I Will Always Be A Child Of The Desert

"I want to feel sunlight on my face

I see the dust cloud disappear without a trace

I want to take shelter from the poison rain

Where the streets have no name"

-U2

I will always be a child of the desert. I say this with some trepidation since I abhor deterministic theories, especially geographical/social ones. "I am like this because of my parents." "I have these fears because of my experiences in school." "Life in the city explains my criminal past." Mostly bullshit excuses, but everyone is to some extent a product of their environment but EVERYONE has free will and can choose right from wrong, positive from negative, productive from destructive. I may never return to the desert in a permanent way, but living the first 18 years of my life in the desert has made a mark on me. And I will always refer to my little desert community as "home."

Living in the desert instills selfsufficiency. Many isolated locales do this, but few take away the three necessities of survival like the desert. Three hours without shelter in any exterme climate begins to negatively impact the body. Three days without water and the body is in severe dehydration. Three weeks without food and the body begins to wither and deteriorate. All three of these necessities--shelter, water, and food--are in short supply in the desert. So people learn to adapt. They learn selfsufficiency. Whether its a group of "desert rats" and "rock hounds" looking for the next great mineralogical find or a bunch of Jesus-freaks looking to practice their beliefs in isolation, to live in the desert is to be selfsufficient.

Desert life promotes independence and isolation from society. Even those who eventually flee the desert, that spirit of independence and appreciation of isolation rarely goes away. After high school I could not wait to get out of that desert prison and explore civilization. But through the years--and I bet this holds true for those who embraced urbanization and city life--I have always had my retreat. It might be a corner of the backyard particularly well suited for reading a good book or smoking a good cigar or a room in the house away from the television where I can bang away on the computer, writing dribble like this. Desert folk require some solitude.

Growing up in the desert develops a sense of appreciation for simple things, for things others may not see. For non-desert beings traveling along the freeway, the desert is a bland, lifeless place. But if they took the time to stop and explore, to look for the little things they would be amazed. Among the Creosote scrub and Mesquite trees are small patches of beauty, especially in the spring. Wildflowers clumped here and there, blossoms on prickly cacti, and ironwood trees twisted into otherworldly shapes. And animals of all sorts--trantulas moving gingerly across the rocky gorund, squirrels peeking out of their dirty holes, rattlesnakes sunning themselves on a flat rock, coyotes sometimes not seen but heard trotting across the barren land and howling their lonesome cry. People from the desert have the ability to see the small things both beautiful and ugly that others simply miss.

So I may live in an agricultural valley now, in a city ten times the size of my desert home and within thirty minutes of an urban center numbering half a million; but I will always be a child of the desert. I have been where the streets have no name, and that's ok with me.

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Thinking About History Thursday

May 30, 1922- Lincoln Memorial is dedicated

It may not dominate the skyline like the Washington Monument, but the Lincoln Memorial is indeed the most picturesque building along the National Mall in Washington D.C. Though impressive, the Washington Monument lacks a certain aesthetic quality, while the Lincoln Memorial exhibits a classical beauty and sense of style that reflects the nobility of the cause Lincoln led during the American Civil War. Each of the 36 Doric columns (one for each state in the union in 1865) stands as a sentinel guarding the man who so firmly and eloquently defended the principles on which the nation was founded. This American Parthenon reflects the legacy of self-government as it originated in Ancient Greece and Rome.

Walking the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is like walking a trail in a dense forest, anticipation builds in the soul with each step. But then the darkness gives away to an inspirational view--Lincoln sitting majestically in an armchair carved from Georigia Marble. Inscriptions from the Gettysburg Address and 2nd Inaugural Address are to his left and right. Observers are reminded of the simple truths expoused by Lincoln.

"...government of the people, by the people, for the people,

shall not perish from the earth."

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right,

let us strive on to finish the work we are in..."

The statue of Lincoln dominates the interior. The seriousness of the task he was thrust into is etched on his face. The strength and resolve with which he pursued the task is evident in his posture, sitting upright, arms and hands firmly gripping the arms of a throne of freedom. But he is alone. Though surrounded by advisors, his was a mentally and emotionally lonely task. The sacrifices associated with the war affected Lincoln greatly. To Ms. Bixby of Boston, "...you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine...But, I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save."

 

Ninety-one years ago today the Lincoln Memorial was dedicated and opened to the public. Lincoln's oldest son, Robert, was there representing the Lincoln family. William Howard Taft was the keynote speaker. As President, Taft had signed the original Congessional bill calling for the building of a memorial, and he led the commission tasked with this after he lost the 1912 election. Taft continued to serve the country as a justice on the Supreme Court and was Chief Justice when he led the dedication ceremony in 1922, formally turning the memorial over to President Harding and the federal government.

There are many things to see when visiting Washington D.C. but a stop at the Lincoln Memorial is a must. In my limited travels, there have been just a few places that bring out a sense of history, reverance, and appreciation for America. Some of those include Arlington National Cemetary, The JFK Library and Museum, the Arizona Memorial, and, of course, the Lincoln Memeorial.

"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there

shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created equal and free."

 

Posted with Blogsy

Obama as a Tyrant

Tyrannos to the Ancient Greeks was someone who had absolute political power. It did not mean, as does our modern definition of tyrant, someone who rules in a cruel and unjust manner. The Greeks attached no ethical or moral meaning to the term as we do today. The term was first used to describe the reign of Peisistratus and his two sons during the later half of the 6th century BC. He took advantage of the good economic times and had many public works built, began a series of festivals, and initiated what would be the Olympic Games. These aren't exactly actions of the modern tyrant; however he did have absolute power. Eventually Lord Acton's famous quote, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," transformed the government. An exiled leader, Clieisthenes, returned to Athens, took power, and began to create a demokratia or democracy.

So how is Barack Obama a tyrant? While not exactly a tyrant in either the Ancient Greek or modern definition of the term he does exhibit tyrannical tendencies. Answering this questions requires an examination of two prerequisite questions: What are his motives/policies? How does he wield the power he has?

Talk of policy is tainted by politics but if Obama's administration is evaluated as a whole RealClearPolitics poll composites show that Obama's Job Approval as even with three out of four polls in the past 10 days being unfavoraaable of the President. In addition, The RCP composite for "Direction of the Country" shows only 31.7% of Americans approve while 58.2% believe the nation is on the wrong track. These numbers could partially be explained by Congress, as their approval rating is dismal, but the President is the policy leader and if the public feels the country is headed down the wrong path he has to assume responsibility and not just blame everyone else.

Obama's signature policy is the Affordable Care Act, so let's look at that in some detail. An argument could be made that the ACA is like the public works projects under Peisistratus; however, while the public overwhelmingly embraced the actions of the Greek tyrannus, polls have consistently showed that no more than half, and a recent one only about one-third, of Americans approve of Obamacare. This is not to argue that healthcare reform is not needed but a one thousand page law that has grown to nearly 3000 pages and largely passed by Congress without any representative reading it does not inspire confidence.

When looked at closely, whether it is healthcare, gun control, energy issues, or job creation, Obama has responded from a purely ideological position with little forethought or concern for the overall will of the people. In this sense his policies are tyrannical in a modern sense of the term because he, unlike Peisistratus, is not basing decisions upon the will of the majority.

Maybe more disturbing is the subtle and covert methods used by Obama to make things happen. Yes, Republicans (Richard Nixon being a good example) did similar things but in 2013 Barack Obama is president. More than any president since FDR, Obama subservients ethics in favor of power. In an Alinsky-esque way power to Obama allows for political action which then emerges in policy, even if it is policy unpopular or lacking a broad base of support. When checks and balances are not an issue then Obama can do things through executive order, new departmental regulations, or the controversial method of "executive actions," and the process of governing becomes easy. While Obama has used the power of executive order about the same number of times as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, he has exceeded them in expanding executive department regulations and issuing what are called "executive actions."

An executive order has the backing of law behind it. For example, Executive Order 9066 was a law requiring all people of Japanese decent living in the United States (remember Hawaii was not a state yet) to relocate to an internment camp during World War Two. Changes in departmental regulations must follow the intent of the law creating that department and usually deal with procedures and processes within that department. Executive actions have sometimes been called executive directives and are not binding by law. They are more like requests that might very well disappear because they usually require some action of Congress, everything from outright approval to providing funding. As one source put it, "actions are like a presidential wish list." Even being a wish list, the power of and authority of the President has weight and influence whether it be with Congress or public opinion, so the issuing of executive actions is a covert method of implementing policy.

So do we have Tyrannus Obamus? In my opinion, yes. The President's actions and policies are not based on public demand, and the tactics used are often times excessive, bordering on dictatorial in the spirit of FDR. Whether or not the current scandals can or will be traced to the White House doesn't really matter. Obama has clearly chosen to largely ignore the issue much like a tyrant would. If any are connected to the administration then there are serious misuses of power going on. And if not, instead of "cleaning house" and dealing with the IRS, Justice Department, FBI, or State Department as rogue institutions, Obama has bent over backwards to prop up many (Holder being a key one) who should have resigned or have been fired.

Tyrants don't have to be evil and cruel, but if they undermine the principles of this country, whether Republican or Democrat, they should be dealt with.

Posted with Blogsy

Education Today

Support Staff

This is a touchy subject but I promised myself not to pull punches in these observations of "Education Today." Before I discuss support staff, I do want to emphasize that there are always exceptions to the rule. The criticisms I discuss are based on my observations as a 24 year veteran teacher. They are trends that, in my opinion, are destroying the idea of public education.

A modern school is a machine and when certain parts of that machine are not in synch then it does not operate right. The secretarial, janitorial, grounds, transportation, para educational, technological and maintenance staff are important pieces of that machine. Over the past twenty years someone has been fiddling with those pieces. Although a complex issue, simply put, support staff today is losing focus of the mission, which is to teach kids. While my examples are anecdotal, they do represent an overall trend in education.

The number of job responsibilities have declined. The custodian responsible for my room is only expected to vacuum the carpet and empty the trash on a regular basis. Granted there have been some personnel cuts due to the economy, but not long ago the classroom custodian also wiped down desks and cleaned the windows at least once a week. There was a time when the summer cleaning of rooms did not leave the furniture in total disarray. I schedule in at least half a day prior to my first paid day to put my room back in order, and that includes hooking up my computer and audio-visual equipment that has been unplugged and shoved into one corner of the room.

Instructional aides (para-educators) once actually showed their faces in my classroom to help students with special needs. No longer. Our compulsion to "mainstream" students and not in any way single them out has led to the disappearance of aides in the room. So what do they do? Help the Special Ed. teachers with their classes of 20? What is a teacher suppose to do when a couple Hispanic students that can barely speak or read English are put in their class with no bilingual aide? I actually had a Special Ed. teacher ask if he could send in a bilingual student assistant to help one such student, because he was not allowed to use a "para-educator."

IT and maintenance staff operate on their own sets of rules and because they can throw in technical jargon it sounds good. I can sympathize with the "We are under staffed" but everyone is. I have experienced cases in which maintenance requests were lost or simply ignored. Most of the time it takes a week or more to get anything other than the most important work done. Don't get me started on IT staff. Truly gufted IT people get picked up by high paying corporations and organizations with public institutions getting what's left.

Maintenance, custodial, grounds, and secretarial staff are largely as good as the people hired, but over the past 20 years the union has taken more control of what these school employees can and can not do. I totally sympathize with workers needing representation, but schools are not factories. Sometimes breaks can not be perfectly planned out. If a cog in the system breaks then people have to step up and fix it for the sake of the kids whether the union approves or not. In addition, managerial supervisors that place their own department above the overarching interest of the students are not executing their duty.

Districts have to negotiate contracts with classified personnel that places the needs of the school above the needs of the worker. A well functioning school is a nicer work environment and good schools will pay well also. More importantly, districts have control over the hiring and firing of managerial staff. If someone is not following the "Students First" philosophy then they should be let go. These are well paying jobs that should be easy to fill with quality people.

I want to close with a story. Manuel Lopez was the best custodian ever. He was elderly. His English wasn't that good. He moved kind of slow. But Manuel knew what his job was and he did it with pride and dignity and as a result was treated respectfully by everyone. The first day Manuel came into my class after school he asked, "Mr. Duvall is there anything special you need me t do when I clean your room?" He went beyond what the job description said and did not let the union manifesto get in the way of what he knew was the right way to do his job. He raised two great kids that went to college and now enjoys his retirement years.

Posted with Blogsy

Memorial Day

I know it may be blasphemous to some but I do not go out of my way on Memorial Day. One reason is that not a lot goes on in the community of Hanford. There's usually a ceremony in the morning at the cemetery which I attended a few times when my son, Jake, was part of the JNROTC Rifle Team (they did the 21 gun salute). The boys and I used to watch a couple war movies, but they are "too busy" now. My wife is off doing whatever women do, and Samantha does her thing.

So today I went about a normal weekend routine, some computer time, do dishes, do laundry, and since it was nice out went and sat in the front yard smoked a cigar and did some reading. I read an interesting piece on "Sheep and Sheepdogs." Not the literal kind but how people can be classified as sheep, wolves, or sheepdogs. For me this article clarified what Memorial Day is really about.

The author explained that those three categories are not absolute and that our natural tendency from birth is to be sheep. We are born innocent babes and sheep represent that innate desire to be good. So being a sheep in this sense is not a derogatory term describing blind obedience but simply being a good human, in the sense it is used Biblically. Some sheep become wolves due to a predisposition to be evil, or they are acculturated that way, or face socioeconomic factors that push them into the wolf pack. Other sheep become sheepdogs--the protectors.

Sheepdogs might be loners looking out for others (our secret warriors fighting terrorism), natural protectors who fill that role 24/7 (police, the military, fire and rescue, etc,), or they can be among us and simply spring to the call of duty (the dozens of onlookers who sprang to action after the bombing at the Boston Marathon). Not to demean the sheep but not many of them have what it takes to be sheepdogs.

The author went further and explained that we can be taught how to be sheepdogs. What if every American age 16 and over was CPR/First Aid certified? What if we taught that taking action is better than standing on the sideline? What if we once again taught boys to be men, emphasizing that real men look out for others, sacrifice when it's warranted, treat everyone with the respect they deserve regardless of age, gender, class, or sexual preference, and what if we taught them that sometimes they have to risk all for others?

Anyway, the men and women we honor today were and are sheepdogs--passive but vigilant, understanding but honest, hoping for peace but ready to go to war. Sacrifice for them is willingly given in the name of their fellow citizens. This day is not one to debate politics or the right and wrong of wars, but for the sheep to pay tribute to the sheepdogs. And for the wolves to take note that the sheepdogs are there--waiting to strike.

Posted with Blogsy

Funny Friday

What Happened to Peaceful, Bleeding Heart Sweden?

Progressives please excuse those of us questioning your gushing praise for Sweden's socio-economic-political structure. Recent rioting goes to show that monetary and ethnic differences exist everywhere, and even a country offering attractive entitlements is eventually going to create an "I want more!" beast. Brings to mind a popular commercial, "How do you like me now!"

The Obama Bedroom Last Night

"Michelle, they are picking on me again," says Lil Barack with a pout on his face.

"What happened now, sweetie," she replies.

"I forgot to salute the soldier before getting on the big helicopter."

"He's not a soldier, Barack, I have told you this before. He is a Marine..."

"So!"

"Well, all the services have their antiquated little rituals and saluting is one, but the Marines take it particularly seriously and personal."

"Oh, why?"

"It's a sign of respect, dear. Like when you forgot to salute that Medal of Honor recipient a few years ago. Even a five star general salutes a private who has won that award."

"I want one of those mom....I mean Michelle."

"Only servicemen and women who go above and beyond the call of duty can get one."

"Well I have to deal with the Republicans. That don't count?"

"Nope."

"I have to listen to Uncle Joe's stupid...."

"That doesn't count either."

"Now the press and the public think I'm an egotistical jerk...all because of a forgotten salute."

"Barrack, they already thought that about you. But you don't have to keep reminding them."

 

Bull Shittin' with Joe

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are relaxing' in the Oval Office drinking brandy.

"You catch my speech, Joe?" said Barack with a broad self-satisfied smile.

"Just pieces of it on CNN. Ummm, just playing devil's advocate here, boss. You think it was wise to claim there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11?" asked Biden.

"Watcha talkin' 'bout Joe?" says Barack in his best Gary Coleman voice.

"Well there was the Boston thing a few weeks ago."

"Hell, Joe, that wasn't big. Only a few people died."

"Well, yeah but one was a kid and hundreds were wounded."

"No matter. Wasn't as big as 9/11. And that was Bush's fault!"

"What about Benghazi?"

"Out of country and in a war zone."

"Fair enough. But there was that Texas thing."

"Fort Hood? You know as well as I that we labeled that 'workplace violence'."

"But that psycho killed 13 and wounded almost 40 more in the name of Islam."

"Whose side you on Joe!"

"Sorry boss. Your side of course. Ummm...you're still supporting me in 2016 right?"

 

The Holder Rap

There once was a guy named Holder.

Over time he grew bolder and bolder.

As a Freshman at Columbia he and his crew needed a place to chill,

So they thought the NROTC building would fit the bill.

Entering, occupying, breaking the law didn't matter

Because they renamed it the Malcolm X Lounge

Which ended all the chatter.

With a prestigious law degree in hand

And a head full of social change dreams,

He went out into the land and prospered

The world a cup of coffee ontop of which he was the cream.

Obama pegged him in 2008 to be the General of all Attorneys

A role he pursued with gusto and undying loyalty to the Obama faith.

Whether running guns to drug cartels or justifying drone strikes

He took many political bullets to shield the Prez and divert the hate.

Where did the man go who started his career working for Public Integrity?

Now he is stretching, violating, playing with the truth and what of the public of integrity?

It seems to be an afterthought.

Posted with Blogsy

Thinking About History Thursday

The Sordid History of the Espionage Act of 1917

The recent Justice Department scandal dealing with the seizing of AP phone records (and possibly FOX News too) is being justified through the provisions of the Patriot Act. What few people realize is that the Patriot Act is based on a much older law, the Espionage Act of 1917. To understand what is going on some historical knowledge of that World War One law is necessary.

The law as passed in June of 1917, just a few months after America's entry into World War One, criminalized attempts to interfere with military operations, support enemies of the nation, or disrupt military recruitment. The limits the law placed on freedom of speech were upheld by the Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States. The law stayed on the books and was transferred from the U.S. Code of War to the Criminal Code after the end of WWI. It has been amended numerous times since.

The largest assemblage of amendments were added in May of 1918 and collectively are known as the Sedition Acts. These placed the most restrictive laws on expression found in the Espionage Act and limited freedom of speech, symbolic speech, press and assembly if those actions impeded the nation's ability to conduct war or aided the enemy. After the war the Sedition Acts became even more controversial because many feared they would be applied during peacetime, so all were repealed in 1921.

The Espionage Act was amended a few times during World War Two. The first made the publication of any material that threatened US security or was of a classified nature a criminal offense. Additions to the Espionage Act also came in the form of Executive Orders (such as 9044 which called for the internment of Japanese Americans) that expired with the end of the war. But right after the war, in conjunction with a redesign of the country's national security apparatus, the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 was approved and built upon the foundations of the 1917 Espionage Act. The McCarran law targeted communist organizations during the Cold War years, giving the government extraordinary powers to track and monitor communist groups and individuals. Many of the McCarran provisions were deemed unconstitutional in 1993. In 1961 the Espionage Act was amended again when its jurisdiction was expanded beyond the borders of the United States to include US shipping, bases overseas, embassies, etc.

Many challenges to the Espionage Act made it to trial. Directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society were convicted under the law and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison (although they served only 9 months and the charges ended up being dropped). Emma Goldman was deported for her anti-American rhetoric and opposition to the draft both illegal based on the Espionage Act. Father Charles Coughlin's weekly Social Justice was effectively shut down in a case based on the Espionage Act for printing stories judged harmful to national security during World War Two. The Rosenbergs were indicted and executed under provisions of the law in 1951-1953. During that same Red Scare era, Alger Hiss, a State Department official, was convicted for violating the McCarran additions to the Espionage Act. In the famous Nixon Era Pentagon Papers case Daniel Ellsberg was convicted for violating the Espionage Act but was freed due to a mistrial ruling by the judge. In the 1980s a number of Soviet moles and spies were convicted under the law for providing classified material to the Soviet Union. More recently, the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, is under indictment for violating the Espionage Act.

The Patriot Act passed after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and renewed by Congress is a continuation and addition to the pre-existing Espionage Act. Many of the legal concepts and justifications found in it are based on the precedents set in the Espionage Act and the case law surrounding it. What many Americans fail to see is that the Patriot Act is not some strange anomaly that appeared after the fall of the Twin Towers. It is a set of national security laws and regulations that build upon what was already in existence. Liberty was already under attack by government laws before 9/11. While the Patriot Act may have taken those restrictions on freedoms to another level, it is not some isolated body of law. To understand the Justice Dept./AP scandal one has to look back one hundred years to World War One.

It is a classic example of liberty and security. You can not have both. Giving law enforcement the power to seize phone records will lead to a safer more secure existence, at the cost of privacy. On the other hand, putting too many hurdles in front of those trying to catch the bad guy and make America safer slows down the process and makes for less security. I would think that a person's opinion of the current scandal would be based on where they fall along the liberty v. security continuum and not their party affiliation.

Posted with Blogsy

Is the IRS Operating Constitutionally?

 

 

Recent events surrounding the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and possible misconduct has prompted me to ponder two questions: One, exactly what is the IRS and what is it supposed to do? Two, Is it conducting it's mission in accordance with the Constitution? I hope to avoid any partisanship (but sometime I can not help myself).

The first income tax was created in 1862 by the Revenue Act of 1862 to help pay for the Civil War (1861-1865). By the end of the war 10% of America's households were paying between 5% and 10% in income tax which paid for 21% of the war. Prior to 1862, the government avoided the income tax issue because most politicians believed it was unconstitutional, because it was strictly a revenue tax that could easily be abused for political purposes. The Supreme Court agreed in 1894 when it declared in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. that a tax on income was outside of the intent of Congress' power to levy taxes.

The Progressive Era of the early Twentieth Century led to the creation of many new government agencies and offices to oversee immigration, consumer protection, corporate monopolies, and other progressive programs. This expansion of government required funding, so the income tax was resurrected in the form of the 16th Amendment, which was approved in February, 1913. The IRS was born.

The basic mission of the IRS is simple. It is to collect income taxes and interpret and enforce the Internal Revenue Code (about 10,000 pages of laws and regulations). With about 100,000 full time employees, the IRS is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States and is three times the size of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It is responsible for over a trillion dollars in revenue, has a second to none computerized data base (this is one reason why it will handle healthcare records for all Americans according to the Affordable Care Act or ACA), can order many institutions to turn over information--without a court order--about Americans, may impose civil (monetary) penalties at will in which the accused has to prove their innocence--contrary to the legal foundation of "innocent until proven guilty," and has the final authority in determining the tax-exempt status of any group. The IRS can also make a "jeopardy assessment" in which the assets of someone may be seized without the approval of a judge.

Although a law enforcement agency, most IRS agents are not gun toting cops, although they do have a criminal investigative unit and even a SWAT Team. The average "agent" is there to check tax information and assist you with your tax questions. Unfortunately the tax code has created a situation in which reliable information, even from an IRS agent, is hard to get. An internal study by the IRS and Government Accounting Office (GAO) in the late 1980s showed that when presented with a taxpayer question only one-third of 1000 IRS agents got the answer right. The power to tax opens the door to abuse of power and when an uncontrolled code of laws and regulations is attached to that, it gets even worse.

Using the IRS for political purposes has been around for one hundred years. Few Presidents escaped the convenience of utilizing the little controlled investigative powers of the IRS to intimidate political rivals. The two most famous are probably Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. FDR's own son once said, "(My father) may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution." In reference to his appointee as Commissioner of the IRS Richard Nixon said, "I want to be sure he is a ruthless son of a bitch, that he will do as he's told, that every income tax return I want to see I see..." The IRS has been involved in numerous smaller political scandals and just about every year about 20,000 valid complaints are made but internal oversight has not been an important part of the IRS mission.

So is the IRS operating constitutionally? Until there is a mass movement to reign in the extraordinary powers the IRS has been given it will continue to operate under the basic parameters of the Constitution. However, a case could be made that the IRS stretches to the limit certain rights outlined in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

For national security purposes most Americans would agree that allowing for a classified type of search warrant is legitimate, but in the case of the IRS why is it the case? The 4th Amendment clearly protects the public from unreasonable search and seizures unless a warrant approved by a judge with supporting "Oath and affirmation" is issued. The IRS does not have to do this. Even though the 5th and 14th Amendments say Americans can not be "deprived of life, liberty, and PROPERTY (emphasis added)" without due process, the IRS can do that. The 7th and 8th Amendments discuss our right to a jury trial and excessive fines, but the IRS can change the rules putting the burden of proof on the accused in a trial and may through "jeopardy assessment" seize property and impose fines without a trial.

I am convinced the Founding Fathers would not approve of the unaccountable power wielded by the IRS. While reference to the Founders is not always popular with my progressive friends, they had a healthy distrust of concentrations of power (hence federalism, three branches of government, bicameral legislature, etc.) While the Founders may well agree with the necessary evil that is the income tax and a government bureau to collect it, the extraordinary investigative and prosecuting power of the IRS would draw protest and criticism from Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, and others (only Hamilton might think its a great idea). The challenge facing the government and voters (in light of the latest scandal) is how do we hold the IRS accountable for its actions, limit its abuse by political expedient politicians, while also investigating and punishing those that truly are tax evaders or "playing the system?"

I offer the following suggestions (which I admit I have not fleshed out at this point):

1. Simplify the damn code. When only one-third of IRS agents understand it then how are the rest of us suppose to do so? If there is less room for unintentional mistakes, then everyone benefits.

2. Follow the Constitution. Require a proper warrant to look at any personal records of any American, including the requirement that they must be notified when it s happening. Any punishment should be imposed by a judge or jury and not some IRS official. The IRS is not above an Americans right to due process.

3. An independent, bipartisan oversight group should be responsible for holding the IRS accountable not its own internal auditor because even if that person is doing their job the report can be filed away. I understand that this just enlarges government, but the IRS has proven historically and in recent weeks that it can not regulate itself.

4. Develop criteria for professional conduct that includes clear definitions and punishments. And get rid of "pleading the 5th" when questioning is job related. Protections against testifying against yourself should never have been applied to public employees when being questioned about a job related issue, especially when that testimony may involve the cover-up of a questionable practice for political purposes or protecting a higher level official.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Education Today

Who is in Charge?

What used to be a locally controlled system--public schools today are now beholden to the wishes of state departments of education, a federal Department of Education, multiple interest groups, textbook publishers, and the faux-intelligentsia at Schools of Education. One effect of this has been the decline of traditional administrators from positions of leadership to positions of facilitator.

There are basically three types of school administrators, and by that I mean everything from assistant principals (called Learning Directors in some schools so they can be paid less) to the superintendent of the district. This category does not include classified staff like secretaries, janitors, food workers, groundskeepers, bus drivers, etc. The original administrator was just that, a person hired to carry out the administration of a school with little curricular responsibility. They have largely disappeared. Thirty or more years ago curriculum and instructional methods was left up to the teacher in the classroom. Teachers at various grades or subjects in secondary schools knew what to teach and they used methods they were comfortable with to reach as many students as possible. Administrators watched and observed but had little role in curriculum formation or delivery. They ran the school according to Ed. Code and ensured that all the proper paper work was taken care of. They gave out awards at the end of the year, attended athletic events, supervised dances, etc.

The second type of administrator tentatively entered the field about thirty years ago. This person administrated like before but were also considered to be the "curriculum leader." This required a bit more effort and knowledge. Some administrators proved to be effective curriculum leaders because they had a fair amount of teaching experience and were generally from academic backgrounds (Mathematics, English, History, and Science). This is not to say that administrators with other backgrounds were not intellectual or effective, but to be so required much more work with the heavy emphasis on rigor, standards, testing, etc. after the release of A Nation At Risk. Many administrators forced into this new role failed. Unfortunately too many administrators are educators who want out of teaching or are only attracted by the higher salaries. About twenty years ago (I am still tracking down the article) the Wilson Quarterly published a research piece that showed school administrators and others pursuing a Masters Degree in Education scored the lowest on the GRE as compared to other subject areas. A 2002 study using GRE data showed Education majors ranked 27th out of 28 majors in terms of combined score and each of the three sub-categories. Only Public Administration majors ranked lower (that's interesting, and disturbing). It is no wonder that school administrators had a tough time filling the role of curriculum leader, especially in high schools where many teachers were better informed and simply smarter.

The third type of administrator, the "facilitator," evolved from the curriculum leader. Keep in mind that they could always administrate well, but so many administrators failed as curricular leaders that they were essentially demoted. So much of what we teach and how we teach it is now determined by the state, federal government, or passing fad of some educational think tank, that administrators are simply seen as conduits for change, or facilitators of change. Administrators, in addition to their traditional role, are now jetting around and getting all goose pimply about standards, assessment, super cool instructional strategies, making every student proficient or better, and embracing like a long lost cousin every unfounded, undocumented, crazier than a loon approach to education. And they do so without a critical eye (remember the GRE scores). They never ask why? Where's the research? I've been to some of these things. It blows me away when a presenter talks about how this strategy is backed by research but can provide no citation for that research. It's almost like a modern version of the snake oil vendor.

So what kind of administrators do we need? We definitely need the old fashioned kind. The ones trained in the law and code of education. The ones that can get the proper paperwork done on time. The ones who actually attend school functions. The ones who walk "the yard" during snack break and lunchtime. The ones who counter a teacher's tunnel visioned view of school (meaning from the purview of their classroom) with a wholistic picture of what school is. The one's who ask the simple question when decisions have to be made, "Is this good for kids?" We also need intelligent administrators who will be instructional leaders. They can not be curriculum leaders since no one can master all the subjects, but they should guide the academic life of the school, deferring to those with content expertise when needed. We need administrators with courage who are willing to ask, "Is this new instructional strategy or set of standards good for kids?"

Some thoughts on the role of the Superintendent. Why do we have them? Most are just great public relations people and that's it. In many ways principals and assistant principals want to be the kind of administrator we need but are hogtied. Much, much more needs to be demanded of superintendents. They make more money than anybody, but do the least amount in terms of actually impacting education. They have an easy out today, "I'm simply following the mandates of the state and federal governments." Bullshit! Someone needs to be "the leader" but with leadership should come responsibility. And responsibility requires courage. Too many superintendents are spineless and go around flaunting their low GRE MA's or PhD's. The public needs to hold superintendents accountable through the elected school board. I challenge you to find a quality school. I bet that school has an amazing superintendent. And poor performing schools have superintendents just sitting there raking in a paycheck waiting for that sweet payday on retirement.

I want to finish though by praising the great administrators I have known. The sad part is that they are all gone and probably would not survive in today's top-down, do as I say, facilitate the process system that has been created.

Posted with Blogsy

Monday Madness

Does America Really Care?

Do we care about Fast and Furious, or the IRS/Tea Party issue, or the AP phone record confiscation, or the fact that poor decision making led to four dead Americans at Benghazi? All the polls pint to the fact that we don't. While technology has progressed to the point where access to information is so easy (maybe too easy), people are busy Facebooking what they are eating, how they feel, what they are doing, and on and on. They seem to care more about their latest Angry Birds score, than they do government actions to stifle freedom of expression.

And what sickens me even more are the actions of people who are actually following the scandal stories. Too many conservatives/Republicans have their eye only on impeachment, while too many progressive/Democrats are willing to do anything to protect their beloved Barack Obama. Pretend Obama isn't even there! What then? Accountability does not simply disappear if Obama is not part of the picture. It's too early to scream "impeach him!" Until then....INVESTIGATE! What's wrong with that my liberal friends? What are you afraid of? Isn't the sanctity of the 1st Amendment and freedom of expression worth it? Isn't there enough evidence in these cases to warrant a deeper look, a Congressional inquiry, maybe even a special investigator?

Doing what's prudent is being lost in the political hyperbole. I was accused of this on Facebook a few days ago, even though all I said was that I was against impeachment but felt that these scandals deserved further looking into. Has reason totally left the room? When it comes to issues of freedoms (Bill of Rights stuff) and the Constitution it should not matter whether we are conservative or progressive. Violating the basic tenants of our government is the same either way. Has partisan bickering come to this. I applaud the handful of Democrats who have said these matters need further investigation and the handful of Republicans who have stated that impeachment talk is ridiculous right now.

Let's be honest with ourselves. Targeting a group because it has the word patriot or constitution in its name is wrong. Seizing phone records with no legitimate probable cause (even if a judge supposedly signed off on it) should be questioned. Ignoring a government that appears to be covering up a situation that led to four dead State Department workers should end in someone being prosecuted or their good name cleared of wrong doing. Who exactly is keeping tabs on the government if we don't?

Posted with Blogsy

Funny Friday!

Operation Save My Ass

The underground parking garage at the Gallery lPlace was deserted at 1am. The lights were low. "This is kind of scary," thought Vice-President Joe Biden. He stood where the note he received a few hours earlier said to be. He looked around nervously but saw nothing, but heard the steps, one after the other, coming closer and closer. He turned and there stood a man about an inch taller wearing a trench coat with two. Two other men stood in the background. Joe recognized them. Bill Johnson and Marcus Miller were part of the President's security team.

"He Mr. Pres....." Joe started to say but was quickly cut off. "I am not the President...." the man said. "But you sure look like him." Growling under his breath, "Dammit, Joe. I'm not the President. You can call me 'squeaky throat'." Biden was giddy with excitement. Secret names were fun. "What's my code name?" he asked. "How about....'the gnat'?" Joe was disappointed, "That's not very flashy." "Maybe not Joe but it's what I want you to be...like a gnat on the wall."

Squeaky throat went into detail regarding the mission. Joe 'the gnat' was to infiltrate and spy on the Tea Partiers. "The IRS screwed it all up. I told them clearly...I mean they have a set of ethical standards against discrimination that they did not follow. I got to know what's going on. These scandals are getting out of hand and I know I can count on you." "Yes, sir," replied Joe with a snappy salute.

The Gnat put his bird dog skills to work and googled Tea Party. He got more hits than an unveiled Christian woman in Tehran. Finally he found a list of upcoming rallies. There was one in Pennsylvania. Combing through his closet he finally found some cammies he had worn for a duck hunting photo op with the President. With some boots, a John Deere hat, and 'ole Betsy' (his double barreled shotgun) in one hand he admired himself in the mirror. "I look just like a Tea Party redneck."

That Saturday morning The Gnat pulled up to the rally. Getting out he felt out of place. There were a bunch of families looking like they were at an afternoon picnic. While a few men dressed like they were survivalists, when he spoke with them most were stock brokers, lawyers, business owners, and even teachers. Old Glory was waving everywhere. People were pleasant to him (even though they looked concerned about his shotgun). Caught up in the festivities of the event Joe bobbed for some apples, won the three-legged race with a sweet little girl named Jessie, and thoroughly enjoyed the fireworks show that evening. When the speakers began his fine tuned political mind kicked in, ready to detect any anti-government rhetoric. Instead he heard a lot of talk about limited government, responsible spending, the dangers of taxation, and reasons to keep America safe. Not real radical stuff he thought.

Joe "The Gnat" was back in the underground parking lot the next evening. "So what kind of craziness was going on Gnat?" asked the President. "Well Barack....I mean Squeaky Throat. Nt a lot. They were just regular Americans. It was kind of like a 4th of July picnic."

"No way. You sure? But that doesn't match the briefing I got from Axelrod. You didn't miss anything?" asked Obama. "Well I did miss out on Fred's bar-b-que ribs. They went fast and smelled so good." "Dammit Joe, that's not what I meant. Ok, I have another mission for you." Joe looked up excitedly. "You need to get the scoop on the AP scandal. Find out what those AP people know." "You got it boss Squeaky Throat."

"Why can't he just ask Malia about AP. She is taking an Adavanced Placement language class. Of well. College Board here comes The Gnat!"

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Thinking About History Thursday

Eli Whitney

(Note: As much as I really want to talk about the multi-scandal situation Obama has found himself in the middle of, I will stay true to me dedication of covering history on Thursday's.)

When asked, "What did Eli Whitney do?" the first thing out of everyone's mouth is, "Invent the cotton gin." At that point, at least in America's classrooms, the discussion ends. I like to follow up questions like this one with, "So what!" Why is it important to know? I like to explain exactly what a cotton gin does and how it works, which in my community shocks students. You see, we have cotton gins here in the Central Valley of California, but they are huge almost factory like structures. I show students some images of Whitney's gin, essentially a wooden box with a handle to crank and some blades inside which separate the fibers from the seeds, and they freak out.

However a discussion of what the gin was is not enough. An understanding of its economic impact is required. So images of the Lowell textile factories are shown and the connection between the increased demand for cotton as a result of the industrial revolution is discussed along with the important role played by Whitney's cotton gin in allowing for that demand to be met. Students then see the economic cycle of the South producing cotton to feed the factories of the North and the final product (various textiles) being sold in the US and overseas.

The answer to "so what?' is not complete though. There were social implications to Whitney's cotton gin. Many Founding Fathers believed slavery would wither away in the early 1800s because it had become less and less profitable as a method of labor. Then the cotton boom, fueled with the invention of the gin, changed all of that. Cotton was a labor intensive product, especially the ginning process, so it was like a shot of adrenaline to the slave system. So is Eli Whitney to blame for the continuation of slavery? Obviously not as there were other factors, not least of which the important role played by slaves in southern Aristocratic society. But some historians have made that connection and if we were to judge him based on our codes for modern industry then he deserves to be indicted on some charge as a contributing factor. I mean tobacco producers have paid hundreds of millions over addiction to and death as a result of cigarettes.

What most people do not know is that Whitney's most important contribution may well be the improvement in the method of production utilizing interchangeable parts. Whitney did not invent the concept but he took the idea of being able to make mechanical parts to such exact specifications that when something broke on a machine a custom made part was not needed because another similar part would fit. This was Whitney's contribution to what is known as the American System of Manufacturers and the efficiency of this system is what begins the rapid economic growth the nation experiences in the 1800s. He demonstrated, as the story goes, the idea in front of outgoing President Adams and incoming President Jefferson. He assembled muskets from what appeared to be random boxes of parts (they were actually labeled) and fired each musket. Granted there was some subterfuge in the demonstration but the weapons produced by Whitney's factory were considered superior by the US Army to all others so he was awarded a large government contract.

So, no Whitney is not responsible for the continuation of slavery, yes he was a bit of an inventor, and most definitely he was a shrewd businessman who went to great lengths to demonstrate and sell his product.

Posted with Blogsy

Day Of The Teacher!

I realize the National Day of the Teacher was May 7th but I work in a relatively rural (to my urban friends, backwards) community that is slow to catch on, so we celebrated this morning with a breakfast that rated maybe a 5 on a 1 (inedible) to 10 (culinary masterpiece) scale. Years of service awards were given (obligatory certificate and Target gift cards) and retirees honored. Nice, but nothing necessitating the title "Day of the Teacher." Personally, I would rather see the money wasted on these "recognitions" spent on classroom supplies ($70 a year only goes so far). It's like CVS or Rite Aid pushing you to get one of their "rewards cards." Yes its nice to get a discount every once in awhile but I'm sure everyone shopping there would like to just see the prices go down.

Anyway, the purpose of the day got me to thinking about my high school teachers. A fellow graduate of Palo Verde High mentioned recently to me on Facebook how lucky we were to have such great teachers in such a small isolated school. I agree whole heartedly. Whether it was just luck that we were in the right place at the right time or divinely inspired influence, I would like to single out five (plus one elementary teacher), although there were many great teachers.

Without Mr. Stinson I am convinced I would have flunked out of college my first year. I only had Mr. Stinson for a semester but the course was "Composition for College." Like the "trail boss" in charge of a herd of cattle, Mr. Stinson whipped, yelled, cajoled, encouraged, and muscled his students--his cows--down the trail of the writing process, with the goal being a well crafted, readable, properly notated research paper. That single skill and everything it called for--researching, note-taking, outlining, writing, revising, writing again, citing, etc.--saved me in college. Thank you Mr. Stinson.

My senior year I had Mr. Copeland for an Advanced Biology class. I didn't care much for science but Mr. Copeland was a dynamic and creative teacher. I will never forget the day he showed up for class (it was 1st period) with a big burlap bag. "Guess what I have for you today?" he said with a mischievous grin. Immediately he had everyone's attention. With a strange looking stick in hand he pulled out a snake. Memories fade, I want to believe it was a rattle snake but it might have been the non-poisonous gopher snake, either way there was a snake crawling around the floor with Mr. Copeland keeping it under control with his "snake stick." He went into a full anatomical lecture about snakes from memory using his live friend as a model. It was so cool! Mr. Copeland also required a research paper and I did mine on irrigation canals (because one ran in front of my house). I examined the plant and animal life supported by the canal and how it fit into the broader ecosystem of our little agricultural valley. Got an A, yep!

Coach Ramsey influenced my life in so many different and positive ways. While we may not have been very successful in terms of wins and losses, Coach Ramsey knew his role was more than just head football coach. He prepared me/us to be men. He stressed hard work, fair play, and showing a sense of class. While he may have often told his players to "pull their heads out of their asses" we all knew he meant, "think before you do." He emphasized all the time to carry ourselves with a sense of "self-respect." Other than a high-five or chest-bump he discouraged celebration after a big hit or touchdown. I can hear his words today, "Act like you have been there before men." Having been involved in coaching roughly half of my 24 years teaching, I have witnessed the best and worst head coaches have to offer. Coach Ramsey was one of the best.

We all knew if we got Mr. Gilmore to start telling stories about his college days or sports it meant free day for us. The beauty is that his stories had lessons in them too. Sometimes teachers today get so caught up in covering the material so Johnny or Jane can pass the state mandated test, we don't bother to offer insights to life and living. Granted this can be a slippery slope, but it is important to students to know their teachers faced challenges and have had issues in life. Too many kids today do not get that at home. Now, Mr. Gilmore was the most awesome math teacher ever, but he was also interested in us as humans. Just making that human connection in itself facilitates better learning and improvements in academic achievement. As a counterpoint, Mr. McMillian knew a lot about algebra but he was an ass to his students, thus not nearly as much learning occurred. Mr. Gilmore knew exactly where to draw the line between being our friend and our teacher, and we are better people for it.

Before I move on, I want to say a few things about a most amazing teacher, Ms. Parker. I have focused solely on secondary teachers, maybe because I am one, but in my formative years (2nd and 3rd grade) I had who may well be the best teacher in America. If an artist was asked to paint the portrait of the ideal elementary teacher it would look just like Ms. Parker. She was nurturing, smart, funny, firm, challenging and fair. She had her classes do things no other teacher would attempt, like re-enact lengthy plays, plan a cross-curricular unit around the theme of Christmas, end the year with a classroom Olympics with academic and sporting events selected and designed so everyone won something. Her gift though was doing all this fun stuff while also holding high academic standards and requiring students to demonstrate knowledge and skills. God bless you, Ms. Parker.

The most influential teacher I ever had was Mr. Edmundson. In many ways it was an odd couple relationship. Mr. Edmundson was tall, thin, liberal, and a 49er fan. I was shorter, thick, conservative, and a 49er hater. Unlike too many liberal minded (and maybe a few conservative ones) teachers today, he did not judge you based on your political ideas and he respected above all else informed opinion backed by facts and reason. He utilized creative ways to teach what could be a dry subject--US History. He gently nudged me into leadership roles as a student rep on the school site council, and as a key member of our Model UN Team. As the Model UN advisor, he gave about two dozen of us a chance to get out of isolated Blythe and visit college campuses in San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino. We got to interact with the so called "cream of the crop" from other schools. We had to learn speaking, thinking, and writing skills. But Mr. Edmundson let us be who we were too. While I'm still overweight, a 49er hater, and conservative, I am also a teacher sculpted from the legacy of Mr. Edmundson.

Teachers are like soldiers. General Douglas MacArthur said in his retirement speech, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away." I think that sentiment holds true for teachers, especially the good ones. Recognized or not the influence of a good teacher carries on in their students and maybe beyond. So whether still working, retired, or having passed on, thank you teachers of PVHS during the years from 1980-1984. You did good.

Posted with Blogsy

Education Today

Teachers Need To Get Off Their High Horse!

(I have spent the past couple months of Tuesdays tracing the history of schools and curriculum in America. I will now turn to the current crisis in education. I will look at a variety of topics like the role of the teacher, unions, parents, administrators, and government in education. In addition, I will look at current curricular movements and the dangers I see in them. These comments will not be received well by the education establishment.)

In 1990, as I was going through teacher training, one of my colleagues shared a story with our cadre of about fifteen people. His roommate was a first year law student and commented how he was going to make so much more money than the future teacher. Being a witty guy, my colleague responded, "That may be so, but I will always have the moral high ground." The rest of us laughed and nodded our heads in agreement. We do hold the moral high ground don't we. How naive I was back then.

To get respect you have to earn respect. The idea that a public employee in any field is owed respect due to their job--whether it be a cop, firefighter, or teacher--is ridiculous. Teachers more than any profession act as if they hold some sort of moral superiority over others. I have met and observed far too many poor teachers to buy into that anymore. Do good teachers work over Christmas break grading papers, during the summers going to workshops and perfecting their craft, volunteer umpteen number of hours supervising clubs or coaching sports--the answer is YES! Do some teachers not do those things--YES! While beginning pay may be low compared to similar professions, by the time a teacher has ten to fifteen years under their belt, when benefits are added in, they are making between 80K and 100K. Teachers need to shut up about pay and support requirements that makes real professional development mandatory in the summer. Don't get me wrong I think the teaching profession is one that requires some extended vacation time, but all teachers should have to strive toward becoming better. Maybe then respect will be earned.

Teachers need to start policing and criticizing themselves. The teaching profession is treated by most outspoken teachers as if it is some elite club, and its members better not criticize other members for fear of losing power. Well ignoring or making excuses for teachers who do not belong in the classroom only demeans the profession. LA Unified has close to 500 teachers being paid to not teach. That's right! They are under investigation by the district or law enforcement for inappropriate behavior, which generally means physical or sexual abuse of students. Granted, some of those are unfounded accusations, but most are not. The district wants to get rid of them, so they force them to go to work, meaning a special school where there are no students to teach, hoping they will quit. These folk just sit around reading, texting, blogging, whatever and are paid to do it. Even after getting rid of such facilities, New York City is paying out 22 million a year to teachers that are not allowed in the classroom. That equates to over 200 teachers. This is not acceptable, so please teachers, begin policing yourselves and tell your unions to end the job protection for those being investigated by law enforcement.

Finally, how are we to maintain "the moral high ground" when teachers refuse to speak up, whether its to their union, the district administration, the state department of education or national organizations. Too often teachers know that some curricular change is wrong for kids but because some "educationist" says its the thing to do we go along with it. (An "educationist" is someone who has a heavy influence on educational issues but little real experience teaching or administrating at a school.) Many, many math teachers knew the "New Math" was going to fail but didn't say anything. Many English teachers knew "whole language" was throwing the baby out with the bath water, but kept mum about it. Believe me, I get it. It's comforting to stay locked in your classroom. It's a safe zone away from the buzz of educational controversy. But there is a lot at stake here. And there is nothing moral about staying silent during times that try our souls.

So teachers, we do not hold the moral high ground. We are human, and human nature is full of frailties. The sooner we escape this egotistical veneer and come clean with whats right and wrong with education, the sooner real change for the better will happen.

Posted with Blogsy

Monday Madness

The IRS--Hit Squad or Diversion Squad

The Internal Revenue Service is not a separate independent agency but a department under the Department of the Treasury, thus part of the executive branch under the authority of President Obama. Some commentators have suggested that the IRS scandal is simply a smokescreen to take attention away from the more significant issue of Benghazi. I happen to agree with that analysis. Why? One, Obama is a disciple of the Saul Alinsky school of agitation, which preaches that no good crisis should go to waste but used to further one's political advantage. Two, Obama knew about the IRS problem long ago and was sitting on it for just an occasion as this one. Three, using the IRS for political gain and to attack political opposition is not new, in fact FDR perfected the tactic.

Let's begin with the last reason first. FDR got his New Deal passed through charm, wit, old fashioned politicking, and threats. The "stimulus" of programs like the CCC, WPA, PWA, and others would be withheld by FDR's administration to force compliance from opposition. Conveniently the IRS had recently been put under the authority of the Treasury Department. This pleased FDR greatly because the IRS was now firmly within the clutches of the executive branch and available for his manipulation. Don't get me wrong--yes other presidents of both political parties have used the IRS (George HW Bush against Ross Perot in 1992), but none like FDR and apparently BHO. Roosevelt ordered IRS investigations of opponents like Huey Long, Father Charles Coughlin, William Randolph Hearst, Hamilton Fish, and a host of 'political machines' that resisted FDR's authority. There are a number of important people like Henry Morgenthau and FDR's own relatives who have confirmed this. Obama has claimed he is a "student of history" and has referenced the influence of FDR on his own politics a number of times. The connection is there.

I do not believe Obama had any direct involvement in what the IRS did, but I also bet he has known about it for over a year. Not wanting any crisis (in this case future and potential crisis) to go to waist he held onto it until the moment was right. He could afford to do so because he knows he has deniability. There are others that can be blamed. While a similar case could be made (and I did so in an earlier post) that Obama could deny involvement in Benghazi, that seems to be less and less a sure thing. He either ordered a stand down of US forces preparing to rescue the people in Benghazi or can be implicated in a cover up. Remember, Nixon did not know about Watergate until after the fact but then made the poor decision to covertly make it go away.

So what will happen? Hard to say. Obama is a popular man among his constituency. It would take the defection of some key supporters and Congressmen to bring him down. In either case, he is the man in charge and ultimately responsible for his administration. It's way too late to try to use the "blame Bush" tactic. Regardless the American people deserve the truth, whether it exonerates the President or not.

Posted with Blogsy

What the heck is Lucky Forward?

I have had a few inquiries about my blog title. Here's the story. I did my Masters Thesis on General George S. Patton and learned that as commander of the 3rd Army he code named his HQ "Lucky Forward." Lucky because as prepared as an army may be it needs some luck to be victorious, almost like a divinely inspired luck (no offense intended my atheist friends, so don't blow a gasket). Forward because he believed a great general led from the front even if they commanded a quarter of a million men. I hope to move conservative thought forward and with some luck I will accomplish that. I encourage constructive debate about any issue I blog about but will not tolerate abusive behavior. Civil discourse is key to civilization. This blog will also hold true to the belief that words have meaning and ideas are important. So relativist, postmodernist, literary analysis or any other idiocy will be intellectually challenged and defeated (I hope).

Posted with Blogsy

Funny Fridays

Rushmore Rendezvous

Mount Rushmore in South Dakota was chosen as the site for a historic monument to four of the great presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. The project was to depict each from head to waist, but a lack of funding ended it in 1942; however, the heads had been completed, and in 1966, Rushmore was listed in the National Park Registry of Historical Sites.

What if those four presidents met today? What would they say? What would they think of modern America? I humbly offer my interpretation.

* * *

Like a scene from the next Terminator film, four flashes of blinding light lit up the Washington DC skyline, outlining the Washington Monument and in the distance the Lincoln Memorial. Four prostrate forms lay upon the grassy National Mall. Thankfully clothed, unlike a naked Arnold Schwarzenegger, the four got up and dusted themselves off.

"Mr. Jefferson?' asked a tall Gentleman dressed in an old blue uniform with a gold collar and epaulettes. His grey hair combed neatly and parted in the middle. Strength, honor, and determination exuded from him like an invisible but powerful force.

"General," replied a surprised Thomas Jefferson. "Sir, it is my privilege to be in your company once again." Jefferson wore tan trousers and waistcoat over which was a black jacket. His hair was also greying but hints of red still streaked his locks.

The other two men looked on in awe, realizing they were in the presence of greatness. One, who was even taller than General Washington, stood as straight as a young Aspen tree, wearing a tight fitting charcoal gray suit, and his signature trimmed beard. He looked to his left at the fourth gentleman but did not recognize him. "God has truly blessed me on this day to be in the presence of such greatness. Mr. Washington and Mr. Jefferson, I am Abraham Lincoln." The two Founding Fathers looked at each other and shook their heads, neither knowing the name. "I was the sixteenth President of these great United States."

The last man interrupted to clarify, "Mr. Lincoln presided during a time of great strife in our nation, the great American Civil War." Theodore Roosevelt stood apart from the others. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln were all at least four inches taller, but Roosevelt's powerfully build frame and granite like confidence made him their equal. Dressed in a brown knit suit and tie, Roosevelt's hair was cut short and proper.

"Civil War you say? Over what?" asked Mr. Jefferson. "Mostly slavery," replied Roosevelt.

"It was a dark time in our history," said Lincoln. "And what was the outcome of this clash of arms?" inquired Mr. Washington. "The northern states were victorious and the institution of slavery ended."

The General nodded in satisfaction as he turned to Roosevelt. "And who might you be?" Standing a bit straighter, Mr. Roosevelt replied confidently, "Theodore Roosevelt, twenty-sixth President of the United States."

"Sirs, the question we must answer is: why are we here?" said Jefferson. "And what is this strange, though mighty, obelisk?"

"Mr. Jefferson, it looks to me as if it is the completed Washington Monument," said Mr. Lincoln. "Indeed it is," added Mr. Roosevelt. "Just over 555' high and completed in 1885." Mr. Lincoln nodded his head in a slow rhythmic way so characteristic of his personality. "Construction began in 1848."

"It is blasphemous," muttered Mr. Washington. "We did not fight a war to simply raise monuments to worship presidents like a Roman emperor."

"All due respect sir, but without you the divinely guided blessings this nation has received would never have come to be," said Mr. Lincoln. "Hear, hear," replied Mr. Jefferson. As the four looked up at the towering monument, they failed to notice a young man wearing khaki shorts, tie dyed shirt, and Birkenstocks walk up behind them.

"Dudes, you all got monuments," said the fellow. "And who are you?" asked Mr. Roosevelt as his hand reached to his side where he usually carried a Colt Peacemaker. But no pistol was there.

"Marcus. Wow, you dudes look just like the Rushmore Four." Confused, Mr. Jefferson asked, "What do you mean by the Rushmore Four?" Swinging a purple backpack to the other shoulder Marcus explained, "There's this mountain, like in Idaho or something. Maybe it's Montana. No dude, I'm so freakin' stupid. It's in South Dakota." He shakes his head like a wet dog trying to dry. "Anyway, some artist/sculptor dude decided to put your faces on it. Like engrave them into the granite and shit. Hang on." Marcus dug into a pocket and pulled out a small squarish device. He tapped it a few times with his finger and then showed it to them.

"That's Mount Rushmore." They looked at the small screen. It clearly showed the images of all four of them sculpted into the side of a granite mountain. "What is this device?" asked Mr. Jefferson. "It's a smartphone. Wow, it just hit me...you guys got no clue about modern technology. Ha! Cool."

"What is your occupation, Marcus?" asked Mr. Washington. "I'm a student, man."

"What is a student-man?" inquired Mr. Roosevelt. "Ha! I am a student at Georgetown. A very prestigious institution of higher learning I might add. And we usually got a killer B-ball team." The Presidents looked at each other very confused.

"What subject are you studying?" asked Mr. Jefferson. "I'm an ethnic studies major," Marcus replied. "What the hell is that?' said Mr. Roosevelt, growing very irritated with their new friend. "We study the marginalized groups in society like African Americans, Asian Americans, Chicano Americans, shit like that." Mr. Roosevelt removed his glasses and rubbed his forehead, "And what does this 'major' prepare you to do?" Marcus thought about that for a minute and then smiled, "Go to grad school I guess. I hear the grad students throw killer parties."

"My God, is murder legal now?" said Mr. Lincoln. "No dude. Killer is another word for like awesome, great, or fantastic."

"So what is the state of this democratic union?' asked Mr. Jefferson. "Has it turned into the agrarian republic I prayed that it would." Marcus shook his head. "Not really. I'm from Detroit and there are factories and shit everywhere. Buildings forty stories tall. Cities are everywhere. Don't get me wrong. There still farms and stuff, but most people work in the cities.

"Blast it. Hamilton was right then," said Mr. Jefferson disappointedly.

"And the Constitution?" asked Mr. Washington. "Is it still the law of the land?" Marcus rubbed his chin as he forced himself to think about it, "Yeah dude. It's still the supreme code but some want to get rid of it." Shocked, Mr. Lincoln spoke up, "Who?" "Well, mostly the Democrats." Mr. Jefferson's head sank further. Not only was Hamilton right but Jefferson's own party wanted to destroy the Constitution.

"Hey don't get me wrong," Marcus replied quickly. "The Dems are way cool. They support government grants so people like me can get educated. They also support welfare, open immigration, gay marriage, abortion (some even after the baby is born alive), government paid for healthcare, taxing the rich, getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and lots of other cool stuff."

"The 2nd Amendment!" yelled Mr. Roosevelt. "What idiot would want to do that! It's a guaranteed right, hence the term Bill of Rights." Marcus thought once again, "Well there are various groups calling for it but personally I think President Obama is for it too."

"President Obama? What kind of name is Obama?" asked Mr. Washington. "Not really sure but I think it's Arab or Muslim or something, but he is Christian." "It appears gentleman that our original thirteen states have grown across the continent attracting people from across the globe."

"Gentlemen, that sounds like good news," said Mr. Lincoln. "I believe we all envisioned a strong, dynamic nation of immigrants."

"The city has grown much since I occupied the White House," observed Mr. Jefferson. "Marcus, what is the function of all these buildings?" "It's the government, Mr. Number Three Prez." Jefferson shook his head in amazement and disappointment. "All of them? How big has the federal government become?"

"Dude, I got no idea, but hang on." Marcus fiddled with his smartphone again. "Looks like there are about two and a half million full time employees but that doesn't include military dudes."

"Unbelievable. There were less than four million total population in the 1790 census," said Mr. Washington. Mr. Jefferson stood practically speechless. "I guess limited government is a thing of the past too."

"I can speak to this gentleman," chimed in Mr. Roosevelt. "The nation had become more complex. When I was President actions had to be taken to reign in the excesses of monopoly, abuse of consumers, and government fraud and waste. It become prudent to increase the size and scope of the federal government."

"But Marcus, what is the state of the democracy? Is the nation what we presidents hoped it would be?" asked Mr. Lincoln. "Well, Abe. The 14th....or maybe it was the 15th Amendment gave all men, even if they weren't white dudes, the right to vote. Another amendment like in the 1920s gave chicks the vote." "Chicks?" "I mean women Mr. Washington. And even I can vote and I'm 19."

"Well fellow Presidents, I think that's a positive attribute," said Mr. Lincoln. "With your consent Mr. Lincoln, I would like to offer a criticism. While I will not criticize the extension of suffrage to the ladies, if I did I would never hear the end of it from Martha, if property qualifications were eliminated then does that not in some way corrupt the process."

"What you sayin' Mr. W?" asked Marcus. "Well Marcus, those without something to lose are easily swayed and will tend to vote for any promise that may benefit their station, thus any statesman can offer them services in exchange for their vote." Nodding his head in understanding, "Now I see where you're coming from."

"What would compound that issue," added Mr. Jefferson, "would be giving the government the power to levy excessive taxation such as a tax on income." "But we have an income tax," said Marcus. "What?!" "Yeah, for like a hundred years now. Actually, if I remember right from my one history class, Abe got one passed."

"Ah umm...In my defense we were in the middle of a mighty conflict that was very expensive," said Mr. Lincoln. "The Supreme Court ended up ruling the law unconstitutional," said Mr. Roosevelt. "But the 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, got an amendment, the 16th, passed making the income tax legal."

"Marcus, that simply makes matters worse," interjected Mr. Washington. "Giving government the power to levy excessive taxes becomes a corrupting influence. The only action to prevent its abuse is for voters to closely monitor their representatives for spending abuses. When too many voters are dependent upon those very same expenditures, then a cycle of corruption has taken hold of prudent, wise governing."

"Well I never learned that in school," Marcus replied. "But somehow it makes sense. My professors say the government is responsible for taking care of its citizens."

In unison the four presidents shout, "No!"

"Government exist to ensure basic liberties and guarantee equality of opportunity. If government does more it stifles the passion of the people to succeed, work hard, make themselves better," lectured Mr. Jefferson.

"Gentleman, it seems to me the nation is in need of another revolution," said Mr. Roosevelt.

"Hear, hear," they replied.

Posted with Blogsy

Thinking About History Thursdays

Religion and the Founding of the Nation

"Religion is the basis and Foundation of our Government." James Madison, June 20, 1785.

Nothing enrages a modernist more than a statement such as this. Whether a true atheist, a postmodernist intellectual, an evolutionist, or a homosexual, the mere mention of religion's role in the formation of America is to them outrageous and a violation of their interpretation of things. I find fault in this analysis in two ways. One, rejecting tradition or anything "old" does not mean you are right. Fear can easily be quantified by a "google" search. When I did so for this blog entry, there were as many sites claiming the Founders were not Christian and that the country was in no way founded on Christian principles as there were those supporting the notion. In this case the numbers do not equate to being right but simply to being afraid (who could in their right mind be afraid of Jesus). Two, there is simply too much evidence showing that religion, particularly Christianity, was an integral part of the development of what I will call for lack of a better term American Democracy.

The fearful attempt to label religion based on extremists, zealots, or fundamentalists is unfair at the least and borders on intellectual dishonesty. This is not to say that at times those groups have not been influential, but to characterize all Christians as anti-science, war mongering, ignorant radicals is grossly inaccurate. Even the religiously moderate Thomas Jefferson wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" Madison said before the General Assembly of Virginia in 1778, "We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity...to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." Writing to the President of Yale University in 1790, Benjamin Franklin (another critic of religion) said, "As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world has ever saw, or is likely to see."

My point is that religion did influence the Founders in substantial ways and hence the forming of this great nation. The Great Awakening of the early 1700s preached equality before the law and one's right to question authority, both fundamental prerequisites for what's to come in the 1770s and 1780s. The Founding Fathers recognized, learning from history, that a republic or democracy can implode on itself without a firm moral compass. Athenian Democracy fell into chaos during the Peloponnesian Wars because the city-state lost its moral values, it's sense of right and wrong. The Roman Republic followed the same pattern as people began to demand bread and circuses instead of hard work and ethical behavior.

Dear Readers, don't get me wrong. Plenty of death and suffering has occurred due to blind faith in some religious cause; however, religion was the primary belief system throughout history. Only in recent times have alternatives (ie. science, atheism, communism) been offered, and to argue that those systems hold some kind of moral high ground is fallacious. The Greek historian Thucydides observed that the one constant in history is human nature, and as a result we are doomed to repeat the horrors that history teaches us. If religion was non existent, human nature still remains and thus there will still be abuses, discrimination, war, etc. But to deny the role played by religion in the founding of this nation, as much as some may want to ignore it, is an injustice to the truth.

Posted with Blogsy

Benghazi-gate

And the most insensitive comment of the week goes to.....Rep. Elijah Cummings. He had the nerve to say, during the Benghazi hearings that "death is part of life." Now, few would disagree in general with this statement, but when used in reference to four people serving this nation, it is inexcusable. Even the Ancient Greeks who had a very tragic view of life recognized the difference between death as part of old age, illness, etc. and then death in war. Death in war is sacrifice that deserves respect and honor. Even the Greeks took a low view of generals who made bad decisions or huge blunders that cost the lives of their soldiers. In such cases those generals were at the very least voted out of command and in most cases exiled to a distant land or executed.

So, Mr. Cummings, what happened at Benghazi is much more than your simpleton view that death is part of life. I would be the first to argue that those serving our nation in combat zones know the risk and the possible dangers involved. But, if this is a case of neglect on the part of any military officer, government official, or administration personnel, then someone has to be held accountable. So who knew and when? That's the job of Issa's committee. It is important, not just in terms of Ambassador Stevens and his security detail that were killed but for future diplomatic missions to war torn areas. Who would take on such a task knowing that the government may simply abandon them?

What makes this whole event more suspicious and Watergate-like, is the fact that the administration has tried to cover it up. Like some kid who just wrote on mom's coffee table in permanent marker, they shift the blame. First it was blamed on some YouTube video. Most terrorism experts laughed at that possibility. Then it was a spontaneous protest and was not planned. Now we know that wasn't the case. To put an "official" look on the story, poor Susan Rice is paraded on TV to regurgitate the same nonsense. Between the election, Sandy Hook, sequester, and other "crises" the administration successfully deflected the public's attention. This obviously proved too much for some officials connected with the incident. Some very important and credible people are now testifying before the Issa committee. My friends, that is courage. They know that the Obama smear machine will drag them through the mud but they are testifying anyway.

I have a few theories on this subject. #1-Susan Rice was made National Security Advisor (doesn't require confirmation) so that if Benghazi gets bad she will be the "fall guy," the one who will accept the blame. This is obviously a lame idea because how much power does a UN Ambassador have? But it might be enough to put the scandal to rest. #2-If the Rice plan doesn't work, Obama will throw Hillary under the bus. He probably has information that will not make her look good and it will kill her chances to be the Democratic nominee. Bill will be pissed, because he's so hoping to be the First Dude (or should I say First Player). #3-Obama may very well be impeached by the House. Most Americans have no idea how the process works. Being impeached means you have been officially charged with misconduct and the case then goes to the Senate for a trial. Prediction-if Obama is impeached, he will be found not guilty in the Senate based on a purely partisan vote. Even if incriminating evidence comes out, Obama is the new teflon President. He has swag, charisma, an aura. If he didn't he never would have been re-elected.

So Benghazi will not be another Watergate. Being responsible for four deaths is more serious than ordering a cover-up of a stupid politically driven covert op, but Obama will not be held accountable for the reasons i have listed. Too bad, because this matters. Integrity matters. And Libs, don't lecture me on Bush. This event is a 100% Obama fiasco. From the support given during the Arab Spring to Benghazi, the administration has made a series of blunders. The unfortunate thing is that lives were lost at Banghazi.

Posted with Blogsy