During a school assembly for students enlisting in the Marine Corps, two teachers disrupted the assembly by protesting the war (here):

…For the fifth consecutive year, school resource officer Nick Pasquarosa recognized those seniors who had enlisted in the military. “While Nick was speaking, one faculty member held up a sign saying “End war” and another female teacher stood beside her,” said Assistant Principal Ann Knell. “The two faculty members sat down and did not clap during a school-wide standing ovation for those students.”….

It’s truly unbelievable we have such dolts teaching our children.  I guess it’s sort of analogous to the blind leading the blind, but in this case the students knew better than the teachers so it’s more like… the blind leading the seeing?

Please don’t misunderstand – I could care less about their actual stance and more about the time, place, manner, and assumptions with which they decided upon this course of action.

First, it’s well known that public schools are NOT bastions of free speech, nor are they paragons of oppression either.  But through time and court precedent, educators should (and most likely do) know that the primary responsibility to the children is education.  So any free speech that disrupts that process can be prevented and/or punished.

For instance, if I went to school with a pro-drug message, I would be sent home.  If I wore a blank arm band in memory of fallen soldiers, I would likely still be sent home, but ultimately win.

Second, and in my opinion more importantly, is the arrogance with which the teachers acted.  Keep in mind, that this is their employer giving an assembly which they believe brings value to their students (clients).  Yet they still protested?  I use the term arrogance, because I think we can safely say they assumed, and possibly correctly so, that they will not be fired.

This is what really gets me.  Not only did they believe they were in the right to disrupt a school proceeding, but they seem to believe it’s about freedom.  When in reality, if any company in the world decided to gather its employees to spotlight process X, a protest would certainly be met with immediate firings.  This would also be true in a private school setting.

Yet these teachers are claiming a right to do this and that it’s a teaching moment.  I would submit to them they should use it as a learning moment it should be instead instead of arrogantly attempting to parlay this into a “teaching” opportunity.

Via WaPo (here):

UNITED NATIONS — After several months of grueling diplomacy, the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran’s military establishment — a move that the United States and other major powers said should prompt the Islamic Republic to restart stalled political talks over the future of its nuclear program….

This is seemingly good news, but the details prove otherwise.  For instance, it’s a known axiom that sanctions against Iran are unlikely to motivate Iran much if China and Russia weren’t on-board completely, yet….:

…The administration did succeed in preserving support from China and Russia, although only after assuring them that the measures would not impair their ability to continue trading with Tehran…

Not only will Russia and China continue to trade at will with Iran, but Russia will continue to help Iran with nuclear plants and military technology (via BBC here):

…Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed the missiles were not subject to the limits set by the UN on cooperation with Iran.

He said Moscow was in talks on building further nuclear reactors in Iran….

Theoretically the sanctions will hurt large business interests in Iran to put pressure on the Iranian government to come back to the table for negotiations.   But this only allows Iran more time.  They have been quite successful for several years now in extending a hand as if they are willing to negotiate, only to use that outreach to delay the international community from acting.

In reality, these sanctions seem to be both completely ineffectual and designed (intentionally or not) to allow Iran back into playing the delay game with the international community while they continue their nuclear plans.

For some, it might be very disconcerting news to learn that internal documents from the Obama administration predicted the exact opposite of what they were publicly selling (here):

Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare….

Publicly however…. in speech after speech we were told things like, you won’t have to give up your existing coverage even while internal documents predicted:

…The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document.

In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law….

I’m unsure what the machinations coming will be from the White House – something along of the lines of this was only one report taken out of context – likely enough to allow true believers to sigh and continue to support this president.

Either way – this really doesn’t change much in the way of the facts pertaining to health care reform.  The bill is going to be a disaster for the US & if these policies are allowed to fully mature, this will go down in history as a major mistake that the public should’ve prevented.

It wasn’t all that difficult to see what they were selling couldn’t possibly contend with reality.  When people were told by their leaders that this reform would increase demand, increase regulations, and yet still decrease costs they could’ve easily spotted it for the scam it was.

Instead, the average citizen plodded along and by default told their leaders not to stop this.  They told them in polls they hated it, but didn’t want it prevented.  They tell them in polls today they hate it, but don’t want it repealed.  They told them when few wrote – please stop this.

No – the only thing this “new” information tells us is that the government’s own reports confirmed what many independent sources were saying & this administration, cloaked in the mantle of transparency, hide this information from the public and told a completely different story about the legislation when asked.

Maybe this will move some fence sitters against Obamacare and maybe this can be used as motivation to push back some of the legislation, but the truth is we the people failed the day the law was signed.

For those that have been asleep for the past few days, quick recap:  an old, slightly senile reporter, who should not have had a job for about 20 years went on a radio show and said some really stupid and factually incorrect stuff (here):

[White House Correspondent Helen] Thomas caused an uproar with her recent remarks that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Poland, Germany, America and “everywhere else.”…

Within a few short days, the controversy pulled faux outrage from every corner of society, including the White House itself.  Ms. Thomas went from being incorrectly seen as a sweet old lady, to now being seen as she really is.  She was in the process of losing her press credentials, was suspended from her job, and then decided to do what she should’ve done decades ago…. retire:

Helen Thomas , a veteran columnist for Hearst Newspapers, announced her resignation today shortly after the White House condemned her remarks about Jews as “offensive” and “reprehensible.”…

So basically what we have here – is a bunch of people who are upset over a crazy woman saying crazy things.  The reason they have to be feign anger is because they’ve been defending her childish behavior for years and telling us what a great person she was for standing up to power.

Now some may ask – isn’t some of the anger deserved?  & the answer to that is yes.  Telling any race of people to go back “home” to the countries which tried to wipe them out in a world wide Holocaust deserves societal scorn. But the truth is, we don’t typically heap societal scorn on 89 year olds.

We’ve rightfully come to understand that they not only grew up in very different times, but some are a little off.  Please note, this isn’t to say all 89 year olds will wax philosophically about hating the Jews, just that when your family elders who are 89 spout something idiotic or racist at the Thanksgiving dinner table, they are simply ignored.

I might have to talk to my daughter about what was said and how stupid and racist it was, but we generally don’t attack old people with a penchant for senility.   We ignore, deflect, and move forward all while secretly wishing it hadn’t ever happened.

So…. I’m not angry at Helen Thomas.  I firmly believe what she said was racist, idiotic, and juvenile, but she’s nothing more than a senile reporter.  It’s odd I know, but I don’t get upset when crazy people say crazy things.

Something else to note – this love affair the White House and major media had with Helen Thomas, is what got her into this problem in the first place.  There is absolutely no reason anyone should care what Ms. Thomas has to say beyond her reporting the facts she obtains from the White House press briefings.

I say this, because she is a reporter… well, she is a crazy woman with journalistic credentials, but nonetheless – her job for her entire life has been to tell the public news she’s heard from government officials.  She has never ran anything, never worked in a government capacity on anything she reports on, never even proposed she was/is an international policy expert… and she seemingly didn’t want that.  She wanted to be a journalist, not any of these other things.

However, since she “stood up to power” (IE: asked juvenile questions to those in power) and stood up to the right people (mainly Bush), she has been promoted from journalist to all seeing without so much as fake reason for why we should care what she has to say about anything outside of her official duties.

I know, it’s odd of me again, but I like my international policy information to come from people with knowledge of internal policy & while all these people might be smarter than I am… my mechanic, my doctor, my lawyer, and yes, even Helen Thomas… they simply don’t fit that bill.

What’s more frustrating that the faux outrage though is some attempts to wrangle this whole mess into some sort of free speech thing from the most unlikely of places (here via Reason):

…True, I find some comfort in knowing that this unprofessional crackpot never will haunt a president, common sense, or the public again. But I wince at the rapidity of her demise. And I feel a nagging anxiety about a journalist’s losing her job over nothing more than a controversial statement….

To be fair, the author goes on to admit this is a private decision being made by a private company which is not bound by the first amendment, but he writes as if firing a senile staff member after they’ve been shown to be a bigger liability than all their assets combined is about free speech.  To be correct however, it’s not.

To gauge the effectiveness of this argument, we can run it to its logical conclusion.  Not always, but this is a sometimes helpful trick to see whether an argument is valid or just whining. So let’s ask this question – IF we agreed completely that Helen Thomas should not be fired, what does this mean?

Doesn’t that also mean we are saying that if the publication she works for is losing money due to her exercising her first amendment rights, they still have no recourse?  They should just keep losing money?  & If it doesn’t mean any of this, then what’s the point of bringing it up?

While reading, I’m unsure where David Harsanyi is going with this other that to try to equate a private business releasing an employee with hate speech paranoia.  Though I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want to imply that Ms. Thomas can’t be fired, his argument is leading in that direction.

No, he likely doesn’t believe that she can’t be fired.  The more likely cause of his machinations is that of simple self preservation.

Because no matter how much Mr. Harsanyi wants to make this about free speech or hate speech idiocy and no matter how many other public figures want to make this about racism, the truth is there for all to see. An old lady, who likely should’ve retired long ago, said some crazy things that forced her retirement.

This is one of those cases where it’s almost as if the planets aligned perfectly to show anyone willing to see the complete idiocy of our current economic policies.  In the midst of a recovery that is anything other than certain, a time when the US government, its citizens, and indeed larges swaths of the world are simply broke, yet we keep on spending.

The Federal Reserve Chairman has stated directly (here via Reason.com):

Today may be terrible, but tomorrow is going to be much worse, at least as measured by such metrics as deficits, debt, and entitlement spending. In an April speech, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke laid out the misery that awaits us. “The arithmetic is, unfortunately, quite clear,” he said. “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”…

Yet just yesterday, the committee to reduce budget deficits is joining a long line of other government employees in asking for more.  Over @ Cato (here):

It’s rather symbolic of what’s wrong with Washington that a commission ostensibly created to promote deficit reduction is seeking a bigger budget….

Yep, that’s correct.  As private businesses have continued to contract to meet decreased demands, the federal government continues to grow.  This happens when the federal government is allowed to print money, but that’s a side note.

Simple fact is, we have no money, yet we are still spending like drunken sailors and it seems we don’t understand.  When the governor of New Jersey is forced to tell people directly:  unlike the US government, the state of New Jersey can’t print money, we’ve run into a major problem.

& like most problems, the federal government will not help.  They are the enemy of spending policy as we can easily see, but for those that think maybe they can help here… please watch their latest commercials for the census count and ask yourself what is they underlying theme?  On the government’s own website propoganda, what is the underlying theme?

What is the main thing they want you to take away from this?  That government is the answer.  Our leaders are telling us, in no uncertain terms the same unsustainable and morally questionable hypothesis:  Make sure you get counted…. so you too can get paid.

Maybe it’s time to start asking:  exactly where are they leading us?

It’s a little amusing that in the same issue (June 2010) of the Atlantic, they print an article by Michael Kinsley without any substantial facts to support any of his claims while simultaneously printing an article dealing with the decline of the news industry.  It’s quite possible the news industry is failing to attract consumers due to idiotic articles such as this, but either way.

Mr. Kinsley has a thorn in his side, better known to most as the Tea Party.  This movement, like most, has hitched on popular dissent on the current government.  They’ve successfully beaten Republican incumbents in the primaries as the rightful tide against any incumbent moves forward.

Just as the free love and peace movement hooked on to Vietnam, the Tea Party has picked up widespread dissent and is attempting to parlay this into a game changing group.  We could argue ad infinitum about which came first, the movement or the dissent, but every movement is intertwined in history with what is happening and can never be completely separated from it.

For Mr. Kinsley though – the Tea Partier is just right-winger exploiting a specific moment in time to bring us back to the stone age with the alluring subtitle (whole thing here):

There’s nothing patriotic about the Tea Party Patriots.

Now, I’m not one to question Mr. Kinsely’s patriotism or the Tea Partier for that matter, but I seem to recall that questioning someone’s patriotism just because they disagree with current government policy was tantamount to treason… times change I suppose.

Irregardless, the most infuriating thing about his propaganda is the lack of anything substantial or real, combined with an unwinding of recent history.  He starts with this:

….A Harris poll released the last day of March reported that a third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing? The movement is not yet united on a single platform or agenda, like Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, which started as a triumph and ended as an embarrassment….

I’m unsure what he means by embarrassment as even opponents admit 30% of the voting population was aware of the Contract during the 1994 election.  Also, his link to wiki, shows most of the contract was passed.  A lot of it was vetoed by President Clinton, some of it wasn’t.  But most of it was passed through the house as they promised they would.  Seems odd to call promises kept as embarrassing, but maybe his idea of embarrassing is different…. well, I was going to write different from mine, but in this case it would have to be different from the definition.

Either way – the true villain, is the Tea Partier:

…On Web sites and in speeches, Tea Party Patriots reveal a fondness for procedural gimmicks (like a ban on congressional earmarks), constitutional amendments (term limits, balanced budget), and similar magic tricks or shortcuts to salvation. Apart from a general funk, though, the one common theme espoused by TPPs is the monstrous danger of Big Government….

I guess I love gimmicks to – because banning congressional earmarks, engaging term limits, and forcing a balanced budget all seem like decent ideas to me.  Maybe I’m not smart enough to know that the government should stop printing money when they have none or stop spending money on museums when we theoretically can’t afford to pay teachers or police officers, but these certainly seem like good ideas.

Why is the Tea Partier a villain…. apparently ageism:

…First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it’s less charming….

So for those counting – Contract With America – successful but embarrassing.  Kids yelling end war, cool.  Adults yelling stop spending money you don’t have, tantrum.

What else….

…Second, although the 1960s ultimately spread their tentacles throughout the culture and around the world, politically there was just one big issue: ending the war in Vietnam. No such issue unites the Tea Party Patriots….

Now we have a contradiction.  In the first few paragraphs he rightfully sees the Tea Party movement as anti-big government, but now…. he can’t seem to find any common ground the individuals hold.

Maybe there’s more?

…A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasn’t their essence. Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place. The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested….

Nope – like the rest of the tripe that preceded this idiotic passage, it’s nothing more than his “feelings” which he is trying, very hard to prove are in fact real.  The level of dishonesty & arrogance needed to think that people in the 1960′s were mostly altruistic, while people today are just self interested rises to the level of delusion.

Truth is Mr. Kinsley, we all operate on incentives and most of our incentives are self interested.   Research and historical evidence proves this has been and stays true today.  You can find some semblance of altruism in certain scenarios, like throwing yourself on a live grenade to save others, but even this has some self interest as you are trying to save your family (in combat, your comrades are family).

So what is the Tea Party about?

….“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility….

I only break this paragraph to note – he makes a very bold statement, yet follows it up without even one well worded sentence explaining why he thinks conservatives outdo liberals…. I suppose we should just take his word for it.  After all:

…To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?….

Yet another assertion without proof.  The Tea Party has worked within side the current system, have worked and are working to elect those they agree with and remove those they don’t.  I have yet to hear even one crazy person who has been to one Tea Party group say democracy is bad or should go away…. though it’s honestly possible I suppose that the Tea Party movement’s participants understand that the US isn’t a democracy and Mr. Kinsley doesn’t.

I could go on – he wrote more and it’s just as lacking as the rest of it.   It’s honestly hard to even write a critique of something so full of emotion, so incoherent and random, which is also completely devoid of any evidence to prove his assertions.

Each sentence is full of assumed assertions which are not only not proven, but easily obtained evidence suggests his assertion false.  The only thing that shows is his intolerance to views with which he disagrees.

& yet they sit and wonder…. why doesn’t anyone ready newspapers and magazines anymore?