Via memeorandum (and here too) I read this report from The Hill: White House to offer 10 states waivers on No Child Left Behind:

President Obama on Thursday will offer waivers to 10 states that applied for exclusion from some aspects of the No Child Left Behind Law, according to a report in The Associated Press that cited an anonymous White House official...

...The George W. Bush-era legislation requires that all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014, and would penalize those schools where the children failed to reach required standards...

...There is broad support among both parties to reform the legislation, which Obama has called admirable but flawed. However, Congress has been gridlocked over how to do so since it came up for renewal in 2007....

In 2001, George W. Bush proposed a major change to education law called The No Child Left Behind Act. This piece of legislation was supported with extensive bipartisan support in Congress and leading up to its implementation and passage there was extensive debate regarding this bill- people were given an opportunity to discuss it, come to grips with it, and properly weight its merits and problems.

NCLB at its heart was a deal- education would be reformed by putting in place at the federal level higher standards and the establishment of measurable educational goals, and in return Congress would dramatically increase the amount of amount of federal funding for education, increasing it from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. In return for states developing assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, the federal would expand funding for reading programs and Title I programs which benefit disadvantaged children, and would considerably expand funding for IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education) to support education. That was the bargain made, after considerable discussion and debate- money in exchange for accountability.

And now, with no debate and discussion, President Obama has decided without any support from either party in Congress to go ahead and change the deal, and we can only pray that he does not alter it further....

...President Obama is once again demonstrating his unfitness for office by changing the deal, and this is a bad thing- education will continue to receive funding, but now will no longer have to meet the deal that Congress put in place- rather, they will have to meet the deal that Obama puts in place, conditions that he will establish without legislative authority or approval. This sort of action should be causing libertarians and liberals and conservatives to howl, because it is a slap in the face to democracy, elected government, separation of powers, and our Constitution. His time in office can not come to an end quickly enough...

I don't even want to think like this, but if we're playing Lord of the Flies like this, I can see a Republican president waiving compliance with the National Labor Relations Board too. And the EPA. And unilaterally offering a "waiver" permitting a company to drill in ANWR.

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.

 Tomorrow, Monday, December 7 at 7pm Eastern Standard Virginia Tech professor and his World Regions class will be interviewing Burmese resistance leader,Aung Sun Sun Kyi, via Skype. Boyer managed to turn a YouTube video  request into the interview.

I received a letter from a former student of his that tells the story very well and have decided to print this letter in entirety. I like the letter because it not only shows how his students value this but his students are using their social media knowledge to help their former professor and I want to help them and help him. We look forward to viewing the video and learning.

And thus, is great teaching in action. Great teachers are now syndicators (sp?) of content. Great teachers share. Great teachers teach us all.

A Letter About My Favorite Professor
from former student Jessy Irwin

I'm writing because I want to publicize the incredible work that one of my favorite college professors is doing with social media in his World Regions class at Virginia Tech. He is John Boyer, an instructor in the Department of Geography in the College of Natural Resources and he's an exceptionally passionate educator who thrives on engaging and communicating with his students through social media. For the third time in a row, he has successfully managed to turn a YouTube video from his super-sized class of 3,000 into a once-in-a-lifetime learning opportunity for his students.

In the past, Professor Boyer has used viral YouTube tactics to lure the likes of Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez to Virginia Tech to discuss their film "The Way", and he even convinced wine aficionado, social media guru and businessman Gary Vaynerchuk to stop through Blacksburg while on a book tour during the Spring 2011 semester. Much of that happened with little fanfare or attention from the university or the Blacksburg, VA community of which he is a member. This time, though, Boyer has turned a World Regions professor's dream into reality-- he managed to turn a YouTube video request to Aung Sun Suu Kyi, leader of the resistance movement in Burma, into an hour long Skype interview with her and his class. 

Having been recently been liberated from 30 years of house arrest imposed on her by dictator Than Shwe,  Suu Kyi recently met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and is regularly courted by foreign media for interviews. That she could be convinced by the sheer enthusiasm of 3,000 students half a world away from her is to take the time for an interview is a poignant example of how social media and technology can enhance and enrich student experience in ways never before possible. Professor Boyer is working to open a live-feed of the Skype interview for educators and interested parties, though the event may also be live-streamed by various Asian media outlets

Professor Boyer isn't just active on YouTube-- he maintains a course website and a UStream channel through which he conducts weekly online office hours, he uses a Facebook page to announce course events to his class, and he uses his own Twitter account in addition to a backchannel Twitter hashtag to communicate with his 3,000 students. His course material even includes regular uploads of his podcasts as the Plaid Avenger, a Jon Stewart-inspired, schwingy superhero who travels the world in pursuit of international justice. Though this is a higher education example of technology integration in the classroom, more teachers need to hear about the work that he and other professors are doing with technology. At one point in his career, students were barely showing up to his class, which could be used to fulfill a university curriculum requirement for graduation-- now, he begins each semester with huge wait lists of students every semester who want to take his class as an elective but for whom there isn't enough room.

I could go on and on and on about the work that Boyer and his assistant Katie Pritchard do. His educational use of technology to leave Virginia and pursue a career in social media + educational technology in the Silicon Valley. While this story takes place within the context of higher education, much can still be gleaned from how social media and technology integration can enhance the efforts of an effective, engaging educator and enrich a student's learning experience. At a time when so many question the effectiveness of technology adoption and whether it is making a difference in education, Professor Boyer's provides a concrete example of technology's potential and ability to positively change the classroom for the better. Alternately, while higher education is usually outside of the realm of standardized curriculum and assessments, this particular educational technology success story serves also as an example of technology-facilitated learning that may well be immeasurable within the confines of today's standardized testing.

For many years, many of my students and several of my fellow teachers have been telling me that I have to see the movie V for Vendetta, because I would really like it. They assured me that this movie would be the movie for our generation, a movie that spoke to us and informed us and gave us a hero to cheer for. Students and several fellow teachers see V as a hero and saw him as the good guy of that movie. But they are wrong, horribly wrong, and their celebration of V as a hero will lead them and our nation into destruction.

V is a nonhuman, godlike figure who mentally abuses and rapes women. He hides his face from others, relies on wealth taken from others to live a life of luxury, produces no goods or products or services, and prefers to kill his victims using knives rather than guns simply because he is sadistic in nature. His vision of the world is one that involves blowing up authority and replacing it with an even more sinister and brutal authority, mixing anarchy and dictatorship to achieve his goals.

He does not submit to a candid world his ideals and ideas for their consideration, arguing in favor of natural rights of men and the goodness of mankind- rather, he tells people what he is going to do, imposing his will on the situation, and does so because he views all of man as fallen and wrong.

The same people that rave about V being a hero are the same people who look to the Arab Spring for inspiration and guidance, as if small groups of very active people overthrowing a dictator to replace that dictator with an army-led government influenced by fanatical terrorists is really an instructive example of any sort. Libya will be run by just the other tribe and will be as vindictive and tyrannical as before, Egypt has empowered the Muslim Brotherhood and the Army and is burning churches and attacking civilians from other nations, and Tunisia continues to tumble through anarchy- and that is what many students and teachers want for America.

Heroes are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Ronald Reagan- these people, whether you agreed with their policies or not, they fought and defeated evil enemies in the open, being human, and resting the strength of their victory on the power of the individual. Our Founding Fathers were heroes- they wore uniforms and fought and defeated a superior enemy on the basis of their superiority in principles and beliefs and ideals- they did not remove their dog tags and hide behind masks and rape women in the streets in their fight for 'freedom.'

Nor did our Founding Fathers or any of the great heroes of our nation dress up like zombies or glorify those who do- the same people who glorify the Arab Spring and V for Vendetta now pretend that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is some sort of noble enterprise, and not just a delusional carnival of antisemitic rich who wish to smash one group (Wall Street) only to put in place a more horrifying and inhuman system (an all powerful government that will take people's wealth and property and control their actions in the name of 'fairness' or 'the environment').

V, Occupy Wall Street, and the Arab Spring- they may all sound appealing, but so did Lenin and Communism and Hitler and Fascism when they first came about, and we all know exactly how those enterprises turned out. I have nothing but scorn and pity for those who support or like these groups- they have valid concerns and valid criticisms of the system they find themselves in, but they have decided to support the wrong side and history will judge them as doing so.

Today (July 9) a new nation was created, the nation of South Sudan. South Sudan became an independent state on 9 July 2011 at midnight (00:00) local time following a referendum held in January 2011 in which nearly 99% of voters opted for separation from the rest of Sudan. It has been an Autonomous Region of Sudan or at war with Sudan on and off since 1972, and now is finally its own nation. Sudan has recognized it, and so has the United States, it has ratified a Constitution, and now it is busy forming up its government.

Although I have few readers from Africa, perhaps I might have a couple from South Sudan, and so in that spirit I would like to pass on some advice on how to form a successful state.

People are very powerful, and by giving them as much freedom and liberty they will demonstrate their power by creating a prosperous economy, a strong military, and a vibrant civil society. The biggest obstacle to people is an active and large government that takes away responsibility and freedom from the individual, acts as a barrier to innovation and risk-taking, and sucks all of the money out of the system for projects that elites (government agents) deem important. It is my suggestion that any government created by South Sudan have a healthy respect to the dignity of human life, truly believe in the power of liberty and freedom, and work to put in place strong rule of law that protects above all the fruits of ones labor (private property).

A new nation must put in place barriers to itself, checking itself by separating power between different branches of government and then creating checks between branches to limit the abilities of each to overreach and act in a tyrannical manner. It also helps if the nation limits itself further by separating power between a national government designed to address national issues and local governments designed to address local issues, much like our fading federal system here in America.

Although I no very little about this nation so far, it appears that the current President Salva Kiir Mayardit has a chance to be a good one- a former general who was unambiguous about being free, if he can limit himself and set important precedents in his office than he will be a great one. Most nations that achieve independence get stuck with the first President for a long time as that person eventually becomes a dictator- Kiir needs to recognize that what made George Washington great was that he served his nation for two terms and then left office, turning over power peacefully. It is bothersome that he is so closely associated with the military, and that the legislative assembly is so weak and completely controlled by his party, but I have hopes for him, especially if he is a regular reader of my blog.

It is also not a good sign that the nation is so dependent on oil, especially when these oil resources are largely being developed by foreign companies, especially the Chinese government. One hopes that the government will use the ample oil revenues it receives to fund a limited government that will engage in national defense (not war), control its border, and distribute funds to local governments to put in place police and fire services, build libraries, and support transportation and education services. With the amount of revenue that oil provides, there would be little need to borrow abroad or tax its citizens or companies within, and this low tax and low regulation environment would be an engine of economic development that will eventually lead to a more diverse and prosperous economy. Note I did not suggest that the government use its oil revenue to provide a social safety net or redistribute wealth to poor people- a free and prosperous people will do that better than any sort of forced charity that the government could ever do.

Good luck South Sudan- I hope you take my advice and create a government for the people, by the people, that serves the people, in the spirit of life, liberty, and protection of property.

See the memeorandum story for more details on this new nation.

UPDATE: I really didn't want to make this a political issue, but I did see something interesting over at Ace of Spades...

Christian groups had been championing the southern Sudanese since the 19th century. And their efforts paid off in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States. He elevated Sudan to the top of his foreign policy agenda, and in 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government — both war weary and locked in a military stalemate — to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede. On Saturday, one man held up a sign that said "Thank You George Bush."

After a month of watching a revolution to overthrow an evil dictator stall and reverse and almost lose, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in disgust finally convinced US President Barack Obama (Democrat) to do something, even if it interrupted his busy vacation/goodwill trip in Brazil, where he is sunning on beaches and giving speeches to roaring crowds and still struggling to watch his NCAA bracket that he put so much time and thought into.

Although I'm no expert in this stuff (I've only got a tiny BA in International Relations from a major university), I have no problem blaming Obama for the ensuing humanitarian crisis that is going to unfold in Libya. It was okay to wait a bit, because the US shouldn't just jump willy-nilly into every conflict, but the minute the rebels stalled, the math was pretty simple- either jump in now in support and knock Muammar Qaddafi out while building goodwill with the rebels who would then march to power and restore order, or stay out of it and watch Qaddafi retake his nation and punish the rebels and build goodwill with him and his son. Either option would lead to a quick change in the power in Libya and either option would build goodwill between the US and Libya.

But President Paintywaist instead anguished about the decision and tried to hide and ran around yelling 'present' on the issue while issuing empty rhetoric and throwing pixie dust at the situation. I don't care how hard he tries to re-write history on this one- he sat around, watched the rebels get pushed back, watched them lose their best fighters and leaders and most dedicated freedom fighters, watched Qaddafi take back cities and kill and rape everyone who was against him in those areas, watched both Qaddafi and the rebels get weaker, and then when the French and British said 'screw you, we're doing something' he fled to Brazil and let Hillary make the call. Roger L Simon sums it up with his article Jets over Libya as H. Clinton Assumes Presidency.

Now the US is shooting expensive missiles into Libya, killing people and destroying things, but it still isn't clear that this will check the momentum that Qaddafi has built up or whether it will inspire a depleted and on the run rebellion. Oh, perhaps after greater effort and loss of life, the US will destroy extensive oil reserves and industry and kill enough people that Qaddafi leaves, but the end game now is less certain, as the surviving rebels will be weak and annoyed at the long delay in response by the US.

That's assuming the Commander-in-Chief has an endgame- his address is a lot of summary of news events that he was always behind combined with statements about how we're clearly not the leader of this humanitarian and leadership effort with several 'I'm aware of' statements thrown in to make it appear like he is actually meaningful in any way about world events. Don't swallow my analysis though- read it yourself by clicking here.

A clearly better and more thought out analysis comes from the Belmont Club- here are the best parts:

Yes, if it can impose a blockade lasting several months, is willing to risk to risk the destruction of Libyan oil, and can eventually deploy UAVs over Libya. But the the worst thing they can do is let the fighting drag on, because it will almost inevitably lead to a humanitarian crisis in Libya. The major problem facing NATO is that the rebels have been driven too far east to secure the facilities and the pipelines which take the product to the coast (see map below). To avoid permanently splitting the country along some kind of No-Man’s Land, it is not enough for the rebels to stop Khadaffi at the gates of Benghazi; they must drive west far enough to take the infrastructure from the Duck of Death. Only then can Libya be reconstituted as a single political entity....

Earlier last week I was critical of Obama's response to Tunisia's revolution, where it appeared that rather than take an active role in events, Obama's administration simply sat on the sidelines and tried to figure out where Tunisia was (I'm kidding- I heard that he had a 40 minute briefing on Tunisia after the revolution broke out- I'm sure he learned about it then). He is dangerously incompetent, especially on important world events that our President is supposed to be the primary actor on in our political system. The revolution in Tunisia though was just the start of something bigger, something that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 has taught us will have repercussions lasting decades, and that is the revolution that is taking place right now in Egypt.

For the past couple days I have been trying to get a handle on events there, much like our President, and like usual, my reactions have mirrored Obama's. First I first supported the young revolutionaries against the bad dictator, while Obama supported the bad dictator. But now I support the bad dictator over the evil militant terrorist groups who want to take power in Egypt, while Obama now supports the evil militant terrorist groups (he supports them by not saying anything bad about them while saying bad stuff about Mubarak- that's an upgrade over his usual 'voting present' by showing support for the bad guys). Obama is dangerously incompetent again and once again, anyone who voted for him or his party made our nation and world a worse place by doing so.

The best article that I have found to help me get a handle on what is going on in Egypt appeared today in the Jerusalum Post by Caroline Glick called Our World: Clueless in Washington. I am going to pass on some of the better parts of it to you to help you too understand a little bit better what is going on in Egypt...

The Egyptian multitudes on the streets of Cairo are a stunning sight. With their banners calling for freedom and an end to the reign of President Hosni Mubarak the story these images tell is a simple one as old as time.


On the one hand we have the young, dispossessed and weak protesters. And on the other we have the old, corrupt and tyrannical Mubarak. Hans Christian Andersen taught us who to support when we were wee tots.

But does his wisdom apply in this case?

Certainly it is true that the regime is populated by old men. Mubarak is 82 years old. It is also true that his regime is corrupt and tyrannical. Since the Muslim Brotherhood spinoff Islamic Jihad terror group murdered Mubarak’s predecessor president Anwar Sadat in 1981, Egypt has been governed by emergency laws that ban democratic freedoms. Mubarak has consistently rejected US pressure to ease regime repression and enact liberal reforms in governance.

This reality has led many American commentators across the political spectrum to side enthusiastically with the rioters. A prestigious working group on Egypt formed in recent months by Middle East experts from Left and Right issued a statement over the weekend calling for the Obama administration to dump Mubarak and withdraw its support for the Egyptian regime. It recommended further that the administration force Mubarak to abdicate and his regime to fall by suspending all economic and military assistance to Egypt for the duration.

The blue ribbon panel’s recommendations were applauded by its members’ many friends across the political spectrum. For instance, the conservative Weekly Standard’s editor William Kristol praised the panel on Sunday and wrote, “It’s time for the US government to take an active role… to bring about a South Korea/Philippines/Chile-like transition in Egypt, from an American-supported dictatorship to an American-supported and popularly legitimate liberal democracy.”

The problem with this recommendation is that it is based entirely on the nature of Mubarak’s regime. If the regime was the biggest problem, then certainly removing US support for it would make sense. However, the character of the protesters is not liberal.

Indeed, their character is a bigger problem than the character of the regime they seek to overthrow.

According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

WHAT ALL of this makes clear is that if the regime falls, the successor regime will not be a liberal democracy. Mubarak’s military authoritarianism will be replaced by Islamic totalitarianism. The US’s greatest Arab ally will become its greatest enemy. Israel’s peace partner will again become its gravest foe.

What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.

The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy? And why are conservative commentators and Republican politicians urging them to be even more outspoken in their support for the rioters in the streets?

Does the US not understand what will happen in the region as a result of its actions? Does the US really fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood either forms the next regime or is the power behind the throne of the next regime in Cairo?...

...As Prof. Barry Rubin wrote this week, “There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama administration may be adopting something close to the worst option.”
 
Unfortunately, given the cluelessness of the US foreign policy debate, this situation is only likely to grow worse.

The following are my impressions from Democrat Barack Obama's 2011 State of the Union (SOTU) address. As a social studies teacher, perhaps I will have some comment or analysis that you might think is interesting...

• Before the President even speaks, I was flipping around the various channels listening to their comments, and what I heard over and over is that this speech will continue Obama's attempt to portray himself as a moderate, or that this would speech would help make it look like he was moving more to the center, or that this speech would help him to court independents... he's been in office for 2 years and is still in campaign mode trying to fake people out and disguise who he really is. I can't believe that voters might fall for it- he is who he has always been, a committed leftist liberal Democrat who believes in government control over our lives, less individual freedom and liberty to you, and abortion on demand to correct for the mistakes of humanity.
• His first several minutes were pretty good- hopeful, uplifting, and commenting on how great America was and how we were a tough, innovative country. Then he started lecturing me about how he knows better than me about how to innovate and about how I'm so weak so I need a bunch of help- that was less good.
• About 15 minutes in, and most of this has been some pretty general language about why education is important and why it is important to be smart. I guess this was all to set up that RTTT was a good law (which I disagree with, see earlier post). That's a pretty weak lead-off.
• Around 20 minutes in, I guess in the spirit of 'bipartianship', he re-proposes amnesty to illegal immigrants and pushing for the DREAM Act, which just was shot down by both parties in Congress.
• About 25 minutes in, Obama time-travels back to his childhood in Indonesia, when a nation's prosperity was based on the amount of railroads and roads that the nation had. He suggested that this will be done by having the government coerce private investment and then form a Big Government-Big Business-Big Labor partnership to force us to travel on railroads. I'm not a big fan of fascist proposals from the 1930's myself.
• About 30 minutes in, he begins to lecture Republicans on cutting deficits that he says started "a little over a decade ago" (the election of Bush in 2000?) and lectures the GOP on reforming massive entitlement programs that he has vastly expanded and enlarged and added to over the past 2 years. Is this some sort of Cloven-Piven strategy- wreck everything beyond repair and then talk a good game about unwrecking things? Will voters buy this sort of garbage?
• About 40 minutes in, Obama brags about a series of successful foreign policy initiatives that were begun under Republican President George Bush and that Obama bitterly opposed and fought against. He then talks about his foreign policy ideas that haven't quite worked out yet (but that is not to say that they won't eventually).
• About 45 minutes in, Obama gave a good statement of support for Tunisia. Perhaps he read my blog post criticizing him of being too weak on this issue? Although I wouldn't read too much into this statement- he said something last week of a similar nature and then turned around and called another Middle East dictator and said he really didn't mean it, so we'll see.
• He had a lot of good lines and well-written stuff in there- I really liked the criticism he had for central governments and the defense for our democratic process- that was nice and really jumped out as new and different. I think someone other than him wrote the beginning and end of his speech, but the middle was all his usual liberal hope-and-change nonsense.
• I really liked the fact that there was not a lot of applause and few delays. He delivered a good summary of what he saw as the 'state of our union', which is still strong, with a few problems he needs addressed. Overall, I generally liked it.
• Listening to the commentary, a couple things I heard- 1) Obama still picked enemies- oil companies, Wall Street, the rich, etc; 2) Obama really didn't feel like focusing on foreign policy, showing that he is still mainly a 'Legislator-in-Chief'; 3) Obama spoke about a lot of new 'investments', but there is no money for that; 4) Obama seemed to be going 'small-ball'- talking about 'big things' but really proposing only small little tweaks and nothing big, and this likely indicates that he is just going to play defensive from now until the election, simply sitting in the weeds and criticizing any solutions to the problems that he created, rejecting proposals to deal with any of the long-term issues in favor of winning short term political points. Just imagine if this guy gets a second-term and how unrestrained he will be.
• Republican response thoughts: Ryan delivered one of the best 'reponses' that I have seen. He approached it from the perspective of a calm parent who was non-partisan, and dissected and destroyed Obama's policy responses over the past two years the the challenges that he confronted, from discussing Obama's failed stimulus plan, failed Obamacare, and failed regulations. He was a sound and reasonable voice in response to the empty hope-and-change of Obama. He quoted the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and translated it to the times of today- so sweet! He delivered a fantastic speech that spoke to what makes our nation great- our freedom and liberty and capitalism and businesses and property protection and limited government and free enterprise- that compares favorably to Obama's speech which was about all the things that government can do (poorly). Congressman Paul Ryan for President!
• Comments from the media about Ryan's response were that he didn't deliver any specifics (neither did Obama), that he didn't show leadership (neither did Obama), and that he wasn't serious enough (neither was Obama).