"Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!"

Though it's always fun to listen to Pink Floyd anyway, I also feel like everyone would do well to remember the song Another Brick in the Wall with everything that's been going on lately. I assure you this isn't another joke, just read the words:

"We dont need no education.
We dont need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teacher, leave those kids alone.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!
All in all its just another brick in the wall.
All in all youre just another brick in the wall."

Isn't it sad our education system needs Pink Floyd to keep them in line?! For those who don't know what I'm talking about here's there are two frightening recent events I'm thinking of in particular:

This video has recently been shown to elementary kids in school throughout the country:



I know it's kinda long, but most of it is either grossly misleading or totally full of crap. But even if it were accurate, would it be proper to schow it to little kids IN SCHOOL? Do we really expect elementary kids to have an informed opinion about it?

Here's another one:



Again, this is in an elementary school! Whoever thought this kind of thing would happen in America? Ridiculous.

What I Learned Today at School

Today my Business Organizations prof was out of town. Instead of canceling class to make it up later - what usually happens - we had to go to class and watch a 2.5 hour Canadian documentary, "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power." To minimize the temptation to sluff, a class roll was passed around, and our prof informed us earlier to expect a weighty question on our final regarding the film content. Here is what I learned:

"Most" Corporations are, among other things . . . (notice the quotation marks)

"slave owners, sharks, master exploiters, reckless, cancer-spreaders, doom machines [my personal favorite], liars, criminals, psychopaths, unaccountable tyrants, profit hungry swine, monsters, polluters, predators, plunderers, manipulators, skull collectors, invaders, imperialists, brain washers, Fascist Nazis, responsible for Hitler's rise to power [mainly IBM and Coca-Cola], and thus complicit in the Holocaust."

Who knew? Thank you Joel Bakan, Micheal Moore and friends, for enlightening me today.

The Royal "We"?

I listened to part of Pres. Obama's speech to the U.N. General Assembly this morning. He said many things I agree with, some I did not. The speech revealed a strategy behind some of his earlier decisions / actions that made no sense otherwise. I was generally reinforced in my impression that we have a very intelligent and capable head of state.

What gnawed at me, though, was his use of the first person throughout the speech. "MY first day in office I . . . " signed an order" ending torture by the U.S. "I ordered the closure" of Gitmo. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. There seems to be no recognition of his position in this. Barack Obama didn't do anything. The President of the United States, and therefore the government of the United States, did.

It got worse (in my probably-paranoid view). When referring to the United States, more often than not, Pres. Obama repeatedly used the phrase "MY country." Now the United States is my country, too, and there is nothing evil about singing the tune "This Is My Country." But given his position as chief executive, it would have been more appropriate to say "the U.S." or "the United States" or "this country" (in context) or "America" (he used the phrase anti-American" so why not "America?"). I can't imagine George Washington referring to America in a speech to foreign heads of state as "my country" as it lacks humility, possibly conveying the impression that the chief executive owns, or at least possesses, the country.

So when Pres Obama started using the first person plural, I started hearing the language of royalty. Even when the king stands alone, he refers to himself as "us." What the queen owns is "ours." A royal person does not say "I believe" or "I decree." It is "We believe" and "We decree." If you listen to the speech in this light, you may find it disturbing, whether you agree with the substance of his speech or not.

I think humility is a scarce commodity among national politicians. But the more experienced ones do a better job of putting on the pretense. Yes, I prefer pretended humility to unvarnished conceit.

Avoiding the Word "Tax" at All Costs

I hesitated to post about this because I know some readers don't appreciate negative exposure to the Pres, but I just couldn't pass this up. Pres. Obama has a very interesting definition of what a "tax" is, and is not. Apparently, a health care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. The following is an excerpt from a WSJ opinion article, with emphasis added:

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Mr. Obama was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the "individual mandate." Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?"

"Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ."

"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)

Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.

Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"

Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."

Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"

Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."

Anyone have any thoughts on this? My personal opinion is that he is trying way too hard to make good on one of his very popular campaign promises - that if you made less than 200K per year (or whatever it was), you would not see your taxes go up "one dime." Does Obama really think people believe his side in this interview, with the dictionary and common sense on the other side? Isn't it worse that he had to be cornered like this, on national TV, and still deny the obvious rather than own up to it, admit that it is clearly a tax, but mitigate the damage by explaining why he thinks it is still necessary? It's only one tiny little three letter word, no big deal!

The saddest, most embarrassing part of the interview for Obama was when he first accused George of "making up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," Then, when George pulls out the dictionary, as if to say, "These aren't my words, I'm not making this language up," Obama then accuses him of "stretching a little bit." Clearly, this interview showed the nation that it was President Obama, not George, who was "stretching" by "making up that language" and "deciding that that's [not] called a tax increase."

What's your opinion?

Since we have a lot of legally minded people that read this, I wanted to get your opinion on this particular case out of Arizona. Here's a short synopsis of the case.


Arizona parents sue over kids' bath pictures
September 17th, 2009 @ 6:05pm
PHOENIX (AP) - An Arizona couple accused of sexual abuse after taking bath-time photos of their children and then trying to have them developed at Walmart are suing the state and the retail giant.
Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree's three young daughters were taken away by Arizona Child Protective Services last fall when a Walmart employee found partially nude pictures of the girls on a camera memory stick taken to the store for processing, according to the suit.
The Peoria couple's attorney said Walmart turned the photos over to police and the Demarees were not allowed to see their children for several days and didn't regain custody for a month while the state investigated.
Neither parent was charged with sexual abuse and they regained custody of their children _ then ages 1 1/2, 4 and 5 _ but the Demarees claim the incident inflicted lasting harm.
The couple is seeking undetermined monetary damages from both Walmart and the state and have requested a jury trial.
Richard Treon, the lawyer for the Demarees, said the images of the girls were part of a group of 144 photographs taken mostly during the family's vacation in San Diego.
There were seven to eight bath- and playtime photos of the girls that showed a "portion or outline or genitalia."
"There was nothing sexual about it," Treon said. "This is a parent's worst nightmare."
One lawsuit names Arizona, Peoria and the state Attorney General's Office as defendants, claiming that employees from each defamed them by telling friends, family members and co-workers that they had "sexually abused" their children by taking pornographic pictures of them.
A second lawsuit, naming Walmart as the defendant, says the company is at fault for not telling Anthony Demaree that it had an "unsuitable print policy" and could decide to turn any photos over to law enforcement.
Calls to Arkansas-based Walmart and officials from Peoria and Arizona seeking comment on the suits were not immediately returned Thursday.

So what do you think? Should the parents be registered as sex offenders? Is America sue happy? Do these parents deserve compensation for their "loss"? I'm interested in what everyone thinks, because I honestly don't quite know what to think.

My Unorthodox Take on Joe Wilson

This was originally intended as a comment on the previous posting, but given its length I think it’s more appropriate as a separate posting. I know you’re all probably sick of all my bloviating by now, but I feel the length is necessary to justify my position in this instance, since, I'm probably the only conservative/republican—with the only exception I know of being Ann Coulter—that actually agrees with Joe Wilson on this one, albeit somewhat reluctantly. I guess I'm hoping that given my position, you all will be curious to find out WHY I would even bother sticking up for Joe Wilson...assuming you don't already think I've simply lost my mind... :)

First a disclaimer: considered in isolation, I would normally agree that this was inappropriate. That is, generally speaking it's not polite to interrupt someone and call them a liar...obviously.

That said, however, I think that IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, it was justified for numerous reasons.

The first and obvious point to anyone who is informed or at least heard Wilson’s explanation is this: Obama really WAS lying. Sorry dad, but I don't think this was merely political spin or parsing hairs like we’re accustomed to from our politicians. Obama’s claim (along with many others in this propaganda speech) was absolutely false. Or if you don’t agree on that point, there are numerous other examples to choose from in the speech. In fact, Rush Limbaugh feels strongly enough about it to say that Obama lied THE WHOLE TIME. So there’s plenty to go on here, if not the one Joe Wilson spotted.

Now this is the point where, I believe, most people would bring up the point about “respecting the OFFICE of the President,” suggesting that he shouldn’t have to justify his points in the middle of a speech to a “disrespectful heckler” (or something along those lines). I take issue with that for three reasons: first, it’s not just up to Americans to respect the President NO MATTER WHAT—rather the President has to EARN our respect by living up to the public trust;—second, you can’t condemn Wilson’s response without condemning audience participation in general; and third, the political arena is often governed by a separate set of rule where teleological (I’ll explain the concept later) concerns often override common standards of decency.

For those who don’t agree with me on the first point, I would make mention of another incident involving a lying President …which, if memory serves me, resulted in IMPEACHMENT. And the lie at issue merely involved the man’s personal life, yet many people felt that lying about that meant he no longer deserved to lead us. The question I’m asking, then, is why lies over a LIFE AND DEATH issue are considered less important than lies over an affair?

To be fair, some would claim there’s a distinction between following legitimate political process (impeachment) and interrupting the President during a speech. In other words, one could argue that impeaching the President wasn’t DISRESPECTFUL in the same way Wilson’s interruption was. I can accept that, and I shall address that concern later. For the time being my point is simply that there’s nothing wrong with expecting a certain level of decency and professionalism from our President (and all elected officials, for that matter), and that honesty OBVIOUSLY falls under that umbrella. My argument suggests such behavior effectively UNDOES the claim to automatic respect afforded to the person by virtue of the office itself…otherwise it would just be too easy for the President to take advantage of our respect (look how Obama’s already been treating “naysayers” and “dissenters”).

Now I imagine there are some who don’t agree with Clinton’s impeachment, who could therefore consistently say “it wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now; impeaching Clinton was no more justified than interrupting Obama.” But this is where my second point comes in (well it’s actually Ann Coulter’s point, but I agree with it anyway): audience participation wasn’t exactly discouraged in this speech. Anyone who watched it had to notice that half the room (obviously the Democrats) gave standing ovations repeatedly throughout the whole thing. So this wasn’t exactly a low key speech where everyone felt compelled to remain silent to “respect” the President. On the contrary, cheering was actually ENCOURAGED, not to mention obviously appreciated by Obama himself (I wonder if he even could give a speech without people cheering him on the whole time). So how, then, can you cut off the other half of the room (the Republicans) if they don’t share the same sentiment? If people who agree can cheer, then why can’t others boo if they don’t? Isn’t that an obvious double-standard? I’m sorry, but once you open the door for cheers, then you can’t automatically expect not to be booed: you just can’t have it both ways. If those who complain by saying “this isn’t the House of Commons” were honest, they would have an equal complaint with the cheering democrats as they did with Joe Wilson. Though I suppose some could potentially draw a distinction between booing and Wilson’s interruption, I would submit that they’ve never been to any kind of sporting event—the two go hand in hand, I’m afraid.

Here's the clip in case I didn't explain it clearly:



Now I know there are many idealists (no offense: I often proudly consider myself an idealist) out there who are still convinced that you can’t fight evil with evil—so to speak—and therefore Wilson should have kept his cool EVEN IF Obama deserved what he got. My response to that sentiment is this: you also have to remember that this is politics, and typical behavioral guidelines don’t always harmonize with our normal moral standards (in certain cases). What I’m alluding to is teleology, which is the idea that sometimes “the end justifies the means.” Though this is typically used as an excuse to justify something morally questionable (otherwise the “means” would need no justification in the first place), it isn’t always a bad thing in practical terms, such as instances involving choosing the “lesser of two evils,” for example, which is something we see ALL THE TIME in politics.

So how does that apply here, then? Earlier I alluded to the extremely important nature of this particular issue, since it literally involves matters of life and death. In a literal sense, OUR VERY LIVES are the “ends” at issue, so the proper (teleological) question to ask is this: what “means” would I be justified in employing in order to SAVE MY OWN LIFE (the “end,” in this case)? Though the question would require serious philosophical discussion to adequately answer, the immediate point is that framing it in THESE terms is CONSIDERABLY different than simply saying “Joe Wilson’s interruption was disrespectful to the President.” If, in other words, I change that statement to “Joe Wilson’s interruption was disrespectful to the President EVEN IF IT SAVES OUR LIVES,” then all of a sudden we’re having an ENTIRELY different discussion. Indeed, I doubt there’s ANYBODY out there who would have the audacity to make the second claim (assuming, of course, they believed the interruption actually could change the eventual outcome).

Though the second statement admittedly could not be proven, even after the fact, I think one can reasonably conclude that it did have at least SOME effect. To illustrate, let’s compare Wilson’s interruption to the Republican response: which has gotten more attention? Aside from casual mention at the end of articles/stories involving the President’s speech, I don’t think ANYBODY is talking about what was said in the Republican response. In fact, I don’t even remember the guy’s name, nor do I remember much of what he said. Joe Wilson, on the other hand, I remember, and so does most of the country, because WE’RE STILL TALKING ABOUT HIM. It really is like the adage: “bad publicity is still publicity.” Few things in American politics are as powerful as a good old-fashioned controversy, because—I would argue—people are naturally fascinated with conflict. Though most would look at that as a negative thing—I’m not saying it isn’t, don’t get me wrong—it is, nevertheless, a VERY powerful tool. Even though most people aren’t very happy with Joe Wilson right now, I still think this was probably THE BEST MOVE OF HIS CAREER: now he’s a significant national figure. I almost wonder whether he did it ANTICIPATING all this controversy and exposure...

How Old are We?

For those who didn't watch last night, Pres. Obama was rudely interrupted during his health care address to Congress. Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "you lie!" when Obama was explaining that illegal immigrants will not be covered under his proposals. I think the childish outburst was totally uncalled for and disrespectful. He rightly issued an apology afterward, saying that he regretted doing that, and that his emotions got the better of him. I also thought that those little papers many Republicans kept waving around were stupid and childish too. It gave me a flashback to my senior year of high school when we played Mountain Crest at their gym in basketball. Their whole student section held up newspapers in front of their faces while we ran onto the court for starting lineups. You'd hope that members of Congress have matured a little since high school.

However, what irritates me is when my liberal classmates and professors pretend that this sort of thing is unprecedented - How dare the minority party disrespect the President like this! My suspicions of a double standard were confirmed today when I saw the Drudge Report. Turns out that Pres. Bush was disrespected, heckled and loudly booed by Dems during his 2005 State of the Union address. So it seems the Dems can't take what they dish out. Does that make it ok for Republicans to retaliate? NO. Wouldn't it be nice if BOTH parties would be mature enough to refrain from disrespecting the President during an address. Or am I asking too much?

I Pledge Allegiance to . . . Obama?

President Obama is scheduled to address all grade-schoolers next week, and many conservatives are skeptical, worried, and some are even planning on keeping their kids home that day - fearing a subtle liberal "indoctrination" or "brainwashing" session. For the record, I think that's going overboard. According to the White House, this will not be a liberal policy speech, but more of a "do good, stay in school, work hard, etc." speech. If that will be the case, I don't have a problem with it.

However, maybe some of those conservatives have a reason to be a little worried. Last week, the Principal and the PTA of an elementary school in Farmington, UT decided to show a brief clip showing various Hollywood liberal celebrities "pledging" to do certain things to help the President and the world. Here it is:

I agree with most of the video. But to be honest, I found other parts to be creepy ("I pledge to serve Barack Obama"), gross ("I pledge to flush only after a deuce, and not a single"), blatantly political (advancing stem cell research, for example), weird (what is "the United funk of funkadelica?"), vague ("I pledge to be the change."), and flat-out liberal propaganda. During the movie, the principal actually turned to her assistant and said "Oops, I wish I would have seen this before. I don't think I would have shown it" and now has to apologize to parents whose first graders may put them on little guilt trips for using plastic instead of paper at the grocery store, flushing the toilet after urinating, buying bottled water, driving a non-hybrid car, and asking them what "21st century slavery" means, and what they can do to help stop it (I'm still scratching my head over that one).

By the way Demi Moore, "We the People" are not presidential servants. Our elected officials are called "public servants" for a reason - they serve us (or are supposed to, at least), not the other way around. Could you imagine the liberal uproar if Bush made a video like this? Keith Olberman's huge head would explode! Ha ha. Seriously though, if parents want to teach their young, impressionable kids these things at home, great! But keep this partisan stuff out of the public school system, or let parents know before you show it. What do you guys think?