committee hearings, it was pointed out to me that the local districts for the last 7 years or so have “pass through” money – similar to what we had when I taught in Washington to where local districts receive additional funding for teachers with additional education and years of experience. In Washington, basically, the local district pays for the base salary, and all of the additional money is paid by the state for experience and additional education.
But when questioned on this very point by House Ed Chair Nonini, I commented that I had referred to pressure on both the local superintendents and the state legislators in dealing with the continuous annual budget issues, and that the expediency of getting rid of senior teachers could be tempting at the state level as well.
I am Kim Wardwell, a teacher in the Caldwell School District.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. As a Peace Corps Volunteer in 1979 & ‘80 in Paraguay, South America, when it was a dictatorship, I developed a deep appreciation and passion for the preservation of the democratic process in our American republic.
It is to that very point that I wish to speak in opposition to Senate Bill 1108. Previously as a high school social studies teacher, I saw many students come to realize and appreciate the brilliant foresight our founding fathers had in building in a system of checks and balances which still is fundamental in our American way of life.
I fear that if SB 1108 is enacted there will no longer be a genuine set of checks and balances to insure that our educational system stays healthy. I foresee that as district superintendents and state legislators have to cope with financial continual annual pressures, that without a system in place for checks and balances – our system will erode and deteriorate to the point where it eventually is no longer viable and robust, no longer able to produce an educated society able to compete sufficiently in the global market.
I fear most the removal of seniority as a protection for teachers. I can readily see the financial point of view of administrators in Idaho that older teachers cost local school districts about twice as much as beginning teachers. We cost more in terms of health premiums and medical expenses, and physical limitations can start to be more of a challenge, even though we continue to improve mentally, emotionally and educationally.
Without the check and balances of collective bargaining, there is little to keep superintendents from succumbing to the temptation of removing older, more expensive teachers as an expedient way to balance the budget? * I believe it won’t take too long for Idaho’s future potential teachers to decide to pursue other careers. Or even if their passion leads them to want to teach a few years while they are young, energetic and relatively inexpensive – they will realize they better get into a profession in which they can have a more reasonable expectation of being able to earn and receive full retirement benefits before they start a family and are locked into a 30-year house mortgage.
With such expediencies, I question how in the long run, we can truly expect to compete in the global market.
Honorable Members of the House of Representatives, I urge you to protect and maintain the checks and balances that collective bargaining has provided so that we can truly discern which cuts need to be made, and which are cuts of expediency that ultimately will do more harm than good.
I urge you to either vote no or significantly revise SB 1108.
Thank you for listening to me.
*Note: After a brief talk with Senator Melinda Smyser prior to the House Ed Committee hearings, it was pointed out to me that the local districts for the last 7 years or so have “pass through” money – similar to what we had when I taught in Washington to where local districts receive additional funding for teachers with additional education and years of experience. In Washington, basically, the local district pays for the base salary, and all of the additional money is paid by the state for experience and additional education.
But when questioned on this very point by House Ed Chair Nonini, I commented that I had referred to pressure on both the local superintendents and the state legislators in dealing with the continuous annual budget issues, and that the expediency of getting rid of senior teachers could be tempting at the state level as well.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Leave No Patient Dead
This is a re-print of an article that I wrote and was published in the Washington Education Association's WE monthly journal in December 2003:
Leave No Patient Dead
Reporter M. Naive
with apologies to Art Buckwald
An interview with Surgeon General Undersecretary Phil N. Blank
Reporter M. Naive: First of all, congratulations on your promotion from Assistant to the Undersecretary of Education to Surgeon General Undersecretary.
Undersecretary Blank: Thanks.
Reporter M. Naive: What prompted you to move to the political realm of health from public education?
Undersecretary Blank: Well, after our success with passage of the ESEA, the “leave no child behind” act, which insures that all public school students will meet standards within 12 years, I needed a new challenge.
Reporter M. Naive: And so that is why you authored the AMA, “leave no patient dead” act?
Undersecretary Blank: Yes, precisely, more or less.
Reporter M. Naive: How did you convince the White House to sponsor this bill? What made you think that you knew more about medicine than our nation’s doctors?
Undersecretary Blank: Well, President Bush himself explained to us that since almost all Americans at one time or another have self-prescribed headache medicine, put band-aids on family members, or used a thermometer, that we were just as qualified to critique doctors as was anyone, who ever coached little league sports, a Sunday School class, or taught a child to tie her shoes, qualified to critique public school teachers. The president is clearly a man of vision!
Reporter M. Naive: Explain for our readers the key component of the AMA.
Undersecretary Blank: Basically, just as we have legislated that public schools will have all students up to standard within 12 years, we no longer are going to tolerate doctors who can’t cure all patients. Simply put, all medical practices are going to be expected to cure any patient, no matter the injury, condition or mental status.
Reporter M. Naive: Other than guiding passage of the Bush Administration’s bill through Congress, how exactly can you guarantee that all patients will indeed be cured?
Undersecretary Blank: Well, thanks to legislators in Washington State who introduced a bill that would have mandated teaching phonics for any fourth-grade students not passing their state assessment, we have hit upon the idea that any patients not cured within 48 hours, will be medicated with penicillin.
Reporter M. Naive: All patients?
Undersecretary Blank: Sure! Just as we know that all student problems in reading are attributed to phonics, we have come to realize that penicillin is the perfect cure for infections, broken arms, stomach ulcers, strokes, and the common cold. Sheer genius!
Reporter M. Naive: Will there be any other consequences?
Undersecretary Blank: Definitely! Any medical practice failing to cure all ills will be taken over by “charter clinics.” They will be staffed only by self-appointed doctors that have not been tainted with university training and state licensing procedures.
Reporter M. Naive: But won’t this cause a shortage of people willing to join the medical profession?
Undersecretary Blank: Nah, just as in public education, we firmly believe that raising teacher certification standards, establishing high-stakes student assessments, while withdrawing financial support will cure all educational ills, we can do the same with doctors. You just have to be firm and set the right tone. The president has assured us it will work.
Reporter M. Naive: This is so fantastic! But after the AMA passes, what will you do?
Undersecretary Blank: Well, the President pulled me aside recently, and talked to me about creating similar legislation that would guarantee that no business will be allowed to fail, go bankrupt, or have declining shares on the stock market.
Leave No Patient Dead
Reporter M. Naive
with apologies to Art Buckwald
An interview with Surgeon General Undersecretary Phil N. Blank
Reporter M. Naive: First of all, congratulations on your promotion from Assistant to the Undersecretary of Education to Surgeon General Undersecretary.
Undersecretary Blank: Thanks.
Reporter M. Naive: What prompted you to move to the political realm of health from public education?
Undersecretary Blank: Well, after our success with passage of the ESEA, the “leave no child behind” act, which insures that all public school students will meet standards within 12 years, I needed a new challenge.
Reporter M. Naive: And so that is why you authored the AMA, “leave no patient dead” act?
Undersecretary Blank: Yes, precisely, more or less.
Reporter M. Naive: How did you convince the White House to sponsor this bill? What made you think that you knew more about medicine than our nation’s doctors?
Undersecretary Blank: Well, President Bush himself explained to us that since almost all Americans at one time or another have self-prescribed headache medicine, put band-aids on family members, or used a thermometer, that we were just as qualified to critique doctors as was anyone, who ever coached little league sports, a Sunday School class, or taught a child to tie her shoes, qualified to critique public school teachers. The president is clearly a man of vision!
Reporter M. Naive: Explain for our readers the key component of the AMA.
Undersecretary Blank: Basically, just as we have legislated that public schools will have all students up to standard within 12 years, we no longer are going to tolerate doctors who can’t cure all patients. Simply put, all medical practices are going to be expected to cure any patient, no matter the injury, condition or mental status.
Reporter M. Naive: Other than guiding passage of the Bush Administration’s bill through Congress, how exactly can you guarantee that all patients will indeed be cured?
Undersecretary Blank: Well, thanks to legislators in Washington State who introduced a bill that would have mandated teaching phonics for any fourth-grade students not passing their state assessment, we have hit upon the idea that any patients not cured within 48 hours, will be medicated with penicillin.
Reporter M. Naive: All patients?
Undersecretary Blank: Sure! Just as we know that all student problems in reading are attributed to phonics, we have come to realize that penicillin is the perfect cure for infections, broken arms, stomach ulcers, strokes, and the common cold. Sheer genius!
Reporter M. Naive: Will there be any other consequences?
Undersecretary Blank: Definitely! Any medical practice failing to cure all ills will be taken over by “charter clinics.” They will be staffed only by self-appointed doctors that have not been tainted with university training and state licensing procedures.
Reporter M. Naive: But won’t this cause a shortage of people willing to join the medical profession?
Undersecretary Blank: Nah, just as in public education, we firmly believe that raising teacher certification standards, establishing high-stakes student assessments, while withdrawing financial support will cure all educational ills, we can do the same with doctors. You just have to be firm and set the right tone. The president has assured us it will work.
Reporter M. Naive: This is so fantastic! But after the AMA passes, what will you do?
Undersecretary Blank: Well, the President pulled me aside recently, and talked to me about creating similar legislation that would guarantee that no business will be allowed to fail, go bankrupt, or have declining shares on the stock market.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Justifiable Reason
Theirs was a peculiar relationship -- traditional in many ways, some would even say a bit chauvinistic. Despite all of their progressive talk, she still walked behind him if they walked from their home to the marketplace near the heart of Baghdad, Iraq. In fact, as time went on, she walked even further behind him, more like 20 paces than 5.
Yet she claimed it was not male dominance that precipitated this change, but rather all of the land mines.
In earlier times before the war while he was courting her, they used to go dancing at least once a week. But now things were different. He was more sullen as the protracted war dragged on.
She begged him to take her dancing, just like the old secular days before the religious zealots had intervened. But he adamantly refused -- with no reason given. How could he? There really wasn't any justified explanation. He didn't have a leg to stand on.
But now after the explosion, and being rushed to the hospital, and having most of the shrapnel removed, as well as both of his legs from the knees down, he finally had a justifiable reason for not dancing: he didn't have a leg to stand on.
Yet she claimed it was not male dominance that precipitated this change, but rather all of the land mines.
In earlier times before the war while he was courting her, they used to go dancing at least once a week. But now things were different. He was more sullen as the protracted war dragged on.
She begged him to take her dancing, just like the old secular days before the religious zealots had intervened. But he adamantly refused -- with no reason given. How could he? There really wasn't any justified explanation. He didn't have a leg to stand on.
But now after the explosion, and being rushed to the hospital, and having most of the shrapnel removed, as well as both of his legs from the knees down, he finally had a justifiable reason for not dancing: he didn't have a leg to stand on.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Congressional Term Limits Too Limiting
I am sick and tired of hearing about term limits being limited to congressmen.
Actually while it is true that I am sick – it is not because of politics but because of a cold that I have had now for four weeks, and as for being tired, I pretty much am tired most of the time during the school year – but summer vacation isn’t that far off. – Still, I am truly sick and tired, and felt that I should follow the example set by so many political activists. But I digress ….
I am amazed at the short-sightedness, not so much of our politicians but of their critics. I feel pressured to accept the concept that professional politicians are harmful to the democratic process, and that instead America is better off having leaders with limited experience with an amateur status. As American business and involvement in world affairs becomes more complex, the argument is that it is better to use people who are not career experts but rather are temporary representatives from the American citizenry – taking a limited turn, and then returning back to their previous profession. The argument is based on the notion that somehow a politician changes with experience – but not for the better, but typically only for personal gain or convenience.
I do truly appreciate being clued in to these phenomena. Now I find myself watching for the dangers of seniority and experience throughout our society.
Let’s start with medicine. God knows that medical costs are going through the roof! I believe that it is a fact that most doctors are now paid more than when they first started their practice. Clearly there must be a connection with doctors being paid more while medical costs and insurance premiums continue to rise exponentially. Also, there can be a callowness that has been known to develop after years and years of seeing patients day in and day out – (both in patients and out patients!)
I believe that the answer of maintaining a fresh, amateur status of our congressmen should apply to doctors as well. First of all – is it any surprise with all of the years of schooling and interning that doctors are so expensive? Many of them already have that doctor tone of superiority before they have even finished interning. What we need are fresh, amateurs that still feel the desire to learn more each time you put a scalpel in their hand while sedating you for abdominal surgery.
In addition, with far less medical school expenses and less years of experience, medical expenses should plummet! After doctors reach their term limits, they could find other employment – possibly even in similar fields such as veterinary work on cattle, or pharmaceutical sales.
Same for air fare. Think of the expenses as well as the number of errors attributed to pilots that have spent far too much time up in the air. What we need are new pilots who are still thrilled with the prospect of preventing the next jumbo jet flight with over two hundred passengers from ending in a ball of fire. We need pilots still marveling at their first glimpse of various landmarks as they try to avoid getting lost – as an effective ways of keeping pilots from succumbing to sleep or overlooking safety factors due to excessive, mundane routine or even occasional boredom. And of course, patriotic passengers can expect a corresponding plummeting from the sky in the price of tickets …
God knows we could save money with term limits imposed on teachers – ridding public schools of expensive, burned-out teachers.
It’s a no-brainer that truck drivers can become jaded or distracted with too much time on the road – far better to have novices at lower pay!
Police corruption could be reduced by using only rookies and newbies. Vets sent out the door could become private detectives or mercenaries.
Actors should be turned away by age thirty – just think how much more attractive and realistic all characters would be …
I could cite other examples as well, but in all fairness, I think that I have spent too much time on this already, and that it should be turned over to someone younger and fresher …
Actually while it is true that I am sick – it is not because of politics but because of a cold that I have had now for four weeks, and as for being tired, I pretty much am tired most of the time during the school year – but summer vacation isn’t that far off. – Still, I am truly sick and tired, and felt that I should follow the example set by so many political activists. But I digress ….
I am amazed at the short-sightedness, not so much of our politicians but of their critics. I feel pressured to accept the concept that professional politicians are harmful to the democratic process, and that instead America is better off having leaders with limited experience with an amateur status. As American business and involvement in world affairs becomes more complex, the argument is that it is better to use people who are not career experts but rather are temporary representatives from the American citizenry – taking a limited turn, and then returning back to their previous profession. The argument is based on the notion that somehow a politician changes with experience – but not for the better, but typically only for personal gain or convenience.
I do truly appreciate being clued in to these phenomena. Now I find myself watching for the dangers of seniority and experience throughout our society.
Let’s start with medicine. God knows that medical costs are going through the roof! I believe that it is a fact that most doctors are now paid more than when they first started their practice. Clearly there must be a connection with doctors being paid more while medical costs and insurance premiums continue to rise exponentially. Also, there can be a callowness that has been known to develop after years and years of seeing patients day in and day out – (both in patients and out patients!)
I believe that the answer of maintaining a fresh, amateur status of our congressmen should apply to doctors as well. First of all – is it any surprise with all of the years of schooling and interning that doctors are so expensive? Many of them already have that doctor tone of superiority before they have even finished interning. What we need are fresh, amateurs that still feel the desire to learn more each time you put a scalpel in their hand while sedating you for abdominal surgery.
In addition, with far less medical school expenses and less years of experience, medical expenses should plummet! After doctors reach their term limits, they could find other employment – possibly even in similar fields such as veterinary work on cattle, or pharmaceutical sales.
Same for air fare. Think of the expenses as well as the number of errors attributed to pilots that have spent far too much time up in the air. What we need are new pilots who are still thrilled with the prospect of preventing the next jumbo jet flight with over two hundred passengers from ending in a ball of fire. We need pilots still marveling at their first glimpse of various landmarks as they try to avoid getting lost – as an effective ways of keeping pilots from succumbing to sleep or overlooking safety factors due to excessive, mundane routine or even occasional boredom. And of course, patriotic passengers can expect a corresponding plummeting from the sky in the price of tickets …
God knows we could save money with term limits imposed on teachers – ridding public schools of expensive, burned-out teachers.
It’s a no-brainer that truck drivers can become jaded or distracted with too much time on the road – far better to have novices at lower pay!
Police corruption could be reduced by using only rookies and newbies. Vets sent out the door could become private detectives or mercenaries.
Actors should be turned away by age thirty – just think how much more attractive and realistic all characters would be …
I could cite other examples as well, but in all fairness, I think that I have spent too much time on this already, and that it should be turned over to someone younger and fresher …
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Are You Better Off Now Than Eight Years Before?
Obama’s Democrats in the U.S. Senate are down to only 59 to the Republicans 41 and therefore can’t vote for cloture on any party-line vote in order to cut off debate so that legislation can be brought to a vote.
I am not quite sure I understand the logic. Apparently the Obama White House feels that the American public will side with the Republicans as they strive to stonewall the Democrats and bring the Senate to a standstill on anything substantive in Obama's proposed legislative package based on the campaign promises that got him elected.
Further, Obama seems to accept the notion that the American public (electorate) is tired of the wrangling and delays and therefore does not want any of the legislation passed that was the basis of Obama’s victory to address the economic, military, medical, and employment mess left by the Bush II administration.
Apparently, conventional wisdom by White House strategists is that the American public supports Republican efforts to continue the past year stalemate another three years, and then to elect a Republican to extend Republican policies that put us where we are now.
Ronald Reagan, tagged as the “great communicator” had a knack for taking an idea and presenting it in an overly simplified format to a receptive American public. One classic example was offered during the 1980 Carter – Reagan presidential campaign. Reagan simply asked Americans: are you better off now than you were four years ago.
I question why Reagan’s question wasn’t adapted to the 2008 election continuously whether Americans were better off after eight years of Bush II . While the public was pre-occupied with whether to impeach Clinton along party lines for whether or not he lied about sexual dalliances, his administration also became the first administration since the Great Depression and World War II to balance the budget. Thus giving Bush II the opportunity to give two tax rebates to the American public and launch not one, but two wars.
Now we find ourselves in record debt and barely avoided the recession spiraling into another depression. Bank loans and employment became priorities while having to forego addressing our indebtedness.
Now the public seems to have forgotten already: 1) who got us into this mess, 2) how close we came to being drawn into a major depression, 3) how many Americans are in extreme need of employment and/or medical coverage, 4) who is the one that is effectively confronting these problems, and 5) how problems of such magnitude cannot be contained easily or quickly.
With that as a basis, I wonder why the American public is allowing itself the excessive luxury of becoming intolerant and impatient of the current administration, and why the Democrats are allowing Republicans to frame the question in such negative terms.
It is beyond me as to why Democrats do not constantly ask if we are better eight years after Bush II took over, if we are better off or worse off in the one year that the Obama administration has been in power. And correspondingly, how Republican stonewalling is in the best interest of the American public and/or solving the problems that confront us. At what point does the needs of the country take priority over what is politically expedient for partisan gamesmanship?
Can we really afford the luxury of another three-year stalemate that leaves these threatening challenges unmet? Why isn’t the American public screaming bloody murder at the party responsible for creating the problems and now stonewalling any attempts to try to recover from them?
I am not quite sure I understand the logic. Apparently the Obama White House feels that the American public will side with the Republicans as they strive to stonewall the Democrats and bring the Senate to a standstill on anything substantive in Obama's proposed legislative package based on the campaign promises that got him elected.
Further, Obama seems to accept the notion that the American public (electorate) is tired of the wrangling and delays and therefore does not want any of the legislation passed that was the basis of Obama’s victory to address the economic, military, medical, and employment mess left by the Bush II administration.
Apparently, conventional wisdom by White House strategists is that the American public supports Republican efforts to continue the past year stalemate another three years, and then to elect a Republican to extend Republican policies that put us where we are now.
Ronald Reagan, tagged as the “great communicator” had a knack for taking an idea and presenting it in an overly simplified format to a receptive American public. One classic example was offered during the 1980 Carter – Reagan presidential campaign. Reagan simply asked Americans: are you better off now than you were four years ago.
I question why Reagan’s question wasn’t adapted to the 2008 election continuously whether Americans were better off after eight years of Bush II . While the public was pre-occupied with whether to impeach Clinton along party lines for whether or not he lied about sexual dalliances, his administration also became the first administration since the Great Depression and World War II to balance the budget. Thus giving Bush II the opportunity to give two tax rebates to the American public and launch not one, but two wars.
Now we find ourselves in record debt and barely avoided the recession spiraling into another depression. Bank loans and employment became priorities while having to forego addressing our indebtedness.
Now the public seems to have forgotten already: 1) who got us into this mess, 2) how close we came to being drawn into a major depression, 3) how many Americans are in extreme need of employment and/or medical coverage, 4) who is the one that is effectively confronting these problems, and 5) how problems of such magnitude cannot be contained easily or quickly.
With that as a basis, I wonder why the American public is allowing itself the excessive luxury of becoming intolerant and impatient of the current administration, and why the Democrats are allowing Republicans to frame the question in such negative terms.
It is beyond me as to why Democrats do not constantly ask if we are better eight years after Bush II took over, if we are better off or worse off in the one year that the Obama administration has been in power. And correspondingly, how Republican stonewalling is in the best interest of the American public and/or solving the problems that confront us. At what point does the needs of the country take priority over what is politically expedient for partisan gamesmanship?
Can we really afford the luxury of another three-year stalemate that leaves these threatening challenges unmet? Why isn’t the American public screaming bloody murder at the party responsible for creating the problems and now stonewalling any attempts to try to recover from them?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Hitlerian Tendencies
Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, it seems that the John Birch Society has not been able to maintain the high level profile that I had counted on in previous decades. Nor do whistle-blower warnings of the Tri-lateral Commission command the same attention they once did.
Even warnings of immoral governmental actions from televangelist pillars as Jimmy Swaggart and Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker declined after each of their respective downfalls.
Fortunately, Pat Robertson has continued to inform the naïvely unaware and innocent so that they can be fully aware of efforts by the devil and Democrats. In addition, others such as Rush Limbaugh have risen to provide voice where once we could count on John Birchers. We even have networks such as Fox to fill the breech – not to mention a network of blogging and emailing citizens to circulate any real and/or imagined governmental sins.
Without these outspoken watchdogs, citizens like me are prone not to realize fully the threat that Democratic administrations pose.
For example, the recent tragedy in Haiti of a 7.0 magnitude earthquake would seem to much of the unaware citizenry to have been an act of God – albeit a devastating one. Yet both Robertson and Limbaugh have been faithful instruments trumpeting explanations that much of the rest of us would never have suspected. Robertson pointed out that Haiti deserves such tragedies as a result of having literally made a bargain with the devil in exchange for preventing being controlled by the French. Limbaugh contributed the warning that the Obama administration was using the event purely as a public relations opportunity.
Ashamed that others had to investigate for me, it was at this point that I determined to follow their inspirational leadership and sought on my own to research the matter further – using the always reliable internet (which is surprising considering it was created by Al Gore) at my disposal.
I was astonished and furious to confirm Limbaugh’s assertions. Limbaugh asserted that the 7.0 earthquake that rocked Haiti enabled Mr. Obama to highlight his “compassionate” and “humanitarian” credentials to “boost his credibility with the black community.” But Limbaugh does not go far enough. I pieced together from several unnamed and/or imagined sources that Obama’s henchmen not only compelled Haiti to submit to having a major earthquake with the epicenter located in their capital city, but that the White House refused to even consider agreeing to anything less than a 7.0 quake along with a mandatory series of successive aftershocks. Haiti officials complained that they had been willing to cooperate and accept a 6.5 or even 6.6 magnitude quake. They argued it would have been sufficient for Obama to display his compassion without what Haitian officials considered an unnecessarily excessive level of death and destruction. Indignantly, they felt a line had to be drawn on how much death a country should have to accept, just to help a U.S. president with his ratings!
Congressional critics also suggested that the White House insistence on a 7.0 quake was wasteful in cost, and that the U.S. should not have paid for anything over a 6.7 at the absolute highest – both in terms of costs directly to Haiti and in later emergency relief. White House officials justified the more extreme disaster saying Haiti deserved any additional destruction as a “cursed” consequence of their historical “pact to the devil” – as revealed by televangelist Pat Robertson.
But perhaps the most disturbing revelations that I uncovered came from Kitty Werthmann, president of the South Dakota Eagle Forum. Ms. Werthmann survived seven years in Austria under Adolf Hitler’s regime. She points out the haunting similarities between Hitler’s dictatorship and the Obama administration. She stressed that Hitler’s strangle hold was created incrementally rather than immediately and fully. It started with national identification cards, gun registration, daycare and evolved out of control from there.
But again, I don’t feel the Werthmann goes far enough. In my research, I uncovered several other disturbing, ominous similarities between the two demigods. I have conclusive proof that both Hitler and Obama were/are addicted to oxygen as if to have aspirations for public aspirations -- even in public meetings where the cameras were rolling. (Further, rumors have it that both so-called leaders are also addicted to food – consuming it even multiple times in a single day.)
Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I have been able to ascertain beyond any reasonable level of doubt that both leaders have two legs, which both openly use for walking and movement. Both wear clothes – so brazenly that neither has ever been on record as being apologetic for their continuous efforts to hide behind clothing. Both spoke a predominate language – though admittedly not the same language – yet. But time will tell. Both were married – though Obama actually had the gall to marry before even assuming national leadership rather than holding off till the last day or two of his administration.
Clearly Werthmann is a visionary, and I am convinced that Americans need to heed her words. Clearly boundaries need to be set and Obama can not be allowed to encroach further on our freedoms. For me, I propose we draw the line and begin a protest of civil disobedience the day Obama speaks to us in German or tries to force us to eat strudel.
The end.
Sources:
Citation regarding Limbaugh
The disaster enables Mr. Obama to highlight his "compassionate" and "humanitarian" credentials and to "boost his credibility with the black community," Limbaugh said.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at his daily press briefing today criticized Limbaugh's remarks.
"I think in times of great crisis, there are always people that say really stupid things," Gibbs said. I don't know how anybody -- I don't know how anybody could sit where he does, having enjoyed the success that he has, and not feel some measure of sorrow for what has happened in Haiti. I think to use the power of your pulpit to try to convince those not to help their brothers and sisters is sad."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6097183.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Citation regarding Robertson
Televangelist Pat Robertson said Wednesday that earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil."
"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."
Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other" and he contrasted Haiti with its neighbor, the Dominican Republic.
"That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle; on the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic," he said. "Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to god and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come. But right now we are helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/pat-robertson-haiti-curse_n_422099.html
Citation regarding Werthmann
Freedoms can disappear in a hurry if we aren't careful
Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.
I lived in Austria under Adolf Hitler's regime for seven years. Dictatorship did not happen overnight. It was a gradual process starting with national identification cards, which we had to carry with us at all times.
We could not board a bus or train without our ID card. Gun registration followed, with a lot of talk about gun safety and hunting accidents. Since the government already knew who owned firearms, confiscation followed under threat of capital punishment.
Freedom of speech was the next target. Free speech was curtailed with the enforcement of the federal police (Gestapo). With a large network of informers, people were afraid to say anything political, even in their own homes.
The liberal mindset in America has promoted gun control for a long time and is beginning to advocate national identification cards.
Law-abiding American citizens should not have to carry national identification cards. Aliens and non-citizens should be required to carry ID cards. Even their driver's licenses should be different than a citizen's driver's license.
Our government also needs to take strong measures against illegal aliens and tightly close our borders to protect American citizens.
Even though we are in a state of war, we have to protect our civil liberties. While some people need power to secure our freedom, we must be ever-vigilant to maintain a system of checks and balances.
I am sorely disappointed with France and Germany. If it was not for the United States, the French would be speaking German today. And if our troops had not protected Germany, Russian tanks would have rolled all the way to the Rhine River.
How ungrateful those nations are. We have to stand by our country and our troops. I am grateful that our troops are protecting freedom.
America is the greatest country in the world. After America, there is no place to run.
http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/states/articles/2003/werthmann-3-11-03.shtml
Kitty Werthmann
Kitty Werthmann, 77, of Pierre, is president of the South Dakota Eagle Forum. She lobbies the state Legislature on family issues. She has lived in the United States since 1950 and has been a U.S. citizen since 1962
Even warnings of immoral governmental actions from televangelist pillars as Jimmy Swaggart and Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker declined after each of their respective downfalls.
Fortunately, Pat Robertson has continued to inform the naïvely unaware and innocent so that they can be fully aware of efforts by the devil and Democrats. In addition, others such as Rush Limbaugh have risen to provide voice where once we could count on John Birchers. We even have networks such as Fox to fill the breech – not to mention a network of blogging and emailing citizens to circulate any real and/or imagined governmental sins.
Without these outspoken watchdogs, citizens like me are prone not to realize fully the threat that Democratic administrations pose.
For example, the recent tragedy in Haiti of a 7.0 magnitude earthquake would seem to much of the unaware citizenry to have been an act of God – albeit a devastating one. Yet both Robertson and Limbaugh have been faithful instruments trumpeting explanations that much of the rest of us would never have suspected. Robertson pointed out that Haiti deserves such tragedies as a result of having literally made a bargain with the devil in exchange for preventing being controlled by the French. Limbaugh contributed the warning that the Obama administration was using the event purely as a public relations opportunity.
Ashamed that others had to investigate for me, it was at this point that I determined to follow their inspirational leadership and sought on my own to research the matter further – using the always reliable internet (which is surprising considering it was created by Al Gore) at my disposal.
I was astonished and furious to confirm Limbaugh’s assertions. Limbaugh asserted that the 7.0 earthquake that rocked Haiti enabled Mr. Obama to highlight his “compassionate” and “humanitarian” credentials to “boost his credibility with the black community.” But Limbaugh does not go far enough. I pieced together from several unnamed and/or imagined sources that Obama’s henchmen not only compelled Haiti to submit to having a major earthquake with the epicenter located in their capital city, but that the White House refused to even consider agreeing to anything less than a 7.0 quake along with a mandatory series of successive aftershocks. Haiti officials complained that they had been willing to cooperate and accept a 6.5 or even 6.6 magnitude quake. They argued it would have been sufficient for Obama to display his compassion without what Haitian officials considered an unnecessarily excessive level of death and destruction. Indignantly, they felt a line had to be drawn on how much death a country should have to accept, just to help a U.S. president with his ratings!
Congressional critics also suggested that the White House insistence on a 7.0 quake was wasteful in cost, and that the U.S. should not have paid for anything over a 6.7 at the absolute highest – both in terms of costs directly to Haiti and in later emergency relief. White House officials justified the more extreme disaster saying Haiti deserved any additional destruction as a “cursed” consequence of their historical “pact to the devil” – as revealed by televangelist Pat Robertson.
But perhaps the most disturbing revelations that I uncovered came from Kitty Werthmann, president of the South Dakota Eagle Forum. Ms. Werthmann survived seven years in Austria under Adolf Hitler’s regime. She points out the haunting similarities between Hitler’s dictatorship and the Obama administration. She stressed that Hitler’s strangle hold was created incrementally rather than immediately and fully. It started with national identification cards, gun registration, daycare and evolved out of control from there.
But again, I don’t feel the Werthmann goes far enough. In my research, I uncovered several other disturbing, ominous similarities between the two demigods. I have conclusive proof that both Hitler and Obama were/are addicted to oxygen as if to have aspirations for public aspirations -- even in public meetings where the cameras were rolling. (Further, rumors have it that both so-called leaders are also addicted to food – consuming it even multiple times in a single day.)
Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I have been able to ascertain beyond any reasonable level of doubt that both leaders have two legs, which both openly use for walking and movement. Both wear clothes – so brazenly that neither has ever been on record as being apologetic for their continuous efforts to hide behind clothing. Both spoke a predominate language – though admittedly not the same language – yet. But time will tell. Both were married – though Obama actually had the gall to marry before even assuming national leadership rather than holding off till the last day or two of his administration.
Clearly Werthmann is a visionary, and I am convinced that Americans need to heed her words. Clearly boundaries need to be set and Obama can not be allowed to encroach further on our freedoms. For me, I propose we draw the line and begin a protest of civil disobedience the day Obama speaks to us in German or tries to force us to eat strudel.
The end.
Sources:
Citation regarding Limbaugh
The disaster enables Mr. Obama to highlight his "compassionate" and "humanitarian" credentials and to "boost his credibility with the black community," Limbaugh said.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at his daily press briefing today criticized Limbaugh's remarks.
"I think in times of great crisis, there are always people that say really stupid things," Gibbs said. I don't know how anybody -- I don't know how anybody could sit where he does, having enjoyed the success that he has, and not feel some measure of sorrow for what has happened in Haiti. I think to use the power of your pulpit to try to convince those not to help their brothers and sisters is sad."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6097183.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Citation regarding Robertson
Televangelist Pat Robertson said Wednesday that earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil."
"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."
Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other" and he contrasted Haiti with its neighbor, the Dominican Republic.
"That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle; on the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic," he said. "Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to god and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come. But right now we are helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/pat-robertson-haiti-curse_n_422099.html
Citation regarding Werthmann
Freedoms can disappear in a hurry if we aren't careful
Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.
I lived in Austria under Adolf Hitler's regime for seven years. Dictatorship did not happen overnight. It was a gradual process starting with national identification cards, which we had to carry with us at all times.
We could not board a bus or train without our ID card. Gun registration followed, with a lot of talk about gun safety and hunting accidents. Since the government already knew who owned firearms, confiscation followed under threat of capital punishment.
Freedom of speech was the next target. Free speech was curtailed with the enforcement of the federal police (Gestapo). With a large network of informers, people were afraid to say anything political, even in their own homes.
The liberal mindset in America has promoted gun control for a long time and is beginning to advocate national identification cards.
Law-abiding American citizens should not have to carry national identification cards. Aliens and non-citizens should be required to carry ID cards. Even their driver's licenses should be different than a citizen's driver's license.
Our government also needs to take strong measures against illegal aliens and tightly close our borders to protect American citizens.
Even though we are in a state of war, we have to protect our civil liberties. While some people need power to secure our freedom, we must be ever-vigilant to maintain a system of checks and balances.
I am sorely disappointed with France and Germany. If it was not for the United States, the French would be speaking German today. And if our troops had not protected Germany, Russian tanks would have rolled all the way to the Rhine River.
How ungrateful those nations are. We have to stand by our country and our troops. I am grateful that our troops are protecting freedom.
America is the greatest country in the world. After America, there is no place to run.
http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/states/articles/2003/werthmann-3-11-03.shtml
Kitty Werthmann
Kitty Werthmann, 77, of Pierre, is president of the South Dakota Eagle Forum. She lobbies the state Legislature on family issues. She has lived in the United States since 1950 and has been a U.S. citizen since 1962
Friday, January 29, 2010
An Open Letter Response to an NEA Article
To: ALinebaugh@nea.org
Cc: wa_tchr@yahoo.com
Subject: Opening Bell Feedback
January 29, 2010
There are some fundamental concepts that should simply be a standard any
time a report like this is published: who is the group making the report, and what is their criteria. It might also be fair to state historically what
their overall agenda has been for existing.
So the report (copied below) states that they give a grade of D-.
So despite all of the vast changes made in educational reform this past
15 years, our critics still give us a grade of either D- or F -- as if
there has been nothing substantive done in all of that time.
At some point, I think it is fair to ask the questions: is there really
anything that we could do that would ever merit their praise? What is
their criteria for an A?
The fiscal realities are that as long as public education remains the
single most expensive ticket item in probably every state legislative
budget (and personnel saleries being the biggest ticket item in public
education expenditures) -- any legislator or legislative candidate that
wants to adhere to a no tax increase and/or tax cut platform, is almost
automatically compelled to have to attack public education.
Politically, it is extremely difficult both to praise public education
(and public educators) while saying that we need to also cut taxes and
funding for public education.
The other fundamental conflict is that the more successful public
educators are in teaching students to be able to think independently,
this will be construed by some as being subversive in terms of
challenging authority. There are some who still believe that children
should be obedient to parents and authority figures without their having
to justify their mandates.
So to the point that we successfully increase students' abilities to
operate at higher thinking levels, the more some people are going to
feel threatened by being held accountable in having to explain the
reasoning for their dictates.
So as a general concept, before I blindly accept some unknown group's
evaluation of public education, I feel it is only fair to know whether
or not either of these factors exist to the point that it significantly
impacts their overall perspective and judgment of public education.
I doubt that I am stating anything new to people working for the NEA --
sort of like preaching to the choir.
What does surprise me is that the NEA would present a story that seems
to blindly accept an outside group's assessment without any comment or
information as to who the assessor is.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Wardwell
(Wayne K. Wardwell)
Title I Teacher
Jefferson Middle School
Caldwell School District
Caldwell, Idaho
360 202-3427 cell
kwardwell@glacierview.net
wa_tchr@yahoo.com
Included below is the article that was published and sent out online by the National Educatio Association (NEA) on January 29, 2010:
Report: State Policies Protect Ineffective Teachers.
The AP (1/28, Turner) reported, "Most states are holding tight to policies that protect incompetent teachers and poor training programs, shortchanging educators and their students before new teachers even step into the classroom, according to a new" study from the National Council on Teacher Quality. The study "paints a grim picture of how states handle everything from pay to discipline for public school teachers. States are using 'broken, outdated and inflexible' policies that ultimately hurt how children learn, according to the report."
The Denver Post (1/29, McGhee) reports that the report finds Colorado "regulations governing teachers fail to ensure that all students have effective teachers." The report "gave the state an overall grade of D-plus in its 2009 review of state laws, rules and regulations governing the teaching profession." The "organization found that Colorado's teacher policies largely work against the nation's goal of improving teacher quality at a time when Race to the Top, a $4.5 billion federal grant competition has put unprecedented focus on education reform and teacher quality."
Dave Murray writes in a column for the Grand Rapids (MI) Press (1/29) that Michigan received a "grade of D-, saying that our state fails to ensure that all students will have effective, well prepared teachers. That seemed kind of harsh, since I know Michigan has some great college education programs, and it's rare that I run into an ineffective teacher." However, the "group said the state has some bright spots, including 'requiring induction for all new teachers.'"
Cc: wa_tchr@yahoo.com
Subject: Opening Bell Feedback
January 29, 2010
There are some fundamental concepts that should simply be a standard any
time a report like this is published: who is the group making the report, and what is their criteria. It might also be fair to state historically what
their overall agenda has been for existing.
So the report (copied below) states that they give a grade of D-.
So despite all of the vast changes made in educational reform this past
15 years, our critics still give us a grade of either D- or F -- as if
there has been nothing substantive done in all of that time.
At some point, I think it is fair to ask the questions: is there really
anything that we could do that would ever merit their praise? What is
their criteria for an A?
The fiscal realities are that as long as public education remains the
single most expensive ticket item in probably every state legislative
budget (and personnel saleries being the biggest ticket item in public
education expenditures) -- any legislator or legislative candidate that
wants to adhere to a no tax increase and/or tax cut platform, is almost
automatically compelled to have to attack public education.
Politically, it is extremely difficult both to praise public education
(and public educators) while saying that we need to also cut taxes and
funding for public education.
The other fundamental conflict is that the more successful public
educators are in teaching students to be able to think independently,
this will be construed by some as being subversive in terms of
challenging authority. There are some who still believe that children
should be obedient to parents and authority figures without their having
to justify their mandates.
So to the point that we successfully increase students' abilities to
operate at higher thinking levels, the more some people are going to
feel threatened by being held accountable in having to explain the
reasoning for their dictates.
So as a general concept, before I blindly accept some unknown group's
evaluation of public education, I feel it is only fair to know whether
or not either of these factors exist to the point that it significantly
impacts their overall perspective and judgment of public education.
I doubt that I am stating anything new to people working for the NEA --
sort of like preaching to the choir.
What does surprise me is that the NEA would present a story that seems
to blindly accept an outside group's assessment without any comment or
information as to who the assessor is.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Wardwell
(Wayne K. Wardwell)
Title I Teacher
Jefferson Middle School
Caldwell School District
Caldwell, Idaho
360 202-3427 cell
kwardwell@glacierview.net
wa_tchr@yahoo.com
Included below is the article that was published and sent out online by the National Educatio Association (NEA) on January 29, 2010:
Report: State Policies Protect Ineffective Teachers.
The AP (1/28, Turner) reported, "Most states are holding tight to policies that protect incompetent teachers and poor training programs, shortchanging educators and their students before new teachers even step into the classroom, according to a new" study from the National Council on Teacher Quality. The study "paints a grim picture of how states handle everything from pay to discipline for public school teachers. States are using 'broken, outdated and inflexible' policies that ultimately hurt how children learn, according to the report."
The Denver Post (1/29, McGhee) reports that the report finds Colorado "regulations governing teachers fail to ensure that all students have effective teachers." The report "gave the state an overall grade of D-plus in its 2009 review of state laws, rules and regulations governing the teaching profession." The "organization found that Colorado's teacher policies largely work against the nation's goal of improving teacher quality at a time when Race to the Top, a $4.5 billion federal grant competition has put unprecedented focus on education reform and teacher quality."
Dave Murray writes in a column for the Grand Rapids (MI) Press (1/29) that Michigan received a "grade of D-, saying that our state fails to ensure that all students will have effective, well prepared teachers. That seemed kind of harsh, since I know Michigan has some great college education programs, and it's rare that I run into an ineffective teacher." However, the "group said the state has some bright spots, including 'requiring induction for all new teachers.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)