My Beauty Best Teacher

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.

Although I am no expert in this, I have always felt that the 1930's were an interesting time period in our nation. The Victorian age had come to a bloody conclusion with World War One, and a whole generation of people were now being raised in a society that saw their parents as failures- their attempts to repress their sexual urges, their attempts to stick to the old ways, their attempts to put in place world peace, their attempts to build multinational nations- all had led to one of the most bloody and brutal and worthless wars of all time. Technology was changing fast- cars and telephones and radio and motion picture- and the children of the 1910's and 1920's thought that they had everything figured out- they thought that where other generations had failed due to their reliance on religion, traditional values, free markets, republicanism, and limited government, they would succeed by figuring out a third way of doing things, a practical way of doing things, a way of doing things that used the power of government to make society a better place to live. This new generation, horrified by WWI and mocking their parents lack of technology skills, had it all figured out, and ushered in an era of fascism and communism and World War Two.

In my post 1930's Are Root of All That is Wrong I cataloged all of the laws that were passed in the 1930's in America that are with us today- such as the Unemployment Compensation Tax (MI, 1936), Oil and Gas Severance Tax (MI, 1929), Social Security Act (USA, 1935), Fair Labor Standards Act (USA, 1938), Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (USA, 1930), Hoover Tax Hike (USA, 1932), National Labor Relations Act (USA, 1935), Private Schools, Act 302 of 1921 (MI, 1921), Roosevelt moves traditional Thanksgiving Day (1939), Regulating Firearms, Act 373 (MI, 1927), US moves off gold standard (1933), Reapportionment Act (USA, 1929), etc. Looking through that list and thinking of how much America was changed by one generation, by one President, by one party, by one decade (mostly), I was always stunned, and wondered how people had let that come to pass.

As it turns out, the Republican Party of 1936 had put together a platform to oppose a lot of these fascist ideas, but people loved their hope and change and returned FDR to the White House instead, and so the Great Depression dragged on for another decade. Via Conservative Hideout, let's take a walk back in history and see just exactly what the GOP was offering as an alternative back then to the high taxes, high regulation, crony capitalism, fascist third way system that FDR was pushing our nation into. Here is a good chunk of the 1936 Republican Party Platform:

1936 Republican Party PlatformAmerica is in peril. The welfare of American men and women and the future of our youth are at stake. We dedicate ourselves to the preservation of their political liberty, their individual opportunity and their character as free citizens, which today for the first time are threatened by Government itself.

For three long years the New Deal Administration has dishonored American traditions and flagrantly betrayed the pledges upon which the Democratic Party sought and received public support. The powers of Congress have been usurped by the President... the rights and liberties of American citizens have been violated... regulated monopoly has displaced free enterprise.... it has intimidated witnesses and interfered with the right of petition... it has been guilty of frightful waste and extravagance, using public funds for partisan political purposes... it has promoted investigations to harass and intimidate American citizens, at the same time denying investigations into its own improper expenditures... it has created a vast multitude of new offices, filled them with its favorites, set up a centralized bureaucracy, and sent out swarms of inspectors to harass our people.... it has bred fear and hesitation in commerce and industry, thus discouraging new enterprises, preventing employment and prolonging the depression.... appeals to passion and class prejudice have replaced reason and tolerance.

To a free people, these actions are insufferable. This campaign cannot be waged on the traditional differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. The responsibility of this election transcends all previous political divisions. We invite all Americans, irrespective of party, to join us in defense of American institutions. We pledge ourselves:

...To preserve the American system of free enterprise, private competition, and equality of opportunity, and to seek its constant betterment in the interests of all.

The only permanent solution of the unemployment problem is the absorption of the unemployed by industry and agriculture. To that end, we advocate: Removal of restrictions on production. Abandonment of all New Deal policies that raise production costs, increase the cost of living, and thereby restrict buying, reduce volume and prevent reemployment. Encouragement instead of hindrance to legitimate business. Withdrawal of government from competition with private payrolls. Elimination of unnecessary and hampering regulations. Adoption of such other policies as will furnish a chance for individual enterprise, industrial expansion, and the restoration of jobs.

Society has an obligation to promote the security of the people, by affording some measure of protection against involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The New Deal policies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in fact, endangered it. We propose a system of old age security, based upon the following principles: 1. We approve a pay-as-you-go policy, which requires of each generation the support of the aged and the determination of what is just and adequate, 2. Every American citizen over sixty-five should receive the supplementary payment necessary to provide a minimum income sufficient to protect him or her from want. 3. Each state and territory, upon complying with simple and general minimum standards, should receive from the federal government a graduated contribution in proportion to its own, up to a fixed maximum....

...Nearly sixty percent of all imports into the United States are now free of duty. The other forty percent of imports compete directly with the product of our industry. We would keep on the free list all products not grown or produced in the United States in commercial quantities. As to all commodities that commercially compete with our farms, our forests, our mines, our fisheries, our oil wells, our labor and our industries, sufficient protection should be maintained at all times to defend the American farmer and the American wage earner from the destructive competition emanating from the subsidies of foreign governments and the imports from low-wage and depreciated-currency countries....

...We recognize the existence of a field within which governmental regulation is desirable and salutary. The authority to regulate should be vested in an independent tribunal acting under clear and specific laws establishing definite standards. Their determinations on law and facts should be subject to review by the Courts. We favor Federal regulation, within the Constitution, of the marketing of securities to protect investors. We favor also Federal regulation of the interstate activities of public utilities...

...We pledge ourselves to the merit system, virtually destroyed by New Deal spoilsmen. It should be restored, improved and extended. We will provide such conditions as offer an attractive permanent career in government service to young men and women of ability, irrespective of party affiliations.

The New Deal Administration has been characterized by shameful waste, and general financial irresponsibility. It has piled deficit upon deficit. It threatens national bankruptcy and the destruction through inflation of insurance policies and savings bank deposits. We pledge ourselves to: Stop the folly of uncontrolled spending. Balance the budget—not by increasing taxes but by cutting expenditures, drastically and immediately. Revise the federal tax system and coordinate it with state and local tax systems. Use the taxing power for raising revenue and not for punitive or political purposes.

We advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards. The first requisite to a sound and stable currency is a balanced budget. We oppose further devaluation of the dollar. We will restore to the Congress the authority lodged with it by the Constitution to coin money and regulate the value thereof by repealing all the laws delegating this authority to the Executive....

...We assume the obligations and duties imposed upon Government by modern conditions. We affirm our unalterable conviction that, in the future as in the past, the fate of the nation will depend, not so much on the wisdom and power of government, as on the character and virtue, self-reliance, industry and thrift of the people and on their willingness to meet the responsibilities essential to the preservation of a free society.

Over the last two weeks in Libya, important events were occurring. There was an important revolt against a ruling power, a revolt that was inspired by events in nearby nations and that was driven by forces including a desire for more liberty, a desire for better protection of property from takings by the government, and a desire for more protections of life. Of course there are other forces swirling around too in Libya- the whole life, liberty, and property line also needs to have added to it tribal, religious, and other overtones- but the idea is that there is an important revolution occurring in Libya today.

Opposing the revolutionaries are those who like the status quo in Libya, those who are part of the tyrannical government system, those whose livelihoods are based on the looting of their fellow citizens, those who feel that elites and overlords and government agents should control what people do in their lives, and those who abuse human lives with cruel and unjust judicial systems. These people have important skin in the game too- if the tables are turned on them, they die and their way of life dies, and so they are going to fight tooth and nail and to the last bloody body to keep their unearned gains.

And then there is probably the most important group in Libya, that of the middle. Everyone always remembers the American revolutionaries and the British and Loyalist forces, but few ever think about the great percentage of people who sat out the opening rounds of the American Revolution and watched events before deciding which way to commit. There is a large number of people in Libya who are on the sidelines, watching- although they might agree with the revolutionaries, if the revolution is successful, they may not gain personally and they may have less wealth or power, or although they might agree with the established power, but they may live in an area where the revolution is doing well or may think that long term the revolution will be successful. There are a great number of people in Libya sitting on the sidelines- generals, political leaders, business leaders, and teachers- who are trying to figure out which way this whole thing is going to break so that they can be on the winning side.

The United States had the opportunity two weeks ago to put pressure on all three to achieve some sort of an outcome, and because of the incompetence of its primary political figure in charge of international events, the President, it has failed to do so and only now, several weeks later, is it finally making weak policy decisions on this important event.

This is an important event, you see- Libya is a significant oil producer, Libya has over 6 million people in it, Libya is in a strategic area of the world, and Libya has been a thorn in the side of the United States for years as an active supporter of worldwide terrorism. It is a nation that could be better- it could be a more reliable producer of cheaper oil for us, it could be a nation that has fewer human rights abuses and more political freedom and happiness for its own people, it is a nation that could serve as important source of stability and support in the region, or it could be simply removed from being a thorn in our side and stop supporting worldwide terrorism.

It isn't guaranteed, of course, that these positive events can and will happen- one must always weigh the possible positives of the future with the current situation- but as Libya was a 'bad' nation who wasn't our ally, it can't get much worse (this contrasts to my position on Egypt which was that it was a 'not totally bad nation who was our ally and could get worse').

When this revolution started up several weeks ago, there was every possibility for the United States to put pressure on all three factions working in Libya. Now, of course that pressure needed to be subtle and applied in the right manner by the right people, but I think my case has been laid out strongly that some action should have been taken in some way as soon as possible in this revolution in Libya.

All three factions- the revolutionaries, those in power, and the significant middle in between- could all have been acted on. The revolutionaries could have been provided with support- moral, international, actual arms and weapons, etc. Those in power could have been pressured through sanctions, embargoes, stern words, seizure of assets, or threats of more by moving military assets into the area, and this may have moderated its response and taken off of the table such actions as bombing civilians or hiring foreign mercenaries. And the moderates and those who hadn't decided which faction to support would have observed these reactions and made the call that the winning side and stronger horse to bet on in this revolution was the revolutionaries, thus swelling their ranks and leading them to quicker and less bloody victory.

But Democratic President Barack Obama did not act quickly, surely, or strongly. Other nations did- the British seized assets, the Chinese moved warships into the region, the French acted diplomatically- but not the world's greatest superpower and the one with the most capacity to act in a positive manner. Instead, Obama did nothing, he dithered, he went to basketball games and concerts, and he did not exercise the leadership that was so critical during this timer period.

His failures resulted in a longer, more drawn out, less sure conflict, one in which the moderates saw the President of the United States doing nothing and so decided to support the established powers, one in which the revolutionaries saw their morale drop due to lack of support, one in which the established powers in Libya believed that is was okay to use deadly force and hire international mercenaries to keep control.

The fact that Obama is acting now to issue weak international language condemning Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi does not improve my regard for him or his actions; it instead makes me regard him worse. If Obama was going to oppose Qaddafi, he should have opposed him- if Obama was going to support Qaddafi, he should have supported him- but instead it appears that the leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of the greatest military force ever was a confused, unprincipled, weak, inept, and incompetent moderate who is simply waiting on the sidelines trying to look good in the end rather than being a strong, principled, competent leader who takes action, even if that action is a strong no-action.

President Barack Obama must be removed from office sooner rather than later because he is not a good leader and is incompetent and his failures are leading to a world that is less free, less secure, and more dangerous to the living. He may be a fine father and a good person and a great community organizer, but it was and continues to be a mistake to have him as President of the United States.

UPDATE: Something about this subject must inspire deeper thoughts about the President and what sort of person should occupy that office, because Richard Fernandez over at Belmont Club has also penned a great editorial on this very subject titled The Root of All Evil- check it out!

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy I found this highly fasinating analysis of federalism and the nature of government in the Star Trek universe. Read the whole thing and the comments here, but here is a snippet of it:

While teaching my Federalism seminar recently, I made an analogy to Star Trek's United Federation of Planets. That got me thinking about the role of federalism in Star Trek. How much power does the Federation's central government have, and how much is left to the individual planets? Does the central government's Star Fleet have a monopoly of military force, or do Vulcan and other planets have their own local forces? Does the Federation subsidize planetary governments heavily, or are there hard budget constraints? Despite five Star Trek TV series and numerous movies, these questions haven't really been answered. Unfortunately, the academic literature on Federation law isn't much help either (see also this supposedly comprehensive volume on Star Trek and the law, which almost completely ignores federalism issues).

The evidence in the TV series' on these points is contradictory. On the one hand, the Federation seems to have a socialistic economy with a massive welfare state and no currency, which would require a high degree of centralization and planning incompatible with meaningful federalism. In the absence of a currency and price system, central planning seems to be the only way to coordinate a complex economy to even a limited degree. On the other, member planets apparently have considerable autonomy. For example, Vulcan seems to have very different laws from Earth. And Vulcan's economy seems to have a large market sector dominated by family-owned enterprises. In Deep Space Nine, the planet of Bajor applies for Federation membership. Although Bajor is at least a partial theocracy with a government heavily influenced by religious leaders, anti-Federation Bajorans never argue that Federation membership would lead to the end of Bajor's quasi-theocratic political system (as it surely would if the highly secular Federation denied political autonomy to member planets).

How to reconcile the evidence? I would suggest that it is only Earth that is socialistic, while the other member worlds have free market systems or mixed economies. The human-dominated Star Fleet military is the only Federation military force, and is tasked with collecting tribute from the nonhuman planets for redistribution to Earth. But as long as they pay their taxes, which subsidize Earth's welfare state and Star Fleet itself, they are largely left alone to govern their domestic affairs as they see fit. The Federation is essentially a big protection racket (in both senses of the word: providing external security, and also "protection" against its own depradations). There is even a good historical precedent. The 5th century BC Athenian-dominated Delian League also collected tribute from the other member states (which had no independent militaries) and used it to finance government spending on welfare benefits and the Athenian Navy, an analogue to Star Fleet. As long as the allies paid their tribute, Athens mostly left them alone and did not try to influence their domestic policies.

This theory explains a lot. For example, it is now clear why Star Fleet is so completely dominated by humans. I don't think we have ever seen a nonhuman Star Fleet admiral, and there are very few nonhumans serving even as lower-ranking officers. Except for a few collaborators like Mr. Spock (who is criticized by his fellow Vulcans for accepting too many "illogical" human ways), the nonhumans can't be trusted to force their own people to pay tribute. It also explains why the human-dominated Star Fleet military force seems to have near-total control over Federation foreign policy (e.g. - Star Fleet officers such as Capt. Picard make major policy decisions without any significant civilian oversight).

Furthermore, in one of Star Trek movies, a Klingon spokesman denounces the Federation as a "homo sapiens-only club." Taken literally, this is too obviously false to be effective propaganda; the Federation surely does have nonhuman members. But this propaganda line makes sense if it actually refers to the fact that Federation and Star Fleet are tools for expropriating wealth from nonhuman planets and transferring it to Earth.

Why don't we ever see Captain Kirk or Capt. Picard on tribute collection runs? Because the Enterprise is one of Star Fleet's most advanced warships, and is therefore reserved for more difficult missions, such as going "where no man has gone before" in search of new wealthy star systems to occupy and tax. Note the term "no man," which further underscores human control of Star Fleet.

How does the Prime Directive fit into this? On the surface, it seems incompatible with an imperialistic Federation. But remember that the Prime Directive only applies to planets which are at a much lower level of technological development than the Federation itself. That is, only to planets that are not wealthy enough to be worth the cost of occupying and taxing. Star Fleet Command wants to prevent glory-seeking captains like Kirk from taking over underdeveloped worlds that are likely to drain more revenue than they bring in. The Prime Directive serves this goal, while also cloaking Federation imperialism in a veneer of righteousness that has been all too successful in fooling generations of TV viewers.

I highly doubt that this is the interpretation of Star Trek that Gene Roddenberry intended. However, it does account for the available evidence, doesn't it?

Star Trek Organizations: Star Trek Governments, Starfleet, United Federation of Planets, Maquis, Dominion, Kzinti Hegemony, Section 31 or Four visions of the century ahead: will it be Star Trek, Ecotopia, Big Government, or Mad Max?(technological optimism and skepticism): An article from: The Futurist or Political Science Fiction.

William Easterly writes in the Guardian:

Image via Wikipedia

A popular topic in the aid blogosphere this week was not about Haiti or Ivory Coast or south Sudan but about complex systems, ie systems that cannot be reduced to a simple mathematical or statistical model, where actions often have unintended effects. Yet this seemingly abstruse topic has surprising relevance to the Ivory Coast debate (and perhaps the others as well). One would want to be very careful making aggressive recommendations in a complex system whose principles are not very well understood.
Civil conflict is a great candidate for such an irreducibly unpredictable system. Civil conflict features political and military leaders on both sides, the general population is divided, and each side of the population contains an array of different interest groups. For every move by one player, there will be counter-moves by the other players, then counter-moves to the counter-moves, and so on...[continue reading]

When our Founding Fathers designed the two house of Congress, the branch that was supposed to be closest to the people and the most powerful in our system, they designed one house to be filled with elite men and women of reason who looked long-term and focused on issues of national importance- the Senate. And the other house that our Founding Fathers designed was to be filled with the common men and women of passion who looked to short-term interests of their constituents and fought to make sure that their district's views were represented at the national level- the House of Representatives. These common men who filled the House were your neighbor, your local shopkeeper, the guy or girl down the street- people who you knew and people who knew you. They were not Senators, who argued about major issues of the day, which is indeed an important thing to argue about, but they were Representatives, who argued about the smaller issues of the day, which also are important things to argue about, because if you don't look after the smaller and personal interests of a district, the larger national stuff just isn't going to be solved either. It was a bicameral system that embraced the best of everything, and like most of the great systems that our Founding Fathers designed and built, over the years we've messed it up and perhaps ruined it.

In my post 1930's Are Root of All That is Wrong I wrote that "At one time, I thought the 1930's were at the root of all that is wrong about America, and compiled a list of all of the laws and taxes and liberal decisions passed during that time." That post contained a list of all of those bad laws that came out of that time of fascism and communism and war and depression and collapsing social values. But one law that I left off that list was the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which established a permanent method for apportioning a now constant 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives according to each census, essentially capping the number of Representatives at 435.

So ever since 1911 (which was when the number 435 was first reached), rather than the House expanding in numbers to represent the interests of an expanding population, the number of Representatives remains at 435. Each year as the population of our nation grows, your Representative represents you a little bit less.

One way of thinking like it is this- in 1911, the population was 92 million and there were 435 Representatives, so a citizen had 1/211494th claim on a Representative- not a large claim to be sure, but at least the Representative was someone you might know, someone down the street from you, someone who had a business that you might have visited, someone who married your second cousin's sister or something. This person cared about your interests, cared about your district, and represented your concerns in Congress- they voted for issues that you wanted them to believe in because they were out of your neighborhood or area and so shared your interests, views, background, and values.

Today, our nation has a population of 308 million, and yet we still only have 435 Representatives in the United States House. Now, each citizen has a 1/708045th claim on a Representative- a claim so small that your Representative today is likely to not be someone that you know, not be someone that your aunt or sister or cousin knows, not be someone whose business you have frequented, and not be someone who represents you. Now, the districts are so large for Representatives that many different neighborhoods and areas are in them, areas that have differing views, interests, backgrounds, and values, and Representatives pander and play games to different groups within the district to get elected, rather than represent the views and interests within a more homogeneous area. This leads to many not be represented at all in our political system, their views and values and beliefs being drowned out by others, and to them having less stake in our political system, meaning that our elected officials have less just power to rule over us and less legitimacy in speaking for us. The system breaks down and tyranny increases.

Jeff Jacoby writing in the Boston Globe recently put it this way:

For most of American history, the size of the House was adjusted upward every 10 years. The initial 65-member House prescribed in the Constitution was expanded to 105 members after the 1790 Census, to 142 members after the 1800 Census, and so on through the 19th century. Following the 13th census, in 1910, Congress enlarged the House to 435 members — and there it has remained, even as the number of Americans has more than tripled, from 92 million to 308 million. Ever since, the apportionment process has been able to allot new House seats to the fastest-growing states only by taking them away from states growing more slowly. One result is that many states have more voters, but fewer US representatives.

The larger districts grow, the less representative lawmakers become. Since 1910, the average number of constituents per House member has climbed from 210,000 to more than 710,000. Over the same span, members of Congress have grown more remote, more undefeatable, more beholden to special interests, and less capable of reflecting the diversity of their districts’ values and views. Smaller, more numerous districts, would be far more democratic, more accessible to new blood and new ideas, and more difficult to gerrymander.

Congress worked better when the size of the House was elastic. The Framers reckoned congressional districts should contain about 30,000 constituents; districts comprising nearly three-quarters of a million would have struck them as ludicrous.

A 435-member House was fine for 1910. It’s time we traded up to something bigger.

Through some legislative sleight-of-hand following the 1920 census, the House decided, contrary to established practice, not to increase its size. The House did by statute what should arguably require a constitutional amendment — capping its membership at 435.

As a result, after every decennial census we go through an agonizing process of zero-sum reapportionment. Based on the latest census data, we determine which states will lose and which states will gain seats in the artificially capped 435-member House.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Instead of a zero-sum game pitting state against state, reapportionment could be a much fairer, win-win process if the House would only lift its self-imposed, cartel-like ceiling on the supply of representation in America. Call it “supply-side” representation...

...The House prides itself on being “the People’s House.” But the reality is a far cry from that ideal. The country has effectively outgrown our old 435-member House. It’s like a starter home for a young couple. Once the kids arrive, it’s time to get a bigger house. In the past 90 years the American family has added lots and lots of kids. So it’s time to enlarge the House to give our growing and diverse population greater access to the representation they deserve — the level of representation envisioned in the Constitution.

If the House of Representatives refuses to raise its OPEC-style, self-imposed and self-serving ceiling of 435 members, the representation-starved American people should raise the roof!

The result is that Americans today are numerically the worst-represented group of citizens in the country’s history. The average House member speaks for about 700,000 Americans. In contrast, in 1913 he represented roughly 200,000, a ratio that today would mean a House with 1,500 members — or 5,000 if we match the ratio the founders awarded themselves.

This disparity increases the influence of lobbyists and special interests: the more constituents one has, the easier it is for money to outshine individual voices. And it means that representatives have a harder time connecting with the people back in their districts.

What’s needed, then, is a significant increase in the size of the House by expanding the number, and shrinking the size, of districts. Doing so would make campaigns cheaper, the political value of donations lower and the importance of local mobilizing much greater.

Smaller districts would also end the two-party deadlock. Orange County, Calif., might elect a Libertarian, while Cambridge, Mass., might pick a candidate from the Green Party.

Moreover, with additional House members we’d likely see more citizen-legislators and fewer lifers. In places like New York or Chicago, we would cross at least one Congressional district just walking a few blocks to the grocery store. Our representatives would be our neighbors, people who better understood the lives and concerns of average Americans.

More districts would likewise mean more precision in distributing them equitably, especially in low-population states. Today the lone Wyoming representative covers about 500,000 people, while her lone counterpart in Delaware reports to 900,000.

The increase would also mean more elected officials working on the country’s business, reducing the reliance on unaccountable staffers. Most of the House’s work is through committees, overseeing and checking government agencies. With more people in Congress, House committee members could see to this critical business themselves — and therefore be more influential, since a phone call from an actual member is a lot more effective than a request from the committee staff.

True, more members means more agendas, legislation and debates. But Internet technology already provides effective low-cost management solutions, from Google Documents to streaming interactive video to online voting.

Another year for the books! For this blog, 2010 saw a large jump in readership, and for that, I thank all of you for reading my blog posts, for passing my posts on to your friends to read, and for linking to those posts on your blogs or on your social networks. It is my hope that my messages about freedom, liberty, protection of property rights, and love of life, and the battles to improve and strengthen these things, have inspired and motivated you, and maybe taught you a little something too. There were a lot of great posts in 2010- based on reader feedback (emails and comments and discussions), here are the top ten:

Obama: Didn't Waive the Jones Act, Made Gulf Spill Worse:
Occasionally I break a major story, like this one, which I was on well in advance of the MSM:

In reply to the emails from snarky liberals who ask 'just what do I expect Obama to do about the Gulf oil spill', the reply is 'get the hell out of the way'... Let loose the power of free markets and civil society and restrict government to limited and defined roles, and the world will be a better place. In this particular case, just 'what can Obama do'? Here is one of dozens of examples that are specific and have few drawbacks but Obama isn't doing- Obama can temporarily waive the Jones Act....

...Sometimes I think I'm going a little too far with the raising of my kids, talking to them like that and reading them the Bible weekly and stuff, but then over at Pundit & Pundette I read a similar account from Timothy McSweeney...

One of the main reasons used by liberals and Democrats in defense of this project is that "the project was approved in a non-political and non-religious and purely objective way." I reject this premise, as man is by nature a political animal, and this particular project was is a political and religious statement and anything but objective. This boards approval of the mosque was not an objective decision based on separation of church and state- no, this was a political statement by a group of radical liberals....

President Barack Obama said something pretty darn surprising in a speech recently. He said "(?) have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass (?) would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable."... So, do you think that President Obama was arguing in favor of slavery or in favor of illegal immigration?

Recently, Michigan Senate Majority leader Mike Bishop asked me for my opinion on the President's Race to the Top program. I told him that I didn't support it, and he looked at me in a way that said "I thought you were a conservative" and "I thought you wanted to help education." At the time, I struggled to explain why I didn't like the program- I didn't really know all the details to it, but suspected that I was indeed correct in opposing it from what little I knew. He thought I was just a tool of the teachers unions, who also oppose RTTT, but I knew that for some reason I didn't like this initiative by Obama, and it wasn't just paranoid anti-Obama sentiment.... Today, via theblogprof, via Right Wing News, I came across the an article called "Ten Rules for Anti-Government Republican Radicals in D.C. ." As an anti-government conservative radical, the kind that our founding fathers were, the kind of people that built our nation and made our country a great success, I find these rules to be useful in helping me begin to articulate why I oppose Race to the Top....

Last summer I decided to earn an extra few bucks by teaching a summer school class called Global Studies. Global Studies class is supposed to be a survey of the countries of the world, and touch on their geography, history, economic systems, and current political issues... I met with the teacher who taught in full time during the year who showed me the way the class was supposed to be taught....

Out of all of the broken promises of President Obama, this one is probably not the biggest to a lot of people. Out of all of the phony and lying rhetoric about hope and change, this latest policy announcement that kills hope and changes things for the worst is probably not the most backstabbing that he has uttered. But that does not mean that Obama's plans to destroy NASA's budget and redirect its mission away from exploration is not big or important to me....

The United States has dropped out of the "top 20" in a global league table of least corrupt nations, tarnished by financial scandals and the influence of money in politics, Transparency International said on Tuesday. In response, US President Barack Obama (Democrat) said "My name may not be on the ballot (for the midterm elections on Nov 2), but our agenda for moving forward is."
Obama's agenda for moving forward, which increasing includes questionable lending practices in the subprime crisis, various campaign funding schemes, and rows over political funding, have all rattled public faith about prevailing ethics in America and contributed to the increasing corruption in the US political system, to a level not seen since. "I also think anybody who is concerned about the direction of the country has to understand that this election is just as important as 2008," Obama explained.

Obama is right- this election is about the direction our nation is headed and his agenda- an agenda that favors corruption, crony capitalism, lawless takeovers, taxpayer money flowing to politically connected companies and groups, and increasing state control over larger and larger segments of the economy. Before you go to the polls, before your family members go to the polls, remind them of what they are voting for this election- America is increasingly rated as less free, less prosperous, more corrupt, and it has all been going on under Democratic control of Congress and the Presidency.

Transparency International pointed out that in many states, notably Democratic-run New York and Illinois, iinfluence apparently could be bought and sold, and that was not good. Also it was noted that in the United States, because the Democrats control the Congress, there appears to be almost no oversight of the sprawling and active and unrestricted executive branch, and this also increased the corruption of our political system.

"Essentially, in 2008, we won the ability to start making change, and that's what we've done over the last two years," Obama said. He's right- and it now is up to you to vote whether or not you like these changes by voting for Congress this election.

The Hill and Reuters helped contribute to this post. I could only find Transparency International's report from 2007 to buy (Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems (Transparency International Global Corruption Reports)- it'd be interesting to buy that though and compare it to the one from 2010, after Democrats gained control of Congress and the White House.

I knew I was different than other teachers when during my student teaching, I substituted for a 9th Grade 'US History' and 10th Grade 'Political and Economic Systems' teacher at nearby High School in a local public school. This event really struck home to me how different I was as a teacher from the majority (50%+) of teachers in public schools, in particular social studies teachers- they were mostly liberal and some were very liberal teachers, and I was a very conservative teacher.

The teacher that I subbed for had so many inappropriate left leaning liberal communist Democrat pieces of propaganda and teaching materials in her room that I was immediately frightened for the students of this teacher. These students were surrounded by slogans and images that assaulted them continuously, especially if they were conservative, Republican, libertarian, or moderate. For example, there was a sticker on her desk that had in large letters "Hey Congress, Don't let Bush Ruin Social Security." What purpose does displaying this sticker to a classroom of students have? You put stickers like that where students can view them for the purposes of teaching students that that phrase or thought or idea is acceptable, desired, and to be believed.

Another sticker (covering up the fire alarm) read "Kerry for President." You know, that's okay- a lot of social studies teachers collect stickers and slogans and show them as an example of the types of thought that go through American society- as long as they are historical, meaningful, and balanced, there is nothing wrong with that particular sticker. So, seeking parity or equality in political representation in the room, I looked around the room. I immediately saw another large poster displayed that read "Kerry/Edwards", but had to keep looking before I eventually found a Bush poster in the room. There it was, a big picture of Bush- and tacked over it were dozens of editorials printed from the teacher's computer that criticized Bush and attacked him- so many angry attacking editorials were taped over Bush's picture that it was almost entirely covered.

Also up in her room, tacked to the front board, was a print-out of an article calling Bush a dummy, a poster that advocated car pooling with the slogan on it "collectivism beats individualism!", and a big poster against peace through strength and against a strong nuclear policy (good thing people like her had no power in government during the Cold War, or we'd all be speaking Russian or dead) (bad thing people like her have power over students education on the Cold War).

Skin still crawling and almost in shock at the liberal leftist overload that this room assaulted students with, I browsed through some of her teaching materials (there were no students yet- I had gotten to school early to prepare myself for the days lessons).

One eternal truth that I now know is that a liberal left teacher does not seek to enlighten and educate students, but rather seeks to indoctrinate and brainwash students. Critical thinking and opposing viewpoints are not welcome in a liberal teacher's classroom, only affirmations of their beliefs to satisfy a liberals lack of self-worth. Because of this truth, once a liberal left teacher is spotted, their teaching materials will obviously be slanted as well, as they seek to warp students to their viewpoints.

This liberal teacher's unit on WWII was a good example of the type of liberal indoctrination that goes on too frequently in the public schools of the United States. It was liberally slanted- for example, there were long discussions in the class 'debating' whether to drop the atomic bombs- but debate is a weak word, since the discussion prompts were designed to point students toward being against dropping the atomic bombs, and in the teacher's notes she herself wrote down many more arguments against dropping the bombs than for, so in reality, there was no real 'debate' with this issue (and from my later questioning of students, they told me that there was little education behind the debate as well, as this teacher felt that military theory and tactics and strategy was un-politically correct to mention in a classroom).

Another key part of this liberal teacher's WWII lesson focused on a long talk on the Japanese internment, had several days planned on the Holocaust, there was a lecture on how WWII ended the Great Depression, there was a lesson on how rationing and state control of the economy helped to win the war, and lastly there was an article written by a German that criticized the US for bombing civilians. All of these items were in the "WWII" unit. This was all that was in the unit on WWII (I looked through many folders in this teacher's closet trying to find more).

Lacking from this liberal teacher's WWII unit were discussions on opening a second front, war aims of the various countries, strategy and tactics of battle, stories from GI's of individual courage, sacrifice, or heroism, "Saving Private Ryan" type stuff displaying real qualities of people in the war, or anything at all that was moderate or critical of liberal ways of thinking. A student, after spending a week or two learning about WWII in this teacher's class, would be ill-prepared for anything but a shockingly liberal and incomplete view of WWII.  This liberal teacher, like many more all over the nation, choose to have a discussion about how price controls helped us win WWII rather than discuss the individual heroism of our ancestors in WWII.

Another example from this one teacher's files was her lesson on rating the Presidents. As she taught it, the Presidents could be rated as FDR 2, Clinton 20, Reagan 40, Bush 25, etc the list was liberally and Democratic slanted.  Her unit on political cartoons was filled with cartoon after cartoon that ripped into conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans- and had not a single cartoon that ripped Democrats or liberals. This teacher had a book on her desk almost burned my hands- it was called "A Necessary Evil" and here is a quote from it 'antigovernment sentiment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history...' and the book goes on to defend big statist government. This is the type of material that inspired her and that she passed on tot he students in her classroom.

I sat and thought about the situation I was in a little more, and suddenly it occurred to me- it was no surprise that the district had hired, employed, and supported a teacher such as this to teach "Political and Economic Systems." This class, mandated by the school district, had a syllabus that should have read "Attacking Capitalism and the American Way of Life." The whole class and semester of learning was just a series of liberal leftist attacks on conservatives, limited government, freedom, individuality, and libertarianism. From looking through all of her materials, it became apparent that every discussion about economics was focused on obligations the employer owed the voluntarily employed employee, and were heavily pro-union.

This liberal teacher's Progressive Era test actually had the following as the 'right' answer- Rockefeller's description was 'wealthy industrialist who ran standard oil, and was asked about his duty to the public, replied 'public be damned.'" The one thing this teacher wants students to take away about an innovative and brilliant industrialist such as Rockefeller is that he said 'public be damned,' thereby creating a whole new batch of people who hate Rockefeller and 'industrialist's'. Her 'Progressive Era' test and teaching materials were interesting- I assumed she meant the time period, and thus other things that occurred during this time, but instead the unit should have been called "Why Progressive’s were Right". According to students who studied in her class, from 1870 to 1910, the only thing that occurred were Progressives people saying the right things.

The capstone of this class was for students to watch and discuss Michael Moore's controversial film "Roger and Me." Again, it's not necessarily wrong to show this film, if it will serve as a basis for a critical discussion, bring up contrary arguments, and expose different viewpoints to the students, and is matched by some sort of conservative film. But not in a liberal's class- in this class, it was shown as fact. There was to be no criticism of his methods, beliefs, or agenda allowed. Oh, students did have to get a permission slip signed for this movie- but not because most parents would not want their child learning about this guy and his sick methods and agenda, but because in the movie there is shown "violence against animals." Rudeness, violence, foul language, heavily slanted viewpoint- no permission slip needed, but "Violence against animals" needs a permission slip.

Liberal students feel encouraged and safe in an environment such as this, while non liberal students are threatened and made to feel unsafe- emotionally they are belittled and told how evil they are, and intellectually they are attacked daily. And it was after seeing this teacher's classroom and teaching materials that I knew in my heart that I was different than other teachers, and was a heavily conservative teacher, and would have to struggle against the education system the whole time as such. But I don't care- if I can do even a little bit to counter what this teacher is doing in her classroom through my conservative teacher philosophy of teaching students critical thinking and individual responsibility and real knowledge, I will have made the world a better place.

UPDATE: The level of detail in this post should convince readers of the depth of liberal indoctrination that can occur in government skools.

Lyinoluwa “E” Aboyeji writes in Project Diaspora:

If aid must remain relevant to development, it must stop being so self-absorbed in all its imagined importance and listen more. More importantly, it should increase the capacity of their African counterparts to identify and solve their own problems. The current system where African higher education receives little or no support while universities in the west launch multi-million dollar “Development Research Centres” they don’t need is not only clearly unsustainable, but highly self serving. It pushes an imperialistic mindset that allows western institutions to serve as command centres for Africa’s economic and political systems without the proper context and it leaches Africa’s best academic minds, leaving young Africans not fortunate enough to afford an expensive international education largely clueless and underesourced with respect to international development issues in their own countries.

Democrat President Barack Obama's economic programs can be best called "The Inside Deal." There is a long history of 'deals' in our nation, where the government expands unconstitutionally into areas where it is not supposed to be and crowds out human freedom and industry. These deals all have cool names- Square Deal, New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society- and as Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have jammed through considerable changes in our nation over the last year, it is appropriate that we give a name to Obama's economic policies. I hearby submit to the world that we call Obama's economic programs "The Inside Deal."

The Inside Deal is Democratic President Barack Obama's domestic economic program and is characterized by extensive government spending for politically connected groups within American society. It is aimed to reward those groups that supported Obama's campaign for the Presidency in 2010, such as labor unions, public employee unions, teachers unions, environmentalists, anti-war protesters, Wall Street, and big businesses. Some of the programs that were passed by the Democratic Congress at the time to reward these groups include the stimulus bill, the healthcare bill, and massive annual budgets.

Increasingly during the height of the Inside Deal, there is a link between who receives taxpayer money from the federal government and their political connections. Called by some crony capitalism, it is increasingly unpopular, and in the face of continuing recession in spite of (or because of) the massive deficits that marked the Inside Deal, this program was largely overturned by Republican Congressional majorities and Presidents from 2010-2020 (hopefully).

Hopefully someone will soon create a wikipedia article on this, describing Obama's Inside Deal in more depth.

The first 'deal' that was made between government and America where citizens traded their rights and liberties for the promise of 'progress' was the Square Deal. The Square Deal was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt's domestic program formed upon three basic ideas: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection. Thus, it aimed at helping middle class citizens and involved attacking the plutocracy and trusts through rhetoric and expansions of federal power while at the same time protecting business from the extreme demands of the rising communists.

Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had The New Deal. This was a series of economic programs passed by Congress from 1933 to his reelection in 1936. The programs were responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": relief, recovery and reform. That is, relief for the unemployed and poor; recovery of the economy to normal levels; and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. To see a list of some of the programs that comprise FDR's New Deal, see my post 1930's Are Root of All That is Wrong.

The next 'deal' was offered by Democrat President Harry Truman, who presented a 21 point program of domestic legislation outlining a series of proposed actions in the fields of economic development and social welfare, including the call for universal health care. But in the face of peace and rising prosperity, the country decided that it didn't want to accept this deal, and the boom times of the 1950's and 1960's followed.

But Democrat Lyndon Johnson was inspired by the Fair Deal, and when he became President, he tried once again to make a deal between government and society whereby people would trade their individual rights and freedoms and liberties for some sense of 'fairness' in society. He called his 'deal' the Great Society. Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The federal government has since spent trillions of dollars on these issues, and education, healthcare, urban areas, and transportation systems are now much worse today then they would have been if the federal government would not have stuck its nose into those areas and let human ingenuity and freedom and industry work unchained and untaxed.

Obama's Inside Deal represents then just the latest in a long line of usurpation's that have the goal of reducing our rights to life, liberty, and protection of property. Like our forefathers before, it is up to us to fight and overturn these injustices, least we be reduced to a state of tyranny.

Last summer I decided to earn an extra few bucks by teaching a summer school class called Global Studies. Global Studies class is supposed to be a survey of the countries of the world, and touch on their geography, history, economic systems, and current political issues. It's a good class, and gives kids a nice introduction to world history, US history, comparative government, and geography. In my mind, I saw this class as an opportunity to teach kids about the history and issues facing every country in the world- oh, I know it would just be an overview, but it would still give me a real chance to teach kids. I was very excited to teach it at first. Then I met with the teacher who taught in full time during the year who showed me the way the class was supposed to be taught.

The first unit that was to be taught in the class was Africa. I'd already done some background research for this class and put together a binder of stuff that I wanted to talk about with Africa- the geography of the area, an overview of the history of the continent, talk about the types of governments found on the continent, and finally expose students to some of the modern issues facing Africa. I told the other teacher all about my ideas, the projects I'd planned, the lectures I was going to give, the articles students could read, and all the fun stuff we'd learn.

The other teacher listened to me talk about my plans for the class with a bored look on her face. At the end of my excited talk about my lessons, she looked at me and said "that’s nice work, but this is how we teach this unit.” She was around 40, and had been teaching this particular class full-time for almost 20 years- about 200 kids a year went through her class, which means that she'd had time to touch over 4000 kids so far. The way that she taught this unit was to give the students a textbook that they were to use and a worksheet packet to work on. That's how she wanted me to teach the unit.

"Okay, we'll use the book and the worksheets, but I'd also like to talk about other things too," I said, disgusted, but needing the paycheck from this job.

"Good," she said, "I also spice things up in the class. Our department has approved the following additional materials to be used in addition to the textbook." She handed me packets about racial issues, articles about the bad effects of colonialism, biographies of 'great' African leaders like Mandala and Mogube, a lecture on shamanism, a project on apartheid, and pictures of rain forests. "This is it," she said, "at the end of this unit, make sure that students understand that Africa is poor, starving, illiterate, black, and hopeless due to the oppression of white colonial powers."

Stunned by the one-sided nature of this unit, I sat in silence. Mistaking my silence for approval, she continued "If you want to do something really fun, in years past we've set up a charity in school to divert money from rich spoiled white kids to the poor people of Africa."

I found my breath again, and somehow managed to keep my anger in check as I hissed "Isn't this all just rather empty jargon? Where is the educating about the real history of Africa? Why is no time set aside to study the true nature of political and economic systems in Africa? Isn't this class just one that perpetuates stereotypes and promotes a shallow understanding of the issues that Africa faces?"

The other teacher looked at me in surprise, and then she frowned, and said "Just stick to the curriculum and don’t change it.” With that, I was dismissed.

I took whatever this teacher gave me, threw it in the garbage, and taught the class the way I wanted it taught. My 20 kids learned the history, geography, economic and political systems, and current issues facing Africa, and then Asia, and then Europe, South America, and every part of the world.

The next year, I wasn't asked back.