Schools Should be Open. This is Why.

 "...As a result, many Americans have an overexaggerated view of certain aspects of the pandemic. One of these may well bear on school reopenings: According to polling, Americans massively overestimate the number of children who have died from the disease. Per the CDC, in the United States, children represent less than 0.1% of total pandemic-related deaths. While each individual death is a tragedy, the statistics remind us of a crucial, well-established feature of this virus: It is far less risky for children, with Americans above age 65 constituting 81% of the share of deaths.

In the same polling, Americans also massively overestimate the likelihood that a COVID-19 infection will lead to hospitalization. Forty-one percent of Democrats hold the completely implausible view that more than half of infections result in hospitalization. Ironically, despite the widespread assumption that Republicans underplay the disease, 26% of Republicans get the rate of hospitalization correct, compared with 10% of Democrats, according to the same study..."

Article Here

Voters Remorse

I predicted that many folks were blindly voting for Obama based on his likeability rather than his agenda. Now, it seems, many who are getting a full whiff of the DNC agenda as evidenced by the massive spending qua stimulus bill are having second thoughts. Oh, that the media had done it's job in October....(Story linked in headline)

Excerpt:"Two weeks into the Obama presidency, we like his campaign better than his administration," the Observer said Wednesday. "While some of his appointments are outstanding, others were either badly botched or reflect a half-hearted commitment to the change principle central to his ballot box success."

How Come They Are Doing This to Military Voters??????

The Democrats, alleged umbrella party of all that is warm, squooshy and nice, wants "everyone" to vote. Homeless people, people here illegally, people in prison---they should all vote.
But....
Not the military. This happened during the Gore campaign as well. In Florida, military votes were tossed as well. Could it be because of a technicality. Or is it because the military has voted for McCain in epic numbers according to polling? At any rate, this should be something that raises suspicions of even the most benevolent of apologists.

Cutting Teachers Off At The Knees

The DISD, herein known as That District in Dallas, has once again hit a new personal low. In their dubious wisdom, the board has decided that homework won't be given if it will lower a student's grade, no grade lower than a 50% will be given and if a student retakes a test, the higher score will be used.
Story here

*slow simmer*

This is ridiculous. And it's also probably the result of a teacher publicly outing a coach for placing pressure to pass a student/athlete. Ironically, while this played out in the press, the adminstrators and coaches all seem to be pretty much in place. The teacher who reported the actions was non-renewed-educationspeak for "fired". How is this going to work? Kids can do nothing and get a 50%. They are free to sleep, to be disruptive, to generally cause havoc. And they don't really have to stretch to learn ANYTHING. The problem is that they will still have to pass state mandated tests-TAKS this year, end of course testing next year. How is that going to play out? How are kids who have partied their way to a 50 going to pass a state test? And when they don't, who will be blamed?

Answer: The teachers. The teachers will be blamed for all miscues, failures and mistakes. They will lose their jobs. And frankly, at this point, working at Walmart might be a relief.

The Dallas Independent School District has decided they won't teach anything to a student that doesn't want to learn. And they will blame teachers when these same students fail.

Yeah, that's fair. *sarcasm*

I understand that not all students learn at the same speed. My district even has reteach/retest policies in place. But we do expect students to turn in work. We do expect them to learn. And frankly, for students that do nothing in my class, I have given scores lower-much lower-than a 50%. To give a student that much for just showing up is tantamount to paying a clerk for showing up at the door, but still doing nothing. This is just another great example of nanny state mentality and the acceptance of mediocrity as the norm. And this is why we are playing economic catch up with the rest of the world.

McCain, Not Obama, Right This Time

Courtesy of the Chicago Sun Times

August 12, 2008

STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com

Mention Georgia a few days ago, and most of us would have thought of the state evoked so sweetly in "Georgia on My Mind," the classic tune sung by Ray Charles. Very few of us had heard of the South Ossetia province of Georgia, the nation with the misfortune to have Russia as its neighbor, until war broke out last week.

Like Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait and other unfamiliar places before, Ossetia reminds us that a small, remote corner of the globe can explode into an international crisis. One who was up to speed on Georgia and the menace it faced from Russia was veteran Sen. John McCain. He had visited the Caucasian nation three times in a dozen years. When fighting erupted, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate got on the phone to gather details and issued a statement Friday summarizing the situation, tagging Russia as the aggressor and demanding it withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Georgia.

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain's experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.

Obama's favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia's invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia and, to that end, bully former vassal states like Georgia out of their democratic ways. The fear is that Ukraine will come in his cross hairs next.

However the world's newest war ends, America's leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia's resurgent aggressive instincts -- the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.

While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea -- long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts -- now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.

McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.

As Georgia burns, we need to light a fire under all the talk about energy security and start doing what it takes to make it happen.

Scandal Brewing OR Who's Under the Bus This Week

The media has given a free pass to the Democrats by and large because the president and Republicans in general were a more popular target for venom and ridicule. So here we have this economic situation fueled largely by dropping dollars from the mortgage "crisis" (did you ever notice how every liberal issue is a "crisis"?) Anyway, where is the outcry in the media about these stories? They go very high up in the DNC echelon and hardly anyone is giving them page one treatment. Where's the angst folks? Where's the accusations and calls for censure? Pay special attention to the very close alliance between current and former Countrywide executives and the Obama campaign. Heck, one of them is vetting potential VP candidates. *pensive" Do you think that the views potential candidates have toward litigation of the folks involved with subprime loans will play into who is chosen? Just wondering
Story One
Story Two
Story Three
Story Four

Rewriting History

One of the scariest aspect of political correctness is the rampant attempt to force errant facts into the mix. Facts, as they say, is facts. Yet folks like Spike Lee play fast and loose with history and try to shape it into their own image. If this were a movie about the Buffalo Soldiers, it would be ridiculous and out of place to have Anglos, Hispanics and Asians in roles that they did not fulfill during that time in history. During WWII, like it or not, American forces were largely segregated. A majority of the soldiers who fought and died on Saipan, Iwo Jima and other islands in the Pacific were anglo. That may not go down well with Spike Lee, but once again, it's either factual or it's not. By the way, Lee's own racial tunnel vision is open to view because he failed to acknowledge one of the Iwo Jima heroes, Hayes, who was Native American. By the way, how many non-stereotypical, rhythmless anglo people has Lee featured in his recent epics? Isn't stereotyping a kind of racism? Where are the non-smart Asians and the legal upscale Hispanics in Lee's movies? I guess it's easy to throw down with someone who is forty years older than you, but when it comes to brass tacks, Lee, you don't have a clue what fairness really is.

Conquered From Within

In the bad old days of the Cold War, Moscow claimed that they would never need to use nuclear weapons, because they would ultimately conquer us from within. Likewise, the capture of American captives pushed Americans to vote Jimmy Carter out of office due to his lackluster attempt to deal from a position of equanimity rather than dealing with the preservation of the United States as his goal. So witness this spike in oil prices
HERE
Ask yourself a few questions-
Who is raising the prices?
Answer: speculators, foreign investors and producers-this is obvious because although consumption is dropping the prices continue to rise. As I have stated before, this is just the commodity equivalent of the flipping of real estate that precipitated the mortgage situation.
Who benefits from a weakening U.S. economy?
Answer: China, India, the Middle East, oil producing nations and Europe. By the way, someone might want to enlighten them to the legend of the "Goose and the Golden Egg."
Who bears the burden of cost?
Answer: American taxpayers
What could be the ultimate goal?
Answer: A crash on the American stock market with the goal being to overtake us economically, from within.
Who bears the burden/blame for opening our borders without imposing tarriffs and insisting on trade equivalence?
Answer: Washington-from Executive branch to the Congress they have opened our borders via NAFTA, they have refused to impose limits on illegal immigration which erodes our per capita resources. Someone needs to tell them the story about "The Emperor's New Clothes" and "The Little Red Hen".
You may think I am weighing in as an alarmist, but when you see the amount of investment in American companies by foreign investors, there is ample cause for concern. Congress can point fingers all they want at the White House, and there are reasons that the Executive branch has failed to stem this situation, but Congress has had a one party majority for TWO YEARS. And in that time they have done nothing to help develop companies and the related jobs on our own soil nor have they allowed Americans to find and use domestic resources for our own welfare. Isn't it about time we stop the beauty pageant nature of this campaign and start demanding some serious answers that don't involve smoke and mirrors?

Another View of Rev. Wright's Foot In Mouth Situation

I came across this online and thought that excerpts might be interesting to folks. This does have quite a bit to do with how Mr. Obama approaches issues and says a great deal about what his idea of equality might be. Don't you know HIllary's operatives are combing every piece of footage they can find on Rev. Wrights diatribes (I won't honor them by calling them sermons because sermons are about faith and this is partisan politics plain and simple.)
Entire article here.

"The Obama Crash and Burn
If he acts as if the Wright controversy is behind him, it's over for Obama.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes.

For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else.

Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.

The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism. We learn now that Obama is the last person who wants to end the establishment notion that a few elite African Americans negotiate with liberal white America over the terms of grievance and entitlement — without which all of us really would be transracial persons, in which happiness and gloom hinge, and are seen to do so, on one’s own individual success or failure.

Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense. But to most others the effect was Clintonian...."

"...The more the pundits gushed about the speech, the more the average Americans thought, “Wait a minute — did he just say what I thought he said?” It’s not lost on Joe Q. Public that Obama justified Wright’s racism by offering us a “landmark” speech on race that:

(1) Compared Wright’s felony to the misdemeanors of his grandmother, Geraldine Ferraro, the Reagan Coalition, corporate culture, and the kitchen sink.

(2) Established the precedent that context excuses everything, in the sense that what good a Wright did (or an Imus did) in the past outweighs any racist outburst of the present.

(3) Claimed that the voice of the oppressed is not to be judged by the same rules of censure as the dominant majority that has no similar claim on victim status.

What is happening, ever so slowly, is that the public is beginning to realize that it knows even less after the speech than it did before about what exactly Obama knew (and when) about Wright’s racism and hatred. .."

When Barry Became Barack

I found this article from Newsweek very interesting because if we are going to continue with what amounts to a rush to coronation, we must know what makes this man tick. I am not faulting his early years or his upbringing-all kids want to "fit in" and be part of the crowd. What I found a bit disturbing was this segment in which Mr. Obama's memory of the situation differs greatly with that of his friend. And this detail gives us a little insight into how awkward and how much Mr. Obama's African American heritage plays into his political spiel. The story itself is linked to the headline above.
Excerpt:
"Back in Hawaii in the 1970s, it could seem that everyone was some kind of a minority. The fact that Obama was half-black and half-white didn't matter much to anyone but Obama, Kakugawa says: "He made everything out like it was all racial." On one occasion, Obama thought he'd gotten a bad break on the school basketball team because he was black. But Kakugawa recalls his father's telling the teenager, "No, Barry, it's not because you're black. It's because you missed two shots in a row." (Here, Kakugawa's memory is different from Obama's. The Ray character in the book is the one obsessed with being discriminated against.)....."

The Movie Juno is NOT Reality.

Many people applauded the movie "Juno" for what they saw as a positive affirmation of life. I teach high school and I am angered by the messages the mainstream media sends to our kids. As teens we heard "if it feels good,do it" the result being that we had a generation that spent far too much time feeling their way through life without doing much. Two generations later, we have some segments of our community were 70% of the children are born to single parents. Sure, there are success stories. Their are young mothers who move on, who get educated and who raise their children responsibly. But there are also those young women who see messages such as are put out there by Hollywood and TV networks and other such purveyors of what is seen as the "enlightened message" that say women can do it all. Teenage girls are not women. They are children. And these children are having babies. For every girl who is successful, there are ten who are not. These girls drop out of school, they invite a parade of questionable men into their lives and those of their children. Their kids are more likely to be poor, to suffer from disabilities, to be hungry, to be abused and to die at the hands of those who claim to want them. Not a week goes by that we hear about another "mommy's boyfriend" or even "mommy" who thinks it's okay to simply take a child's life. And the courts and criminal justice system don't help when murdering a child gets far less punishment that killing an adult. I am not alone in this sentiment, but if you think this is just a conservative view, here's a column from Slate-a far more liberal online mag-and they share the same views with details.
Excerpt:
...I get letters all the time that describe the turbulence that results from deciding marriage is archaic. Sometimes the writers start with a conflicted sense of hope. "My ex is rather immature and irresponsible. I had a recent fling with him that resulted in pregnancy. I am overjoyed with the impending arrival of my baby, but I fear that no one else in my life will feel the same way." This is followed by more conflicted and less hopeful letters when the kids are small. "My boyfriend and I have a child who is almost 2. He also has a daughter and I have two other children. We bought a home together, but a week before we were about to move in, he left me. Now it's four months later, and he's bought me an engagement ring, but I found out he had a girlfriend during the time we were split." "I have two children with my ex-boyfriend. We broke up because last year a paternity test he was ordered to have came back positive. Even though we are not together, I still want my kids to have a father in their life. I also know he is ignoring his new son because he wants nothing to do with the mom, but that little boy also deserves to have a male figure who cares."

Having unmarried parents can be devastating for children who start out with no cushion in life. In 1999 congressional testimony, Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution said that the increase in single-parent families—mostly due to unwed motherhood in the past few decades—"can account for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since 1970." A recent study found that the stress of early childhood poverty can literally damage developing brains.

Slate article

My New Personal Political Agenda

I am dismayed by the way the primary season has run out. We have Hillary Clinton, actively campaigning in Michigan and Florida-states whose delegates aren't supposed to be seated because they move up their primaries. We have main stream media that is shaping the battlefield for a race between John McCain and some democrat regardless of what the general population wants. We have small homogeneous states picking and choosing candidates for the rest of us based on their limited and largely rural backgrounds. We have this candidate casting stones at the others and in general, if you are like me, you are sick to death of it.

My candidate is out. I really think that Fred Thompson had the most concise and logical platform of ideas. But he didn't run the campaign to the media's liking and so dropped out. Giuliani too, not my favorite but an early frontrunner, was scuttled by a media which wants to heap laurels on two small states and begin the bickering and backstabbing on a national scale. And what of Texas and other states whose primaries are down the road past Super Tuesday? It would seem that our votes don't matter. It would also seem that the candidates simply do not care. Why should I waste time and effort voting for someone who doesn't even know I exist?

So here's my strategy (or stratergery if you prefer.) Since I consider Clinton a vindictive and dangerous nominee who has too much ambition and is too clever by half, in a McCain v. Clinton election, I hold my nose and voter for McCain. BUT.....In a McCain v. Obama race, I choose Obama. Why? you ask. Because:
1. This would lay to rest the use of the "race card" in all public and governmental events.
2. If you are going to elect someone with liberal causes anyway, you might as well go whole hog and pick one that has the liberal street cred. That way when the wheels fall off, it won't be the Republicans stuck holding the bag, again.
3. I think that Obama is calmer, younger and more detail oriented than McCain. His background as a professor would cause him to be more analytical, and although they may not like it, more conservative in the measures he chooses to take. Unlike Clinton, his background is constitutional law and he knows the structure of the government and the limitations of the office of President.
4. The election of Clinton would play into every negative female CEO stereotype and set women back fifty years.
5. McCain is simply not reasonable as has been demonstrated in a number of contradictory stances on many public issues.
6. Clinton has a great deal of political baggage and political payback. The POTUS and Congress are already at their lowest ebb-Congress being lower-than before in history. We really don't need a radical ideologue to cram a bunch of heavy handed programs down the throats of a weakly controlled and slavish Congress.

Beware the Ecology Nuts in Sheep's Clothing

Three years ago, I noticed the radical shift in Democrat rhetoric to a strident tone. When I was trying to find the source, I found it in the Green Party's platform. I invite you to visit their website and compare their goals with those of the Democrats. There's virtually no difference. The Greens have managed to manipulate a great deal of Europe into a type of ecological fascism that is founded more on supposition and hyperbole than on actual science. While we should certainly use our resource prudently and make changes in order to conserve, the more liberal of the left wing would have us return to the days of horseback and outdoor plumbing. That's simply unteneable in this day and age. These same people cite humans and cows as the main source of ecological harm. What about the larger scale events such as pesky volcanic eruptions? Those are not caused by global warming and indeed do in and of themselves provide ample greenhouse gases and debris to the atmosphere.
Yet I see little being done to cap those babies.

While these advocates have embroidered the past with images of vast expanses of green pastures and thick forests, the reality is that we have more trees on the north American continent now than we did 200 years ago. And while we are at it, if using gasoline powered engines is bad for the relatively moderately spread populations of the developed world, does it really make sense for the densely populated areas of India and China to get on board with fossil fuels? And that is where I depart. Because although there are certainly many good reasons for conserving fuel, converting to alternative fuels and recycling, the Greens in their guise of Democrats at Large want us all to give up everything in order to provide services to nations that could not care less if we survive. At that point, the arguement is no longer ecological, but political. And being that the Democrats, like their mentoring Greens, are absolutists of the n-th degree, that means all or nothing. We will see what litmus tests come up in the next twelve months, but I am betting that none of the truly viable options that will let us maintain our standard of living will be part of the platform mix.