Tinfoil Hat Anyone?

If you want to immediately lose all credibility, question the president's birth certificate.  I was very firmly in that camp until recently.  I have a very hard time believing that Obama is ineligible for the office of president.  Surely the Democrats would not spend so much money choosing and promoting a candidate without making sure he was actually eligible for office, would they?  That was really the only evidence of his citizenship that I needed.  It would take an historic amount of outright stupidity to spend the billions of dollars necessary to get Obama elected without researching his background, including his place of birth.  So assume the president was born in Hawaii, registered with Selective Service in 1980, went to Occidental College, Columbia University, and finally Harvard Law School exactly as he claims. Why all the secrecy?  Why won't he supply the documents to prove all these claims?

First the birth certificate.  I haven't seen any polls, but I would bet that most people believe the issue was raised by racist, right wing, tea partyers.  Nope, actually the issue was raised by Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2008 Democratic primary.  Bill Clinton was quoted from a fundraising speech as saying "it's over, he's not eligible.  We have proof."  Why was the issue dropped and Obama nominated over Clinton?  I'll get to that later.  This may take awhile.

So, the issue was raised a couple of times in the presidential race, but each time, the McCain camp dropped it, saying the issue was settled during the primaries.  But the president's birth certificate was/is an issue that just won't go away.  Anytime it was brought up, the president or his people would just laugh it off and chalk it up to racism or ignorance of the questioners.  That track worked well for more than two years when Donald Trump started insisting that Obama produce his original birth certificate.  Not the birth announcement from a Hawaii newspaper, which we later learned were commonly printed for children born in other countries and as many as three years after the birth.  So finally in April of 2011, the president produced his "original" birth certificate.  But only a select group of reporters were allowed to view the actual document.  The rest of us got to see the "original" that was scanned, converted to an Adobe PDF file and posted online.

Almost immediately the online birth certificate was exposed as a fake.  Seems the document was scanned, then edited, which shows up in layers on the file posted online.  Even for someone with computer skills as simple as mine, this is evident.  When you save a copy of the file, the edited fields still show in layers.  Meaning they have been edited and can be edited by anyone with Adobe or Photoshop.  To even an amateur like me, it looks like some fields have been cut from other scanned documents and pasted into the online document.  Again, even to an amateur like me, the forgery looks extremely amateurish.  With my very limited experience with Adobe, the problem with the layers is an easy one to fix.  You scan the original document.  Scan the documents you want to cut new information from to paste into the "original" document.  Then cut all your new information and paste it in the "original" birth certificate.  Now comes the part that eliminates the problem with layers.  Print your birth certificate.  Scan it.  Voila, you now have a perfect original document with no layers.

Pretty easy, huh?  You would think the president would have access to the best forgers in the world.  So why such an amateurish obvious forgery?  One more step and they would have had a perfect fake "original" birth certificate, right?  Well not quite.  Not only did the forger not close out all the layers by printing and scanning again, but they made one more just flat out stupid mistake.  The information cut from other documents and pasted in the original were typed with multiple typewriters with different size typefaces.  If you are interested, here's an article that explains that very well, and very simply.  I'll summarize, the information on the original birth certificate was typed on three different typewriters.  One excuse for the different typewriters suggest that basic information like hospital, address, etc. was typed ahead of time, and then specifics were later added at the time of birth with a different typewriter.  Unfortunately, the third typeface shoots down that theory.  It seems that the fields were filled at random with different typewriters.  The forgery was laughably amateurish.  It was almost like the president was daring anyone to challenge its validity.

But even more hilarious is the fake Selective Service registration presented as "original."  I first read about this while reading about Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigation in Arizona.  I'll just link to the article I read here.  Rather than cutting and pasting with a computer and Adobe, this obvious forgery involved an Exacto knife, an official government rubber date stamp that reads 2008.  The genius forger, cut the "08" off, flipped it upside down to read "80" and expected those racist right wing tea partyers to believe that even though everyone else that registered in 1980, had paperwork reading "month" "date" 1980, the presidents registration reads "month" "date" 80.  Oh, and the 8 is upside down.  It's not quite the same turned both directions.  Oops.

Or is it an oops?  I think the whole situation is so ridiculously stupid that it has to be intentional.  So now the question is why.  The why is the reason I never bought into the whole "birther" issue.  I'll get into the why, or at least my theory of why in my next post.

Pro Choice

Ever notice that the only choice the progressives/liberals/Democrats are actually in favor of, is the woman's choice whether or not to let her baby live long enough to be born?  It is their body after all.  I plan to write in the next few days about the choices being taken away from us.  Yes, I know it has been nine months since my last post.  I've been busy, ok?  Actually, I think I fell victim to the Bill Belichick strategy being employed by our government.  When every day brings a new assault on our Constitution and our rights as individuals, just as the LA Rams learned in the Super Bowl, eventually the officials (conservative Americans in this case) get overwhelmed.  Like I wrote about before, I need to square my shoulders and get back in the game.   So I am going to focus for a few posts on the choices we are losing.


First of all, unless you have been living in a cave, you know that this is an election year.  From the first few days of Obama's Constitutional assault, excuse me, administration, Republicans have sworn that they would nominate a true conservative.  They would not allow the media to force another Obama-lite candidate like John McCain on the party.  We would be given a true choice.  The 2008 primaries exposed Mitt Romney as only a couple of degrees more conservative than Barack Hussein Obama.  The Tea Party Revolution of 2010 gave us hope that the Republican Party would offer choice, a real alternative to the president.  Beginning almost immediately after the 2010 Republican landslide fueled by the Tea Party, the media began pushing Romney as the only electable Republican.  All other candidates were radical, too far right.  They would never win the independent vote.  


So even with polls showing that the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative, only Romney was viewed by the media as mainstream enough to challenge the president in 2012.  Early straw polls in Iowa showed a true conservative, Michelle Bachmann having the most support in the Republican primary.  The media pulls out its favorite attack on conservatives - she's stupid.  In one speech, she mentioned Davenport, Iowa as the hometown of the American icon and symbol of self-reliance, John Wayne.  What an idiot!  John Wayne was not born in Davenport.  His family moved from Davenport shortly before his birth.  How embarrassing!   You would've thought this moron didn't even know how many states are in the United States.  Or how to pronounce corpsman.  She may even speak about asthmatics needing a breathalyzer!  How could such an intellectual lightweight match up against President Obama, who is quite possibly the most intelligent community organizer to ever walk the earth?  Only Romney is intelligent enough to have a chance!  After all, he is from Massachusetts and isn't his hair perfect?  


Republicans allowed themselves to be scared away from a truly principled conservative who actually has a voting record that supports her claims to small government Constitutional beliefs.  Next to take the lead in the pre-Iowa polls was Texas governor, Rick Perry.  Perry has a very strong record as governor of Texas.  He has even published a book detailing government reforms he would favor to return Washington D.C. to it's Constitutionally mandated size, giving more power to the states, and thus returning choice to citizens.  But the media was quick to point out that Perry signed into law a Texas bill allowing children whose parents are in the United States illegally to go to college in Texas, paying in-state tuition.  This was a huge problem for Tea Party conservatives.  In spite of Perry's defense that the bill received only two dissenting votes in the Texas House and Senate, and would be easily overridden if he had vetoed it.  He chose to accept the loss and move on, and even explained his signature that way at the time he signed the bill into law.  But the media explained to the ignorant Tea Party conservatives that Perry would soon have the country overrun and speaking Spanish only on college campuses.  Better to choose Mitt Romney, the true conservative who supports the Dream Act which is basically a national version of the Texas law.  Oh, and it would provide a fast track to full citizenship for immigrants who had chosen to ignore the law up to this point.  Well, at least if they hadn't committed any felonies while they were in the country.  Well, not all felonies, just not any violence-related felonies.  Yeah, that Romney would be a much better choice than Rick Perry.  And the whole stupid thing again.  Perry has a Texas accent, Romney's Massachusetts accent is so much more intelligent.  I mean just compare the economy of Romney's Massachusetts to Perry's Texas.  No.  Better not do that!  Just trust the media.  Perry's stupid and will open the borders to basically invite everyone to cross the Rio Grande anytime they choose.  So shortly after the Iowa caucus, Bachmann's out, followed a short time later by Perry.  


Next up for the Tea Party, successful businessman, Herman Cain.  Once he was able to pull the microphone away from Romney and Perry, he actually came away from the debates with a lot of support, especially for his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform.  Cain presented a huge problem for the liberal media.  Their fallback attack on conservatives, their lack of intelligence, might be seen as racist.  Cain is black, just like Obama!  How can the media claim the only reason Republicans oppose the president's socialist agenda is because they're hood-wearing, cross-burning racists, if they nominate a black man for president?  All right, Cain has no government experience.  He actually ran successful businesses and can not only discuss economic theory, but point to his own experience and success.  WITH NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!!  That's not even possible in Obama's world.  That would overwhelm President Obama's tenure in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate where he was noted for zero legislation and numerous "present" votes.  So the media was unable to take the intelligence, race, and experience roads to attacking Cain.  What to do?  What to do?  Conservatives stand on family values.  Let's find something in Cain's past personal life.  Soon there is a parade of women claiming either affairs or harassment.   Cain denied the charges, offered to take a lie detector test, challenged his accusers to take the same lie detector tests (they all declined).  Eventually Cain decided the strain on his family was too much and "suspended" his candidacy.  Coincidentally, all his accusers and even more mysteriously, their high dollar legal representation quickly and completely disappeared.   As an added bonus for the liberal media, they were able to once again accuse the Republicans and especially the Tea Party of racism.  How could they drop their support for Cain following a few unsubstantiated accusations?  By white women!  That's why.  Brings back all the old stereotypes of the black man that just can't control his animal urges around white women!  They were able to disguise their racism for a little while, but eventually it rose to the surface.  Better put your support behind Mitt Romney.  He's white.  If it came down to a choice between two black men, most Republicans and Tea Party members would just stay home, guaranteeing four more years of Obama.  Or at least that's what the media would have us believe.


Next in line for the conservatives?  Well, they are desperate.  True conservative candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain are gone.  Good lord, we don't want Romney!  Who is left?  Newt Gingrich!!!  Newt's smart.  He debates very well.  Even the liberal media will admit that Newt would more than hold his own against President Obama in any debate.  And without a teleprompter.  Another plus for Gingrich?  He knows the media's game and will call them out on it.   In an intellectual fight, Newt is definitely the candidate to take on the media and the president.  In debates, he turned the attack to the president and also to the media.  To the conservatives accustomed to the "above the mudslinging" style of George Bush and George W. Bush and the "reach across the aisle" style of John McCain, this aggressive style was very attractive.  Newt's only problem?  Anyone who took a close look at his record or his words would quickly realize that he is definitely not "small government."  His  favorite presidents or role models for a Gingrich presidency?  Not George Washington.   Not Abraham Lincoln.  Not Dwight Eisenhower.  Not Ronald Reagan.  Not even either of the Bushes.  Newt's choice?  How about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin D. Roosevelt!  You can't spell big government progressive without Wilson, Teddy, or FDR.  Then there's his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae connections.  And his support of cap and trade legislation.  He only appeared in the commercial sitting on a couch and agreeing with that Tea Party favorite, Nancy Pelosi.  And finally Newt's worst enemy is Newt.    He debates well and takes the fight to the media well because he is a quick thinking.  Unfortunately this means that he has a creative memory, such as claiming in one interview that he supported Goldwater, showing his true conservative roots.  Small problem, he actually supported the progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  But that was long enough in the past no one could really claim otherwise, right?  Well, it would be tough to prove, except for the fact that Gingrich was actually precinct captain for Rockefeller!  Conservatives who want a choice did their own homework and learned the facts about Gingrich and, so far at least, seem to have chosen to eliminate Gingrich.  If you have any doubts about Newt's real principles, click on the links in this paragraph for videos of Gingrich stating his beliefs.  


That leaves Republicans and real conservatives a choice.  The electable, almost liberal Mitt Romney (probably more big government liberal in his policies than Democratic icon, John F. Kennedy) and Ron Paul.  Paul could be dangerous for for the liberals if the election and the presidency were all about economics and domestic policy.  Ron Paul is the candidate of choice when it comes to shrinking the government and actually enforcing the United States Constitution.  Unfortunately, he is a naive extremely dangerous candidate when it comes to foreign policy.  Although he has brought Federal Reserve policies into the public debate and actually seems to have stoked a libertarian revival among young people, he is unelectable.  Good thing for the future of the country there is one more candidate.  Rick Santorum.  The former senator from Pennsylvania has a couple of questionable actions on record - namely his support  of earmarks for his state when he served in the senate.  Overall he is head and shoulders over Romney when you compare their records.  Problem is the media is trying to convince the Republican voters that only Romney is electable.  He has too much support.  The race is over, right?  Except that Republican voters took responsibility and informed themselves without listening to the media.  Iowa voters surprised everyone and chose Santorum.  New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida did what was expected and chose Romney.  So the race is over, with only four of the fifty states (or is it 57? or 59, Mr. President?) actually voting.  Or at least that's what the media is trying to convince us.  Then last weekend, Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota, and surprisingly, Colorado.  The media quickly starts the spin that very few delegates were actually committed in those three races and Missouri's is not even a binding caucus.  So yesterday when Romney won Maine, well, now it's all over again.  Romney just proved that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  


Don't listen to the media again.  Don't let them take away our choice.  Again.  

Where's the Logic?

It's college graduation time here in Gunnison.  Seeing all the college students leaving campus last Friday, I was reminded of a story a former employee  told me about a recent grad who received a degree in philosophy.  The philosopher, Brad, ran  into an old high school buddy, Scott,  at the mall.  Brad mentioned that he had just received a degree in philosophy.  "What good is philosophy?" asked Scott.  "Philosophy is the practice of thinking rationally and using questions to come to logical conclusions," said Brad.  "For example, do you own a dog?"  "Yes, I do" answered Scott.  "So, you must live in a house, rather than an apartment," reasoned Brad.  "Yes."  "So, when did you get married?" asked Brad.  Scott was startled.  "How did you know I was married?"  Brad said, "through logic.  It is reasonable to assume that since you have a dog and a dog needs a yard, you must live in a house.  Knowing that you only have a high school education, the only way you could afford a house is with two incomes, so you must be married.  That's the kind of logical reasoning you learn in philosophy classes."  "Well, I guess college isn't worthless after all," thought Scott.

A little later, Scott runs into another friend in the mall.  "Hey Keith, I just talked to Brad, and you'll never believe what he went to college for -- philosophy!"  Keith laughs, "sounds about right, a waste of four years and a lot of money."  Scott says, "no, it's really kind of interesting.  It taught him how to reason out stuff.  For example, do you have a dog?"  "No," says Keith.  A stunned Scott shouts, "Dude, I didn't know you were gay!!!"

I think one of the biggest failings of our education system today is that students aren't taught to think critically.  If they learn at all, it is usually a regurgitation of whatever the teacher tells the class.  That carries over to adult life, where the public is easily led or misled by the media.  Last week Americans received great news.  Usama bin Laden was killed by U.S. soldiers in Pakistan.  The news was greeted with celebration and unquestioning praise for President Obama's decision to take out the terrorist.

Only the most inept administration in American history could turn this accomplishment into the series of logical questions it has become in only a week.  First, it was reported that the president personally changed the plan to take out bin Laden.  The military suggested a bombing of the compound where bin Laden was living in Pakistan.  The president insisted that the American people will want "proof that we killed bin Laden."  So he, in turn, insisted on a raid by the military to capture or kill bin Laden in order to provide the proof America would require.  When a firefight resulted from the raid, it was reported that bin Laden and other terrorists used women as shields to protect them from the Americans.  Usama was killed in the resulting battle.  His body was taken by the Americans to ship where, after a 40 minute Muslim ceremony, he was buried at sea, in compliance with Muslim traditions.  Or so the administration said.  Next, the president decided not to release pictures of bin Laden's because it would inflame Muslim sentiments around the world.

So, let's look at this critically.  First of all, ever since September 12, 2001, we have been told that Muslims were not responsible for the terrorist attacks.  The attacks were carried out by radicals that practiced a perverted version of Islam.  If that is the case, why is the Obama administration concerned first of all about providing a traditional burial for bin Laden?  He perverts Islam to justify his terrorist attacks, right?  So what true Muslim would be offended if his body was brought to the United States?  Next, the president delays the attack on bin Laden's compound from August 2010 until April 2011 in order to plan and approve a ground attack rather than a bombing to provide "proof" of bin Laden's death.  So, the soldiers follow orders and take photographs of bin Laden's body, record the ceremony and burial onboard the ship and dump the body (the only "proof" of his death) overboard in an undisclosed location.  Then the marginal proof provided by the photograph will not be made public, once again to avoid enraging Muslims around the world. Yesterday the White House announced the photographs will only be shown to selected senators in the CIA building.  Logic, anyone?

Next came reports about how bin Laden's hideout was finally located.  It seems that, while being waterboarded,  Khalid Shiek Mohammed gave up the nickname of one of bin Laden's most trusted couriers.  Several years later, another terrorist - captured in Iraq, by the way, connected the courier's nickname to his real name.  By tracking down this courier the CIA was able to find bin Laden.  This information created a dilemma for the Obama administration.  Since day one of Obama's presidency, he and his administration have claimed that the CIA never got useful information from "enhanced interrogation" techniques like waterboarding.   One of the president's first acts was to discontinue the practice.  Then came the inconvenient truth about Iraq's tie to terrorism, one of the "Bush lies" to justify invading Iraq.  Now the great news about killing the most wanted terrorist in the world has turned into a nightmare of spin for the administration. 

Finally the most illogical contradiction of all.  Despite the original stories of the firefight, cowards using their wives as human shields, and Usama bin Laden going down in a twenty minute gunbattle, the story emerged that the most feared terrorist in the world died unarmed.  In fact, the Pakistani government reported that no weapons were found at the compound.  It seems that the assault team's orders were to kill, not capture, bin Laden.  Personally, I think it was the right decision.  But if waterboarding, simulating drowning to gain information to save American lives, goes against our core principles, where is the logic in ordering the killing of an unarmed man?  How is shooting an unarmed, "confused, doddery old man" in the head in line with our core principles, as outlined by Eric Holder and Barack Obama?

I believe these questions will be hushed up, then ridiculed just like the birth certificate issue was.  Just like the president's birth in Hawaii, there is no reasonable doubt that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.  The problem is that the so-called "most transparent administration" in the nation's history refuses to be transparent again.  I think that eventually the administration will produce the photographs of bin Laden's body as proof of his death.  Just as was the case with the birth certificate, the proof will allow the president and his minions in the media to ridicule those calling for the proof as racist, uneducated, hillbilly, "deathers" who are "clinging to their guns and religion."  Probably just in time for the 2012 elections.   Now there's the logic!!!  

A Tale of Two Lunch Counters

With apologies to Charles Dickens, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.  Compare these two scenes at lunch counters.

February 1, 1960, four young black college students walked into a F.W. Woolworth store in Greensboro, North Carolina.  They bought a few items and went to the lunch counter and asked to be served.  They knew they probably would not be served because the Woolworth chain practiced segregation and refused to serve blacks.  The four young men sat quietly at the counter until closing time, when they peacefully left.  They returned the following day, dressed in suits, white shirts, and ties.  They sat at the lunch counter, and respectfully asked to be served.  When they were refused, the men sat at the counter, studying their textbooks, until the business closed and they left.  These four young men inspired a movement that soon grew to include over 70,000 participants all over the south.  The behavior of these young men changed the racist views of people all over the south.  You should check this page to learn more about the sit-in movement.

April 21, 2011, a McDonald's restaurant in the Baltimore area.  Two young black women, one 18, the other 14 attacked and beat a young woman in front of the restroom area of the restaurant.  The restaurant was not crowded, but in the video recorded by a McDonald's employee, at least three other young black men were present and watching the beating.  Early in the video, the manager (one of the males present) steps toward the beating victim and herds one of the attackers away while he picks up something off the floor.  He turns his back as the attackers rush back in and begin kicking the victim in the head.   The manager is not seen again in the video, although he is heard complaining that she is "bleeding on my ****ing floor."  The one person who does try to help is an older, probably early 60's, white woman.  The older woman may have prevented the assault from becoming a murder.  The attackers try to drag the victim, by her hair, out the front door.  The older woman is able to stop them by standing over the victim as she is being dragged.  The attackers drop the victim, but continue to kick her in the head and stomach until she begins to have seizures.  According to the police report, one of the attackers punched the older woman in the face before leaving.  By the way, leaving at the urging of the employees because the police are coming, and "she's bleeding, yo!"  If you have the stomach for it, you can see the video posted by the now former McDonald's employee.

What would those four young men at the Woolworth's counter in 1960 think of the inaction of the men at the McDonald's in 2011?  Imagine the four young men from 1960 in the 2011 McDonald's.  What do you think they would've done?  Imagine the four young men from 2011 in the 1960 Woolworth's.  What do you think they would've done?

Hamster Balls Next?

Yesterday I wrote about how my sarcastic comment, "socialism starts in kindergarten" seemed to be part of a real plan, when an education organization wrote that it is "important to teach Marxism in elementary school."  Well, that was only the beginning.  I also wrote almost a year ago about the government being so determined to "protect" us that we would soon be rolling around in people-sized hamster balls.  Well, once again, I underestimated the absolute insanity of the ruling class.  On Monday, New York's Department of Health released new regulation proposals for supervised summer activities in their state.  The department stated that "risky" activities like wiffle ball, kick ball, dodge ball, and red rover "presented a significant risk of injury" and needed to be regulated more closely.  The enforcement of the  new regulations would of course be funded by a $200 license fee for all day camps, summer camps, and activity centers.  After a few hours of national ridicule, the New York Department of Health pulled the proposed regulations.  "The practical effect is that we are not going to get that detailed and into micromanagement."  When you think about that statement by department spokeswoman Claudia Hutton, she's not saying they won't regulate children's activities, or drop the proposal to impose the $200 fee.  They are going to be more broad and vague in the language of their regulations.

And if you think my hamster ball suggestion was funny, take a look at this site.  I have always said that the reason Bobby and I made such a dangerous pair as children was that I would come up with ridiculous, fun, and dangerous ideas and Bobby would actually do them.  Maybe if I had a friend like Bobby today we would be  "people ball" tycoons!  Where are you, Bobby?

What About Education?

I try really hard to give teachers the benefit of the doubt.  I had some excellent teachers when I was in school.  I originally went to college to become a teacher and some of my classmates were dedicated to educating children.  My aunt has been an elementary school teacher for longer than she would want me to write.  I know she is an excellent teacher.  My high school freshman daughter has had a couple of good teachers in the public school system.  Unfortunately she has had only a couple of good teachers.  Interestingly, especially to those who claim that we will only attract quality teachers by paying them more, she had great teachers in her first four grades of private school.  She did not attend an exclusive, prestigious, expensive prep school either.  She attended a small private school in a church in Texas.  Those teachers teach because they have a calling.  They are paid a fraction of the salary of the average first year public school teacher, with no health insurance or pension plan.  They teach because they know it's important.

Because of my background, I was a bit concerned about my daughter's education in a church sponsored school staffed by teachers who were not all certified by the state.  She started kindergarten at the age of four, because she had mastered the pre-school curriculum.  Her kindergarten class finished the kindergarten curriculum at the Christmas break, so her teacher was free to pursue advanced work for the students in the second half of the year.  Her education continued at that pace through the fourth grade, when we moved to Arizona and enrolled her in the public school.

The first change we noticed was the lack of classroom management.  Barely controlled chaos would be the best description for both fourth grade classes in her school.  For a child that's easily distracted, and what pre-teen or teen isn't easily distracted, a chaotic classroom is not the environment most conducive to learning.  And my daughter did not learn anything in her short time in Arizona's public school system.  We moved to Colorado.  One of the first things we did before accepting the relocation was check on the schools in the area.  The school in town did not have a good reputation, or good standardized test scores.  But there was a small school district only fifteen miles away.  The school had an excellent reputation and more importantly great standardized test scores.  In Colorado, parents can enroll their child in any Colorado public school with room to accept them.  The school we chose was very selective.  They gave my daughter a test to assess her skill level in reading, writing, and math.  She scored very well in reading - four grade levels above her actual grade.  She scored one grade ahead in writing and on level in math.  We quickly learned that the school was very good at teaching the test.  After moving again, we learned that teaching the test is at least teaching something.

Her education seemed to slow while learning the Colorado standardized tests at the previous school.  After moving, her education has consisted of whatever we can get her interested in at home, or whatever her flighty teenage mind takes an interest in today.  With only a couple (literally two that I can think of in her almost three years at this school) of exceptions, her teachers have absolutely no interest in the education of their students.  They are concerned about test scores, and sadly enough are such poor teachers that they are actually happy when 33% of their students test proficient in math!  They are ecstatic with reading scores in the 60% proficient range.   They actually brag about these scores!  Even sadder, they can brag about these scores because they are higher than the state average.  When my wife worked as a substitute teacher's aid, one of the grade school teachers told her that it didn't matter if a student was a good or poor reader in first grade.  By third grade they are all relatively equal.  We now realize that it's not because the poor readers catch up, it's because the good readers slip back to the poor reading level.  Oh, by the way, next time you are appalled at the horrible spelling in the comment section of your favorite blogs or news sites, listen in to your first grader's reading class.  My wife learned that, at least in our school system, vowels are not important.  They teach phonics without vowels!  "How do you spell star, Johnny?"  "S-T-R."  "Tht's rt, Jnny, gd jb."  No wonder our kids' reading scores are falling like a rock, excuse me, lk a rk.   President Bush's No Child Left Behind has been executed as No Child Gets Ahead.

I wrote last year about my daughter's 8th grade Social Studies class making a mobile to learn about the Constitution and current events, while the health care takeover was in the news.  I wrote a couple of months ago about how history is no longer being taught.  Now, let me tell you about her English class.  Think back to your freshman year of high school.  I know I read The Scarlet Letter, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Romeo and Juliet. So far, with the exception of a couple of short stories, she has read nothing by an author I have heard of.  And I formerly owned a book store and still read constantly, so it's not like I haven't heard of a couple of respected authors.

While doing some office work the other day, I heard my daughter tell my wife that they watched a biography of Shakespeare because they are going to study Romeo and Juliet in the last few weeks of school.  My heart jumped!  They are actually going to challenge the students!  And they are going to learn a little history about Shakespeare first!  My heart almost stopped after hearing her next sentence.  "Did you know that Shakespeare was bi?"  Sure enough, the A&E biography the students watched suggested that Shakespeare's letters to his patron indicated that the two had a homosexual affair.  Reviews of the biography on Amazon, suggest the video would be a good starting point for a discussion on the subject.  Well, since the video was chosen because it fit perfectly into the 50 minute time slot for the class, there was no further discussion.   Would a discussion about the role of the patron of the arts in Shakespeare's time be relevant?  Like maybe that Shakespeare's over the top flattery of the man was an attempt to gain his financial support.  You know, he was "kissing up" to a rich man for money.  How will future biographers interpret "kissing up?"  Then you can link that conversation to the change in hand gestures.  Biting the thumb led to a sword fighting death in Romeo and Juliet.  Pretty dumb, huh?  Kind of like the display of a specific finger in traffic can lead to a fatal episode of road rage today.  Why wouldn't a professional teacher make the minimal effort necessary to create just a little interest in the subject?

A post I read last week about Wisconsin's teacher's union stated that too many teachers today are nothing more than degree-carrying babysitters with high paying jobs with excellent benefits and lots of time off.  Why else would the Wisconsin teachers fake sick days in order to protest Gov. Walker's new policy?  They were more concerned about their union's right to collectively bargain for benefits and automatically collect their dues than they were concerned about doing their job.  Doing the job that used to be a high calling - educating the children.  Why would a teacher's union in California draft a statement in support of a convicted cop killer in New Jersey?  The statement actually calls the killer an "imprisoned journalist."  A story I just read says one organization states the importance of teaching Marxism in elementary school.  That's another topic I wrote about last year, albeit kind of tongue in cheek.   I didn't realize that it was actually part of the plan!  Do teachers actually believe in these policies?  

One comment on the Wisconsin story compared teachers to Muslims.  The more rational thinkers among us have argued that the United States is not at war with Muslims.  A small percentage of Muslims are radicals that are trying to kill as many infidels as they can.  The great majority of them are peaceful and do not agree with the practices of the radicals.  Well, the argument has become, "why aren't the non-radicals speaking out against their deadly brothers?"  Like I said at the beginning of this post, I try very hard to give teachers the benefit of the doubt.  If not the majority, at least a very large number, of teachers do view education as a calling, not just a good babysitting job.  Those teachers had better start standing up to their deadly, radical brethren with an anti-American agenda.

Why Won't We Drill?

I've already written too much about President Obama's policies that are trying to push us toward windmills, solar panels, and plug-in cars.  He is trying to do this in spite of the fact that those sources of energy and those cars are not reliable or efficient.  That is why under his policy, electricity costs "will necessarily skyrocket."  He is using federal tax incentives and regulations to discourage drilling in the U.S.  As I've mentioned previously, tighter regulations (by the state in this case ) in western Colorado severely limited exploration for natural gas.  The low price of natural gas combined with the regulations led Halliburton to close operations in the Grand Junction area, an area that went from unemployment rates under 4% in 2008 to today's rate of over 11%.  Another example of Change You Can Believe In.  Where did those jobs go?  Take a look at the state that Yahoo named the Best State to live in - North Dakota.  High paying drilling jobs have taken the state's unemployment rate to 3.8%!  5% below the national average.  Why are companies drilling there?  The state is not regulating "fracking" like Colorado began a couple of years ago.

Fracking is not a cleaned up version of an obscenity.  It is a slang word for fracturing.  In order to release oil and natural gas from the rock formations, companies fracture the formation.  Even though the procedure has been used for decades in Texas, Oklahoma, and other oil-producing states, the state of Colorado decided the process needed more study to determine its impact on the environment, especially water supplies.  As is usually the case, the media jumped in immediately with sensational stories to influence the debate.  A family went to a Denver television station with a story about their flammable tap water.  Sure enough, video shows their tap water being lit with a cigarette lighter as it comes from their kitchen faucet.  The connection to drilling?  A new well was recently drilled 7 miles away.  The drilling company did frack the well.  The state's energy department said that flammable water from wells is actually pretty common, and was reported in several areas of the state whether gas production was present or not.  Drilling for water sometimes passes through layers of the earth with pockets of natural gas.  As a rule, the release of gas is limited to a very short time.  But of course none of that made into the news reports. So, Colorado's Department of Natural Resources used the worry about fracking as an excuse to tighten regulations on the practice.  And effectively drive Halliburton along with its jobs out of the state.


Now, with gas prices inching towards $4 a gallon, Obama is starting to feel some heat on his energy policies, starting with the offshore drilling moratorium put into effect, in spite of a federal court ruling against it, immediately following the BP disaster a year ago.  This is an issue that he should worry about.  Unemployment in the 8% to 10% range has become the "new normal."  So that probably won't get as much attention as it should in the 2012 election campaign, especially with the media spinning the "improvement" that has the rate just below 9% now.  I think the average voter will have a very difficult time accepting $4 a gallon gasoline as normal, especially when they receive a $100 reminder each time they fill up their Government Motors Tahoe!

Reading the newspaper will tell you that oil and gas production is expected to be a big issue in the next election.  As one site I read said, you can tell what worries the Demoncrats by what they attack.  And they are attacking oil and gas exploration now.  Last week's Denver Post had a front section story, page 2 if my memory serves, about the environmental impact of fracking.   On Monday, the city of Grand Junction announced the opening of the western slope's first station selling natural gas for cars and city vehicles, touting natural gas's affordability and the fact that it clean burning.  So the Demoncrats, through the Denver Post launched their attacks.  The page 2 story reported that the environmental friendliness of natural gas was overstated, when the impact of fracking was considered.  They described giant trucks lumbering over the fragile western slope, pounding the earth to release the natural gas, just like black smoke spewing dinosaurs.  When you consider the impact of the equipment's emissions, the lack of emission of natural gas burning cars is more than offset, according to the Post.  Now this is my question, not the question of the so-called journalist writing the article -  why should the environmental cost (assuming there is actually one) of fracking should be considered when choosing a natural gas powered car, but not the source of electricity for the Volt ( too bad Fiero was already taken, because this story shows Fiero would be a more appropriate name).  Clean burning coal is the source of over half the electricity needed to power the Volt.  Luckily no one is buying - either the car or the fear of environmental catastrophe.

Next came a front page of the business section article.  This article seemed to be in response to the reports of the high paying jobs that left Colorado for more friendly states like Texas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, and New Mexico.  The Post reported that the production from the exploration of western Colorado was greatly overstated.  The Post reported that of 16 wells they studied for the report, almost "half produced 800 barrels a day, or less."  Now, I was no math major, but just assume that those 16 wells averaged 800 barrels a day.  Probably a low estimate, considering the spin the author seemed to be giving the article.  Oil is $105 a barrel as I am writing this.  Again, I was not a math major, so lets round down to $100 to make the math easier.  Mr. Haight, my 4th grade math in Gruver, TX would be proud to know that I remember that to multiply by 100, just add two zeroes to the number you are multiplying.  So using these low estimates, these wells would make $80,000 a day!  Oh yeah, times 16 wells.  That's only $1,280,000 a day.  Again, let's make the math easier by assuming that these wells belong to a good union and only work 300 days a year.  What local economy wouldn't appreciate the production of $384,000,000 in a year?  Now, my bank statement rarely shows a comma, and never has two!  But if my memory of Mr. Haight's class is correct, those six zeroes and two commas denote millions.  $384 million, by conservative estimates, in a year.  Using data from only 16 wells studied for the article.  Imagine what the real numbers for the area would be!  That might put a couple of folks in the "rich" bracket that the Demoncrats are so fond of exploiting through tax increases.

This week's Post featured a front of the Perspective section article on the "real" west.  The article disputed the Republican's claim of representing the west in the battle to ease land use regulation by the Department of the Interior.  The article quoted a poll of western voters that supported the government's "protection" of our public lands.  The problem with the poll is the same as most westerners have come election time.  The polling is skewed by the heavily populated cities of Denver, Boulder, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.  The constituents that wouldn't know a wilderness area not featured on a granola box, decide the policy for millions of acres of federally controlled/regulated land and the media spins it as the opinion of average westerners.  Whether that land should be federally controlled is another issue that I wrote about last year. 

Finally, today's news reported the final shot at the oil and gas exploration-friendly area of western Colorado.  Unfortunately in Colorado, the Demoncrats still control the state government.  Even worse, it's a re-distric
ting year.  So, the legislature has announced its recommendations for a new district that would include the traditionally Republican area of Grand Junction.  The area will be merged with the San Francisco/Los Angeles of the state, Boulder and Fort Collins.  This move will assure the conservative western slope will have virtually no representation in the state government.  So the folks that made the once proud state of Colorado the first to legalize abortion in the 70's and led the state's march to legalized marijuana will now decide representation for the conservative west.

I have had a very difficult time writing this post.  It's hard to keep my thoughts on track with all the B.S. being thrown right now.  My blood pressure is probably spiking now.  Sarah Palin may not be able to see the Kremlin from her front porch, but she is right on the correct energy policy for our country - "drill, baby, drill."  Or maybe her other creed is more appropriate - "don't retreat, reload."