Liberals and Modern Education... or Lack Thereof

With education clearly on the decline in the nation’s public schools, one has to ask why it is happening. There is a movement afloat which began in the 1920s which theorized that there was too much information available to be taught and that new information was created at a rate that defied the ability to have it taught. The theory suggested that a better way to educate the young was to “teach them to think” rather than teach facts. Using that theory, mathematics, history, and science were placed on the back burner and “life skills” and “life adjustment” classes were prioritized. We have now had many years of those theories and to be honest, they suck. To paraphrase another writer, there is no use in being able to think if you have nothing to think about.

One could argue that the purveyors of those theories didn’t understand what was being taught in the first place. While it is true that most people not involved in science, engineering, finance, architecture, etc. don’t use higher mathematics on a regular basis, the theorists completely misunderstood mathematics education. While mathematics education does teach students how to manipulate and solve equations and problems, that is only one part of the class. More importantly, mathematics teaches students how to approach any problem rationally and to be careful in what assumptions you make. Problems need to be solved in a step-wise manner in which each step must be justified and not left to whim, chance, or assumption. Many times in mathematics, the real answer to a problem is not what the answer is intuitively. Additionally, when an answer is obtained using firm and true assumptions and steps based on correct technique, one can be confident that the solution is solid and reliable. This approach is valuable to almost everyone every day. Systematic problem solving is a valuable life skill and is arguably much more important than how you “feel” about the problem. As an aside, mathematics is important to the daily life of US citizens in that the current Congress certainly has demonstrated that they have no mathematics skills.

History classes tend to be criticized as rote memory of names and dates. If taught correctly, they are anything but that. The early history of the United States, for example, is a drama worthy of any novel or made for television movie. The founders of the United States were not homogenized in their views and goals. There was much consternation about splitting with Great Britain and even more dispute on the proper construction of the government once the revolution was won. The Constitution barely passed. The study of those people tells students not only who those people were but what this country was intended to become. It tells why these people were willing to die to create a way of life where individuals, not a monarch, held sway over their own lives. The founders were real people with differing thoughts and goals, not caricatures on different currency denominations. To be able to take a side in a political discussion, educated citizens should not only understand current issues but how the country got to be where it is and what it was in the past.

Science, at its core, is the search for the truth. Scientists are sometimes accused of being amoral because they do not subscribe to determined agendas. The true scientist takes the data presented and analyzes the data to determine where the real truth lies. Real science is reproducible and does not change with varying researchers. That is why true science is “open source”. Conclusions are only valid when someone else can do the same work and get the same result. When there is disagreement, it is because the data is conflicting when studied by many, not because a political or financial agenda is overshadowing the work. The ability to remain objective and unbiased is a very useful skill in everyday life and is difficult to achieve without education. If anyone watches opinion shows or reads the newspaper, they will realize objectivity is a resource surely lacking.

Political leaders who have nefarious objectives have always sought to “dumb down” the population because it is much easier to mislead and take advantage of an ignorant mob than an educated population. Educated populations ask tough questions and demand accountability from the leaders. In a representative form of government, the government functions best and is predicated on having an educated people. The founders realized that.

The conservative political philosophy encourages individual decision making and liberty. The liberal political philosophy encourages elite groups of leaders to make decisions for the population in their best interest. The assumption is denigrating in that the people are presumed to be unable to decide issues for themselves. It is therefore in the interest of liberals to have the population less informed and less educated and, conversely, in the interest of conservatives to have the population better educated so better individual decisions will be made. It is easier to guide the population to the liberal elites' interests if they are less informed and more dependent. The teachers unions are decidedly liberal, as evidenced by their devout support of liberal politicians. Perhaps that explains why the teachers unions oppose educational programs like the voucher program in Washington, DC which clearly produced better student results at half the taxpayer cost. Teachers colleges educate future teachers on the liberal 1920s theories of education and reinforce the “life skills” agenda. The old saying is “When you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging”. The current educational philosophy in the United States public schools has consistently shown itself to be a failure. Why not go back to what worked and teach people how to think while they actually learn some factual information? Consider it a bonus.

Using Health Care Reform To Control Everything

The current administration is talking about the health care "crisis" and is prepared to spend over one trillion dollars to insure about 16 million people (of their estimated 40 million without insurance). That works out to about $62,500 per person. Why not just buy them a policy at a few thousand a year and save a bunch of money? Because that is not what this is about. I wrote an earlier article about the differences between the liberal and conservative philosophies and how the liberals always think they are smarter than everyone else and therefore want to determine how everyone else behaves and lives. Health care is the ultimate weapon of control. How can that be, you may ask? What is wrong with insuring people who have no health care now? Nothing, on the surface. Let's look a little closer at some of the issues.

President Obama said he wants to remove waste and overcharging by physicians. This is a straw man argument. There are already massive amounts of regulation and remedies for physicians who do that, in the way of both regulatory and criminal statutes. It is total nonsense to say new programs are needed. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services stated that she wanted to protect physicians from liability if they practiced with (paraphrasing) "accepted standards". There in lies the rub. The entire idea here is that the government will financially twist the arms of physicians and hospitals to dictate care. They keep repeating the mantra that physicians should be in charge of medical care. Physicians will be free to make their own decisions. The only problem is that if the government disagrees, the physician doesn't get paid. Sounds like Chicago in the 1920s. Capone would be proud.

The government in the United States has a several hundred year history of taking good intentions and totally screwing them up. One of the reasons for this is that they try to write centralized regulations for currently about 300 million people. It is impossible to do and consider individual circumstances. Even much simpler issues (drug policy, transportation, weapons, etc.) have varying circumstances in different states. What you end up with is exception after exception added to the rules until you have the United States tax code (which no one, even the Internal Revenue Service, understands).

If a doctor decides a patient needs a drug and the government wants the patient to get another one, no payment. If your doctor tells you that you need surgery and the government disagrees, pay for it yourself. Actuarial tables will be used to determine who gets what. If you are over a certain age, head on down to the Soylent Green plant because you aren't getting anything that costs money.

But alas, it gets worse. Because the government decides who gets paid benefits and how much, it is easy to creep forward in logic. For example, if you engage in a dangerous activity (skydiving, scuba diving, bungee jumping, etc.) it is easy for the government to say you have to pay more for premiums or we just don't cover you. Okay. But it isn't a big step to say, if you smoke or are overweight, the same thing applies. There is already use of cigarette taxes to fund stop smoking programs. Hmmm. If you stop in McDonalds, you will pay a surcharge to cover the health care cost of eating a cheeseburger or french fries. There can be a dessert tax. You can get a break depending on what kind of car you drive, what kind of groceries you buy, what kind of hypoallergenic make up you use, if you take vitamins, if you are in a monogamous relationship, or if you limit yourself to two beers at the Fourth of July picnic. But how can we tell who deserves these premium benefits and coverage additions? Well, clearly we have to keep track of what people are doing so the government will know who to benefit. The government can track your vehicle registration, your purchases at the grocery store, your exercise log, your sex partner registration, your fast food purchases, if you bought condoms, or if you ate a second piece of cake at the birthday party. It's for your own good. I am from the government and I am here to help you.

Government will tell automobile manufacturers what kinds of vehicles they can make (already happening with General Motors). Government will determine which restaurants can stay open and what they can serve by imposing "unhealthy food" fees. Government will tell you which hobbies you can and cannot have and when you need to lose weight. It's okay though, because it is for your own good. Because anyone who is not liberal or progressive is too stupid to realize what is good for them individually, it is the government's responsibility to make decisions for them.

It is easy to take those steps in logic, just like it was easy to go down the path of eugenics in Germany in the 1930's. That didn't work out very well. Is this something we really want to do? Like they said in The Incredibles, "When everyone is super, no one will be". Take anyway people's right to individual decisions about their life, and there is no freedom and some would argue that it isn't a life worth living because we become cattle. The very basis of this nation's founding will have been killed. This is not about health care. It is about control.

The Liberal versus Conservative Philosophies

I noticed that the Democratic Congress is talking about another bogus stimulus package. Everyone who paid attention knows that the first stimulus package was not intended for stimulus or, if it was, it was only a peripheral goal. The idea of that package was to use the crisis to advance liberal programs which would not have been passed through the normal appropriations process. By bundling them up in the package, the Democrats could get a lot of their long stalled programs into law. It was a total scam. President Obama used the Bill Clinton tactic of running as a moderate but has since shown his true colors as a far-left liberal. Let’s look at some of the fundamental differences in the philosophies between liberals and conservatives.

The overwhelming viewpoint of liberalism is arrogance. The view of liberals is that the population needs guidance and caring from the government. They are maternal in attitude. The liberals feel that the government has to be maternal because the liberal officials in government are so much smarter than the population. The fundamentals of conservatism include the concept that people can think and choose for themselves and that an individual or family will know better what they need for their own situation than program directors in the government. You will notice that states where there are large numbers of farmers, ranchers, and others who are used to living independently and making their own decisions are almost exclusively conservative and represented by conservative Republican or moderate Democrat officials. The states primarily in the north east and in the rust belt where people primarily live in large cities and depend more on government infrastructure tend to be Democratic. Much was made of the recent Democrat wins in 2008 but if you paid attention you would notice that a lot of the newly elected members of Congress were moderates, like Rep. Heath Shuler in North Carolina. I find the liberal attitude insulting and demeaning. The idea that someone who has never met me, knows nothing of my own or family situation, and has less education than I do, can tell me how to run my life because they are smarter than me is insulting and arrogant. The government is supposed to serve the people, not control their every day life. If you read the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, it is clear that while there are clear reasons to have a strong central government (military, commerce, treaties, etc.) the Constitution is primarily there to define what government is NOT supposed to do. Liberalism thinks that the government should constantly guide your decisions because they know so much more than you do. It is offensive.

Both liberalism and conservatism attempt to improve the financial standing of the general population. There is a great difference in the ways that the two philosophies go about it. In general, conservatives feel that the road to economic success lies in opportunities and restricting the amount of personal or business income that the government takes from the population in the form of taxes. The idea is that people, when provided opportunity, will improve their own situations based on their merit and work ethic. By allowing individuals and businesses to achieve success based on their own ideas and effort, people have incentive to work harder and innovate. By allowing people to keep more of what they earn and by providing opportunities for people to succeed, those at the lower income levels can improve their situation with hard work. Liberals go about this differently. Liberals feel that people of lower incomes are “victims of the system”. The way that liberals will improve the plight of those at the lower end of the economic spectrum is to take income away from the upper income earners and give it to the lower income group. It is denigrating to those who would like to improve their situation on their own. It is tantamount to saying that those without success are incapable of achieving it on their own. It is a philosophy of victimhood and once again shows that the overarching liberal philosophy is that they are smarter than everyone else. Conservatives want to raise the lower end of the economic spectrum and liberals want to lower the upper end by giving their earnings to the lower end. They call it “fairness”. It is a disincentive to work and innovate. How many times have you heard someone say, “Why work? The government is going to take it, anyway.” Of course, the liberal philosophy leads to socialism and eventually communism. The only difference is how far you are willing to go.

Recent program proposals by the current administration are evidence of the differing philosophies. The proposal for government-run universal health care demonstrates the arrogance of the liberal elected officials. I have written a number of pieces about it. The idea is that in order to reduce costs, the government is now going to tell physicians how to practice and to take away the right of successful earners to individualize their coverage. It is demeaning. While everyone agrees that reduction of carbon emissions is a worth while goal, the last ten years have shown a cooling trend on the Earth. Despite data to the contrary, the current administration wants to put in place a “cap and trade” system which will substantially impact the American economy. Their justification is “global warming” despite all data to the contrary. It is because they are smarter than the scientists.

The real common thread of liberalism which differentiates the philosophy from conservatism is control. Everything about liberalism allows the government to obtain power over the population in their daily lives. Once again, the reason that they want that power is because they truly believe they are smarter than the population and therefore should tell the population how to live. If you look at the very populations that the liberals have identified as those they are "lifting up" in the last fifty years, there is little to no evidence that the liberal policies have done anything other than to further the dependence of those same people to government assistance. It is a Bernie Madoff scam of the highest order. Conservatism allows people to be left alone and gives more individual freedom to the population and therefore cedes control away from the government.

The idea that people are incapable of taking care of themselves, working hard and earning based on their own merits is arrogant and insulting. I am constantly amazed how liberal politicians can routinely insult people and still manage to acquire their vote by buying them off. It certainly is easier to just sit back, claim to be a victim, and have the government give you some free money that someone else earned, than it is to work hard for yourself. The problem with that is that if enough people do it, no one is left to earn. Then the economy collapses and you end up in the Soviet Union. Conservatism is the philosophy which drove people from Europe to the United States and drove the movement of people during the western expansion of the United States. It is a fundamental quality of the American people which will prove popular if elected officials who purport to be conservative would actually govern as conservatives once they are elected.

Complaining About the Inevitable Results of Your Choices

One of the silver linings of the re-election of Marion Barry as Washington, DC Mayor a few years ago after his crack cocaine bust was that the whole DC statehood issue went away. After all, could folks who elect a crack head as mayor possibly be reputable voters? The issue has recently reared its ugly head again but only because the Democrats want to try to have more seats in Congress. It has nothing to do with fairness or people’s rights. In addition, the Democratic White House wants to manipulate the 2010 census numbers to increase Democratic seats in Congress and funding to Democratic districts. President Obama may become “Papa Doc” Obama if Rahm Emmanuel is unchecked in his power to skew the census. It got me thinking of a broader set of issues which have to do with complaints about the results of knowing choices. The theme will emerge as we look at some seemingly disparate issues.

When you become a resident of Washington, DC, you do so knowing that since the advent of the city, it was meant to be and still is a federal territory providing a location for the federal government. It was created from land ceded to the federal government from Maryland and Virginia for specifically that purpose. The Virginia side was returned to the state in 1846. People have suggested all kind of options: making the District of Colombia a state, ceding it back to Maryland, etc. I suppose it is appropriate to point out that the establishment of the District of Columbia as a federal territory is mandated in the Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and specifically argued for in Federalist No. 43. It was a sensitive issue after Continental soldiers marched on Philadelphia when it was the capitol and caused the Congress to flee to New Jersey. The point I am making is that when you move to a federal territory and then complain about living within the rules of a federal territory, you are an idiot. That is like moving from one state to another state by choice and complaining about the new home state’s sales tax. You moved there, suck it up.

In Virginia Beach, Virginia, the Oceana Naval Air Station has been an active home to many US Navy fighter and bomber jet squadrons for many years. As the city allowed development to sprawl because of the housing boom and their desire for tax revenue, developments of housing encroached closer and closer to the air station. A couple of years ago, there were many outcries from people who bought homes and lived near the air station complaining about the noise from the fighter jet engines as they passed overhead. It is funny how when the Navy proposed to move the entire base to Florida, taking hundreds of millions of tax dollars from Virginia Beach, all of a sudden everybody LOVED jet noise. If they had built the air station after you already lived there, you would have had a valid complaint. If you bought a house at the end of an existing runway and then complain about jet engine noise, you are an idiot. You moved there, suck it up.

If you live in a Democratic controlled state and you complain about the lack of tort reform, higher taxes, unfriendly atmosphere toward business, companies leaving the state, or social programs for illegal aliens funded out of your tax money, you should move or vote for someone else. Those are bedrock principles of the Democratic Party. The largest single contributor to the Democratic Party is the Trial Lawyers Association. If you think the Democrats will ever pass a law which costs lawyers money, you are smoking crack. Liberals always think the government knows more about what you need than you do. Other huge contributors to the Democratic Party are labor unions. Business is evil to liberals. Business is evil to labor unions. Therefore, a perfect marriage: liberals and labor unions. If you continue to vote those folks into office, businesses cannot prosper and go to where they can prosper, taxes stay high because the businesses leave, causing more to leave. What you end up with is Michigan. If you live in a place like that and support the liberals, you deserve what you get. You live there, suck it up.

I remember several young women in the US Air Force who were on CNN at the beginning of the first gulf war with their parents complaining about the war. These two “rocket scientists” actually had the gall to say, “We joined the Air Force to get a college education, not to go to war”. They might as well have “idiot” tattooed across their respective foreheads. If you join a military organization, you might find yourself doing military things. I have heard Sailors complaining about being at sea. In fact, it is said that a Sailor is never happy except when complaining. I suppose if you join the Navy, you should probably be aware that the Navy has ships which sail on and under the oceans. If you join the Army or Marine Corps, you should expect to spend some time with a rifle. If you join the Air Force, you might find yourself in an aircraft. Anyone who can’t figure out those things is an idiot. The American military is an all volunteer force. No one is drafted. You joined the service; suck it up.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are associated with some religion. The founding fathers did not want religious groups taking over the government and imposing their views on others who did not share the same views. That is the Islamic state model. In contrast to what is being espoused by some recently, the founding fathers were not against religion. In reading the writings of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, John Jay, and on and on, there was a common thought that the freedoms sought after in this country were of divine origin and that divine providence was part of the very formation of the nation. Currently, the American Civil Liberties Union wants to remove all reference to religion from everything the government touches. With the Democrats now controlling all three branches of government and expanding greatly on the Republican mistakes of late 2008, the US government is rapidly getting involved in the financial system, automobile manufacturing, the housing market, and other private industries. There will soon be nothing that the government does not touch. Therefore, there will be no place for religion in the nation. That is clearly not what the founding fathers intended. If you elect leaders who agree with this philosophy and who appoint judges who agree, you deserve what you get. If you elected them: don’t complain, suck it up.

The goofy woman who had eight embryos implanted and ended up with fourteen children despite being uneducated, unemployed and living in her parent’s home made a selfish choice. She is banking on the state of California welfare and Medicaid system to pay for her children. People will argue that you shouldn’t punish the children for the idiocy of the mother. I agree. Take the children and put them in proper homes. They are doomed with this incompetent arrogant fool as a parent. She made the choice to have them. She can either find a way to adequately care for them or lose them. The taxpayers have big hearts and have no problem helping distressed children. However, they have no obligation to help the mother. She made the choice; she can suck it up.

Most people who work for a living have a fairly good idea how much money they earn. Knowing that information is fairly important in determining how much stuff you can buy. I recently bought a house. Before I did so, I sat down and spent a great deal of time determining if I could afford the payments on the house. That is apparently a novel idea to some people. Because I did figure out how much I could afford, the current downturn in home values would only affect me greatly if I had to move anytime soon. Therefore, I do not plan on doing so. In fairness, I should point out that this does not apply to you if you lost your job in a lay off. I also saved some money just in case of hard times, another old school idea. Thank you for teaching me that lesson, Dad. There has been a recent wave of conspicuous consumption. Everyone has to have the biggest car, a huge plasma television, and the list goes on and on. Apparently, everyone wants to be on MTV Cribs. I am currently driving my well-maintained 2001 vehicle, watching my normal television, and not wearing ridiculously priced clothing. I do not run up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt which I cannot pay back. Therefore, if you do spend a lot more than you earn, I have no obligation whatsoever to bail you out. You spent the money; watch the bad economic news on your giant screen plasma television and suck it up.

In a much larger version of the same theme, California has for years passed ridiculous anti-business laws and watched the businesses flee from the state. California gives health care and free public education to illegal aliens. California passes liberal policies which cost fortunes and environmental policies which raise costs. California is sitting on billions of dollars in off shore oil and natural gas but won’t allow it to be tapped. To expect the other states which act responsibly to bail California out for its inane policies and irresponsible spending plans is idiotic. The people of California voted in that lame government, let them live with it. Other states are under no obligation to allow the state of California to continue with their insipid policies. California spent the money; they can suck it up.

There is an axiom that insanity is performing the same act over and over again and expecting a different result. Electing liberal politicians inevitably results in higher taxes, more intrusive government, disparagement of religion, discouragement of business, artificial inflation of wages for union workers, more money for attorneys resulting in increased insurance premiums, and less incentive to work. In the liberal world, nothing is ever anyone’s fault. Everyone is a victim of circumstance. A famous golfer once said that the harder he practiced, the luckier he became. Making any choice for which the outcome is inherently obvious and then complaining about that inevitable outcome and expecting someone else to come to your rescue for your foolish choice is shirking responsibility and idiotic. You live with the result of your choices. That is why they should be taken seriously.

Judicial Activism and the Courts

I have become more and more interested in this subject recently after a number of court rulings, particularly by the United States Supreme Court. I have looked into several interesting decisions specifically because of the liberal use of the courts to establish law. My previous posting was about the danger of more liberal nominations after the next election should Barack Obama win the election and the Democrats control the Senate. This time let us look at a couple of specific cases.

The District of Columbia Gun Control Law (Heller versus DC)

Mr. Heller is a man who legally carries a gun during the performance of his job in Washington, DC. He is trained to use it and carries it when at work. The DC gun law denied Mr. Heller the right to possess a firearm at home despite his training and demonstrated ability to carry a gun safely. Mr. Heller sued based on the interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution that the individual right to own guns for legitimate purposes is not to be infringed by state or municipal law. DC maintained that its interest in the protection of the citizens of DC was sufficient cause to pass the law. In a 5-4 ruling today, the US Supreme Court struck down the DC law, causing howls of liberal protest and celebration by conservatives. Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that while the efficacy of protecting the citizenry by restricting gun ownership is debatable, the power of the court to contravene the Second Amendment is not debatable. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the power to review and interpret law but does NOT have the power to make law. It therefore follows that if the US Supreme Court does not hold this power, no lower court does.

The landmark case of Marbury vs Madison confirmed the idea of judicial review even though the concept had been informally in place earlier. In the Marbury case, Chief Justice John Marshall found that there was a conflict between the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789. Since the Judiciary Act was a law passed by Congress, the question became whether Congress could legitimately pass a law which conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall wrote that law that conflicts with the Constitution is not law and therefore the Constitution always wins out. Since the Constitution is the highest law of the land and judges swear an oath to it, how can a judge issue a ruling in conflict with it? Marshall’s point was that there was no reason to have a Constitution if Congress never paid attention to it and passed laws in conflict with it.

One of the more interesting things which came out of this decision is how the four liberal justices (Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer) all found a way to justify the law despite it being in conflict with the United States Constitution. The Canon of Constitutional Avoidance states that if an issue can be interpreted without causing a constitutional conflict, it should be interpreted that way. In this case, there was no way to avoid the conflict because the law directly conflicted with the Second Amendment despite any good intentions of the DC government.

Eminent Domain (Susette Kelo versus City of New London)

The concept of Eminent Domain has been around for a long time. The idea is that a government can seize property from an individual property owner for use to benefit the community at large. Per the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the property owner is compensated for the value of the property, though often not to their satisfaction. This has historically meant takings for uses like hospitals, transportation centers, public utilities and other obvious public welfare projects, usually tax-funded. For completeness, eminent domain does not only apply to real estate properties, it can be used by the government to seize military needs, trade secrets, patents and other intellectual properties. The difference in the Kelo case was that property was being taken from an individual to be used for a private venture for profit by other private investors, not the government. The government of New London argued that the improvements to the property would increase tax revenues and the business venture would be good for the citizens at large. Kelo argued the government had no right to seize property from an individual for another individual. The taking of property for profit subsequently made its way to the US Supreme Court.

The case was decided 5-4 in favor of City of New London setting off nationwide protest. The majority were the five liberal justices and Justice Anthony Kennedy. In opposing the ruling, Justice Scalia argued that ruling in favor of New London would eliminate the distinction between private and public property and that the only private property would be property the government was not interested in obtaining. After the decision, reaction was swift. Polls showed between 65-97% of people interviewed disagreed with the decision. President Bush issued an executive order banning similar eminent domain procedures by the federal government. More than forty states have enacted laws to prevent takings like the Kelo case. This is another case of the liberal US Supreme Court justices making law in conflict with the constitution. The Fifth Amendment specifically states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. The liberal justices substitute “public purpose” for the actual phrase “public use”. This means that any wealthy business can have the local government condemn (take) anyone’s property solely with a promise to have a more successful business. This is clearly an example of liberalism in that the government is always smarter than its citizens and always knows what is best for individuals. This decision also preferentially gives advantage to the wealthy and powerful.

Both of these cases point out the need to avoid nominating judicial activists to the courts. President George W. Bush can be accused of a lot of things but he has certainly been a lot more successful in nominating Supreme Court justices who interpret rather than create law than either Presidents Eisenhower or Reagan.

CounterSpin is a Crock

I was on the road today and happened to be listening to National Public Radio. A program came on that was called CounterSpin. It purports to be a review of recent print and electronic media reports published or broadcast recently. It is a product of a group called Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). It only took several minutes to realize that there is nothing fair about this program. A rhetorical question: How far left do you have to be when you complain about the “conservative bias” of the New York Times and Washington Post? The “reporters” that present the stories throw in snide comments throughout the stories often. One of the guests was an investigative reporter named Mark Shapiro who was really giving a thoughtful review and analysis of the problems encountered when reporting on matters of scientific research. He has written a book about the dangers of chemical additives in commercial products in the United States. He later spent some time extolling the European Union because they have, in his opinion, done a better job of restricting chemical additives which can be added to products produced in China. In an interesting paradox, many pharmaceuticals are allowed to be sold to consumers in Europe which have not been approved for safety in the United States. I suppose you get to pick your poison literally. The person interviewing him could not let his very skilled answering of the questions stand without leading him toward criticizing any conservative policy or business. While Shapiro was very interesting and thought-provoking, the remainder of the program was an ode to socialization and had an obvious anti-business bias. After doing a little internet searching, it was easy to find out that one of the former leaders of FAIR was Laura Flanders, who hosts a program on the flaming left Air America. To be “fair”, the program does not report to be news; it is a commentary show. I can say without equivocation that there is nothing fair and accurate in the interpretation presented by this group. The FAIR group is as objective as the group Media Matters which has been shown over and over to be a left-wing smear machine. How anyone can claim to be an objective observer and be associated with this program is disingenuous.

Immigration Politics

I listened to a “news report” on National Public Radio today about “undocumented workers” and the passage of a law in Prince William County, Virginia. The law basically states that when a person is arrested or brought to the attention of law enforcement, they will notify the US Government about the illegal status of the person. Therefore, a person who is violating the law of the United States will be reported to the appropriate authority about the law violation. On the surface, this seems to be a pretty intuitively obvious thing to do. However, the political left is outraged. National Public Radio tends to be a liberal news outlet and the story was, of course, extremely sympathetic to the plight of the law-breakers (“victims”). Some of the justifications they used require some severe stretching.

The focus of the story was two women who entered the country legally using work visas and then stayed past the expiration of their visas. Let’s make sure this is clear: the two women knowingly violated the law by overstaying the visa that the United States granted them. How does that make them sympathetic characters? The story lamented how one could not visit a friend in the hospital because she might have to produce identification. I suppose we should feel badly for bank robbers on the run who can’t visit their families because they might get caught. We are also supposed to be feeling sorry for illegal aliens because they might be reported if they commit a crime and get arrested. Am I the only one who sees how stupid this argument is?

The next segment was an interview with someone who was talking about how a group of three or four hundred illegal aliens (“undocumented workers”) who were receiving free tax-funded education to learn English as a second language were no longer attending classes. Let’s make sure this is clear: A group of immigration law violators are no longer using U.S. tax funds to receive educational benefits in a country where they shouldn’t be present. How is that a problem? The point was that the new law was causing illegal aliens to leave the county. How is that a problem?

The next portion of the report was about the financial burden. A County Commissioner was saying that because of the volume of illegal aliens in the county, it would cost a lot of money to enforce the law. Let me make sure we understand this: We won’t enforce laws because it costs money. It sounds like the county needs a new commissioner.

I found the interview with the head of the police force very interesting. He stated that the police force does not set up immigration screens or checkpoints. If they encounter someone who is an illegal alien, they do not detain the person unless they are being detained for committing a crime. They do appropriately report the encounter to the federal immigration authorities, as they should. They do detain illegal aliens who are arrested for committing a crime. How is that a problem? Should illegal aliens have special benefits that criminals that are American citizens do not? That is patently ridiculous.

I assume all of this ridiculous logic is way to try to obtain Hispanic support in the upcoming elections. The liberals also said that committing perjury was no big deal for President Clinton because it was about sex. Therefore, the political left can pick the subjects in which it is okay to tell lies in court. When a woman accused Clinton of sexual assault, the National Organization of Women said nothing, because their political agenda (abortion) agreed with Clinton’s. The liberal wing chooses which laws to obey and not obey and when the law contradicts their philosophy or goals, they find a judge who agrees and the just “re-interpret” the law. One cannot cease to be amazed.

Self-Reliance and Accountability

The liberal philosophy forgives everything. Nothing is anyone's fault. Anything bad which happens is clearly the result of evil forces, never a bad judgment on anyone's part. I wonder if that has anything to do with the Trial Lawyers Association basically owning the Democratic Party. If everything is someone else's fault, there is always a reason for a plaintiff's attorney to file for damages. No one ever does anything wrong but instead has situations foisted upon them... unless, of course, you are a Republican. In that case, you clearly are evil and it is only through fortunate circumstance that you are exposed.

Most people find over their lifetime that other than their parents, no one is ever really looking out for your best interests. The may SAY they are, but they aren't really. If your best interests happen to coincide with theirs, then okay, but when given a choice, they will always go with their own. That is a stone cold truth. The object lesson there is that you better wake up and pay attention because if you don't look out for yourself, you are going to get hosed.

There are, of course, no people more self-serving and full to their necks with fecal matter than professional politicians. Their whole goal in life is to convince people that they are looking out for the people but sooner or later, their true colors are exposed. The House of Representatives is a group of politicians who essentially continually run for office and occasionally vote on something. The Senate is a group that does mostly lip-flapping and wallow in their self-importance.

This wasn't originally about politics. What inspired me to write this time was the current housing "crisis". Recently, I have heard Hillary Clinton propose a moratorium on foreclosures. Barrack Obama has also promised help. It is an interesting problem to deal with. There is no way to correctly separate: 1) people (novices or not really smart people) who were given loans by predatory lenders and didn't bother to figure out if they could make the payments when the interest rates went up from 2) the much larger group of real estate speculators. I known what you are thinking, "These are people in their primary residences". True, but most of the people I know who overbought in the last few years did it as an investment figuring the way housing was rising in prices, they could make money by living in the house a couple of years and unloading it and taking their profit. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt so I think the group of morons (read "victims" if you are a liberal) is a minor population compared to the investment crowd. That brings in some harsh reality. If I bought Google at $200 and the stock tanked, would I be asking the government to bail me out? Most would think I was crazy for trying. That is what investing is all about. You take a risk after looking at the cost/benefit scenario. Sometimes you make money and sometimes you lose money. These people for the most part are not the victims of lenders as much as they are victims of a mob rush to make money in real estate. They gambled and they lost. I never saw a form in Las Vegas that you fill out to allow you not to pay the casino after you lose.

Last year, I found a house that was too good to pass up and paid off my 4.375% mortgage on my first home (sadly, I miss it) and bought a new house at 6.0%. My mortgage payment doubled. Before I bought the house, I did something apparently novel... I figured out if I could afford it. I also did not get an adjustable rate mortgage and spend my evenings praying interest rates wouldn't rise. Let me summarize: I bought a house I could afford and got a mortgage I could pay. I know it sounds simple but apparently it is genius to some. Senator Dick Durbin wants to allow bankruptcy judges to be able to adjust mortgages. The reason first home mortgage rates are lower than second homes, yachts, etc. is precisely because that CANNOT happen. If he succeeds in passing the legislation, people who pay their mortgages and buy houses they can afford will have to subsidize the speculators and ignorant people who buy over their heads.

But of course, it isn't their fault. It is always someone else's fault.

Here They Go Again

For the last few months, the country has been anxiously awaiting the progress report on Iraq by General David Petraeus in September. The Bush Administration and the Republican supporters of the war hope he will say that the surge in troop levels has been effective. The Democrats hope he will say the entire thing is a disaster and we should leave immediately. Everyone acknowledged when he took the job that as the US Army’s top counter-terrorism expert, he was the appropriate and best man for that job.

When Petraeus arrived in Iraq, he completely changed coalition strategy. Instead of operating out of isolated Forward Operating Bases, Petraeus instead has the troops interacting more with the local Iraqis in the population centers. This has led to more intelligence gathering as the locals begin trusting the troops and has also established working relationships between the local tribal leaders/warlords with the US troops. The result has been local cooperation and even fighting between the local population and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been mostly driven out of several of the formerly hottest provinces due to the cooperation of the local leaders. Even Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and no friend to the Bush Administration, recently returned from Iraq saying that significant military progress had been made. The Democratic presidential candidates admit progress has been made. I can tell you since I am deployed out here seeing what is happening that they are correct in their assessment. We are making a lot of progress.

With that as a background, what do CNN and MSNBC do? Because the anticipated report by General Petraeus is now widely expected to be different than the networks own agenda, they are starting a campaign to impugn General Petraeus’ integrity before he arrives to give the report. The same guy who was the best great hope a few months ago has these same network hacks saying he is a partisan lackey and has no credibility. These people are so transparent and vile that it should surprise no one that they have less and less viewers all the time.

I wrote a piece a while back about how the other news network anchors, particularly the ones with obvious agendas, constantly publicly trash Fox News. However, on one recent ratings night, the viewer numbers were:

FNC O'REILLY 2,260,000
FNC SHEPPARD SMITH 1,308,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,286,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,278,000
FNC GRETA 1,031,000
CNN DOBBS 813,000

No wonder they trash Fox News. They are being whipped like a Michael Vick dog. Like most liberals, their inflated egos lead them to believe that the people are stupid and are being led around by Fox and the evil Rupert Murdoch. They can’t imagine that most people are fed up with their trashing of the American system and character assassination tactics. In one of the seemingly hundreds of Democratic debates, Hillary Clinton recently said about her negative numbers in polls that any of the other Democratic candidates will have high numbers after the “Republican hate machine” gets through with them. She won’t acknowledge that maybe people just don’t like her or maybe people actually loathe her. In typical liberal fashion, it couldn’t possibly be her fault. Well, folks, keep railing on. People will vote with their remote controls and MSNBC, CNN and the other left agenda news organizations that purposely trash America will continue to wither on the vine. Rush Limbaugh calls them the “drive-by” media for their tactics. I will now refer to them as the “Raisin media” because they are drying up so fast.

The Pinnacle of Hypocrisy

In the past on TV, there was a sort of unwritten rule that one network never mentioned another network, as if they didn’t exist. For example, a television actor promoting their show on the Tonight Show would never state the name of the network on which the show appeared, if it wasn’t NBC. I can’t help but notice the recent coordinated effort on the part of the liberal news media to collectively try to make the Fox News network look biased and disreputable. Everyone knows that Fox News was originally created because of the liberal bent of the mainstream news media so it shouldn't be surprising that the network would be more accomodating to conservative viewpoints.
It is nauseating to see a smarmy ideologue like Keith Olberman, who does not have a reputable cell in his body, interviewing a host of an Air America program about Fox News. If Olberman had another nerve cell, he could make a connection. Air America, the ultra-liberal talk network which went bankrupt because no one watches it, is a competitor of Fox. That is like interviewing Target about how great WalMart is doing. Olberman called the people at Fox “idiots” on the air. The Air America host said that the Fox News network is a part of the Republican Party. No matter your political persuasion, that is not journalism of any quality, whatsoever. I suppose they are just upset because CNN’s viewership is at an all-time low and the six or seven people who watch MSNBC are insignificant. Fox News now has three times the viewers that CNN does. It would be a bigger deal if anyone actually watched Olberman’s show but since hardly anyone does, he can spread his rants without much consequence.
Along the same lines, CNN is another pot calling the kettle black. Lou Dobbs does a show that is supposed to be a news show but he makes biased comments about every story and never presents both sides of any story. It is like they hired him to do a one hour diatribe every night and pretend to be news. On Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, I know Jack Cafferty is a liberal ideologue but I can’t say recently how bad he is since I started muting the television every time I see his image now. He is the most whining harpie on television and, since he never had anything resembling useful information to say, I no longer waste my time listening to his spewing. He always reinforces his rants with poll questions like “Do you think the Bush Administration should continue to starve the American people?" It is always a “Do you still beat your wife?” type question.
Don’t misunderstand. I actually like to hear both sides of a debate but I want to hear facts on the news with commentary and analysis correctly labeled as such. Even CBS, which historically is one of the most liberal networks, had Eric Severeid come on with the label “commentary” when he appeared. News is fact and commentary is opinion. They should be kept separate.
I find that when two opposing sides give information, the truth is usually somewhere between the two. That is why I like both sides to explain their views. Calling the other side names and yelling does little to clarify debate and expose truth. But since Air America, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are fading like cheap wallpaper in the sun; I guess they feel they have nothing to lose by compromising journalistic standards and whining about declining viewer numbers.