My Beauty Best Teacher

In 2008 in my post Obama Intends on Bankrupting all Coal Producers in the US I wrote:

Check out this clip. In it, Obama tells the interviewer that he intends to put in place government policies that will bankrupt anyone who wants to build a coal power plant, and progressively ramp up pressure on coal producers already there in the hopes of bankrupting them too. He clearly states this as his goal as President- to bankrupt coal producers.

Look, a lot of people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Colorado, or Wyoming work in the coal industry. He is telling you he intends to take your job away.

Look, a lot of our energy in this country is produced by coal. Obama is telling anyone that uses any energy at all that he intends to drive up the price of it. Combine this with his anti-drilling stances for oil, and get used to an economy that is starved for energy- high inflation, low growth, unemployment, and bad times.

The beauty of being a conservative instead of a liberal is that my predictions are usually correct more often, and 4 years ago I predicted exactly what would happen after our nation elected someone who was opposed to life, opposed to liberty, and opposed to the creation and protection of property- high inflation (maybe?), low growth (yup), unemployment (yup), and bad times (yup).

And President Barack Obama (Democrat) has followed through with his stated intentions- via the Gateway Pundit I read this anecdotal evidence that his personally-run agencies are systematically implementing rules and regulations that have caused at least 3 coal-fired plants in West Virginia to close, causing loss of jobs, higher energy prices, more people on food stamps, and more Democrat-dependent voters:

Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations.

The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted.

The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of peak demand for power.

The plants operated under subsidiary Monongahela Power. Mon Power recently finished a study of unscrubbed coal fired plants in the system to determine the potential impact of the most recent environmental regulations from EPA. Company officials determined the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) made it unfeasible to retrofit or continue operating the three plants.

“The high cost to implement MATS and other environmental rules is the reason these Mon Power plants are being retired,” said James R. Haney, regional president of Mon Power and president of West Virginia Operations for FirstEnergy.

Let's not lose sight of these decisions made by the President of the United States that have adversely affected our economy- he'll try to confuse us, attack his opponents, and will point to signs of economic growth (companies that either fought through and past Obama's policies or companies that gave political support and cover to Obama and were rewarded with loans and support), but the reality is that policies that he implements and tries to implement still are bad for America.

There is a choice though in 2012- between President Obama and more of these sorts of policy decisions and the Republican nominee (whomever it is) who will not put in place these sort of EPA policies that force industries to go bankrupt. Let's make the right choice in 2012.

Here are my notes and thoughts as I watched President Barack Obama's 2012 State of the Union address:

• All of the conversation on the channels prior to the address centered on how this address is going to be used as a way to launch the President's re-election bid and as a taxpayer financed campaign speech. I've been watching these things for years and although past incumbents running for re-election have used this speech to speak about all their accomplishments, President Obama appears to be the most brazenly partisan in using this speech as a campaign speech.
• I found a list of past 'special guests' who have been invited by the President- Lenny Skutnik in 1982 (saved passanger from drowning plane), Sammy Sosa in 1999 (relief efforts in Dominican Republic and home run chase), Hamid Karzai in 2002 (Afghanistan President), Julie Aigner-Clark in 2007 (founder of Baby Einstein)... and now Warren Buffet's secretary in 2012 (prop to use to try to bring up point of taxing the rich more). Whereas once President's (both Republican and Democrats) celebrated people who had done things, President Obama celebrates someone who has called on other people to do more things (pay more money) and yet has no real accomplishments of her own (no offense- I'm sure she is a fine person).
• It was amazing and wonderful to see Congresswomen Giffords there- she has made such a great recovery and I wish her the best on her future.
• President Obama begins with his foreign policy accomplishments, which he can take credit for, although he should share this credit with George W. Bush, who put in place the foundations and background for many of these accomplishments (the pull-out in Iraq, the groundwork for catching Osama, drones and catching terrorists in the War on Terror, etc).
• Obama next suggests that private citizens should be more like the military and act as soldiers for the state. Citizens should stop fighting one another, stop disagreeing about the direction of the nation, stop pushing for their individual rights and liberties, stop trying to keep their property and the fruits of their labor, and instead citizens should serve the state, citizens should put aside their differences and just follow orders, and people should give up their wealth and property to the state so that it can redistribute it to those people who it favors. This all sounds vaguely familiar and has strong echo's of fascism in it, although I could sugar-coat it if you'd like.
• In 2008, the 'house of cards collapsed'- banks made loans they shouldn't have (which he pushed for a community activist), regulators didn't do their jobs (which they were not held accountable for), bonuses were paid to these banks and government agencies (to which they were never held accountable for)... he is on the wrong side of the ledger here- he was pushing for the collapse and after the collapse did not hold those people accountable.
• "State of the Union is getting stronger"- as if the mounting US debt is to be ignored and we're all just to pretend that trillions of dollars in my children's spending is not damaging the foundations of our nation and creating a time-bomb that will destroy America.
• President Obama says that he can't get anything done without control of every single aspect of our political system- he decries the 'obstructionism' of the GOP controlling one single house of Congress. No one- no one- should ever be elected President who says that he can't get anything done unless he has total power- that is bad for America and bad for democracy.
• "What is happening in Detroit can happen in other industries"- what happened in Detroit was that the auto companies were bailed out, costing taxpayers $80 billion in loans, debts forgiven, pensions guaranteed, and other loans. GM made $6 billion last year in profits- taxpayers should get that back, plus the next $74 billion in profits, and then we'll claim success in saving a company at no cost. Imagine if he were to bail every unprofitable business out at massive losses to taxpayers- what would that sort of economy look like?
• Proposes new tax on multi-national companies, to be redistributed to companies that 'hire here in America'- some sort of new loan to be administered by Obama officials based on conditions that he'd set. The increased taxes on MNC's will be sure to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services, causing inflation and hitting the poor especially hard. Why does Obama hate poor people so much?
• "We brought trade cases against China at over twice the rate as the previous administration"- but the Chinese just laughed at us because Obama bowed to the Chinese President and begged to borrow trillions more of their money so that he could blow it on his wasteful spending. It's nice that he's suing China though- I'm sure that's employing lots of lawyers.
• President Obama is mystified on why employers don't hire workers- perhaps if he would have had some sort of a job at some point in business or in the private sector or in some sort of productive economic enterprise he'd know that increasing regulations, fees, requirements, red tape, and the such encourage employers not to hire.
• Obama proposes starting a temp agency company... with taxpayer money. This government financed and supported company will compete with all of these Michigan companies.
• Obama is right- good teachers like me matter, and also he's right that teachers like me are attacked all the time- I'm bashed by liberals and progressives who call me all sorts of names. The President's other education policies are pretty- they are nice words that mean nothing since the federal government isn't supposed to be involved in education in any way other than making sure that there is equality in education for different races and sexes (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965).
• It is almost as if the right answer to everything that Obama says is the opposite of what he says. He says that it is wrong for taxpayers to be giving illegal immigrants a paid education and then sending them home at the end- he suggests we should make these people here illegally citizens after investing all that money into them, while I kind of think that taxpayers shouldn't be investing money into people here illegally. Get a work or education visa or something to stay here or pay your own way.
• President Obama attacks inequality in pay between mean and women in work- that's right Obama, tear this straw man up! That straw man can't fight back- I suggest he go after those who want children to work in coal mines next!
• I followed this line... "need more bullet proof vests... computers chips... innovations... industries... energy..." what???
• President Obama claims that our nation needs an "all out all of the above strategy"- it's double-speak though, because in his next line he clarifies that this strategy means less oil, less natural gas, less coal, and less drilling. His 'all of the above' strategy is going to include additional fees, regulations, and rules on companies that he doesn't like. So, in summary, he is pitching a "some of the below strategy".
• On to exploding batteries discussion... Bryan (the guy Obama referenced) used to build luxury yachts, but when government policies that Obama supported (he wanted a higher tax on yachts) destroyed Bryan's company and industry, Obama was there to throw taxpayer dollars at him to get him restarted building taxpayer subsidized wind turbines, and now Obama is some sort of 'good guy.' He's the bad guy in the story, kiddies. Holland-based Energetx Composites LLC, you just got mentioned by Obama in his State of the Union address- that's the kiss of death.
• Proposed more small fees and regulations and burdens on businesses... I missed what sort of scheme it was supposed to pay for in order to be 'budget neutral'.
• I'm caught up now... "we need smart regulations"... "we need rules"... these rules and regulations "make the free market more free"- LOL. Did he just say "I've ordered thousands of federal agents to spend thousands of man-hours to search for useless regulations that waste taxpayer money"- I must have heard this wrong. He's moving on though to proposing new rules and regulations- I guess he was done with the part about getting rid of regulations and rules after he threw the joke out there. Listening to him talk, I feel like he's a joke of a President.
• Someone add up how much all these regulations, agencies, bureau's, rules, and investments are going to cost America... I'll have to look at the transcript, but I'm pretty sure all he does is to propose these things without any sense of cost. A man (or woman) could spend a hundred years undoing all the damage that this guy is doing to our Republic.
• "The recovery is still fragile"- but earlier he said the "State of the Union is getting stronger"- let's square this round issue, folks.
• Did you know that President Obama has cut the deficit $2 trillion? And not raised it $5 trillion like what really happened? BIZARRO WORLD!
• Let's not forget this people- President Obama hates people earning millions and wants to go after them and confiscate their income redistribute it to people making less. Those who are already wealthy can keep it, those who are on the bottom might like it, but there will be no more moving between classes in Obama's America. This guy wants to slap class systems on us and turn our nation into the rich- those who already made their wealth and who have connections with government- and the rest of us poor. "You can call this class warfare all you want" he says- it's class warfare. It's class warfare. It's class warfare. It's class warfare. It's class warfare...
• The partisan divide is getting worse every year he says... especially over the past 3 years. It must be George Bush's fault or something, right? Or maybe it's because you President Obama are the most bitterly partisan figure in the history of our nation and is tearing our nation into serfs and masters. President Obama attacks running a 'perpetual campaign'- but yet he is the worst offender in this, running continually for office in a way that no President in history has ever done, running campaign commercials a year in advance of the general election, and even trotting out his wife to make frequent partisan attacks.
• He just said-"With or without this Congress I will keep implementing laws and putting in place policies that I want, but if Congress went along with what I was already doing it would give me cover and get us all involved." This guy is a bully and a dictator. Maybe I heard him wrong though; I'll go back and re-read the transcript, maybe I got it wrong.
• The speech must be coming to an end- after spending a couple minutes in the beginning to address our military and veterans, we're now going to end with a couple minutes at the end about the military and veterans- I though think that the military shouldn't just be props in Obama's game of 'we're all in this together' meme; maybe he should talk about military programs in the body of his speech that he wants to cut or increase, about what he's been doing as commander-in-chief, etc. The military is not simply there to make Obama look good. "No one thought about politics on that day" Obama says- but yet the photo of Obama in the war room was staged. Nice words Obama, but in your mouth, they are just words, merely words.
• President Obama says that as long as we are all commoners, living like peasants on the land, serving our masters like serfs, than our nation will be strong. He said 'common' several times at the end- but private property, liberty, and protection of life wasn't mentioned.

UPDATE III: Thank you for linking to this article The Western Experience, The Bitter Americans, and others!

Until 1980, the United States was the world's leading producer of uranium, but today there are only three operating uranium mines left. This may have been due to the fall in uranium prices, which hit a low of $7.92 per pound in 2001. But with the price climbing to over $50 today, there is renewed interest in mining uranium, which is essential to powering nuclear power plants and important for national security- and it gets even better, because there are still considerable deposits of uranium in the United States, including fairly large deposits that were discovered in northern Arizona over recent years.

Uranium mining leads to cheaper nuclear power which leads to cleaner domestic energy production and a better environment- its just the sort of win-win-win scenario that only someone like Barack Obama could reject.

Via RadioViceOnline:

Last week, without much media attention, President Obama, this time via Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, put the nix on certain uranium mining on federal lands in northern Arizona. Sadly, this too, is political pandering, as, apparently nuclear power is as toxic to the left as is coal and oil power. And, per this fiat, the land in question is off limits to uranium mining for the next 20 years.

Let’s look at the process. The Bureau of Land Management is in charge of analyzing whether uranium mining is good or bad for the environment in this area. It found that the

mining would have ‘no direct impacts’ on protected wilderness areas. The impact on drinking-water supply in the Colorado River was also found to be ‘negligible’... The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the northern Arizona parcels [withdrawn from mining] contain uranium that, mined to capacity, would generate enough electricity to power Los Angeles for 154 years.... [t]he land bureau’s impact statement estimates that [the administration's decision] will cost the region $160 million in average annual economic output…

Northern Arizona currently has an unemployment rate of 17%. But, then again, Arizona in general, and northern Arizona in particular, is “red”. Let me suggest an ugly Presidential thought- "I’m not going to win Arizona anyway, so, it makes more sense to appease the left and perhaps pick up some votes."

One of the earlier actions undertaken by the Obama administration was to put in place bans on mining for a range of precious resources. It was bans such as these that have delayed the recovery in our nation and led to tens of thousands of Americans losing their homes and jobs- and even if the economy revives over the next couple months that does not take away from the fact that policy actions such as bans on mining hurt Americans lives, liberty, and property.

One such ban was a ban on mining for uranium in northern Arizona, which was originally put in place for 2 years so that officials could study the situation further. Obama officials were hoping that their meme that energy mining was destructive and bad and wrong would be proved true and so they could stop mining permanently, but then when the report came back that the mining wasn't in any way bad, they just shrugged their shoulders and banned it anyways.

And the cherry on to- President Obama then has the audacity to argue that they did this to SAVE JOBS and ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC GROWTH, and that now he is going to campaign on this theme- that by stopping the extracting of valuable resources he actually made our nation more wealthy; that by stopping thousands from being employed to extract these minerals he created more jobs; and that he has protected the environment even though the environmental impact from the mining was declared to be 'negligible' by liberal bureaucratic agencies which were likely pressured by Obama administration officials.

This double-speak, hypocrisy, and lying is characteristic of this administration, and the quicker it is gone, the quicker its actions can be reversed, we can begin to safely and responsibly mine valuable minerals, produce cheaper domestic energy, lower the costs of electricity for poor people, and help the working man to get ahead.

The coming year will give voters a real choice of visions- divide up the wealth in our nation differently or grow the amount of wealth in our nation.

Liberals, including those who have seized control of the modern-day Democratic Party, often talk fondly about China and its economic model. But what they fail to recognize about the economic model employed by China is  that it is inherently unsustainable because of its current methods of energy generation. Oh, I know many watermelons (people who pretend to care about the environment just to advance their statist communist desires) like to talk about China's wind power, nuclear power, solar power, or hydro-electric power, but in reality, the majority of China's energy production comes from coal.

Energy production from coal production does not have to be environmentally damaging or harmful to those who work in the industry. In nations like the United States, where there are clear property rights and freedom of labor, workers are treated better, the environment is better protected, and businesses are free to produce as much coal safely as possible in order to maximize profits. For example, there are only about 30 people killed per year in coal mining in the United States, and the United States has embraced clean coal technology which does a much better job of controlling emissions. The United States has made the difficult transition from energy generation to sustainable energy generation, and only needs to continue and expand its efforts in oil drilling, coal mining, and nuclear technology in order to become the cleanest and safest energy producer in the world.

Sadly, environmentalists in America have a different agenda. In their noble desire to make the world a better place, they are putting in place policies in America which force it and other nations to obtain energy from nations around the world that are producing energy in destructive, deadly ways. Rather than encouraging the expansion of safe, natural, and efficient methods of energy generation such as oil, coal, and nuclear, they are forcing America and nations that could be buying energy from America to turn to nations like China for energy generation and resources. And the end result of these environmentalists policies is a world that is less safe, less secure, and were more people die.

China currently generates around two thirds of its electricity from coal-fired power stations, and is the process of dramatically expanding its coal-fired capacity in recent years with the introduction of 562 new coal-fired plants- in fact, an average of two new plants were being opened every week. China uses this coal-production to satisfy its own energy needs and also export energy to other nations.

To sustain it economic growth and growing energy needs through coal power, China is paying a heavy price. Thousands of people die every year in coal pits, premature deaths due to indoor air pollution is at 420,000 per year, deaths due to outdoor air pollution is estimated at around 300,000 deaths per year, and rural populations in particular are suffering from a range of diseases related to coal production, including arsenic poisoning, skeletal fluorosis (over 10 million people afflicted in China), esophageal and lung cancers, and selenium poisoning. A report by the World Bank in cooperation with the Chinese government found that about 750,000 people die prematurely in China each year from air pollution.

China's economic model, which people like the head of the SEIU say should be the future of the United States, is unsustainable and killing its own people. It's model emphasizes state control of people and businesses and the de-humanizing of both. It is a model which stands in marked contrast to the economic model of the historical United States, a model which emphasizes little state control, more liberty given to people to make free economic choices, and strong individual and business property rights, and is a model that embraces the humanity of life. We can see the difference in the two models when we look at China's coal mining industry and electric power generation, and see the difference in the contrasting visions.

Elections have consequences- in the coming elections for US President, Senator, Representative, or even at the local level, ask yourself whether the candidate you support has a vision of the future that pushes for more state control over people's lives or less state control. Those who push for more state control will boast of the economic growth in nations like China- while ignoring the enormous cost in terms of human life and damage to the environment. Those who push for less state control over people's lives will point to the United States, which in contrast to those with state control have much better records on life, liberty, and wealth creation- although not perfect, because man is not perfect.

And for readers of my blog around the world, this applies to you as well- although China's economy is growing, there is a real cost to humanity for their growth, and in the end its statist economy will collapse like the Soviet Union's did. Only economic models that give more power to people and more freedom to individuals and more rights to businesses and corporations and individuals are successful in creating wealth in a sustainable manner while protecting life and liberty. You have a real choice to make in your nation too- state control for short term unequally distributed wealth, or less state control for longer term more equal distribution of life, liberty, and property.

For those who are interested in reading more about China and its coal production methods and coal-powered economy, I suggest you check out an article called China’s Dark Power.

One of the cornerstones of modern-day conservatism is the belief that America's energy resources can and should be responsibly exploited. This means that the United States should allow private companies to drill for oil, mine coal, build nuclear power plants, tap into natural gas reserves, get shale oil, and utilize whatever other energy resources that these companies wish to use, provided that they respect the property rights of others.

Oh, I know what liberals and left-wingers will say- the horror of pollution! But the faults of energy development do not lie with the companies themselves, but rather with the government for not establishing clear and defined property rights- for example, rather than having the government act as police to safeguard public water, the water rights should be more clearly defined and if companies destroy or harm the property (the water) of others, they should be forced to pay in a court, much as if they destroyed other private property. The faults with 'pollution' then lie not in the companies for breaking ever expanding government rules and regulations over ever expanding public lands, but for the government for not putting in place limited and clear rules regarding private property rights and then divesting itself of public lands by selling these lands off to private entities that can then do a better job of protecting. Like most problems in our society, the solution is less government, not more.

With the main liberal concern out of the way, our nation would be free to exploit and use its vast resources- enough oil for 30 years, enough natural gas for 575 years, enough coal for 500 years, etc. With oil, gas, and coal be utilized to its fullest extent, our nation will have cheap and plentiful energy, enabling it to develop some of the most amazingly energy intensive industries there are- 'renewable resources'. The horse needs to go before the cart here- we  need to have cheap and plentiful energy in order to build the energy intensive operations and industries like building solar panels, developing batteries, building geothermal plants, etc. A wealthy, productive society thriving on cheap energy can afford to become environmentally friendly, as opposed to a cheap, declining society that the liberals and Democrats appear to be pushing us towards with their anti-energy policies.

In a free market, one in which the government is not subsidizing any of the industries (and this includes cutting subsidies for oil and gas and coal), the most efficient energy resources will be developed in an environment that encourages private property ownership and protection. American can be great again, if it moves away from the liberal model of public ownership of lands and public protection of the environment with restrictive regulations and rules and taxes on energy production combined with subsidies for 'favored' industries and campaign donors. It can be great again if it moves towards a more conservative model of private ownership of lands and private protection through impartial courts of the environment, with few restrictions and regulations and subsidies on energy production, encouraging the most efficient producers and users of energy in a free market.

Via Powerlineblog's post AMERICA’S VAST ENERGY RESOURCES I read this quote from the Institute for Energy Research. IER describes the problem (and the opportunity) bluntly:

Access to affordable, abundant energy is, fundamentally, a means of freedom. But for those seeking to create a crisis that provides an opportunity to direct the way we live, work and act, affordable, reliable, abundant, domestic energy is a threat. In a very real sense, the more energy we have, the less power they will have. Energy abundance ends the justification for central energy decision-making.

As it turns out, many of the problems of energy scarcity and rising costs in the United States have been caused by the government itself. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a report that outlined many of the policy and regulatory constraints that impact domestic energy production. While the report focused on natural gas specifically, many of the laws and procedures also represent roadblocks to any form of safe and responsible energy production. The list of energy barriers included the following policies, all of which can limit access to U.S. resources, increase delays related to exploration and production, and/or increase costs of development:

(John from Powerlineblog)The list of statutes and other legal impediments that follows is three pages long. Only liberal politicians stand between the American people and development of our vast energy resources.

The good thing about having a record is being able to run on it, and I have a track record of posts on my blog that make Obama pretty jealous. In November of 2008 I pointed to an interview that Obama gave where he said that as part of his 'green energy' policies he intended to use the power of the federal government to bankrupt all coal producers in the United States. As I quite accurately wrote:

Obama is telling anyone that uses any energy at all that he intends to drive up the price of it. Combine this with his anti-drilling stances for oil, and get used to an economy that is starved for energy- high inflation, low growth, unemployment, and bad times.

This recession is not 'Bush's fault'- it is the result of government policies that Obama put in place that have led to a rise in prices for energy, and when it becomes more expensive to produce energy, the result is as predicted. As I wrote in Democrats Energy Policies Continue their Assault on Wealth and Jobs:

Our economy is struggling for a reason- Democrats and their policies are crushing human liberty and freedom, attacking wealth and wealth creation, freezing in social and economic structures, limiting mobility and change, and disincentivizing economic growth. Their policies are quite clear- these energy policies are a great example of how Democrats are increasing 'safety' or 'environmental' regulations that will drive US companies under, kill jobs, and drive business to other nations which have lower standards (thereby causing more harm to people or the environment), resulting in a net loss for society and America. Similar policies are found in healthcare, defense, education, etc.

This is not just fun and games people- these are real policies being put in place by real people that are having real job-killing and wealth-destroying effects. Democrats might want to run next election by churning out negative attacks and finding the one bad thing that their opponent did in the past, but that's just a side-show to distract you from the real results of their policies.

And the energy policies of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are bad policies. They are not resulting in any sort of 'safer' environment. The man-made caused global warming that was going to destroy the world in the near future has been proven to be an utter myth promoted by corrupt scientists and 'green energy' producers who both live on kick-backs from the government. And it appears that under Obama and the Democrats administration, oil spills and mining disasters are getting more common and having worse effects. This isn't a shock- being safe is more about kicking back money to the right people now and much less about everyone following the law. And there attempts to kill coal production and mining in the United States just means that an unsupervised and unregulated communist China will produce and mine for more coal, doing far more damage to the environment than if it was done in the United States.

And the negatives of the energy policies of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are becoming more obvious. The latest example of their bad policies is the latest rules that the EPA has put out on 'pollution' and energy production. These rules are draconian in nature and by design are supposed to be as unfriendly to energy and business as possible- the exact opposite of flexible and smart policies that allow businesses to thrive in a creative and business-friendly environment.

These new EPA rules are designed to choke job creation, especially in rural areas and states that produce coal, but these states don't vote Democrat and don't give the Democrats lots of wealth, so they think it is okay to hammer those states and punish them for their sense of liberty and freedom and equality.

These new EPA policies are also designed to ensure that consumers are stricken with higher utility bills. Oh, your Al Gores and John Kerry's and John Edwards and Barack Obama's will be able to pay those higher utility bills, but the middle class will be hard hit by these policies and driven into poverty and become a serf to the government system.

Coal plants will soon be forced to install new scrubber equipment that provides marginal improvement in air quality at tremendous expense. Producers of this new scrubber equipment will benefit and thousands of unionized bureaucrats who will be hired to ensure that these new standards are met will benefit, but the quality of air will see little improvement and the costs associated with installing and running these new energy-eating scrubbers will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher costs, or the company will absorb the costs by delaying investments in improvements in technology or safety, or the company will be forced to become more efficient by laying off many workers and employing more automation (they'll also save money by laying off workers because they won't have to pay the ever increasing costs of employing people that Obama and the Democrats are piling on). Or the company will go out of business.

The Washington Post reports that electric bills will jump 12 percent nationally by 2016 to comply with these new policies that the Democrats are putting in place, with residents in areas such as Kentucky and Tennessee seeing a 24 percent increase in their utility bills. These policies are project to eliminate 1.4 million jobs, and those people will no longer be paying taxes any more and will now be sucking down government benefits, all thanks to these policies pushed by Democratic bureaucrats employed by a Democratic President supervised by Democrats in the House and the Senate and supported by Democratic unions and a Democratic media. They are responsible for these bad policies- these aren't Republican or conservative or Bush or tea-party policies that are killing jobs and destroying the middle-class- they are Democratic policies.

When a party pushes for policies that achieve little good at the cost of a great number of negatives, it doesn't matter how much spinning they do and it really doesn't matter how good or bad the individual candidates are who they are running against- that party needs to be thrown out of power until they learn just how much damage their policies do to the life, liberty, and property of the great people of the United States of America.

In my class, I tolerate almost every sort of student- conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, and even moderates. In our discussions, debates, and in simulations, it doesn't matter to me how a student thinks the best way to improve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- it isn't my place to make them conform with my views or my ideology. But even though I'm tolerate of those groups, I do not tolerate fascists, hypocrites, or those students who openly promote tyranny and seek power over others.

Public education receives a lot of money from the state, and that money comes with a responsibility and obligation that I make sure that there are not students in my classroom who think that it okay to openly support fascism, that it is not okay to serially lie about their beliefs and views on issues, or that it is not okay to promote control over other people and tyranny and oppression. I crack down on those beliefs and try to teach students that those are not acceptable in our free and open society- they can think and believe whatever they want, but as long as I'm getting money from a free state of laws and liberty and freedom, I'm not going to let students openly and with my support think or say anything that advocates its violent overthrow or a take over by any hateful groups out there.

That being said, I am plenty accepting of liberals and socialists- as long as that is what they really are. The problem is that there really are not that many true socialists that come through my classroom, because there honestly are not a lot of real socialists in general. Oh, there are plenty of people in society that pretend they are socialist- they preach equality, redistribution of wealth, no ownership of property, fairness, and a society of rainbows and puppy dog tails- but when it really comes down to it and I make them make decisions about their own lives, their own property, their own liberty, it turns out they believe something else entirely.

Many people in society claim to be socialist, but in reality they are just thugs- they want others who they don't like to redistribute their property, by force if necessary. They want other people, not them or their friends, to lose their liberties and freedoms- but not them. They want equality, as long as that equality drags others down to their levels- but once they have more than others and are more fortunate, they no longer believe in equality. They talk about the joys of a society that they can build, ignoring the horrors of it in reality.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote about this in a recent article called There Are No Socialists. Here are some of the key parts:

...The strangest things about the global statist crack-up are socialists’ unhappiness with their socialist utopia, and their subsequent efforts to avoid the consequences of the very redistributive state that they themselves once so gladly crafted...

...Here at home, Obama got his ObamaCare. Why, then, did he grant hundreds of exemptions — many to northern California liberals? Should they instead not have lined up to volunteer to implement such a wonderful, long-needed entitlement?

He said energy would rightly sky-rocket, given his determination to curb fossil fuel production (cf. “bankrupt” coal companies). Why then is Obama concerned that gas hit $4; is not such a high price a welcomed retardant to burning hot fuels? The higher the gas prices, the more that subsidized wind and solar power, and electric cars are attractive, and thus the more we enjoy “sustainable” power. Right? Am I missing something about this desire within our grasp of “living within our means”?

Obama enjoyed big majorities in both houses of Congress; and on the campaign trail he had promised a de facto amnesty under the euphemism of “comprehensive immigration reform.” So why did he not grant such exemptions, and absorb 11, 15, or 20 million new “citizens” from Oaxaca? Is not that the point of amnesty, to welcome in new constituencies who will remember a benefactor at the polls?...

....This discussion is, of course, a belabored example of why and how socialists do not like socialism. Indeed, statism is not a desired outcome, but rather more a strategy for obtaining power or winning acclaim as one of the caring, by offering the narcotic of promising millions something free at the expense of others who must be seen as culpable and obligated to fund it — entitlements fueled by someone else’s money that enfeebled the state, but in the process extended power, influence, and money to a technocratic class of overseers who are exempt from the very system that they have advocated.

So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves....

...History is not kind to such collective states of mind. Pay an Athenian in the fifth century BC a subsidy to go to the theater; and in the fourth century BC he is demanding such pay to vote in the assembly as well — and there is not to be a third century free democratic polis. Extend to a Roman in the first century BC a small grain dole, and by the late first century AD he cannot live without a big dole, free entertainment in a huge new Coliseum, and disbursements of free coined money. Let the emperor Justinian try cutting back the bloated bureaucracy in sixth century AD Constantinople and he wins the Nika riots that almost destroy a civilization from within even as it is beset by hosts of foreign enemies....

Victor Davis Hanson is the author of books such as The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern and How The Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security (Encounter Broadsides).

• Baptism by Fire ~ A Newbie’s ISTE ’11 Reflections, Part One « coal cracker classroom

  @coolcatteacher @diigo @mmkrill @julielindsay @engaginged Thank you! Blogged: Baptism by Fire ~ ISTE Newbie reflections http://t.co/l4kigkk

  tags: twitter education

• eduflections: ISTE Insights from Troublemakers

  New Post: ISTE Insights from Troublemakers http://bit.ly/iiN5FY #ISTE11 #edchat

  tags: ISTE11 edchat twitter education

• Google+ tweaked to disable private-post sharing | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

  It is good that if you have a private post on Google+ that it will not allow you to share it publicly.

  tags: education

• Baptism by Fire ~ A Newbie’s ISTE ’11 Reflections, Part One « coal cracker classroom

  I am so proud of my friend Suzie Nestico. Hear her journey in her words, but I wanted to share my comment here as it is a good follow up for my missing of iste last week.
  
  Take the time to bless others. If I ever had to be out when I was a manager, I would have a staff person to sit in for me and have a chance to shine. Many people are afraid of others looking better than themselves. The fact is that none of us will be here forever and if we can pay forward kindness and leave a legacy of helping others then we've done something. We're not here to hoard we're here to bless and help. Suzie is a blessing and it was a joy to know that she did such a great job at ISTE. I'm proud of her.
  
  "You did an incredible job. All credit goes to you for your wonderful work. One thing to remember is that when others put their faith in you - if they are the type who does an excellent job (as I long to be) then it is for a reason. I knew that you would do a great job. Your passion and energy is evident. You do a phenomenal job and you LOVE your students. You want to do what is right and you stand up for what is right. I respect you as a person and admire you as a teacher.
  
  You deserve all the credit here.
  
  Steve Farber wrote a great book called "Greater than Yourself" and he talks about helping find others and help them become greater than yourself. This is about leaving a legacy. I have found that those with the staying power are unselfish, helpful, and respectful and you are all of those things. I'd like to be that way too.
  
  You have many things ahead of you that will be exciting. I hope you will always share and be transparent. You are a wonderful person and I count you as a dear friend. Pay forward the kindness.
  
  This shows that even struggles can be used as blessings if we get our face out of our pillow long enough to think of others first. I'm glad that it could be used to bless you. It was tough missing out but to hear your words here, that makes it a little better.
  
  I missed everyone at ISTE horribly. Every tweet was like a knife in some ways as I wanted to be there so badly. A few times I had to get offline and go run so I could get out the frustration, but it was all in God's hands and it turned out fine. You are wonderful. Keep up the great work."

  tags: education iste11

• Rode the Wave and Buzzed the Tower: Now I am + for Ed

  Been playing around with Google+ and see some promising privacy features (I can hide my family from being viewed and pick which circles can be shared. That is a plus - forgive the pun.)
  
  Here, Ryan Bretag shares what he has learned about Google plus.

  tags: education technology edu_news

• The Dropbox Blog » Blog Archive » Changes to our policies (updated)

  Dropbox changes their terms of service again. If you have files that need to be secure on dropbox. Use Truecrypt.

  tags: education learning

• 21st-Century Classroom Report: Preparing Students for the Future or the Past?

  CDW classroom analysis reports finds that students still use technology more outside of class than in class. Only 39% of students say their high school is meeting their technology expectations. It is sad that 73% of faculty say digital content is ESSENTIAL for the 21st-century classroom but only 11% of districts are using it.

  tags: education research researcher_thoughtleader edu_news

• 6 Q’S ABOUT THE NEWS - The Learning Network Blog - NYTimes.com

  Love the 6 questions about the news from the New York Times. Some great resources here.

  tags: education currentevents history curriculum

• The Learning Network - The Learning Network Blog - NYTimes.com

  The New York Times has a learning network with all types of videos to share. Lesson plans, student opinions, film festivals, and a student reading contest for the month of July.

  tags: education learning all_teachers literature

• ShowMe Interactive Whiteboard for iPad on the iTunes App Store

  Hook your ipad up to your projector and it becomes a personal whiteboard. IWB's are they as useful?

  tags: education app ipad iear techintegrator

• 180 voices in Atlanta

  This program in Atlanta's purpose is to:
  nurture and encourage the spirits of those who love to learn, to connect learners across disciplines and settings, and to deepen the national conversation about education by enabling parents, students, and educators to share stories of what they are learning every day.

  tags: education learning

• CAP Awards Vogel for Teaching Excellence | TRIUMF : Canada's National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics

  Canadian physics teacher Peter Vogel heads to CERN. It is great when a person who shares in social media spaces (@petervogel) and is giving to others is recognized in this way! I think Peter is one to watch and he'll make the most of his opportunity. Stay tuned.

  tags: education physics science_teacher stem

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

From Powerlineblog:

The Obama administration's energy policies have been a disaster, assuming that American decline is not your objective. We have written many times about the administration's efforts to suppress development of our oil resources, but coal is equally important. The United States is blessed with extraordinary deposits of coal, but Obama is determined to prevent us from using it to generate cheap and plentiful electricity. Obama wasn't kidding when he said, as a candidate, that his policies would cause electricity prices to "skyrocket."

U.S. News reports that Obama's EPA is promulgating regulations that will cause hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs:

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group. ...

Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.

That was yesterday. Today, American Electric Power announced that it will close down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions to comply with the EPA's proposed regulations:

Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations. ...

The company, one of the country's largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.

The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.

In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.

Of course, the administration is trying to block development of natural gas, too. Of all of the Obama administration's perverse economic policies, its anti-energy agenda is most likely to make Obama a one-term president.

Our economy is struggling for a reason- Democrats and their policies are crushing human liberty and freedom, attacking wealth and wealth creation, freezing in social and economic structures, limiting mobility and change, and disincentivizing economic growth. Their policies are quite clear- these energy policies are a great example of how Democrats are increasing 'safety' or 'environmental' regulations that will drive US companies under, kill jobs, and drive business to other nations which have lower standards (thereby causing more harm to people or the environment), resulting in a net loss for society and America. Similar policies are found in healthcare, defense, education, etc. Although Republicans are not perfect- in fact, they are far from it because they are not conservative or libertarian enough- they are usually the better alternative to Democrats in the 2012 election, in Congress, for President, and at state levels.

UPDATE: My buddy conservativesonfire asked "Where is the outrage, CT. Dose nobody pay attention to what is happening and what it will mean?"

The Cloward–Piven strategy and Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals both teach that change should not come slowly to America and should not come in measured amounts that are brought before the light- rather, Obama and the Democrats believe that change should be rapid, hidden, and such an overwhelming onslaught of liberal policies that one blends into another in a sort of rapid-fire radical agenda that shocks and awes all opposition and collapses resistance to its agenda. Obama typically drops the worst policies on Friday, when the media doesn't cover them, and by Monday, there is yet another crisis or bad policy or scandal to distract America from the radical agenda of Obama and his Democratic allies.

• My Own Social Media Experiment « coal cracker classroom

  Love this response, bonus opportunity by Suzie Nestico. When she emailed and asked for a response and the first would get bonus - 5 replies - listen to what DID get them to respond:
  
  "I sent a message to my students via our Google Group around 8:00PM on Sunday night. This message said, “Need any more bonus? Respond to this message for two points. If you tweet it, text it, call your friends, post as you FaceBook status, and another student mentions they got word from you, you get FIVE points.”
  
  Guess what? By 11:00PM on Sunday night, I gave out bonus points to over THIRTY of the ninety students. By 8:00AM today, I gave out bonus to an additional eighteen students. In just changing one thing I did, I just reached nearly half of my students. I could have said, “the first ten students to respond will get bonus,” in order to foster competition. But, I tried a bit of that several weeks ago. In Heidi’s words, “Competition 0, Collaboration 1.” "

  tags: education socialmedia curriculum all_teachers

• Free Social Teaching and Learning Network focused solely on education

  A place where people can create "academically credible" learning units. They are presenting at a conference in Arizona to attract additional investments. Will this be a new way we teach?

  tags: education

• Sophia Founder to Showcase Free Online Social Teaching and Learning Platform at Education... -- MINNEAPOLIS, March 28, 2011 /PRNewswire/ --

  This press release tells more about Sophia.
  
  "Sophia is a social teaching and learning application that makes free, credible academic content available to anyone at anytime. It is a mission-driven organization that aims to break traditional cost and access barriers to post-secondary degree attainment. For more information, go to www.sophia.org."

  tags: education learning elearning

• Square – Accept credit card payments with your mobile phone

  Mobile access that lets you take credit cards. This would be very convenient for school fundraisers and mobile events.

  tags: education payments iphone

• ISTE SIG Mobile Learning Wiki

  Now, this is a good use of a wiki. Nice work happening here on ISTE's SIG Mobile learning wiki. They have a video contest coming up as well.

  tags: education mobile

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook has added an incredible complexity to our lives and relationships for one simple reason: it is in writing. The courts have always put things "in writing" in higher esteem above word of mouth. Now that we are inundated with video, text, and photographs and a set of complex relationships - we end up with things "in writing" that are distributed far beyond our true "friends" into  places that get us in trouble.

I don't have all the answers but am wrestling with this problem and want to lay out the facts so you and I can become co-travelers on this journey. I speak from experience, however, having two significant experiences under my belt with the school in this arena, know that there are things that I cannot say about situations that come in out what I share. It can happen because it DOES. This isn't theory.

Defining "Friend"
Anyone who has seen The Social Network finds Mark Zuckerberg's use of the word "friend" ironic as through the course of the movie we see him lose the few friends he has in order to gain the millions that are online. I've heard it is a mischaracterization (come on what billionare 20-something year old doesn't havea  lot of friends ;-) but nevertheless friend doesn't mean what you think.

In "the South" we are taught to be friendly from the moment our Mom's tell us as a drooling tot to "say hello because he just said hello to you." Be friendly. So, we think we have to "friend" everyone who "friends" us - it is good manners, right?

Wrong.

Let's get this straight. We are talking about Facebook Friends (I call them FF's in class) and a Facebook friend has access to everything you put on your wall (unless you "list" them - more on that later.) It means that if you "friend" someone who hates you that they will be crawling your page and your life looking for something bad about you. It also means that if you "friend" your students and you skip school one day and post "I took a sick day to go to the mall." that you've just ratted yourself out -- in writing. Everyone will know, that sort of word travels fast.

I use my Facebook for my professional life.  I don't friend students. I only friended my husband and I definitely don't friend my kids. Let's look at why.

Basic Friend and Publication Structure

How "Friending" Distributes Your Work

You are on Facebook. Your settings determine how people view your content. Check them thoroughly and every month or so to make sure you know what is in there and UNDERSTAND them.

Friends (FF)
Your friends have access to everything you publish unless you override the settings. If you friend someone - they are in your inner circle or your FF's. Do you trust them?

Facebook has allowed "listing" which lets you specify "friends" "coworkers" "high school friends" etc. and specify what content goes to which. I'm not smart enough to keep up with the complexity myself  I started eagerly using lists the day they were released, however, have found that they didn't work as stated and and my primary interface for Facebook (my itouch) doesn't give me access to lists when I accept a friend request there - so it has been pretty useless. It has been difficult in implementation for me.

Update: 3/29/2011 My friend Suzie Nestico (see her amazing new blog Coal Cracker Classroom) uses this feature and has graciously given me some screenshots to show how to hide lists from one another. I'm still not sure how to hide both ways. (i.e. hide students from friends - but I also want to hide friends from students - I guess there is a way to do this.) Also, it is vital that every person you friend get put on a LIST for this to work. And some interfaces (like handheld Facebook apps) don't give the option to list the friend as of the writing of this post. Finally, this is just how to hide specific updates from specific people and the primary concern is still having the two way avenue opened between students and my adult friends.

This is how to make a status update that is hidden from certain people.

Hiding updates from specific people. How many jobs would this have saved? Not sure if you can get at this feature in a handheld app.

Obviously, Facebook realizes this as a New York Times article this week reveals that part of Facebook's strategy is "friend clusters" but that is yet to be determined. The article claims that this will return us to "Facebook intimacy" which is nonexistent in the behemoth we have on our computers today.

If you are "friends only" then only your friends can see your content. Simple enough. It has nothing to do with whether they can see each other's content.

UPDATE 3/28/2011: I have been told there is a setting in the comments below that will allow friends not to see each other. At this point, I've been through privacy settings (as I did before I wrote the post Friday) and cannot find this. If this feature is hidden or possible, please let me know but as of now it is not something available in my Facebook privacy settings.

Friends of Friends (FOF)
This is where we get in trouble. When a person has their settings as "friends of friends" then the friends of their friends can see their pages. In my work with students and adults - most people haven't gone in and edited the new, improved privacy features that Facebook announced last year that give you control over these three areas. Most people around here are publishing to FOF's.

Studies show the average number of FF's we have is 120-130 (New York Times Dec 2010). So, if you have 120 friends and those friends have 120 friends, your page is potentially being viewed by 14,400 people who probably have some loose relationship with you -- If you have your settings to be Friends of Friends.

But here is the trick. YOU may have your page set to "Friends only," however, you have no control over your FF's pages. If your students or the adults you have friended have their pages set to FOF or Public then your FF can go through your list of Facebook friends and see each other's pages.  

You are a living hyperlink between all of your Facebook Friends (FF's).

Public
This is what everyone can see. According to Facebook (May 2010) you

"can't hide your name, profile picture, network and gender (if you provide this info)." 

Be careful on your profile picture, many get tripped up just by posting an innappropriate profile photo. Everyone sees it.

Also, your " facebook network" means  the college, school, or other group you are part of. You are linked to your colleges, schools, etc. and so are your students. Everyone sees this. So, basically someone can pull up your school network and see the profile pics and gender and names of everyone at your school. (Does this bother anyone but me?)

You CAN set your page to public, which means that all of Facebook's users and everyone on the web can see your page. Kids can set it to public as well and many have.

How does this impact Teachers?

Teachers become "human hyperlinks" between groups of people.

 When a teacher uses ONE account to friend students - the teacher becomes a living hyperlink between students, adults, families, etc. This is where we get in trouble.

• Do we want everyone to know the names of our students? 
• If our students have their privacy set to public - do we want to accept responsibility that everyone in our friend's network is on the up and up and not a "creeper?" 

We all know and have probably FF'd someone who is strange. You have just accepted responsibility for all of your FF's and are a living hyperlink.

This is why teachers who really want to be on Facebook often set up a "school account" and just friend students with it. But now, remember, you are a link between students. (I'm not saying don't do it, I just want you to understand what this MEANs.)

A true-er picture of the world

 But as most teachers say,

"I want to be part of their lives and all of these other adults are friends with students - why shouldn't I be. Aren't you just talking "theory" here - the real world is that students and adults are friends all over the place!!"

Yes, this is true. The reality is that in the mess of privacy settings and indiscriminate uneducating friending that we do have a mass mess.

Say, an adult with a mental disorder has an argument with another adult and flames on Facebook posting profanity and horrible pictures. Their settings are "friend of friend" - anyone connected to that adult as a friend can see the page. They can be exposed by human hyperlink to trash. It happens and has happened.

If that "human hyperlink" happens to be a school or a teacher - parents can blame the teacher or school for their role in exposing students to that content. I don't like this but even if a child is friend with 100 adults and could get there to that content 100 ways, the school is one of those links and they expect us to be responsible. They blame us. I've taken the phone call, readers, I'm not making this up.

Parents are a Big Part of the Problem

Parents often don't realize that they are causing safety concerns when they friend their own children.

 I believe that if a parent wants to friend their child that they should create ONE facebook account just for friending their child. They should have just as many friends as they have children. Period. If they want to monitor their child's account that is set to "friends only" they should do this.

Otherwise, when a parent friends their child - they can also see everything for their children's friends who are set to "FOF" or "public" but also their child can see everything for the adults in Mom's or Dad's network. Likewise, when the friends of parents can see the child - that is too much information for me as a parent. My job is to protect my children and since I use Facebook more as a professional than personal, it is an overlap I cannot allow. 

I know of parent "creepers" that get into everything going on in a school. These are the ones that friend their children and then proceed to look at all of their friends on an ongoing basis. They know everything to the point that I think it is unhealthy. 

I've also seen kids who are defriended because of creeper parents. Parents have a responsible role to play here. Kids shouldn't be the Jersey-Shore entertainment for adults who don't have anything better to do. But, they should also understand about posting innappropriate content.

Why does sharing matter? A Real-Life Case Study.


I'm going to give a live example with names changed. 

Let's say that we have a large project with kids from multiple schools and one child has a funny name- let's call him "Zipper" and posts a really strange picture of himself as his profile. Kids from another school find this hilarious and start making fun of "Zipper" both in the chat and on the project.

Teachers intervene and put a stop to the behavior to which the student's who are picking on Zipper say "we're just going to take it to Facebook" to which the teacher says "If you take this to Facebook, there will be consequences." Of course, the kids laugh it off -- my school on Facebook, not going to happen.

Zipper now knows what is up and refuses the friend request from these students. (How many "Zipper"s are there on Facebook.) So the kids making fun of Zipper look at Zipper's network and see his school. They go through the school and friend Zipper's friends and ONE girl who has TMF's (too many friends) friends them. She friends everyone including Zipper and these kids making fun of Zipper. She has become a human hyperlink.

Zipper has not realized that his updates are set to Friend of Friend and gets a new cell phone number. He goes in and updates his cell phone number which is posted to his wall. The kids making fun of him and his name are watching Zipper's wall and see his phone number. They start texting him. One bold student calls him three times and leaves a message. 

This happens all in a 24 hour period. Now, how did this turn out?

Zipper's friends took screenshots and brought them to Zipper's teacher. Zipper brought his cell phone and in let the teacher hear the messages (he deleted the first two.) Zipper's teacher takes the documentation and sends it to the school of the students who are cyberbullying Zipper - because that is what has happened in this case. Fortunately, the school which housed the students conducting themselves in this way was a visionary school - the vice principal was involved and put the kids on suspension with notification if they contacted Zipper in any way they would be expelled.   The students were removed from the project and given an alternate assignment while the rest of the project continued.

Zipper's teacher helped him set his Facebook privacy settings, delete his cell phone, and spent time with the whole class using this as a powerful teachable moment on Friends of Friends AND sharing too much information. Everyone in the class set their page to FF only except for two who just didn't want to.

Zipper's teacher notified the principal and his parents and let them know what was happening.

36 hours - issue resolved.

Recommendations
This real-life case scares the dickens out of administrators but it happens. To be ready for this, I think that schools should:

• Consider the policy for friending and educate teachers and staff. (If some are actually TELLING kids to friend them based upon their role at the school - you have HUGE issues and they need to consider having a separate account.)  Tell them HOW they can friend students not that they CAN'T in any cases. You're not living in reality if you think you can stop it altogether, particularly if faculty have their own children at the school.
  
• EDUCATE EDUCATE EDUCATE. It is not an option to ignore facebook. Educate parents, staff, students. Have Facebook Fridays and help kids review their privacy settings (with permission from parents.) You can't talk about this issue enough.
  
• Consider multiple accounts for yourself and staff. Thus far, Facebook's efforts in this area have been lip service, in my opinion. They admit the problem is messy.Educators should listen. You don't want to risk being the human hyperlink in the equation of the problems that WILL not MIGHT but WILL happen between students, adults, etc. Faculty can also have pages to communicate with kids and NOT friend students. This is a great middle ground I recommend.
  
•  You should get on Facebook. yes, I said it. How can you understand it unless you use it yourself. Decide the purpose for your Facebook account and stick to it. Administrators and teachers not using it at all don't understand it. It is like people telling me how to raise my kids who don't have any of their own.
  
• Have a Facebook Page for your school. This is a safe way to get your information about your school from YOU - otherwise the grapevine on Facebook will do it for you. (I'll share how to do this in the next week or two.)
  
• Consider a digital citizenship education program like the Digiteen program, a nonprofit that I run, or Common Sense media or Microsoft's excellent Family Safety Resource or the many other resources out there. If you have driver's ed you should have digital citizenship education. Period.
  
• Teach kids how to Screenshot. "Stop Block and Tell" sounds nice but it is WRONG!! It is Stop, Screenshot, Block, Tell, and SHARE! (See my free downloadble 5 Steps to Internet Safety (for non commercial use) - you may also buy these posters at my Café Press Store or contact me for bulk printing discounts.) They need to be ready for WHEN not IF issues happen.
  
• Partner with those in global collaboration who have an active role in handling projects and the interface between schools so that issues like that of Zipper above can be dealt with quickly.
  
• Educate yourself. These issues will be dealt with by administrators and teachers the world over for the forseeable future.
  
• Look at Kidswirl for kids, parents, and faculty. This is an excellent option that my students and I have tested. They have some excellent privacy settings. Give a good alternative to Facebook.

And truthfully, Facebook can handle some issues like this. I know of kids as young as 7 on Facebook (with parental knowledge) - the conditions say you are supposed to be 13. If they have to network, try Kidswirl.

I think that Facebook should be able to block the searching of K12 networks when certain types of behavior are seen. There are ways to ferrett out innappropriate use and we know they are tracking our clicks for goodness sakes. But, don't expect it.


Remember your noble calling.

This is the first in a series of posts about Social media for schools.