THE TEA PARTY
I consider myself a member of the Tea Party. I believe in small government, less spending, and accountability. I've never wanted to be labeled, but I guess if I have to be, this is as good as any. What really bothers me about the left's portrayal of the Tea Party isn't the racist tag, because I'm not that. To give evidence here of my non-racism is crap, so I'll let that go. What bothers me is the accusation that the Tea Party is anti-government. This I will refute. I'm pro-government. The form of government I've pledged my life to defend twice, is federalism, embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Federalism ensures that there will be a strong central government, but the states and local government will retain their power.
When the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation, the states ruled the country. This handcuffed the federal government and made it unable to effectively govern. The Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government, but it gave a great measure of power to the states. But it limited the federal government by enumerating its powers. It seems at times in history that the Executive branch at time forgets this. Consequently, the Constitution binds the Executive's power. After all, the founders feared an unfettered Executive more than any other situation.
Obama has exceeded his power like few other presidents. Please don't tell me that he has issued less Executive Orders than other presidents. That's a specious argument. For example, the E.O. that resulted in the internment of Japanese citizens was #9066. That was an insidious violation of civil rights that was unbelievable. The president can issue an E.O. in reference to some mundane office matter and that has the same power, but not the same effect. Numbers don't matter. Bad argument.
OBAMA AS THE PRESIDENT
Let's make this very short. I don't like Obama as president. Not because he's black, but because he's a terrible president. He had no experience running anything, he was an empty suit who made good speeches (always on the teleprompter), and he was the epitome of a guy who people hoped would be something that he isn't capable of being. But, boy, did it make some people feel good about voting for him. Jesus, what a mistake.
THE VA
This one hits close to home. I'm not currently using the VA, but I think eventually I will. That scares the hell out of me. I don't look at veterans as privileged citizens, I look at them as those who took on a task that a lot of other people didn't want to and served with honor risking their lives along the way. I don't feel badly about those who didn't serve, but I do feel that those who did deserve to be taken care of. After all, I remember being promised that my family would be take care of if I didn't make it back. I thought that was a fair deal and I signed on. When it comes time to cash in the deal, how can the government renege on that deal?
Friday, July 18, 2014
Monday, July 14, 2014
WHAT TEACHERS SHOULD AND DON'T KNOW
I'm a teacher. I'm dedicated to my profession and I love everyday in my classroom with my students. The main problem with my profession is political solutions to everyday problems. I don't want to say I have a corner on the job of educating students, but I think I have some insights about teaching. So, I'll give you the rules for my classroom. Not for students, but for teachers.
1. It's not your job to tell students WHAT to think. How dare you think that you are so right that you need to tell students what to think and that you disrespect them so much that you don't allow them to think for themselves. JUSTIFICATION: Most teachers have never had a job outside the classroom. They don't have a perspective on real life. Remember this, school only prepares you to think. It doesn't prepare you to live. You have to DO that. Along the way you'll take some hits, get bloodied, and find out that life isn't fair. The only thing that's fair is that you'll get a fair shot to succeed. We can't guarantee the outcome. Sorry.
2. You need to impress on your students that being on time, dressing well, doing good work, and getting it done on time will greatly increase your chance of succeeding. JUSTIFICATION: If you as a teacher are late to school or class, if you don't return student's graded work in a timely manner, and you don't dress well for your job, how do you expect them to do it if you don't?
3. You're a teacher. Grow up. I have heard the chorus of whining from teachers and it's not attractive. The fact that teachers are a part of a union that constantly portrays teachers as victims of a system, while supporting politicians who exploit victimization is unconscionable. JUSTIFICATION: The NEA isn't a union, it's a political action committee for a party that relishes victimization making the NEA "useful idiots" for the Democrat party.
4. Remember this: Not everyone works 184 days a year and has summers off. While I don't dislike it, I understand that most people don't appreciate that teachers with the benefits they have, whine about how hard they have it. JUSTIFICATION: I worked on a police force for 26 years. I didn't get summers off, I worked whether it snowed or not, and I had a set of rules I had to follow or I faced the consequences. Proving that my students really do learn doesn't bother me.
5. My dad went to work for 38 years to the same job, one that he hated. He did it because he wanted to take care of his family. He told me when I was young, don't go to work some place that you hate. Go to school or get the training necessary to work at something you love. That was great advice and I followed it twice. He also said it was honorable to serve your country in the military. I did that too.
6. School districts should make their students learn by making them work hard. Don't allow them to slack off. Courses that give students "college credit" in high school without having to prove what they know on a test, usually are BS, because the colleges offering the credit are tying the students to their school. By giving them credit, these colleges are ensuring that students will enroll in their school because most of the credits don't readily transfer to other schools. These schools are ensuring their enrollment will be steady. Worse, the class standards for learning are a joke. Shameful.
7. Common Core is an atrocity. It's all about federalizing education. At the beginning of public education in the 19th century, all education was local. Each community took on the responsibility of educating their children. The system worked quite well for the better part of 75 years. As the great LBJ and the federal government began taking over more and more parts of everyday life for Americans, education was in their sights. I firmly believe that the government has co-opted education because they are attempting to inculcate progressivism in the children of our country.
JUSTIFICATION: The colleges of education graduates teachers who are ill-prepared to teach anything but a curriculum that is bankrupt of the American ideals upon which this country was founded. If you control the teachers, you control the future. The stuff that is taught in American classrooms by these progressive automatons is frightening. They have no sense of their country's history. They learn that America is a wicked, imperialist country, that has done nothing in its history but oppress people. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
America represents an ideal of freedom and liberty. It took us a while to get to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but we've arrived, turning around thousands of years of human history. No other country has done what America has in the history of humankind. America changed the world.
We have a written Constitution that spells out our rights. Great Britain has none. We have a contract between the people and their government. No other country has that. We have a document that disperses power among three branches of government so that no one person can ever seize power, despite Obama's best efforts. The Supreme Court has repeatedly slapped him down.
Our children need to know that America is truly exceptional. They don't get that in most classrooms. They'll hear that in my classroom. Screw Common Core.
1. It's not your job to tell students WHAT to think. How dare you think that you are so right that you need to tell students what to think and that you disrespect them so much that you don't allow them to think for themselves. JUSTIFICATION: Most teachers have never had a job outside the classroom. They don't have a perspective on real life. Remember this, school only prepares you to think. It doesn't prepare you to live. You have to DO that. Along the way you'll take some hits, get bloodied, and find out that life isn't fair. The only thing that's fair is that you'll get a fair shot to succeed. We can't guarantee the outcome. Sorry.
2. You need to impress on your students that being on time, dressing well, doing good work, and getting it done on time will greatly increase your chance of succeeding. JUSTIFICATION: If you as a teacher are late to school or class, if you don't return student's graded work in a timely manner, and you don't dress well for your job, how do you expect them to do it if you don't?
3. You're a teacher. Grow up. I have heard the chorus of whining from teachers and it's not attractive. The fact that teachers are a part of a union that constantly portrays teachers as victims of a system, while supporting politicians who exploit victimization is unconscionable. JUSTIFICATION: The NEA isn't a union, it's a political action committee for a party that relishes victimization making the NEA "useful idiots" for the Democrat party.
4. Remember this: Not everyone works 184 days a year and has summers off. While I don't dislike it, I understand that most people don't appreciate that teachers with the benefits they have, whine about how hard they have it. JUSTIFICATION: I worked on a police force for 26 years. I didn't get summers off, I worked whether it snowed or not, and I had a set of rules I had to follow or I faced the consequences. Proving that my students really do learn doesn't bother me.
5. My dad went to work for 38 years to the same job, one that he hated. He did it because he wanted to take care of his family. He told me when I was young, don't go to work some place that you hate. Go to school or get the training necessary to work at something you love. That was great advice and I followed it twice. He also said it was honorable to serve your country in the military. I did that too.
6. School districts should make their students learn by making them work hard. Don't allow them to slack off. Courses that give students "college credit" in high school without having to prove what they know on a test, usually are BS, because the colleges offering the credit are tying the students to their school. By giving them credit, these colleges are ensuring that students will enroll in their school because most of the credits don't readily transfer to other schools. These schools are ensuring their enrollment will be steady. Worse, the class standards for learning are a joke. Shameful.
7. Common Core is an atrocity. It's all about federalizing education. At the beginning of public education in the 19th century, all education was local. Each community took on the responsibility of educating their children. The system worked quite well for the better part of 75 years. As the great LBJ and the federal government began taking over more and more parts of everyday life for Americans, education was in their sights. I firmly believe that the government has co-opted education because they are attempting to inculcate progressivism in the children of our country.
JUSTIFICATION: The colleges of education graduates teachers who are ill-prepared to teach anything but a curriculum that is bankrupt of the American ideals upon which this country was founded. If you control the teachers, you control the future. The stuff that is taught in American classrooms by these progressive automatons is frightening. They have no sense of their country's history. They learn that America is a wicked, imperialist country, that has done nothing in its history but oppress people. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
America represents an ideal of freedom and liberty. It took us a while to get to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but we've arrived, turning around thousands of years of human history. No other country has done what America has in the history of humankind. America changed the world.
We have a written Constitution that spells out our rights. Great Britain has none. We have a contract between the people and their government. No other country has that. We have a document that disperses power among three branches of government so that no one person can ever seize power, despite Obama's best efforts. The Supreme Court has repeatedly slapped him down.
Our children need to know that America is truly exceptional. They don't get that in most classrooms. They'll hear that in my classroom. Screw Common Core.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT
I've certainly tried to understand the progressive mindset, but despite my best efforts I just don't get it. What's behind all of this "political correctness?" What is to be gained from putting all these restrictions on free speech? I know that I shouldn't put too much into this, but the constant assault on free speech is, to me, very problematic. I've always thought that the best way to root out those whose speech is offensive is to let those people speak. For the most part people who are idiots are very easily identified when they open their mouth and foul the air. As Mark Twain said, " It's better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
There is a lot of ground to plow here, but I'll just refine myself to the best. I think that restricting free speech is tantamount to destroying the basis of democracy. When the government is allowed to restrict speech, or to pick who can speak and who can't, we're no longer truly free. There is a lot of speech I find objectionable. But I never will accept that the speech that is objectionable should be restricted. Expose it to the air. Allow the people who are asses to expose themselves as asses. Since when has speech become fatal?
If someone says something that pisses you off, engage them in debate. In my classes, I tell my students that it's not my job to tell them what to think. It's my job to tell them how to think. What they think is their business. If they learn to objectively research their point of view they are now a critical thinker. And that's what being an American has always been about. Don't allow someone to tell you what to think. You're an individual. Arrive at a decision because you researched and thought about it and this is the best conclusion you can reach. However, remember, you can change your conclusion as you learn more. Be open to new information.
Anyone who tries to tell you what to think is anti-free speech. As a police officer I stood between KKK members and anti-KKK demonstrators. The toughest part was keeping them apart. The only group that everyone hated was the police. But it was important that the KKK have its say. Speak out loud and allow people to judge what you say. The first amendment must protect the most offensive speech, no matter how offensive it is, or it's just a bunch of words.
Let me take on one of my pet peeves, "hate crimes." I've seen homicides and lots of death in my life and I'm appalled by gratuitous violence. I don't ever remember, while at a homicide scene, thinking to myself, did the killer really hate the person that was murdered? I'm convinced that if you kill someone, you don't like them. Hate crime legislation seeks to get into the mind of the killer to find out what they thought. I knew that if the killer hated the victim because of race, ethnicity, religion, or other factors, the victim wasn't more dead. Take it from me, dead is dead. My objection is that "Hate Crime" legislation criminalizes thought. Somehow if someone is killed because of race or other factors it's worse. No it isn't. They're dead. That's horrific. Period. "Hate Crime" legislation is feel-good BS. Nothing more.
Progressives want to tell us what to think. When we allow them to do this we allow them to control us.
There is a lot of ground to plow here, but I'll just refine myself to the best. I think that restricting free speech is tantamount to destroying the basis of democracy. When the government is allowed to restrict speech, or to pick who can speak and who can't, we're no longer truly free. There is a lot of speech I find objectionable. But I never will accept that the speech that is objectionable should be restricted. Expose it to the air. Allow the people who are asses to expose themselves as asses. Since when has speech become fatal?
If someone says something that pisses you off, engage them in debate. In my classes, I tell my students that it's not my job to tell them what to think. It's my job to tell them how to think. What they think is their business. If they learn to objectively research their point of view they are now a critical thinker. And that's what being an American has always been about. Don't allow someone to tell you what to think. You're an individual. Arrive at a decision because you researched and thought about it and this is the best conclusion you can reach. However, remember, you can change your conclusion as you learn more. Be open to new information.
Anyone who tries to tell you what to think is anti-free speech. As a police officer I stood between KKK members and anti-KKK demonstrators. The toughest part was keeping them apart. The only group that everyone hated was the police. But it was important that the KKK have its say. Speak out loud and allow people to judge what you say. The first amendment must protect the most offensive speech, no matter how offensive it is, or it's just a bunch of words.
Let me take on one of my pet peeves, "hate crimes." I've seen homicides and lots of death in my life and I'm appalled by gratuitous violence. I don't ever remember, while at a homicide scene, thinking to myself, did the killer really hate the person that was murdered? I'm convinced that if you kill someone, you don't like them. Hate crime legislation seeks to get into the mind of the killer to find out what they thought. I knew that if the killer hated the victim because of race, ethnicity, religion, or other factors, the victim wasn't more dead. Take it from me, dead is dead. My objection is that "Hate Crime" legislation criminalizes thought. Somehow if someone is killed because of race or other factors it's worse. No it isn't. They're dead. That's horrific. Period. "Hate Crime" legislation is feel-good BS. Nothing more.
Progressives want to tell us what to think. When we allow them to do this we allow them to control us.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
A VETERAN'S VIEW
Allow me to get something off my chest. I'm more than a little angry about the VA scandal. Veterans signed an agreement to fight our nation's wars and in return we were to receive certain benefits. First, the government promised to take care of us should we be injured. They promised to take care of our families should we be killed. This was understood by every veteran and gave us peace of mind. For years the VA has performed its duties rather poorly. In other words, the government hasn't kept its word.
So enter Obama and his promise to fix the problems that have plagued the system for years. In short, this promise meant as much as the rest of his promises. Nothing. With this administration, politics and ideology trumps everything. And they really don't make any bones about it. This situation is shameful and gaming veterans is wrong. Our country is betraying our trust. I'm a proud member of the American Legion which has been out front in calling the VA out for the shameful conduct of its business. Jay Carney, Obama's sock puppet, stated that the Legion supported the firing of the second in command at the VA. That's a blatant lie. He retiring anyway. The vapidity of this administration breathtaking. And the lying is so frequent it's hard to keep track of all of them. This administration and this president have no honor.
The VA system is rotten as hell. So here's my remedy. First, with a total budget in 2013 somewhere in the neighborhood of $170 billion, the VA is typical of government in its ineptitude. Why not abolish the VA medical system and go to a voucher system? Give each veteran a voucher they can use to obtain medical care from a doctor of their own choosing. Don't discharge a veteran injured on-duty until they can be released safely to a doctor they choose. This will allow veterans to establish a relationship with their doctor who in turn knows the specific needs of the veteran. Additionally, some veterans live a long way from the nearest VA facility. A voucher system will allow them to obtain care near their homes.
What to do with all the facilities? I think they should sell them or tear them down and sell the land to settlers like a modern day Homestead Act. Or turn the buildings into, Oh I don't know, a Costco's. At least it will turn a profit. Why does the VA have a police department? Security guards, sure, a full-fledged law enforcement agency? Redundant and wasteful.
While I'm on a rant, let's talk about the militarization of the Executive branch. There are somewhere near 180,000 armed officers in various law enforcement agencies in this branch. I'm not talking about Andy of Mayberry types, but well-armed military type groups possessing high-tech military weapons and equipment. For example, the Department of Education has a police agency. I hope I don't anger them or they might conduct a raid on my classroom. How about the Department of Agriculture? Soon we may hear about a raid on pastures supporting evil, methane spewing, farting, cows, blatantly adding to global cooling, or global warming, or climate change, or climate disrupting, or whatever the hell they call it now. I don't even want to think about the TSA or Homeland Security.
Doesn't it piss you off that politicians blithely talk about millions of dollars in fraud and waste in Medicaid etc., and talk about it like a line in the budget and cite it as possible savings? If you know about it, do something about it! Only in Washington would criminality be accepted as the price of government.
Our Constitution is very specific about the powers granted to the government by the people. All the rest are reserved to people in the tenth amendment. How have we gone so far off the rails?
So enter Obama and his promise to fix the problems that have plagued the system for years. In short, this promise meant as much as the rest of his promises. Nothing. With this administration, politics and ideology trumps everything. And they really don't make any bones about it. This situation is shameful and gaming veterans is wrong. Our country is betraying our trust. I'm a proud member of the American Legion which has been out front in calling the VA out for the shameful conduct of its business. Jay Carney, Obama's sock puppet, stated that the Legion supported the firing of the second in command at the VA. That's a blatant lie. He retiring anyway. The vapidity of this administration breathtaking. And the lying is so frequent it's hard to keep track of all of them. This administration and this president have no honor.
The VA system is rotten as hell. So here's my remedy. First, with a total budget in 2013 somewhere in the neighborhood of $170 billion, the VA is typical of government in its ineptitude. Why not abolish the VA medical system and go to a voucher system? Give each veteran a voucher they can use to obtain medical care from a doctor of their own choosing. Don't discharge a veteran injured on-duty until they can be released safely to a doctor they choose. This will allow veterans to establish a relationship with their doctor who in turn knows the specific needs of the veteran. Additionally, some veterans live a long way from the nearest VA facility. A voucher system will allow them to obtain care near their homes.
What to do with all the facilities? I think they should sell them or tear them down and sell the land to settlers like a modern day Homestead Act. Or turn the buildings into, Oh I don't know, a Costco's. At least it will turn a profit. Why does the VA have a police department? Security guards, sure, a full-fledged law enforcement agency? Redundant and wasteful.
While I'm on a rant, let's talk about the militarization of the Executive branch. There are somewhere near 180,000 armed officers in various law enforcement agencies in this branch. I'm not talking about Andy of Mayberry types, but well-armed military type groups possessing high-tech military weapons and equipment. For example, the Department of Education has a police agency. I hope I don't anger them or they might conduct a raid on my classroom. How about the Department of Agriculture? Soon we may hear about a raid on pastures supporting evil, methane spewing, farting, cows, blatantly adding to global cooling, or global warming, or climate change, or climate disrupting, or whatever the hell they call it now. I don't even want to think about the TSA or Homeland Security.
Doesn't it piss you off that politicians blithely talk about millions of dollars in fraud and waste in Medicaid etc., and talk about it like a line in the budget and cite it as possible savings? If you know about it, do something about it! Only in Washington would criminality be accepted as the price of government.
Our Constitution is very specific about the powers granted to the government by the people. All the rest are reserved to people in the tenth amendment. How have we gone so far off the rails?
Saturday, June 29, 2013
OUTRAGE?
I just thought I'd get this off my chest. I'm so tired of the use of the word "outrage." There are a lot of things in this world that are outrageous. Most of the crap that people label as "outrageous" isn't really outrageous. It may be annoying or it may piss you off. But it's not outrageous.
I recently read a book titled "Auschwitz" my daughter gave to me for father's day. I really hesitated about reading it but I finally realized that reading history requires reading a lot of uncomfortable stuff. I read the book. I digested the book. It was horrible. The writer was a doctor who survived years in the prison camp by conducting numerous autopsies under the supervision of Dr. Mengele. If that doesn't ring a bell he is the infamous "Angel of Death." He conducted the most disgusting human experiments the human mind could contemplate. Most the autopsies were done on demand. In other words, there wasn't a lot of natural death going on. Mostly the killing was on demand because Mengele wanted to conduct his research on the victims. This was truly a disturbing book.
As the Holocaust fades into history we need to read about what happened to remember. Genocides have occurred throughout history for no other reason than a dominant group wanted to eliminate a subservient group. My friend Z has a connection to one of the most horrible genocidal incidents in history: Armenians slaughtered by the Turks during WWI. The Japanese conducted genocide in Asia in the 1930s with very little notice in America because America is Eurocentric.
These incidents are truly "OUTRAGEOUS." Please don't cheapen the word by applying it to a series of bothersome incidents that really aren't worth the hyperventilating that goes on with politicians and other of the lower species who use the word to express their annoyance that everybody doesn't agree with them.
I recently read a book titled "Auschwitz" my daughter gave to me for father's day. I really hesitated about reading it but I finally realized that reading history requires reading a lot of uncomfortable stuff. I read the book. I digested the book. It was horrible. The writer was a doctor who survived years in the prison camp by conducting numerous autopsies under the supervision of Dr. Mengele. If that doesn't ring a bell he is the infamous "Angel of Death." He conducted the most disgusting human experiments the human mind could contemplate. Most the autopsies were done on demand. In other words, there wasn't a lot of natural death going on. Mostly the killing was on demand because Mengele wanted to conduct his research on the victims. This was truly a disturbing book.
As the Holocaust fades into history we need to read about what happened to remember. Genocides have occurred throughout history for no other reason than a dominant group wanted to eliminate a subservient group. My friend Z has a connection to one of the most horrible genocidal incidents in history: Armenians slaughtered by the Turks during WWI. The Japanese conducted genocide in Asia in the 1930s with very little notice in America because America is Eurocentric.
These incidents are truly "OUTRAGEOUS." Please don't cheapen the word by applying it to a series of bothersome incidents that really aren't worth the hyperventilating that goes on with politicians and other of the lower species who use the word to express their annoyance that everybody doesn't agree with them.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
POLITICS? YOU'RE KIDDING!
In this time of scandal for the Obama administration, it's hard to keep up with the daily disclosures. The corruption in this administration stacks up with any in our history. I, for one, am happy that these thugs in the White House are finally being exposed. I have a feeling Obama had no idea he would be running from one scandal after another when he pledged his would be the most transparent administration in history. It's amazing the amount of roaches that are in a house until the lights come on.
Nancy Pelosi famously pledged to drain the swamp when she was made Speaker. I doubt she thought that swamp was full of Democrats. These people are ridiculous. But constitutionally they are running our country. Which brings me to my point. The apologists for Obama are continually cautioning Republicans to refrain from politicizing these scandals. My point is that because of the structure of our government it is all about politics. These are politicians by definition. This is their career. Of course, it's politicized. Since when does politicizing something make it less illegal.
We can't allow these pompous asses to get away with lessening the severity and illegality of these scandals by cautioning the Congress against politicizing them. It's the absolute duty of Congress to exercise oversight on the Executive. Our Founding Fathers understood that political power corrupts and humans are susceptible to it. And they were politicians! They understood.
Read Federalist #10 (Madison) and Federalist #51(Hamilton).
Nancy Pelosi famously pledged to drain the swamp when she was made Speaker. I doubt she thought that swamp was full of Democrats. These people are ridiculous. But constitutionally they are running our country. Which brings me to my point. The apologists for Obama are continually cautioning Republicans to refrain from politicizing these scandals. My point is that because of the structure of our government it is all about politics. These are politicians by definition. This is their career. Of course, it's politicized. Since when does politicizing something make it less illegal.
We can't allow these pompous asses to get away with lessening the severity and illegality of these scandals by cautioning the Congress against politicizing them. It's the absolute duty of Congress to exercise oversight on the Executive. Our Founding Fathers understood that political power corrupts and humans are susceptible to it. And they were politicians! They understood.
Read Federalist #10 (Madison) and Federalist #51(Hamilton).
Thursday, May 30, 2013
GONE FOR A WHILE
I will be out of commission for awhile as I'm leaving tomorrow. I am going to Louisville to grade essays written by students who have taken the Advanced Placement U.S. history test. I'm paid well and Louisville is a very fun town. There's a lot to do downtown and rest assured we make the best use of their hospitality.
I am a life-long Reds fan and their AAA farm club is in Louisville, so we spend a lot of time watching baseball. There are some great restaurants in town so we'll eat well. It may not sound like reading essays is fun, but it's the best professional experience for A.P. teachers you can experience. If there's one thing you can do as a teacher it's being able to credibly tell students what it takes to score well on their essays. After five years I know what it takes to score.
I'll read over 2,000 essays in my time there. I can really plow through them after five years of grading essays so I'll try to set a personal record this week. Last year nearly 400,000 students took the test. Each student writes three essays so we graded about 1.2 million essays in our week in Louisville. We will do our job, get it done, and get home to start the summer.
The upside is I'm done for this year with the exception getting my grades in for the students. I'll do that Saturday, June 8th and call it a year. Then it's soccer time. I coach girls' soccer for our high school. We had our player/parent meeting last night and had a good turnout. We start summer conditioning on June 17th and after that it's pretty much an everyday thing until October. I'm ready to get going.
See you soon.
I am a life-long Reds fan and their AAA farm club is in Louisville, so we spend a lot of time watching baseball. There are some great restaurants in town so we'll eat well. It may not sound like reading essays is fun, but it's the best professional experience for A.P. teachers you can experience. If there's one thing you can do as a teacher it's being able to credibly tell students what it takes to score well on their essays. After five years I know what it takes to score.
I'll read over 2,000 essays in my time there. I can really plow through them after five years of grading essays so I'll try to set a personal record this week. Last year nearly 400,000 students took the test. Each student writes three essays so we graded about 1.2 million essays in our week in Louisville. We will do our job, get it done, and get home to start the summer.
The upside is I'm done for this year with the exception getting my grades in for the students. I'll do that Saturday, June 8th and call it a year. Then it's soccer time. I coach girls' soccer for our high school. We had our player/parent meeting last night and had a good turnout. We start summer conditioning on June 17th and after that it's pretty much an everyday thing until October. I'm ready to get going.
See you soon.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
THE TRUTH
A friend of mine sent me this video. As painful as it is to hear, it's true. The "NEA" statement at the beginning refers to the National Education Association. That's the union I'm compelled to belong to because my state isn't a right to work state. I refused to join the union but I still must pay dues. That I'm compelled by the government to pay dues to a union that I feel does not represent my best interests is the essence of tyranny.
The actor in the video is Jeff Daniels. He's played many parts including George Washington in a movie called "The Crossing" about the crossing of the Delaware in preparation for the attack on Trenton in 1776. It's one of my favorite movies.
Please listen and I'm interested in hearing comments about the statements in the video.
The actor in the video is Jeff Daniels. He's played many parts including George Washington in a movie called "The Crossing" about the crossing of the Delaware in preparation for the attack on Trenton in 1776. It's one of my favorite movies.
Please listen and I'm interested in hearing comments about the statements in the video.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
WHY DO WE WATCH FOR GOVERNMENT TYRANNY?
For those of us who have blathered on about government tyranny and been derided for it, this week has proven what the founding fathers knew. Man can't be trusted with power unchecked. The founders built checks and balances into the Constitution. Not because they were worried about the form of government they chose but that they didn't trust the humans who would control it. History is rife with evidence that humans can't be trusted with power. The Roman Empire, the German Empire, the Persian Empire, the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire; need I name more?
That being the case, the prescience of the founding fathers is absolute. They understood that as Madison said, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." But lest you think that the founding generation were big government people you are sadly mistaken. As president, Madison vetoed the "American System" in 1816, which was a plan for the federal government to fund state public works projects using federal tax money. He felt the use of federal tax money to fund projects within states was unconstitutional. What did Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," know?
The founders understood that humans needed a government to assure that they could survive as a common entity. However, they needed freedom to thrive. It was this balance that the founders strove to achieve. Our form of government is the least evil form of all governments. Most assuredly, government is evil if left unchecked. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
George Mason, a Virginian who was respected second only to George Washington, refused to sign the Constitution because it didn't include a Bill of Rights. When he was told by others that the rights of Americans were included in the text, he stated he wanted them explicitly written for all to see. We would do well to exercise his skepticism about "implied rights." Of all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, two are extremely important. The Second Amendment is the one that ensures all others will be obeyed by putting the ultimate power in the hands of the people and the Tenth gives the power to the states that they reserved to themselves. After all, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. The Founding Fathers understood this. It's time we did too.
That brings us to the IRS. The most intrusive and potentially the most evil of all government agencies. As the opinion in the court case, McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819, states, "the power to tax is the power to destroy."
The progressives will profit from Americans accepting that more government is good for humans. In reality it is the opposite. The more powerful the government, the less the people thrive. That's to the benefit of those among us who feel they are better fit to make decisions for us than we are for ourselves.
It's time we all wake up and check the power of the government.
That being the case, the prescience of the founding fathers is absolute. They understood that as Madison said, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." But lest you think that the founding generation were big government people you are sadly mistaken. As president, Madison vetoed the "American System" in 1816, which was a plan for the federal government to fund state public works projects using federal tax money. He felt the use of federal tax money to fund projects within states was unconstitutional. What did Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," know?
The founders understood that humans needed a government to assure that they could survive as a common entity. However, they needed freedom to thrive. It was this balance that the founders strove to achieve. Our form of government is the least evil form of all governments. Most assuredly, government is evil if left unchecked. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
George Mason, a Virginian who was respected second only to George Washington, refused to sign the Constitution because it didn't include a Bill of Rights. When he was told by others that the rights of Americans were included in the text, he stated he wanted them explicitly written for all to see. We would do well to exercise his skepticism about "implied rights." Of all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, two are extremely important. The Second Amendment is the one that ensures all others will be obeyed by putting the ultimate power in the hands of the people and the Tenth gives the power to the states that they reserved to themselves. After all, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. The Founding Fathers understood this. It's time we did too.
That brings us to the IRS. The most intrusive and potentially the most evil of all government agencies. As the opinion in the court case, McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819, states, "the power to tax is the power to destroy."
The progressives will profit from Americans accepting that more government is good for humans. In reality it is the opposite. The more powerful the government, the less the people thrive. That's to the benefit of those among us who feel they are better fit to make decisions for us than we are for ourselves.
It's time we all wake up and check the power of the government.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
STANDARDIZED TESTS
I wanted to give my students some credit because recently we had our round of standardized tests. In Ohio, sophomores take the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT). I have three classes of sophomores and we prepared for three straight weeks for this test. The students didn't love it but they were diligent in their preparations. It was tedious for them and me. Well, the results are in. Out of the three classes everyone passed except one student who barely missed. He'll pass the next time. That's 55 out of 56. I'm proud of them and I'm relieve for them. They don't have to test again. I'm not a fan of these tests not because I disagree with tests. I don't like that they are written by people other than teachers. Some of the language is so stilted I spend time teaching the vocabulary of the tests rather than the concepts they need to know.
Additionally, my Advanced Placement students took the AP US history test today. After talking to them they feel they killed it. We spent a lot of time reviewing and studying together to get it done. They were very confident they beat the test to death. BOOM!
Sometimes it good to be a teacher.
Additionally, my Advanced Placement students took the AP US history test today. After talking to them they feel they killed it. We spent a lot of time reviewing and studying together to get it done. They were very confident they beat the test to death. BOOM!
Sometimes it good to be a teacher.
Monday, May 13, 2013
NOW IT'S THE PRESS THEY'RE AFTER. A LOVER SPURNED?
I think you could keep busy just cataloguing the scandals in the Obama administration as they unfold. Well, now they've gone and done it. They pissed on the press. After all the adulation and unconditional love from the press, the Obama crew has grabbed the phone records of the Associated Press. How dare they!
Will the press take on the part of the scorned lover? Will they, like the abused spouse, finally call the police and prosecute? Or will they take their lover back and give him and his minions another chance. After all, he represents everything they love. They gave up their career for him. He may have stepped in it this time.
This administration is dangerous. Someone needs to watch it. Did they finally awake the sleeping dog?
Friday, May 10, 2013
BIAS? NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ON.
The government is a totally reactive agency. By that I mean that it is totally out of character for government bureaucrats to think outside the box and make independent decisions. Government workers are almost totally risk averse. They will not jeopardize their jobs. That's why schools have zero tolerance policies about violence and sexual harassment. I mean really, little kids are getting suspended for kissing teachers and playing war on the playground. My friends and I wouldn't have survived if we couldn't have played war, cops and robbers, and cowboys and Indians on the playground. We played tackle football on the asphalt for God's sake.
I can come to no other conclusion than that these drones were ordered to seek out these groups. A supervisor or some other boss told them to do this. It didn't just spontaneously occur. Government drones don't think that way. This is without a doubt a political attack on a group that the government perceives as a threat. This is an attempt to silence critics and intimidate political opponents (enemies?). The question is will the MSM finally get on board and report this story?
Think of this. This administration has hired thousands of I.R.S. agents to enforce Obamacare.
This administration is dangerous. Will someone watch them?
Positively Nixonian, eh?
Saturday, May 4, 2013
COURAGE?
 |
| Collins |
What is my problem? Well he didn't feel the need to "come out" at any time while in the "prime" of his career. That possibly would have put his earning potential at risk. Additionally, he had a girlfriend for the last eight years and was engaged to be married. For Collins to "come out" at this time is really very convenient for him. After all, what happens if no NBA team wants to sign an aging journeyman player who is past his "prime?" Imagine the outrage in the MSM if no team offers an openly gay player a contract. This is all too convenient for me. Call me cynical.
Brave and courageous? Our military fit that description. Police and Fire officers fit that description. A washed-up basketball player who really was a "never was?" Not really.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
TRUST
I was visiting my friend's blog, GeeeeeZ . She had a post about trusting government and it made me think about my evolution as a person. Over the years I have become more and more distrustful of government. I began to think about how this happened. I don't consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist but as I thought it hit me that my experiences have greatly influenced me. Let me explain.
When I was 18 I graduated from high school. I went to Catholic schools all my life and I felt imbued with a spirit of responsibility for myself and my fellow man. So I joined the military because I genuinely felt it was the right thing to do. I wanted to serve my country and keep our country safe. When I went through basic training I learned all the things I needed to know to protect myself and my fellow airmen, including an advanced course in killing. I never thought I would use it but I bought into the need to protect my country from the enemy. Who was the enemy? I didn't give it a lot of thought.
When I went to SE Asia I was ready to do what was necessary to fulfill the mission. Whatever it took. As I spent time there I was kind of surprised to find out that nobody really knew why we were there. It then became a matter of survival. That was the first time my trust was in question.
I came back and became a police officer. Why? To serve and protect my fellow citizens. As I graduated from the police academy I was fired up and instilled with the spirit of service. Sound like BS? To me and my fellow graduates it wasn't. As my career rolled on I began to think that this wasn't what I thought it was. I found that the police were nothing but political pawns of the city's politicians. Their career was much more important than the welfare of the citizens. It was all about them. I lost more trust throughout my career.
Then I retired and fulfilled a lifelong ambition to be a teacher. On a personal level I love my job. I look forward to going to work everyday and I often say it's the best job I've ever had. The interaction with the students is what is the most important. But I've seen over the years that politicians and government slugs really don't care about the kids, they care about their phony, baloney jobs. It's all about self-aggrandizement. It's disheartening to see the crap that's passed down from on high for teachers to do in class. The union is a major piece in the charade that is played on the citizens on a daily basis. It cares nothing about the teachers in the classroom because it's all about the dues. What a sick joke the whole system is.
Why doesn't any one of the groups ask us what works. We're taking care of business everyday in the classroom. We engage kids who don't care, we make their stupid rules work, and we teach the kids to pass their stupid tests. I read some of the questions and I know that any classroom teacher could write a more relevant question on these tests. Instead, no one asks us. I don't have a problem with testing. I have a problem with bureaucrats who write tests that don't have any connection to what the kids need to know in their daily lives.
I teach Advanced Placement US history. My kids learn at a very high level and pass the AP test which is hard as hell. Not because I'm a great teacher, but because I care about them and I know them enough to get them to learn. It's about what happens in the classroom, not about all the government jazz that politicians spit out.
Do I trust government? To do so would go against everything I've learned and experienced over many years.
The government forfeited my trust $17 trillion ago.
Watch this video. Taylor Mali is a great spokesman for teachers. If you like "slam poetry," and I do, you"ll like this.
When I was 18 I graduated from high school. I went to Catholic schools all my life and I felt imbued with a spirit of responsibility for myself and my fellow man. So I joined the military because I genuinely felt it was the right thing to do. I wanted to serve my country and keep our country safe. When I went through basic training I learned all the things I needed to know to protect myself and my fellow airmen, including an advanced course in killing. I never thought I would use it but I bought into the need to protect my country from the enemy. Who was the enemy? I didn't give it a lot of thought.
When I went to SE Asia I was ready to do what was necessary to fulfill the mission. Whatever it took. As I spent time there I was kind of surprised to find out that nobody really knew why we were there. It then became a matter of survival. That was the first time my trust was in question.
I came back and became a police officer. Why? To serve and protect my fellow citizens. As I graduated from the police academy I was fired up and instilled with the spirit of service. Sound like BS? To me and my fellow graduates it wasn't. As my career rolled on I began to think that this wasn't what I thought it was. I found that the police were nothing but political pawns of the city's politicians. Their career was much more important than the welfare of the citizens. It was all about them. I lost more trust throughout my career.
Then I retired and fulfilled a lifelong ambition to be a teacher. On a personal level I love my job. I look forward to going to work everyday and I often say it's the best job I've ever had. The interaction with the students is what is the most important. But I've seen over the years that politicians and government slugs really don't care about the kids, they care about their phony, baloney jobs. It's all about self-aggrandizement. It's disheartening to see the crap that's passed down from on high for teachers to do in class. The union is a major piece in the charade that is played on the citizens on a daily basis. It cares nothing about the teachers in the classroom because it's all about the dues. What a sick joke the whole system is.
Why doesn't any one of the groups ask us what works. We're taking care of business everyday in the classroom. We engage kids who don't care, we make their stupid rules work, and we teach the kids to pass their stupid tests. I read some of the questions and I know that any classroom teacher could write a more relevant question on these tests. Instead, no one asks us. I don't have a problem with testing. I have a problem with bureaucrats who write tests that don't have any connection to what the kids need to know in their daily lives.
I teach Advanced Placement US history. My kids learn at a very high level and pass the AP test which is hard as hell. Not because I'm a great teacher, but because I care about them and I know them enough to get them to learn. It's about what happens in the classroom, not about all the government jazz that politicians spit out.
Do I trust government? To do so would go against everything I've learned and experienced over many years.
The government forfeited my trust $17 trillion ago.
Watch this video. Taylor Mali is a great spokesman for teachers. If you like "slam poetry," and I do, you"ll like this.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
DAYTON AIR SHOW
I read recently that a group of peaceniks have protested that the Dayton Air Show, one of the best in the world, was planning to put on a display that they stated was an reenactment of the atomic bombing of World War II. After the protest the air show backed down and cancelled the display. While I don't love that the war required that an atomic bomb be detonated to win, it's obvious to most that it was necessary to win the war with the least loss of American life.
If one studies history it is obvious that the Japanese military establishment would not allow the rank and file citizens to give up without mass death on their part. Truman was advised that taking the main islands of Japan, based on the death toll of Okinawa would be in the neighborhood of one million American casualties. I don't think he had any choice. He ordered the bomb dropped and I think it was the right decision. The military establishment of Japan would not give up. They had to be made to do so.
I was appalled to know that Paul Tibbetts, the pilot of the "Enola Gay" which dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, was vilified for the rest of his life. He did his duty. It is instructive that he requested that he be buried without a gravestone so that it wouldn't be defaced.
Really?
If one studies history it is obvious that the Japanese military establishment would not allow the rank and file citizens to give up without mass death on their part. Truman was advised that taking the main islands of Japan, based on the death toll of Okinawa would be in the neighborhood of one million American casualties. I don't think he had any choice. He ordered the bomb dropped and I think it was the right decision. The military establishment of Japan would not give up. They had to be made to do so.
I was appalled to know that Paul Tibbetts, the pilot of the "Enola Gay" which dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, was vilified for the rest of his life. He did his duty. It is instructive that he requested that he be buried without a gravestone so that it wouldn't be defaced.
Really?
Friday, April 19, 2013
IT'S OVER
I am so very proud tonight to be a member of the law enforcement community. I spent 30 years of my life in law enforcement and the performance of the officers of the numerous agencies involved in the investigation of this terrorist attack was the best of America. I was touched by the citizens who applauded their law enforcement and other first responders. I guarantee that this is the highlight of these officers careers. It was an emotional scene that I shared with my law enforcement brothers and sisters. They are the best of America and they proved it beginning on Monday.
Remember that Sean Collier gave his life in the performance of his duties and another officer fights for his life. In my career, I knew that any of my fellow officers would have done the same. We became law enforcements officers with the intention of taking care of our fellow citizens.
These officers did this. They deserve the appreciation of all of us. God rest his soul.
Remember that Sean Collier gave his life in the performance of his duties and another officer fights for his life. In my career, I knew that any of my fellow officers would have done the same. We became law enforcements officers with the intention of taking care of our fellow citizens.
These officers did this. They deserve the appreciation of all of us. God rest his soul.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
HERE WE GO AGAIN
Today the Senate voted cloture in order to open debate on new gun control legislation. In a concerted effort, gun control advocates have tried to rebrand gun control. Gun registration isn't gun control, it's a common sense approach toward keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Sounds good, right? After all, gun control, by definition, the control of the amount of guns sold and to whom, isn't popular with Americans. We have a tendency to be jealous of our constitutional rights and our freedom. I don't want to reargue the Second Amendment. That argument has been won. How's that? Every gun control advocate always prefaces their gun control solutions by saying that they don't want take away our guns. Why else would they say this if wasn't to disguise their intentions?
To say gun registration and more intrusive background checks will save lives is an evil lie. Making law-abiding citizens submit to gun registration hasn't and won't stop one shooting from occurring. That's the big lie. It's all about politicians rushing to do something, anything to gain votes. That's their currency and it allows them to keep their power and that's what it's all about. Control is power. Those who are in positions of power are prone to taking measures to keep their power. And those measures often take the form of legislation that focuses not on action that ameliorates a bad situation but measures that exercise control of citizens. Surely they know better than us. Of course, wouldn't it make sense to keep criminals and mentally people from getting guns? Instead, we subject law-abiding citizens to intrusive background checks and give them a permanent place on a registry that is kept on file for who knows how long.
This is another in a long line of actions by the government to maintain its control over its citizens. Whether you argue that these useless laws and government programs are well meaning or they are an organized attempt to deprive citizens of their rights, at the end of the day they do deprive us of our rights, either by long-term erosion or outright oppression.
Another example of this tactic is "hate crime" legislation. I object to this legislation because it criminalizes thought. It makes absolutely no difference why someone commits a crime. A suspect's motive may help prove that the suspect had a reason to commit the crime, it doesn't make it a crime worthy of stiffer punishment because the suspect may have harbored feelings of hate toward the victim. If a person commits a crime against another person the law should be adjudicated and the suspect given the proper punishment. To attach the term "hate crime" to criminal act does nothing to further justice for anyone. It is an attempt by politicians to glorify themselves to voters and solidify their hold on power.
We need to pay attention.
To say gun registration and more intrusive background checks will save lives is an evil lie. Making law-abiding citizens submit to gun registration hasn't and won't stop one shooting from occurring. That's the big lie. It's all about politicians rushing to do something, anything to gain votes. That's their currency and it allows them to keep their power and that's what it's all about. Control is power. Those who are in positions of power are prone to taking measures to keep their power. And those measures often take the form of legislation that focuses not on action that ameliorates a bad situation but measures that exercise control of citizens. Surely they know better than us. Of course, wouldn't it make sense to keep criminals and mentally people from getting guns? Instead, we subject law-abiding citizens to intrusive background checks and give them a permanent place on a registry that is kept on file for who knows how long.
This is another in a long line of actions by the government to maintain its control over its citizens. Whether you argue that these useless laws and government programs are well meaning or they are an organized attempt to deprive citizens of their rights, at the end of the day they do deprive us of our rights, either by long-term erosion or outright oppression.
Another example of this tactic is "hate crime" legislation. I object to this legislation because it criminalizes thought. It makes absolutely no difference why someone commits a crime. A suspect's motive may help prove that the suspect had a reason to commit the crime, it doesn't make it a crime worthy of stiffer punishment because the suspect may have harbored feelings of hate toward the victim. If a person commits a crime against another person the law should be adjudicated and the suspect given the proper punishment. To attach the term "hate crime" to criminal act does nothing to further justice for anyone. It is an attempt by politicians to glorify themselves to voters and solidify their hold on power.
We need to pay attention.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
FDR AND THE RUN-UP TO WWII
As I posted earlier, I am reading a book by H.W. Brands about FDR. It has really added to my knowledge about the years leading up to WWII. FDR was restrained by a series of legislation collectively called the Neutrality Act first signed in 1935 and later amended. This act was a piece of legislation that prohibited several actions by the government that had led to the first World War such as the unrestricted submarine warfare against American shipping that was transporting supplies to the allies in that war, France and Britain. The Germans had been using the U-Boat fleet to sink as much of that shipping as they could. Eventually these actions brought a declaration of war by the U.S. on Germany in April 1917.
After the first World War a strong isolationist movement grew in the country throughout the 1920s and 1930s culminating in this neutrality legislation. As Europe became more unsettled through the 1930s and it was apparent that a war was coming, F.D.R., through a series of communications with Churchill expressed a desire to assist the British once war broke out in September 1939. However, he was blocked by the legislation and the vehement opposition of the very strong isolationists in the country.
I found it interesting that following a meeting that produced a document later called the Atlantic Charter, Churchill was later quoted as saying that FDR had laid out a strategy that would bring America into the war. Churchill stated that "He (FDR) would wage war, but not declare it." "He would become more and more provocative...Everything was to done to force an 'incident'...he would look for an 'incident' which would justify him in opening hostilities." (Page 609) Roosevelt denied it, but all his actions leading to American entry in the war are convincing that he in fact was willing to take these measures to ensure the country's entry into the war. Lend-Lease was certainly a creative way to avoid the Neutrality Acts.
A U.S. warship, the Greer, was fired upon by the Germans while it was assisting in a British operation against U-Boats in the Atlantic. FDR stated the ship was carrying the mail and flying the American flag. All true but he failed to mention the assistance it was providing to the British. It is interesting that FDR was willing to use American service men in this manner, don't you think? My guess is it was in his mind a necessary risk to defeat Hitler. FDR made much of this incident in an attempt to maximize the public pressure on the isolationists and rally public opinion against them. As we all know, Pearl Harbor later that year ended any discussion about America's entry into the war.
FDR's obfuscation has historic precedence. The sinking of the Maine in 1898 prior to the Spanish-American War. The posting of troops into the disputed territory north of the Rio Grande before the Mexican-American War in 1846. The Gulf of Tonkin incidents in 1964 that resulted in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the later escalation in Vietnam. All were questionable but integral to resultant wars.
This verifies some information I had read previously that questioned FDR's actions prior to Pearl Harbor. I, by no means, question America's entry into WWII but I certainly think this information is good fodder for a look at FDR and his pre-war campaign to involve America in the war.
After the first World War a strong isolationist movement grew in the country throughout the 1920s and 1930s culminating in this neutrality legislation. As Europe became more unsettled through the 1930s and it was apparent that a war was coming, F.D.R., through a series of communications with Churchill expressed a desire to assist the British once war broke out in September 1939. However, he was blocked by the legislation and the vehement opposition of the very strong isolationists in the country.
I found it interesting that following a meeting that produced a document later called the Atlantic Charter, Churchill was later quoted as saying that FDR had laid out a strategy that would bring America into the war. Churchill stated that "He (FDR) would wage war, but not declare it." "He would become more and more provocative...Everything was to done to force an 'incident'...he would look for an 'incident' which would justify him in opening hostilities." (Page 609) Roosevelt denied it, but all his actions leading to American entry in the war are convincing that he in fact was willing to take these measures to ensure the country's entry into the war. Lend-Lease was certainly a creative way to avoid the Neutrality Acts.
A U.S. warship, the Greer, was fired upon by the Germans while it was assisting in a British operation against U-Boats in the Atlantic. FDR stated the ship was carrying the mail and flying the American flag. All true but he failed to mention the assistance it was providing to the British. It is interesting that FDR was willing to use American service men in this manner, don't you think? My guess is it was in his mind a necessary risk to defeat Hitler. FDR made much of this incident in an attempt to maximize the public pressure on the isolationists and rally public opinion against them. As we all know, Pearl Harbor later that year ended any discussion about America's entry into the war.
FDR's obfuscation has historic precedence. The sinking of the Maine in 1898 prior to the Spanish-American War. The posting of troops into the disputed territory north of the Rio Grande before the Mexican-American War in 1846. The Gulf of Tonkin incidents in 1964 that resulted in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the later escalation in Vietnam. All were questionable but integral to resultant wars.
This verifies some information I had read previously that questioned FDR's actions prior to Pearl Harbor. I, by no means, question America's entry into WWII but I certainly think this information is good fodder for a look at FDR and his pre-war campaign to involve America in the war.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
A MANAGED ECONOMY? IT FAILED ONCE, WHY TRY IT AGAIN?
I'm now reading a book by one of my favorite authors, H.W. Brands. It is entitled "Traitor To His Class, The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt." I'm not a fan of FDR. He is a big government guy. I'm not. As evidence I submit to you the "Blue Eagle." FDR was a product of the Wilson presidency. I'm not of fan of his either. For example, he was a progressive and on his watch the 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments passed. Even worse, the Federal Reserve Act passed which set up the Federal Reserve Board. This agency controls the money supply. The reason it passed was that the currency had a tendency to flucuate and this agency was designed to ensure that it kept equilibrium. It hasn't done its job evidenced by the Great Depression and the Great Recession. The worst is that it operates without congessional oversight. Doesn't the Constitution give the power of the purse to the Congress?
FDR came into power at the beginning of the Great Depression in 1933. He, being a product of the Wilson administration, felt it necessary to take action. His inaugural address asked for power analogous to that in wartime. My students listen to and discuss this speech. What are its implications? As FDR seized power he set up, with a sycophantic congress, an alphabet soup of programs in order to fix the economy. The most insidious was the National Industrial Recovery Act and the worst part of that was the National Recovery Act. It negotiated with business, a scheme to fix prices. This scheme, embraced by most of big business, served to squeeze out small businesses and constrict profits. Businesses eventually withheld investment and the economy plunged into a double dip depression which was alleviated only by the ramped up manufacturing related to WWII.
The moral of the story is that "managed economies" and "managed currencies" don't work.
FDR's legacy is as a war president, not as an economic savior.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
I wrote the following letter to our local newspaper. I was tired of the people trashing the Constitution without much knowledge of the history surrounding the writing and inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The discussion over gun rights degenerated into a name-calling contest. It's sad that disagreement leads to such stupidity. The New Town disaster effected us all. The fact that I and those of like mind, want the Second Amendment to be understood and followed doesn't mean we don't feel pain for those lost and their families. It just means we aren't to blame and we shouldn't be the scapegoat for anti-gun people.
I wrote:
I am a history teacher, a retired police officer, and a military veteran. My understanding of the Second Amendment is colored by my personal experiences and my knowledge of history. To say that some of the letters I've read are missing the point of the amendment is an understatement. From an historical perspective it is necessary to take into account the situation in the colonies as it pertains to their relations with the British prior to the Revolution.
To the American colonists, a standing army was the very embodiment of oppression. After all, the British Army enforced the laws. Throughout the 1760s, the various heavy taxes that so enflamed the colonists, were levied as the British Army fulfilled the role of what we know as the police. The Battle of Lexington and Concord that took place on April 19, 1775, was prompted by two things. The British certainly wanted to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock, rabble-rousers for sure, but they also wanted to find a reported stash of weapons and gunpowder that was rumored to be in the area. In other words, the British wanted to disarm the colonists. Compliance to tyrannical British policies would more easily be pressed upon a defenseless citizenry.
The Constitution was signed without a "Bill of Rights" that was later added. I caution my students constantly against looking at the Bill of Rights without taking into account the history of when it was written. If one were to doubt that the founders feared a standing army and its tyranny, look at the Third Amendment which prohibits quartering of soldiers, or the forced housing of British soldiers in private homes. These were people, who suffered real government oppression, so they wrote the Bill of Rights to preclude a repeat of their experiences.
Looking at the Second Amendment gives us the phrase " A well regulated militia." An understanding of history tells us that the "militia" was synonomous with "the people." After all, who were the militia, other than the people? The founders feared government power and they wanted to make it clear that an armed people is a free people. The phrase "well regulated" refers to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments which regulates and enumerates the powers of any police force, be it militia or otherwise.
The founders had a specific agenda in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They understood oppression as only they could. In present day America, government oppression is much more subtle. I don't anticipate taking up arms against my government anytime soon, but we need to understand what the Bill of Rights means. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is democracy." If the government were to take away any of the rights of the people enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it would break an agreement between the people and their government that has kept us free for over two hundred years.
I wrote:
I am a history teacher, a retired police officer, and a military veteran. My understanding of the Second Amendment is colored by my personal experiences and my knowledge of history. To say that some of the letters I've read are missing the point of the amendment is an understatement. From an historical perspective it is necessary to take into account the situation in the colonies as it pertains to their relations with the British prior to the Revolution.
To the American colonists, a standing army was the very embodiment of oppression. After all, the British Army enforced the laws. Throughout the 1760s, the various heavy taxes that so enflamed the colonists, were levied as the British Army fulfilled the role of what we know as the police. The Battle of Lexington and Concord that took place on April 19, 1775, was prompted by two things. The British certainly wanted to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock, rabble-rousers for sure, but they also wanted to find a reported stash of weapons and gunpowder that was rumored to be in the area. In other words, the British wanted to disarm the colonists. Compliance to tyrannical British policies would more easily be pressed upon a defenseless citizenry.
The Constitution was signed without a "Bill of Rights" that was later added. I caution my students constantly against looking at the Bill of Rights without taking into account the history of when it was written. If one were to doubt that the founders feared a standing army and its tyranny, look at the Third Amendment which prohibits quartering of soldiers, or the forced housing of British soldiers in private homes. These were people, who suffered real government oppression, so they wrote the Bill of Rights to preclude a repeat of their experiences.
Looking at the Second Amendment gives us the phrase " A well regulated militia." An understanding of history tells us that the "militia" was synonomous with "the people." After all, who were the militia, other than the people? The founders feared government power and they wanted to make it clear that an armed people is a free people. The phrase "well regulated" refers to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments which regulates and enumerates the powers of any police force, be it militia or otherwise.
The founders had a specific agenda in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They understood oppression as only they could. In present day America, government oppression is much more subtle. I don't anticipate taking up arms against my government anytime soon, but we need to understand what the Bill of Rights means. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is democracy." If the government were to take away any of the rights of the people enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it would break an agreement between the people and their government that has kept us free for over two hundred years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
