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

The Evolution of Curriculum, Part Six

A Nation at Risk

In 1983, America truly appeared to be a Nation at Risk. Politically and economically we were losing our advantages in the world. Communism was still strong as an alternative doctrine, and it looked like our World War Two enemies of Germany and Japan were catching up and even surpassing us in technological development and production techniques. One of the culprits was public education, which was the focus of the report, "A Nation at Risk."

The decline in performance on SATs and other standardized tests prompted the call for the report and subsequent reform. Verbal scores on the SAT had dropped about 50 points from 1963-1980 and math was little better,dropping 40 points. Students could not draw inferences, write persuasive essays, or demonstrate a basic knowledge of US History. The report made 38 specific recommendations. Some of the more significant were: mandatory 4 years of English, 3 years of math, 3 years of social science, 3 years of science, and a semester introduction to computer technology. The report also called for state level standards correlated with a testing program to measure student progress in at least math and English. A more controversial (although common sense) suggestion was to lengthen the school day and extend the number of days from 180 to 200 or even 220. Tied to this would be strict criteria for hiring qualified teachers competent in their academic subject, and to encourage quality people to enter the field salaries would be professionally competitive. The report also called for an increased role to be played in education by the federal government in terms of standards and financing.

While many of these recommendation were embraced by schools, like the added years for academic subjects and development of standards and testing, others were not practical for financial reasons like the extension of the school day and year, and increasing teacher salaries. The report also spawned the growth of one hundred and one "fixes" in terms of new curricular ideas, instructional techniques, educational structures, and some "snake oil vendor" types riding the wave of government funding.

In future posts I will deal with specific educational programs and concepts, but for now the Nation at Risk report opened a floodgate of new reform concepts. Most of these were rehashes of old ideas, many stemming back to the days of John Dewey. One consultant firm promoted cooperative learning, even though teachers knew only one or two within a cooperative group did the work. Another pushed for a back to basics approach, which failed because classrooms were now heterogeneous, meaning students of all ability levels were present in one class, so "back to the basics" would be different for each student. This was accompanied by another instructional idea called "differential learning." Sounds good but to this day no one has ever showed me how it can work (I've been teaching 24 years).

Other ideas had political repercussions. The "Outcome Based Education" model stressed rigor through project based learning. It went even further though, emphasizing a restructuring of what the school and classroom looked like. It stressed "student-centered" curriculum in which "constructed" knowledge based on their own experiences and what they were taught, even if their conclusions were totally wrong. Basically the OBE approach embraced highly progressive ideas of education and demeaned the very idea of knowledge and truth (I know I'm getting judgmental here--so what its a blog). Eventually the movement lost steam, especially when parents learned that students were being asked to write essays about how they felt about the relationship between Scout and Atticus (in To Kill A Mockingbird) instead of something significant like how the book illustrates racial attitudes of the 1930s.

While educational outcomes have changed little since 1983, the role of the federal government has increased significantly in public education. What is often times neglected is that comparing test scores from the 1960s with today is like comparing a Ford Fusion with a Ferrari. There is no basis for comparison. In 1963 most of the minority population did not attend school or at least did not attend schools where anglo kids did. Only the truly college bound took the SAT in 1963, while today at least a third if not half of s high school's senior class takes it. Scores are bound to drop or stay flat when those factors are calculated.

Look forward to me bitching some more on Tuesday's about the idiots running our schools, and the ridiculous ideas impacting student performance.

Posted with Blogsy

Monday Madness

Obama's Middle East Policies Suck! Dude!

Kerry: Mr. President, the Middle East is exploding right before our eyes. You must do something!

BO: John, they love me there. I supported their Arab Spring along with Summer, Fall, and Winter.

Kerry: Mr. President, have you been looking at the front pages.

BO: No, I have not. The construct of the newspaper is full of literary devices that say one thing but mean something else. It is all relative anyway. If we deconstruct the text using Foucault, then you arrive at a derivative meaning of nothingness which we can then reconstruct within an Alinsky paradigm and arrive at our desired outcome.

Kerry (looking really confused): Just look at this (he tosses a paper on the desk).

BO: See they love me.

Kerry: (growing irritated) They are burning you in effigy!

BO: That's me? (Kerry nodding) I thought that was Dennis Rodman. Shit John, we need a new policy. Get W on the phone.

 

Foreign policy is a complex beast. In my 11th grade US History class the Progressive Era foreign policies are taught like this: Theodore Roosevelt mastered the "big stick" approach (military); Taft specialized in Dollar Diplomacy (money); and Wilson embraced Moral Diplomacy (politics/negotiation). The lesson is concluded with an activity that foreign policy is really a combination of those three things. But those things are simply tactics, not goals. Without clearly established goals and a firm grasp of what you want to see accomplished in any given region of the world, then the tactics mean nothing.

Barack Obama has no set goal for the Middle East. He can talk about peace, but that has been the goal for thousands of years. Goals in a region wracked with turmoil must be limited and focused. The only real goal I can detect in Obama's Middle East policy is a strong desire to distance himself away from Israel. In fact, any nation that was even neutral or somewhat friendly toward the US has been alienated (with the exception of Saudi Arabia). While Mubarak and Gaddafi were not nice guys they did promote stability and a secular system. I find it unbelievable that the Obama administration did not recognize the door that was opened to Islamists with the Arab Spring episode.

I really can find no blame with Obama's Iran policy, because its no different than our previous stances, "Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons." My concern is whether Obama has the guts (balls if you prefer) to actually strike if needed. I do think all past administrations did not do enough in terms of espionage to promote and enable opposition groups within Iran to challenge the current theocracy.

Regarding Palestine, Obama spends a lot of time playing nice and kissing up to the Muslims there. Even they protest his leadership and efforts. But he still tries to win them over. Someone needs to whisper in his ear, "Mr. President, this is not your constituency back in the states. You're not going to win them over with your 'cool' factor." In doing this he has alienated our most important ally in the region: Israel.

This is what concerns me the most. It is obvious to even the left that the Israelis feel snubbed by the President. Netanyahu hates him. Why? Why is the President distancing himself so far from Israel? The country has provided the US with valuable intelligence and support in the war on terror. Obama and his advisors don't seem to understand that these rogue nations and groups operate by a different set of rules more reminiscent of "realpolitik" than collective security.

So the question is, "Did Israel notify the US before they bombed targets in Syria this past weekend?" The answer seems to be a resounding NO. If so, that may be the first time Israel has taken that type of unilateral action without at least notifying the US. It speaks volumes in terms of our standing there. The President has nothing to hang his hat on in the Middle East. His charm and throwing away of money (jets to Egypt) will not change how they feel about us. But that shouldn't matter. It's world politics, not a 5th grade classroom. It's more important to be respected than befriended.

Posted with Blogsy

Funny Fridays

History as interpreted by five year olds.

 

 

 

A Progressive Paradise!

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Thinking About History Thursdays

Aaron Burr

Rarely, oh so very rarely, television commercials do a great service to history teachers. The perfect example is the "Got Milk: Who Shot Alexander Hamilton" commercial. You remember it (unless you are under age 25). The nerdy guy sits in some archivists room surrounded by memorabilia from the famous duel between Hamilton and Aaron Burr. In one corner are the pistols, in another the bullet, on the wall a painting of the event at Weehawken. The radio announcer says, "Now for the ten thousand dollar question. Who shot Alexander Hamilton?" The nerdy fellow grabs the phone, dials, mutters out an unintelligible answer, reaches for the milk, "No!" it's empty, and he doesn't win.

For the first fifteen years of my teaching career every kid knew about the famous duel from that commercial, but now it has disappeared from the airwaves (it is on YouTube though). A great commercial about a fascinating though disturbed individual. Aaron Burr's life is a riches to rags tale. He could have been one of the significant Founders but ended up being accused of treason and finally perished a poor and broken man.

Burr was born and raised in New Jersey before the Revolutionary War. He went to what will become Princeton and got a degree in theology, although he would end up being a lawyer. Coming from a well off and influential family, Burr quickly rose through the ranks of the Continental Army during the war. With Hamilton, he was on General Washington's staff and distinguished himself in battle, being know for his very accurate shooting. Physical impairments, although some historians would argue it was petty jealousies, caused him to resign his commission in 1779. He reentered the field of law and after the war rose in prominence as a New York politician. Burr worked to promote the new Democrat Party in New York which put him at odds with the other prominent politician from New York, Alexander hamilton.

As a reward for his efforts and the fact that he was a northerner, Burr was on the ticket with Jefferson for the presidency, but back then it was not a true political ticket. The plan was for Jefferson to win and Burr come in second (thus being the VP) but instead it was a tie in the Electoral College. Hamilton saw this as an opportunity to undercut Burr, since Hamilton considered Jefferson the lesser of the two evils. Burr became VP but was not happy. He did not particularly like Jefferson and the feeling was mutual. Burr ran for the New York governorship in 1804 but lost. He blamed Hamilton for the defeat.

The relationship between Hamilton and Burr deteriorated badly during the spring of 1804. It reached a point where Burr demanded satisfaction through a duel. Although dueling was technically illegal, the law was often ignored. Hamilton reluctantly agreed, believing that they would follow standard protocol and both miss thus maintaining the integrity of the duel, saving face, and keeping their lives. Both were skilled shooters, so playing out the charade would have been easy. It didn't turn out so well. Hamilton fired and intentionally missed Burr. Burr fired back and his shot struck Hamilton, causing a fatal wound. It is unclear if Burr intentionally killed Hamilton but accounts from friends and family from that year describe a man obsessed with power, feelings of betrayal, and sheer anger.

Surprisingly, Burr was kept on as VP and not much results legally. Burr's reputation though was destroyed. He became the most hated man in Washington D.C. Unhappy, Burr finally resigned and left the capitol. The story doesn't end though. Burr got caught up in a scheme to foment a war between Spain and the United States. He met secretly with representatives from Spain and England. Spain wanted New Orleans and England wanted revenge from its loss during the Revolution. The plan fell apart when a unit from the US Army showed up. Burr was captured and put on trial for treason. He was acquitted because no actual action stemmed from the planning. Chief Justice Marshall argued that the mere talk about and planning for any insurrection was not technically a treasonous act. Jefferson wanted it all to just go away, so there was little assistance from the White House and in fact Jefferson used executive privilege to impede the prosecutions case (ie. Nixon and Watergate). Burr was released and he left the country.

Burr bounced around Europe for a few years poor and destitute. He tried to enlist with Napoleon's Army but was rejected. The last of his savings disappeared. Finally in 1812 (war had just begun between America and England) he returned to the US and resumed his law practice. Few offered him cases. He remarried in 1833 but soon sought a divorce when he realized his new bride was running out of her inheritance money. Burr died not long after--poor, destitute, and a pariah in American History.

Posted with Blogsy

Middle of the Week Angst

Work

Five and a half weeks left in the school year and everyone is going nuts. The change in the weather makes all of us crazy, especially the kids. I peer out the window fantasizing about summer, fishing, and sitting contently reading a good book and puffing on a big maduro. I know what so many non-educators will say, "You're so lucky to have summers off." Yeah well, teach six classes of 35 students five days a week and within the week you will know what I feel like. There's lots of thankless jobs, but many get respect--police officer, fire fighter, etc. Teachers don't get it much; not that I need it, because I don't. But please shut the fuc__ up and don't bitch about education. What most critics don't realize is that many teachers spend their so called vacation time preparing for the next year, attending professional development workshops (we are required to show a couple hundred hours of it to renew credentials every five years), traveling to places and doing things that make them better teachers.

When is a chicken not a chicken?

A chicken is always a chicken, so let's call it for what it is. Granted some may be Rhode Island Reds and some Cornish, and some just cartoon characters but they are all chickens. The point being that words have meaning and we shouldn't be afraid to call it for what it is. The same holds true for terrorists. A number of news pundits, so called experts, politically correct intellectuals, and ill informed politicians want to avoid offending anyone's sensitivities by using different labels for the Boston Bombers. Why?

It is clear now that while the Tsarnaev brothers were influenced by radical Islam. By radical I am talking about the variety that sees the West as a cultural and political enemy, almost the antithesis of Islamic theocracy. They may not have been the al-Qaeda/Wahhabi driven variety but the most definitely were Islamist terrorists, so let's call them that. Hell, two accomplices that helped them drove a Mercedes with the license plate "Terrorista #1". I have been in a prolonged debate on Facebook with two gentlemen who have different opinions. One sees radical Islam as no different than any other religion and professes the superiority of atheism. The other buys into the blame America first view and points to our activities in the Arab world as the cause of terror today along with our two-faced support for it through oil purchases from the Persian Gulf.

My counter to gentleman #1 is that while atrocities have been perpetuated by pretty much all religions in the past, Christianity in particular has recognized such transgressions. While appropriate amends may not be realistic the mere recognition of un-Christian acts is both recognized and taught in schools. While emphasis is placed on the brutality of the Crusades, little is mentioned of the Muslim barbarism to convert "by the sword" as Islam marched through North Africa and into Europe. I emphasize that Christianity has evolved in a framework influenced by Greco-Roman thought which values the questioning of actions and religion. "Is this the moral thing to do?" Not that the church always follows the answers to that question but there is internal self examination and criticism. None of that occurs in Islam which grew within a non-western philosophical framework. As for atheism, many mass murdering modern governments (Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao) butchered tens of millions in the name of atheism. Solzhenitsyn emphasized that one reason for theatrocities in Russia was in fact the absence of religion as a moral guide. Evil is evil and it is found in all religions, creeds, and ideologies.

My counter argument to gentleman #2 is that he takes a relativist, politically correct, "thats how it is taught in school" view of Islam. I will be the first to stand up and say 99% of Muslims are good people, I have had them as students, neighbors, etc. However #2 does not recognize the influence extremist views of Islam, particularly Wahhabism, has on the religion as a whole. Dissent in a Muslim controlled country is not allowed. Freedoms are not protected. Women must cover up, be silent, and not attend school. While the Christian faith stands up as one to denounce someone like David Koresh or those that bomb abortion clinics, you do not see that same mass movement in the Islamic world. As individuals in America, sure, Muslims privately denounce the actions of the Tsarnaev brothers, but as a religion united, no they don't. To blame America is a fallacy in logic. While I am now not a supporter of nation-building, to lay blame on a third party like the US (ie. We buy oil from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis support terror. Thus we support terror against ourselves.) gives those that should be held accountable a pass, a get out of jail free card. Should Eli Whitney be held accountable for the extension of slavery because he invented the cotton gin? Many believed slavery was ready to die in 1800 because it was not economically sound, but the cotton gin and subsequent rise in demand for cotton was a shot of adrenaline into the institution of servitude.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for ending oil imports from the arab region but that means developing our oil resources, pipeline, shale, fracking, etc. I don't see our environmentally obsessed, politically correct President or Congress doing that. So not buying from arab countries means a drop in supply which means an increase in price. Screw middle American again!

So let's just call a chicken for what it is. Let's call a terrorist for what they are. Let's teach our kids that words have meaning and ideas are important before it's too late.

Posted with Blogsy