The Helen Thomas Affair

Unless you have been hiding beneath a rock you are probably well aware that long time White House correspondent Helen Thomas has retired. You can argue/debate whether she retired of her own accord or was forced out. You can discuss whether a person should be allowed to say the things she said without consequence.

But what you cannot do is suggest that her removal is as the result of the actions of an all powerful lobby that has control over the government and media. Or maybe you can, because the articles about her are filled with hateful comments. Antisemitic bile spewed repeatedly and intermixed with some awful ignorance.

There is an easy way to test whether people over reacted to her words. Simply insert the names of other groups into her comments. What would happen if she said that Mexicans should go back to Mexico, Blacks should go to Africa or Chinese people should go back to China.

The answer is that there would still be an uproar. People would be offended and go nuts and she would step down. Unfortunately this incident has provided a bully pulpit for those who wish to smear a country and a people.

It is a sad statement about people to see such comments. Shameful behavior that isn't challenged enough. Because frankly it is reckless to ignore such talk. Give the bigots a platform that isn't challenged and you provide a place for hate to grow and that shouldn't be.

Thomas brought this down on herself. There is no blame outside of her own actions.

Political Gibberish

A relatively short time ago I was confronted by a man who told me that it was imperative that I listen to him because our country was on the verge of disaster. I tried not to be distracted by his appearance and to listen to his words. Looks don't matter, I teach my children that.

It doesn't matter that you look like Elmer Fudd or that your voice resembles Yosemite Sam. What matters is what you say and what you do. I know that and I tried hard, so very hard not to be distracted. I didn't say "what's up doc," or call him "colonel" or use any of the many other goofy expressions that floated through my mind.

It took a moment to gain my composure, but I did it. And I am fairly certain that he never noticed that for a moment I wasn't all there because he never took a breath. Once he started speaking he plowed ahead like a freight train. And he did so with all of the grace of a bull in a china shop.

So now in paragraph four you have to be asking yourself what it was that he said and why I haven't repeated it. That is because it was gibberish. It was unadulterated nonsensical ranting about how the leadership of the country is bankrupt and the people are stupid and how our doom is at hand.

In spite of my proclivity for self deprecation I do have common sense, the ability to focus and an education. Those three things provide the foundation for determining if what I am being fed is factual, relevant and important.

So when you start crying about the problems and challenges the country faces I will ask questions. I'll ask you to tell me why you don't like socialism. I'll ask you because I am curious to hear your opinion and because I am curious to find out if you actually understand what it is and if so, can explain why it is problematic.

I'll listen to what you are saying and try to figure out if it is based upon fact or emotion and whether it is important to really pay attention.

And I should add that my opinion is not going to be swayed solely because I am a member of the same group, whatever group that may be as you. I need a little more substance than that.

With any luck the next time I get involved in one of these conversations I won't find myself wondering where you stashed your rifle and waiting to be asked to help kill that "wascally wabbit."

You Can't Fire Bad Teachers- Thank You LA Unified School District

This is the kind of article that should have parents up in arms, assuming that it is factual and accurate. Just reading the lead irks me more than I can tell you. Read the story and you'll see.

A Times investigation finds the process so arduous that many principals don't even try, except in the very worst cases. Jettisoning a teacher solely because he or she can't teach is rare.

Let's take a few minutes to review some more of this:

It's remarkably difficult to fire a tenured public school teacher in California, a Times investigation has found.

The path can be laborious and labyrinthine, in some cases involving years of investigation, union grievances, administrative appeals, court challenges and re-hearings.Not only is the process arduous, but some districts are particularly unsuccessful in navigating its complexities. The Los Angeles Unified School District sees the majority of its appealed dismissals overturned, and its administrators are far less likely even to try firing a tenured teacher than those in other districts.

The Times reviewed every case on record in the last 15 years in which a tenured employee was fired by a California school district and formally contested the decision before a review commission: 159 in all (not including about two dozen in which the records were destroyed). The newspaper also examined court and school district records and interviewed scores of people, including principals, teachers, union officials, district administrators, parents and students.

Among the findings:

* Building a case for dismissal is so time-consuming, costly and draining for principals and administrators that many say they don't make the effort except in the most egregious cases. The vast majority of firings stem from blatant misconduct, including sexual abuse, other immoral or illegal behavior, insubordination or repeated violation of rules such as showing up on time.

* Although districts generally press ahead with only the strongest cases, even these get knocked down more than a third of the time by the specially convened review panels, which have the discretion to restore teachers' jobs even when grounds for dismissal are proved.

* Jettisoning a teacher solely because he or she can't teach is rare. In 80% of the dismissals that were upheld, classroom performance was not even a factor.

When teaching is at issue, years of effort -- and thousands of dollars -- sometimes go into rehabilitating the teacher as students suffer. Over the three years before he was fired, one struggling math teacher in Stockton was observed 13 times by school officials, failed three year-end evaluations, was offered a more desirable assignment and joined a mentoring program as most of his ninth-grade students flunked his courses.

As a case winds its way through the system, legal costs can soar into the six figures.

Meanwhile, said Kendra Wallace, principal of Daniel Webster Middle School on Los Angeles' Westside, an ineffective teacher can instruct 125 to 260 students a year -- up to 1,300 in the five years she says it often takes to remove a tenured employee.

It is incredible and not in a good way.

L.A. Unified officials have struggled with the system more than most.

Of the 15 tenured employees on record as fighting their terminations before review commissions in the last decade and a half, nine won their jobs back.

The main reasons: Commissions did not find the district's evidence damning or persuasive enough.

The district wanted to fire a high school teacher who kept a stash of pornography, marijuana and vials with cocaine residue at school, but a commission balked, suggesting that firing was too harsh. L.A. Unified officials were also unsuccessful in firing a male middle school teacher spotted lying on top of a female colleague in the metal shop, saying the district did not prove that the two were having sex.

The district fared no better in its case against elementary school special education teacher Gloria Hsi, despite allegations that included poor judgment, failing to report child abuse, yelling at and insulting children, planning lessons inadequately and failing to supervise her class.

Not a single charge was upheld. The commission found the school's evaluators were unqualified because they did not have special education training. Moreover, it said they went to the class at especially difficult periods and didn't stay long enough.

Four years after the district began trying to fire Hsi, the case is still tied up in court, although she has been removed from the classroom. Her lawyer declined to comment on her behalf. The district's legal costs so far: $110,000.

Sometimes the strength of a union can be detrimental. Membership in a union should not provide blanket protection without care or concern for the actions of union members.

Over the years I have heard many stories from friends who are teachers or otherwise employed in the district. There have been plenty of stories that are positive and make you feel good, but there are far too many that make you cringe.

Teachers are exceptionally influential. I have long argued that they should be paid more because their work is invaluable. But at the same time a bad teacher is incredibly dangerous too. It is very serious problem and we need to take action to improve things.

Is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist Really That Ignorant

It appears that Governor of Florida Charlie Crist is in need of some help. Someone came up with the cockamamie idea to offer religious themed license plates in Florida. The governor says that he doesn't see any issues with the separation of church and state. His argument is quite weak. I am not in favor of blurring the lines in this matter. The First Amendment is very clear.

It is to all of our benefit and advantage not to engage in this sort of political tomfoolery.

Hat Tip: DB

The Speech Nixon Never Had to Give

This July marks the 40th anniversary of the moon landing. Had tragedy struck President Nixon would have had to address the nation. This article discusses the speech that he would have given. It was entitled In the event of Moon disaster.

If Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin had been stranded on the Moon, unable to return to Michael Collins’s orbiting Apollo 11 command ship, Nixon would have called their widows then addressed a horror-struck nation.

“Fate has ordained that the men who went to the Moon to explore in peace will stay on the Moon to rest in peace,” he would have told the watching millions.

These brave men know there is no hope for their recovery but they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.

“These two men are laying down their lives in mankind’s most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.

“They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.

“In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.”

The President would have added: “In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood. Others will follow and surely find their way home. Man’s search will not be denied but these men were the first and they will remain the foremost in our hearts.”

And in an allusion to Rupert Brooke’s First World War poem The Soldier, his concluding lines were to be: “For every human being who looks up at the Moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.”

Sarkozy Calls Obama Weak

This isn't really the sort of response we want Obama to receive from other world leaders. OTOH, France hasn't really been a significant world power for far longer than they care to admit. Take the criticism for what it is worth.

The US President is weak, the Spanish leader is dim, the German Chancellor is clinging on to France’s coat-tails and the head of the European Commission is irrelevant.

That, at any rate, is the world according to President Sarkozy, who has spent the week airing his unvarnished opinions of Barack Obama and an array of international politicians — abruptly ending France’s honeymoon with the US and needling Washington on several strategic issues.

In the latest in a stream of accounts from the Élysée Palace, Mr Sarkozy was quoted yesterday as telling an all-party group of MPs that Mr Obama was inexperienced and indecisive. “Obama has a subtle mind, very clever and very charismatic,” the French President said. “But he was elected two months ago and had never run a ministry. There are a certain number of things on which he has no position. And he is not always up to standard on decision-making and efficiency.”

The US President had underperformed on climate change when they met, Mr Sarkozy said, according to an account of the MP’s session in the newspaper Libération. “I told him, ‘I don’t think that you have quite understood what we are doing on carbon dioxide’.”Mr Sarkozy was apparently irked by media reports that Mr Obama had saved the day in London by persuading President Hu of China to reach a compromise with France over tax havens. Mr Sarkozy’s version is that he shamed Mr Obama into action, telling him: “You were elected to build a new world. Tax havens are the embodiment of the old world.”

Taxday Tea Party Protest

Is it just coincidence that as I began to write this post Fortunate Son started playing on iTunes. It fits my mood because I am angry at the finger pointers from both parties.

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays hail to the chief,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senators son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, dont they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

I have a long list of things that make me angry. I am angry about government waste. I am angry about the bailout, but let me be clear about my anger. I am angry at all parties. I am angry about the deregulation and lack of oversight that led to this place. I am angry about the cost of covering the huge mistakes and mismanagement of others.

I am angry about the idiotic remarks of those who take advantage of the rights/privileges they are afforded by living here and do not give back. I am angry because the finger pointers waste my time, my energy and my tax dollars by spewing out rhetoric about how bad the other side is.

Listen you ignorant monkeys, you are part of something bigger and greater than yourself. We pay taxes because it provides a government that helps to see that we have a functional infrastructure.

It pays for the roads that are used by truck drivers to deliver food to the groceries stores.
It pays for research for science that is used to find cures for cancer, for Parkinsons and other terminal illnesses.
It pays for a military that protects us from those who would harm us, be they pirates or others.
It pays so that our children can receive an education.

Damn, it wears me out reading so much garbage across the net. The blithering idiots who tell us that socialism is bad. Do you even understand what it is. Do you know what you are talking about or are you just repeating the crap that someone else spoon fed you.

The buffoons who are naive enough to believe that all people will be nice. George Will provides a good example in his latest column in Newsweek.

"The current president's U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, was on Sunday television recently explaining why she thinks Iran, now several decades into its pursuit of nuclear weapons and close to consummation, might succumb to the siren song of sweet reason and retreat from success. Doing so, she said, would enable Iran "to be a responsible member of the international community"—perhaps not the highest priority for a regime that denies the Holocaust happened, and vows to complete it—and "enter the community of nations." Otherwise Iran will face "the full force of the international community."

Rice really thinks there is a community out there. To believe that is to believe, as liberals do, that harmony is humanity's natural condition, so discord is a remediable defect in arrangements."

I became an independent because I grew disenchanted with the labels and the "restrictions" that came with them. My issue is not with liberals or conservatives. My issue is with those that are so partisan they are unable to work with the other side. Their sole goal is to do whatever they can to thwart the other.

That is detrimental to all of us. So you'll understand if I am less than enamored by the tea party protests. All that noise, we'll see if they actually manage to do more than shout out cute slogans.

Three Predictions about Iran & The Math To Support it

Saudi Arabian Hypocrisy

So that wacky prince thinks that he can lecture President Obama about the peace process.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (CNN -- Relations between Arab nations and the United States hinge on American leaders living up to their rhetoric about commitment to lasting peace in the Mideast, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal told CNN Saturday."President Obama, in his statement yesterday, said that he's genuinely making the effort to accomplish a peaceful resolution," al-Faisal, who served as Saudi ambassador to the United States from 2005 to 2007, told CNN's Nic Robertson in an interview Friday.

"We've heard this before," al-Faisal said. "We need to see implementation. We need to see facts on the ground change. We need to see rhetoric change. We need to see presence on the ground."

He said he was encouraged by Obama's appointment of George Mitchell as Mideast envoy, saying, "Mitchell comes with a track record of success." But he suggested Mitchell spend some time in the region to make real progress.

"American envoys, when they've dealt with the Middle East, have always come and gone," he said.

"I think it would be wise for Sen. Mitchell ... to pitch his tent in Ramallah or in Jerusalem, let's say, and spend a year, two, perhaps three years on the ground dealing with the daily aspects of making peace there." The United States' backing of Israel, in light of the latest Israeli military operations in Gaza, does not improve its standing in the Arab world, he said.

"What happened in Gaza, people have called it a tragedy," al-Faisal said. "I'd go further and say it was a catastrophe in all aspects of that word. The killing and the destruction was so barbaric by Israel, and unprecedented in a such a small area like Gaza.

Hmm...The Arabic expression for bite me comes to mind. The chutzpah it takes to say this sort of stuff with a straight face is incredible. To place all of the blame on Israel and to wave his finger in Obama's face is unmitigated gall.

It is really hard for me take any sort of Saudia Arabian peace initiative seriously. They are morally bankrupt, two faced and exceptionally intolerant to people who do not practice Islam. So when I see them try to lecture us or anyone about what we should do I roll my eyes.

Let's take a quick look at a recent story about child marriage.

(CNN) -- The debate over the controversial practice of child marriage in Saudi Arabia was pushed back into the spotlight this week, with the kingdom's top cleric saying that it's OK for girls as young as 10 to wed.

"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks quoted Wednesday in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."

The issue of child marriage has been a hot-button topic in the deeply conservative kingdom in recent weeks.

Late last month, a Saudi judge refused to annul the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man.

This is sick and wrong. There is no justification for this. There is no spinning this to say that it is ok because it is culturally acceptable or religiously ok. Child sacrifiee and slavery once were considered to be acceptable and we don't do that.

Want another example of their barbarism and why we cannot allow them to dictate morality. How about the time when the religious police murdered school girls fleeing a fire at their school.

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.

In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday.

About 800 pupils were inside the school in the holy city of Mecca when the tragedy occurredAccording to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam.

One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya".

The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that the police - known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice - had stopped men who tried to help the girls and warned "it is a sinful to approach them".

The father of one of the dead girls said that the school watchman even refused to open the gates to let the girls out.

Or what about the fact that 19 of the 911 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. The sad truth is that we can continue to cite chapter and verse about why the Saudis are among the last people to serve as arbiters of morality. Were it not for their oil money they would be a very poor and backwards nation with all of the relevance to the world that the Congo now holds.

If there is justice in this world we will witness the demise of the cash cow that has permitted these intolerant, small minded, bigots and promoters of terror to thrive.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Change is Coming

Three weeks into the new year and I can tell you that I am still grumpy from the old one. Still have too many bills to pay and too few options. Tired of listening to people say that Bush is responsible for all of our problems. Tired of listening to people say that Obama is going to fix all of them. Tired of listening to Sarah Palin whine about whatever it is she is whining about. I am ready to turn on the television, open a newspaper and or surf the net without seeing her name.

Talked to the boys and confirmed that I am not the only curmudgeon feeling this way. But even if I were, I wouldn't care. It is how I feel. Spent more than a few hours talking about such things over the weekend. A few of us got together and held a state of the union and discovered a few things.

We're all ready to give up on women. every last one of us. The wives have gone out of their way to drive us to drink. There is a reason why clumps of hair keep falling out and we have knots in our necks. But I suppose that is only fair to say that the wives are telling similar stories among themselves and truth is that none of us are going to give on women.

To quote my friend John. "Jack, I love hanging out with you and talking to you is real easy. But it is much more fun to sleep with Kelly."

John hadn't quite finished his sentence when he realized how he had left himself open to all sorts of fun replies. Being a gentleman I told him that I agreed with him, it is much more fun to sleep with Kelly because she doesn't snore.

On a more serious note, I suspect that a few more of the boys really are going to hang up their spikes and seek greener pastures. I find these conversations about troubled marriages to be troubling. I don't really want to have give my opinion on whether they should stay or go. I think that it is the sort of conversation that is rife with pitfalls that I don't want to fall into.

Every relationship is different and everybody has their own ideas about what they have to have and what they are willing to compromise upon. I can't really tell anyone what to do, only what I'd do. I don't like straddling the fence, but sometimes it is safer there.

If you wanted a list of complaints about these marriages I can provide it without trying too hard:

Not enough sex
Too much sex
Money problems
Different ideas about child rearing

I suspect that those are relatively universal problems that can crop up. But if you ask me the thing that I don't hear any of them say is that their wives are their best friends or even good friends. Mostly they refer to them in a way that sounds more like a business partner that they occasionally have sexual relations with.

If I have any real advice about marriage to offer anyone it is that you need to like your partner. That is different than love and different than lust. If you don't like them I don't know how you are going to make it for the long haul.

Enough about all that. Here we are less than two hours into the Obama presidency and I wonder what we are going to see happen over the next four years. I am curious for any number of reasons. I suppose that part of it is because President Obama holds the title of first president that I consider to be a contemporary. As far as I am concerned he and I are pretty much part of the same generation.

It is kind of different. Until now I had always thought of the president as being either a really old man or closer to my parent's generation then anything else. Maybe I really am getting older, who knows.

Obama- Realistic Expectations

Less than two days left until we say goodbye to Dubya and set a new milestone by inaugurating Barack Obama as President of the United States of America. That is quite a mouthful, President of the United States of America.

You don't have to spend much time looking around to see descriptions of the POTUS as being the most powerful man in the world. I'd say that it is relatively fair assessment of what comes with being POTUS. However I'd also say that it is not unlimited power. The president is not omnipotent.

So you might ask yourself why I am mentioning any of this. The answer is simple. I have grave concerns about the expectations that some people have of President Obama's ability to solve the challenges facing him.

Far too many people talk about him in almost mythical terms. I am gravely concerned about what is going to happen if he doesn't meet their expectations. And to be honest I don't think that he will. That is not a knock against him. I am not talking about qualifications and whether he has them or not. That discussion is done.

I am convinced that he is a smart guy and that his heart is in the right place. But there is only so much that can be done. And it seems to me that there are people with unrealistic expectations about what he will be able to accomplish. We have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a very tough economic situation. Not to mention all of the fuss over what people think that he'll bring to the ME peace process.

There is enough work there to last four terms, let alone one. So while I very much want him to succeed I do not expect it all to work. I expect that he is going to fail in some areas. And so I wonder what sort of response he is going to receive when this happens.

Let me be clear, I don't think that anyone could walk in on January 20th and fix everything that needs to be adjusted. There is simply too much.

So here is what I am hoping happens. I am hoping that the man exceeds the expectations of those who wish that he fails and that those who idolize him gain a more realistic perspective. Add to that my wish and fervent desire that the polarization we have seen under Dubya and Clinton disappears.

It is time for people to pull together and stop pulling apart, at least that is my dream. In a couple of days we'll get a chance to try and find out if some dreams can come true.

I Loved This George Will Essay

This is fine essay recounting some of the events of 2008. It is worth looking at. Here are a few excerpts:

"If 2008 were not divisible by four, this would have been The Year of Gen. David Petraeus. During the presidential contest between an African-American from Chicago and a plumber from Toledo, eros reared its beguiling head, so: Coming soon to a Cineplex near you, "Republicans in Love," a romantic comedy about conservatives who advocate extravagant presidential powers and who this autumn favored putting the governor of a national park (the federal government owns 63 percent of Alaska) in close proximity to those powers."

and

"Peanut allergy had its 15 minutes as a cause of public health hysteria, long enough for the vigilant schools of Union County, N.C., to ban PB&J sandwiches. In New Haven, Conn., an eighth grader was suspended, removed as class vice president and banned from a school honors dinner because he bought a banned substance from a classmate. The substance was Skittles, the fruit-flavored candy. A food fascist explained that candy sales violate the school system's wellness policy. In Prince William County, Va., police were called when Randy Castro, 7, a first grader, became the subject of an incident report titled "Sexual Touching Against Student, Offensive." While still 6 he had smacked a classmate's bottom. Residents of New York City are becoming obese almost three times faster than other Americans, which is probably partly explained by nanny-mayor Michael Bloomberg's jihad against smoking. Compulsory calisthenics—"Central Park at 6:30 a.m. Be there or be fined!"—cannot be far off."

How To Deal With Pirates

Michael Oren has an essay in the WSJ that discusses how to deal with pirates. Oren provides a historical context in which he addresses what a young U.S. did then and offers a suggestion for the current situation as well.

If you read the essay you'll see that somethings never really change. Here is a brief excerpt.

The choice was excruciating. No longer protected by the British navy and lacking any gunboats of its own, the U.S. had no ready military option. Nor did it have international support. Jefferson's attempt to create an international coalition together with European states was summarily rejected. Defenseless and internationally isolated, most Americans were opposed to devoting their scarce resources to building a navy and instead favored following the age-old European
custom of bribing the pirates -- the euphemism was "tribute" -- in exchange for safe passage. "Would to Heaven we had a navy to reform these enemies to mankind or crush them into non-existence," an exasperated George Washington confided to his old comrade-in-arms, the Marquis de Lafayette.

Washington's frustration could well be echoed today in the face of escalating assaults by pirates from Somalia. Over 90 such attacks have occurred this year alone -- a three-fold increase since 2007 -- resulting in the capture of 14 ships and 250 of their crew members. Among their prizes, the pirates have seized a Ukrainian freighter crammed with Soviet-made battle tanks and, most recently, the tanker Sirius Star with $100 million worth of Saudi crude in its holds. These shipments are now being held off the Somali coast where the pirates are bargaining for their return.

Superficially, at least, there are many differences between the Somali pirates and their Barbary predecessors. The Somali bandits have no declared state sponsors and no avowed religious pretext. Their targets are no longer principally American ships but flags of all nations, including those of Arab states. And they are more interested in ransoming cargoes of arms and oil than hapless sailors. Yet, no less than in the 18th century, 21st-century piracy threatens international trade and confronts the U.S. with complex questions.

Should the U.S. Navy, for example, actively combat the pirates, emulating the Indian warship that destroyed a Somali speedboat earlier this week? Can the U.S., which is already overstretched militarily in two conflicts, afford to assume responsibility for another open-ended operation in the same area? Or should America follow the example now being set by Saudi Arabia and various Asian states which, according to United Nations statistics, have paid $25 million to $30 million in ransoms to the pirates this year alone?

Crossposted here.

Post Election- Sour Grapes

"The election was stolen."
"The people have proven themselves to be stupid."
"He is not my president."
"I am in disbelief. Americans deserve what they get."
"He is going to destroy the country."

Those are a small sample of some of the comments floating around the blogosphere regarding the election. I find them to be disappointing and in some cases disturbing but not necessarily surprising.

They mirror many of the comments that were made after the last election, only instead of coming from the left they are now coming from the right. You can call me naive or unreasonably optimistic but I am not real worried that the country is suddenly going to implode. There is more strength and fiber here than that.

It is disappointing that some people have to label those who disagree with them as being stupid. It is too bad that they don't believe that someone could come to an educated decision that disagrees with their own perspective.

It is my hope that if you don't like what happen you'll suck it up and deal with it. I found eight years of listening to people constantly carp and bash Bush to be tedious. Many of those who yelled the loudest did the least to try and help change things.

I rather expect that we'll see that happen again, but I hope not.

All this nonsense is what made me become an Independent. I don't trust either party. They are both riddled with issues. So I suppose that I am going to continue to cross party lines and vote issue by issue. If that means that you continue to label me as a fencesitter, so be it. I am comfortable with it.

If I go through the archives I know that I wrote a similar post about the crap I heard after Dubya's re-election. So now I am going to try and repeat some of what I said there.

There is no time like the present to try and help improve things. Get involved with your community. Help clean the beaches, wash away grafitti and do things to make life better in your town/village/city. Volunteer at a school and help teach kids to read.

Just get out and do something to make a difference. Cliche or not, it doesn't take much to make a change, just a few people to try.

And now if you'll excuse me I am going to climb down from my soapbox.

What Benefits Do You Receive From Being President

So the election has come and gone and Obama is now the president elect. It leads me along a line of thought that I have two stepped through before and that is what sort of benefits do you get by being president.

Before we go any farther, yes Shmata Queen that is a reference to two stepping, or don't you remember that night... ;) Hah, I am laughing. Richard Dawson is still dead.

Anyhoo, here is a short list of things that I wonder about.

Does the president carry a wallet?
Does the president carry house keys?
Does the president have the option of driving his own car?
How much freedom does the president have to alter his own schedule?
How much vacation and sick time is the president allotted?
Are those tallied up separately or do they come from one bucket of personal time?
Does the president accrue vacation time?

Sometimes I have wondered what would happen if the president decided that he didn't feel like working and just started delegating responsibility. As things stand the president has to delegate a lot of the responsibilities. I know that in some companies senior management can sluff off a ton of work on subordinates to the point that they hardly have anything to do.

Does the president pack his own clothes for trips to summits and the like or is that something that goes to a trusted aide?

I have a ton of other questions, but I'll save those. For now here is some information that I came across that you might find to be of interest.

Here is a link to White House Facts:

There are 132 rooms, 35 bathrooms, and 6 levels in the Residence. There are also 412 doors, 147 windows, 28 fireplaces, 8 staircases, and 3 elevators.

At various times in history, the White House has been known as the "President's Palace," the "President's House," and the "Executive Mansion." President Theodore Roosevelt officially gave the White House its current name in 1901.

Presidential Firsts while in office... President James Polk (1845-49) was the first President to have his photograph taken... President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09) was not only the first President to ride in an automobile, but also the first President to travel outside the country when he visited Panama... President Franklin Roosevelt (1933-45) was the first President to ride in an airplane.

With five full-time chefs, the White House kitchen is able to serve dinner to as many as 140 guests and hors d'oeuvres to more than 1,000.

The White House requires 570 gallons of paint to cover its outside surface.

For recreation, the White House has a variety of facilities available to its residents, including a tennis court, jogging track, swimming pool, movie theater, and bowling lane.

For those who are curious about the V.P. here is a relevant link.

Before 1974, Vice Presidents and their families lived in their own home, but the cost of securing these private homes had grown substantially over the years. After years of debate, Congress agreed to refurbish the house at the Naval Observatory as a home for the Vice President.

Although Number One Observatory Circle was available to the Vice President in 1974, three years passed before a Vice President lived in the home. Vice President Ford became President Ford before he could use the home, and his Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, only used the home for entertaining. Vice President Mondale was the first Vice President to move into the home. It has since been home to the
Bushes, the Quayles and the Gores.

This link has all sorts of information about the benefits. I haven't had time to properly vet all of the information so some of this might need to be doublechecked. Some of it seems to be in line so we'll cite a few sections.

Modern Presidents enjoy many non-salary benefits such as living and working in the spacious White House mansion in Washington, DC. While traveling, the President is able to conduct all the functions of the office aboard several specially built Boeing 747s, which take the call sign Air Force One when the President is aboard. The President travels around Washington in an armored Cadillac limousine, equipped with bullet-proof windows and tires and a self-contained ventilation system in the event of a biological or chemical attack. When traveling longer distances around the Washington area or on presidential trips, the President travels aboard the presidential helicopter, which takes the call sign Marine One when the president is aboard. Additionally, the President has full use of Camp David in Maryland, a sprawling retreat occasionally used as a casual setting for hosting foreign dignitaries.

The President and his family are protected at all times by an extensive Secret Service detail. Until 1997, all former Presidents and their families were protected by the Secret Service until the President's death. The last President to have lifetime Secret Service protection is Bill Clinton; George W. Bush and all subsequent Presidents will be protected by the Secret Service for a maximum of 10 years after leaving office.

Presidents continue to enjoy other benefits after leaving office such as free mailing privileges, free office space, the right to hold a diplomatic passport and budgets for office help and staff assistance. However, it was not until after Harry S. Truman (1958) that Presidents received a pension after they left office. Additionally, since the presidency of Herbert Hoover, Presidents receive funding from the National Archives and Records Administration upon leaving office to establish their own presidential library. These are not traditional libraries, but rather repositories for preserving and making available the papers, records, and other historical materials for each President since Herbert Hoover.

Crossposted here.

Retired IDF Generals On Obama

Politics- I Don't Care

With the election literally around the corner the amount of noise has increased tenfold. Noise is the term that I am using to describe all of the new coverage, campaign ads and conversation that is specifically about the election.

Frankly I am tired and bored of it all. I made my decisions about who I am voting for, what my positions are on the various measures and now I am ready for this all to end. It is time to be done with it and get back to living our lives.

That being said I want to make a comment about political discussions. I readily admit to at times being a gadfly and someone who will provoke conversation. It is my nature to push the envelope and test my limits. It is not necessarily the most mature thing, but it has its moments.

If I buy the story that some of my friends are selling this is the most important and most divisive presidential campaign ever held. I won't spend much time on whether it is important or not because I think that every presidential election is important. When you have the ability to pick up the phone and send troops into battle you swing a big stick. So it really doesn't matter what the situation is, a bad president can do a lot of damage.

The thing that really gets me about this election is the number of times I have heard people say that they can't stand Democrats/Republicans. Call me what you will, but I don't make judgments on whether I like people based on their politics. I suppose that you could argue that politics delineate value sets and that based upon those value sets you can say yea or nay, but I don't really see most of these conversations going that way.

I really don't care if my friends have the same political views as myself. Now maybe that is because I cross party lines, I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. I'll have to think about this a little bit more.

Crossposted here.

The Electoral College

In less than a week we are going to hold another election for president. If the past serves as any sort of guide there is going to be a big discussion about the significance of the popular vote and The Electoral College.

Since some people are unfamiliar with what it is and how it works I thought that it might be useful to provide some information about it.

Here is a procedural guide to the Electoral College as provided by The National Archives.

"The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The electors are a popularly elected body chosen by the States and the District of Columbia on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 4, 2008). The Electoral College consists of 538 electors (one for each of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators; and 3 for the District of Columbia by virtue of the 23rd Amendment). Each State's allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is entitled plus two Senators. The decennial census is used to reapportion the number of electors allocated among the States.

The slates of electors are generally chosen by the political parties. State laws vary on the appointment of electors. The States prepare a list of the slate of electors for the candidate who receives the most popular votes on a Certificate of Ascertainment. The Governor of each State prepares seven original Certificates of Ascertainment. The States send one original, along with two authenticated copies or two additional originals to the Archivist of the United States at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) by registered mail. The Certificates of Ascertainment must be submitted as soon as practicable, but no later than the day after the meetings of the electors, which occur on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008). The Archivist transmits the originals to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The OFR forwards one copy to each House of Congress and retains the original.

The electors meet in each State on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008). A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President and Vice President. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their State.

The electors prepare six original Certificates of Vote and annex a Certificate of Ascertainment to each one. Each Certificate of Vote lists all persons voted for as President and the number of electors voting for each person and separately lists all persons voted for as Vice President and the number of electors voting for each person.

If no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the presidential election to be decided by the House of Representatives. The House would select the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State delegation having one vote. If no Vice Presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the Senate would select the Vice President by majority vote, with each Senator choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes."

Here is a link to some FAQs about the whole process. I'll grab a few excerpts that might be of interest.

"What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which States follow which rule?

There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes.

Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes.For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.

---

How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?

It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State.

Note that 48 out of the 50 States award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does DC). For example, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that State election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes."

The Library of Congress also provides some useful information. You might want to check it out here. For those who don't feel like clicking over here is an excerpt that is worth looking at:

"Until 1804, electors cast votes for candidates without saying whether they were voting for president or vice president. This system crashed and burned in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each received 73 electoral votes. It took the House 36 votes before the tie was broken and Jefferson took office as President.

The 12th Amendment to the Constitution made sure that electors designate their votes for president and vice president. But, the 12th Amendment leaves in place a tie breaking system by which the House of Representatives breaks a tie on presidential electoral votes and the Senate breaks a tie on vice presidential electoral votes. This leaves open an intriguing possibility. Someday a President and Vice President from different political parties could be forced to serve together! What problems do you predict might occur from such an arrangement? Does it offer any benefits? In 1796, Federalist John Adams was elected the nation's second president, and Thomas Jefferson, of the Republican party, was elected vice president. How did these men work together? How did their political differences affect their leadership?

In recent elections, the electoral college has voted presidents into office by extremely slim margins, as in the case of John Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon. Electors have failed to vote for the candidates to whom they were pledged, as in the case of the elector who jumped from Michael Dukakis' ticket to that of Lloyd Bentsen. And William Jefferson Clinton did not win more than 50% of the popular vote in the three-way presidential race of 1992. Clinton did, however, win the electoral vote and become president."

Crossposted here.

Charles Barkley on CNN

I am typically skeptical of professional athletes who choose to run for office, but I agree with much of what Barkley says in this interview.

Political Ads

Found these over at Toner Mishap and thought that I'd pass them along.

Opie, Andy, Ritchie and The Fonz.

Wassup Guys
Past
and
Present

Crossposted here.