My Beauty Best Teacher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Detroit News, priests of Mother Earth are pressing Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm to halt the construction of coal-fired power plants, hopefully for good. Even though eight coal-fired plants around the state are in various stages of development, almost the only development in liberal-run Michigan, they wish to use the power of the executive office to make laws that would halt the development.

What is the end goal of these so-called environmentalists? According to Jean Veselenak, a retired Rogers City teacher, coal plants are "a very big risk for our area," and carbon dioxide emissions pose serious health threats. Many environmentalists are critical that Michigan does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. They want the state to use its power to stop anything that emits carbon dioxide. Right now, these people advocating increased state control say it is just to stop coal plants... but someday in the future, they'll realize that you emit carbon dioxide. And then they'll want to eliminate you.

Yes, this story about coal plants is less about health dangers and making the world a better place. It is more about controlling property. But it won't stop there. Once someone realizes that they have power over your property rights, the next step is to take away your liberty- your freedom to choose. After that, it isn't a big step to take away your life. All in the name of 'protecting the environment.'

But what will be the result on society for the actions of these silly people, and those like Granholm and Obama who indulge their anti-social behavior? Higher electricity prices, which will make it harder for the poor and elderly to heat their homes. Higher prices will cause inflation to erode the savings of the retired and those on fixed incomes. Higher prices will drive businesses out of our state.

Whatever your opinion is on coal plants, and the environment, you have to recognize that the best way to make the world a better place for humans is to allow them to be developed, and not to block them. This is a fiery issue- it speaks to the basic rights of man- life, liberty, and property.

From Powerlineblog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you go to the polls tomorrow, up and down the ticket, vote for candidates who believe in growth, jobs, prosperity, and good times- vote Republican.

Richard Uku writes about a low-cost solution to the power problem in the Guardian:

...resources like fuel oil, diesel, light crude, solar, and gas are available as means of electricity generation, but their costs are all quite prohibitive.
These factors make a good argument for coal as a cheap alternative source of Africa's power. Coal has historically played a crucial role as a source of energy worldwide, and has several important advantages over other fossil fuels. First is its relative abundance. The current level of proven coal reserves worldwide stands at roughly 850 billion tons. Africa has about 50 billion tons. Coal is also much more widely distributed geographically than any other fossil fuel...[continue reading]

Read related coverage here on Botswana's coal abundance

Related articles by Zemanta

• Report: Energy, fossil fuel use to grow

photo courtesy of palagems

On Wednesday, August 6, 2008 I wrote:

As I listened to Obama talk about his energy visions for the future, I imagined what it would be like to live in a world that is cured of it's oil addiction- a world where there is no power generated by fossil fuels, and instead water and wind power the world. Ahh, indeed- the change we need... windmill from ancient Rhodes, waterwheel from Roman Spain...

After two years of an Obama Presidency and Democrats in Congress, it appears that the world’s chief sources of large-scale energy production — coal, oil and nuclear power — all are becoming increasingly unsafe and unproductive, possibly moving us back to the future of windmills and waterwheels. Liberals and Democrats have seized on the Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion in West Virginia, the Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the unfolding nuclear crisis in Japan, to dramatize the dangers of conventional power generation and push for more regulation, taxes, and government control over these industries while simultaneously diverting large amounts of taxpayer money to politically-connected companies who dutifully pray at the alter of the Green God.

The winners of this war on coal, oil, and nuclear are the Al Gore's of the world, who make big money selling government false promises and inefficient power generation, and every set-back or disaster in the coal, oil, and nuclear world are met with happy glee from the government agents transferring wealth from productive, job creating energy businesses to unproductive, job killing green energy politically-connected firms.

The continued support for Democrats marks the beginning of the end of energy production and the voluntarily suicide of a nation's ability to power itself, on a level not seen since the Xhosa Prophetess Nongqawuse convinced her tribe that it must destroy all their crops and kill their cattle so that they might progress as a society and be more powerful and happy. Sadly, much like Al Gore, following the advice of Nongqawuse only resulted in a calamity of staggering proportions for the Xhosa people, as it will be in our nation if we don't continue to drill for oil, mine for coal, and build nuclear reactors.

The 'woes of Japan' are a wake-up call for our nation- a nuclear reactor that was built 40 years ago can withstand a 8.9 earthquake, tsunami, and electrical problems and still keep generating power- surely we can build better, more efficient, more safe nuclear power plants here in America to power our nation and improve our national security. The biggest barrier is liberals, Democrats, and their uneducated unwashed mass of interest groups who in their ignorance and foolishness would drag us back to less prosperous times, if we let them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Echoing my post from yesterday comes the following article by the Wall Street Journal. As I put it in my post, the ouster of Dingell in favor of Waxman was "another great day for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party of America, but probably another bad day for America," and the WSJ also has picked up that the Waxman election shows that the Democratic Party is now thoroughly a tool of the far left environmentalists. Traditional liberals (Dingell), traditional Democrats (Lieberman), moderates (increasingly marginalized), and conservatives (long gone) no longer have a home in the new Democratic Party.

Quoting from the Wall Street Journal article:

John Dingell's fall from power yesterday is an important inflection point in the history of the modern Democratic Party. The House purge marks the final triumph of the Congressional generation that came of political age during the 1970s over the last lion of New Deal liberalism, and it is symbolic of the party's change in culture and policy priorities in the Barack Obama era.

That fissure neatly separates the Waxman Democrats from the old vanguard that Mr. Dingell represents. He was first elected in 1955 and has always tried to protect his hometown Detroit auto makers from the eco-mandates that ultimately helped to land them in their present predicament. Mr. Dingell's rough-hewn candor about the realities of "doing something" about climate change also helped to make him a green pariah. He knows that carbon regulation and taxes will fall most heavily on domestic manufacturing and Midwest states that rely on coal-fired power. His sympathies lie with the people who work near (or in) factories and drive Fords or Chevys.

Mr. Waxman, speaking for the upscale precincts of Beverly Hills, wants to phase out coal and cars that use gasoline. The coastal elites who now dominate Democratic politics will happily trade the blue collar for the green collar.

The irony is that Democrats have found, in Mr. Waxman, an even more extreme antibusiness tribune, who will no doubt use his new powers to go after any concern that turns a profit but refuses to pay his party the obeisance of campaign cash and regulatory submission.

Again, the removal of Dingell means that if you or anyone you know votes Democrat, they need to realize that they are empowering a party that is against industry, against Midwestern values, against energy production, and does not believe in a limited government. Voting Democrat means putting in power a party that resembles the parties of the rest of the world- a party that uses the power of government to redistribute wealth to its friends. The Democratic half of America is no longer exceptional- one can only hope that the Republican Party rediscovers its exceptionalism and the exceptionalism of America.

The Atlantic came out with its list of Winners and Losers from Obama's 2011 budget. I modified it somewhat. Those who win the game of using the state to redistribute wealth from one person to another are:

1. Those people who are currently on the low end of the income tax breakdown, either because they are just beginning their careers, or they do not work very many hours, or they do not have very many useful skills that they bring to the marketplace, would be winners as Obama in all his infinite wisdom has decided to keep in place the tax cuts that Bush gave these people that have worked so well. As these people gain more experience, work harder, and gain more valuable job skills, they will become losers, as Obama's policies do just that- punish success.
2. Public school teachers, such as the NEA, which has so strongly backed Obama and his policies, even though doing so has destroyed education funding in our nation and led to massive pay cuts and layoffs for teachers. Obama's healthcare plan would destroy teachers, but oooohh, he is handing out an extra $3 billion to schools, so that's makes them winners.
3. The government would revoke $6 billion of Bush-era tax breaks on energy producers such as oil, gas and coal companies, and instead give those tax-breaks to clean energy technologies that are little more than boondoggles that suck energy from the system and are inefficient at using resources. This makes these politically correct industries 'winners' in the government lottery of holding a gun to my head to give them my money.
4. Government employees are the biggest winners. Discretionary spending skyrockets, in spite of Obama's recent lies to be a budget fighter and deficit hawk.

Biggest losers from Obama's budget:

1. Successful people, who create jobs, invest wisely, live within their means, and work hard. Obama doesn't like those people, and so is going to raise taxes on them to punish them for being good people (ie, let the Bush tax cuts on households making over $250,000 expire).
2. Banks and companies would be losers, as Obama attacks the money and companies in our nation in a determined attempt to chase it all out of the USA. Multinational corporations will pay higher taxes on overseas earnings.
3. Oil, gas, and coal companies will be shaken down for another $40 billion by eliminating Bush-era tax breaks. These companies will respond by cutting jobs, investment, and production in our nation, and raising prices on everyone who uses energy, making everyone a loser.
4. The biggest loser in the proposed budget is NASA. These people supported and believed in Obama, and now they are being backstabbed by having the mission of NASA changed to 'support of the global warming lie' and the cancelling of all space flight activities.

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

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

  tags: twitter education

• eduflections: ISTE Insights from Troublemakers

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

  tags: ISTE11 edchat twitter education

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

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

  tags: education

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

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

  tags: education iste11

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

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

  tags: education technology edu_news

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

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

  tags: education learning

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

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

  tags: education research researcher_thoughtleader edu_news

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

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

  tags: education currentevents history curriculum

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

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

  tags: education learning all_teachers literature

• ShowMe Interactive Whiteboard for iPad on the iTunes App Store

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

  tags: education app ipad iear techintegrator

• 180 voices in Atlanta

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

  tags: education learning

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

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

  tags: education physics science_teacher stem

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

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

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

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

Image via Wikipedia In Vanity Fair Peter Godwin writes about the 'The Crocodile' Robert Mugabe, and his battered country:

The tragic irony of Zimbabwe is that what is today a hellish country should by all evidence be a paradise. Its high, malaria-free interior is a magical place: sweeping vistas of long tawny grasses slope up to the mountain ranges of the eastern highlands; in the north the land falls sharply down to the Zambezi River, which tumbles magnificently over the Victoria Falls. Zimbabwe is blessed with rich, loamy soil. Beneath it lie generous seams of gold, chromium, coal, iron, and diamonds. At independence in 1980, Mugabe inherited a sophisticated, well-maintained infrastructure. The black middle class grew fast, and Zimbabwe enjoyed the highest standard of living in black-ruled Africa.
But that was yesterday. The most recent World Values Survey shows that Zimbabweans are today the world’s unhappiest people. Their economy has almost halved in size in the past 10 years. The unemployment rate is more than 80 percent. About half of all Zimbabweans are reliant on food aid. Some 20 percent of the population is afflicted with H.I.V./aids. Zimbabwe today has the world’s shortest life span—the average Zimbabwean is dead by age 36 (down from age 62 in 1990). As a result the country now has the highest percentage of orphans on the planet...[continue reading]

Related articles by Zemanta

• Zimbabwe inflation over 11 million percent
• As if it could get any sadder

We all know that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress have fought to make sure there is no new nuclear power (see my post Yucca Mountain for information on how Obama has defied Congress and shut down the Yucca Mountain project). Obama and the Democrats have also worked to make it more difficult for more energy production through coal. After the Deepwater Horizon accident, Obama and the Democrats put in place an ”arbitrary and capricious” ban on all oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in waters over 500 feet in depth, a ban that was intended to do “irreparable harm” to businesses.

But perhaps you didn't know that for some reason, since June, the Department of Interior has refused to issue any permits for oil and gas drilling in the Gulf in waters less than 500 feet of depth- effectively banning through administrative decree any drilling in shallow waters.

Via Sweetness&Light, this story is from CNN’s Money.Com:

Stealth ban on Gulf drilling, By Steve Hargreaves, Senior writer
June 25, 2010

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The offshore drilling ban imposed after the BP disaster is only supposed to hit operations in deep water — 500 feet or more. But drillers in shallow water say they haven’t been issued permits since the April 20 explosion. The delay has already forced hundreds of layoffs, and many more could be on the way.

"I’m almost out of business over here," said Paul Butler, president of Spartan Offshore, a small drilling company in Metairie, La.

"The Department of Interior isn’t issuing permits," said Jim Noe, a Hercules executive. "By mid July all of our rigs will be on the beach, and the workers without a job."

That could be a lot of jobs. Jobs are on the line: Deep water drilling, which is currently banned while an investigation into the Deepwater Horizon accident is underway, is estimated to employ at least 35,000 people on both the rigs and in jobs that support them.

Nearly that many jobs (at least 35,000) could also be at stake (lost) over (a ban on) shallow water drilling. While shallow water rigs are smaller and employ only about half as many people, there are almost twice as many of them in the Gulf, according to the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association…

Safety first: An Interior Department spokeswoman said there is no freeze on shallow water drilling. However, she said, new safety procedures were put in place following the Deepwater Horizon spill.

"Companies have to comply before we can issue them permits," the spokeswoman said. "No one has fully complied."

Spartan’s Butler said there was a long delay between when Interior stopped issuing permits and when the new safety guidelines came out. Indeed, the first Interior Department notification to oil companies about the new requirements was dated June 8, nearly two months after the disaster.

Butler said he has been scrambling to get his paperwork in order and hopes that permits will be issued soon…

So, in summary, the ever-expanding federal government, which is increasingly in charge of more and more aspects of our life after voters put Democrats into Congress and the Presidency, decided that it was going to put in place new safety requirements on shallow-water drilling rigs, took two months to publish these requirements, and has been refusing to issue any permits for drilling since it decided to change the requirements, causing the loss of thousands of jobs already and the potential loss of thousands more, all with the intent to drive up the cost of energy so that you and your businesses use less, so that the globe will not warm up in spite of its relatively recent emergence from a Little Ice Age. In summary, idiots that idiot voters elected are putting in place idiotic policies because of idiotic beliefs.

President Barack Obama says he wants projects helping specific states yanked from the health care bill Congress is writing. But since Obama's word means rather little (case in point, Obama said it is time to move on from healthcare and start talking about jobs and yet we're still on healthcare and not jobs) and because Obama is a rather weak President, the safe money is on the healthcare bill being filled with pork as no bill ever in this history our republic has been filled with pork. Look for hundreds of projects 'helping specific states' which were traded for votes on this corrupt and backroom-deal created healthcare bill.

The latest version, if one can keep track of what is what in this awful non-lawful process, includes some of the following projects. Although each of these projects may indeed be worthy, they should be judged in the context of available funds (none- in fact, we're already swimming in debt and deficits) and whether or not they are a necessary priority to be spending our scarce resources on as a nation. Here are some of the projects:

• $600 million will be given over the next decade to Vermont for Medicaid assistance, and another nearly $600 million will be to Massachusetts. The other 48 states will not receive this give-away, for reasons unknown.
• Connecticut would get $100 million to build a hospital. Hospitals in other states would receive no assistance because they lack the political connections to game the corrupt system the Democrats are running.
• 800,000 Florida seniors would be allowed to keep certain Medicare benefits. It is unknown why they were chosen for this gift, but in a tyranny, one does not expect rule of law and fairness to be the norm.
• Asbestos-disease victims in tiny Libby, Montana, and some coal miners with black lung disease or their widows would get help. Everyone else suffering these diseases will pay increased taxes and fees on a wide range of products and services to divert money to these chosen people, likely in exchange for a 'yes' vote on the final bill.
• Cash prizes are awarded for Louisiana, the Dakotas, and other states, because fake reasons couldn't even be invented to give these away, so instead Obama and the Democrats in Congress are just simply bribing people for their votes without even pretending it is for essential goals.
• Supposedly the Cornhuster Kickback is going to be removed- this specific bribe gave $100 million in extra Medicaid money to Nebraska to help win support from that state’s Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson. There will be discussion about removing this one piece (but not about the other 100 bribes), but I bet in the end, it's in the bill.
• Obama and the Democrats are not going to take out the extra $300 million for Louisiana because they really need Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu's vote on this bill, so that bribe will stay in, and the reason given will be 'Hurricane Katrina aid' or something.

This healthcare bill is what is wrong with America. It needs to be defeated. If you have been sitting on the sidelines during this process, shame on you- get off your butt, make some phone calls, send out some letters, and go to some tea parties.

In CNN, further evidence of deepening South-South ties within the energy markets:

Doug Ross has put together a wonderful gift for the holidays- a letter book of US regulations for children! Sure to by a favorite for future czars and bureaucrats! Over at the original link you can see all the pictures that go with each letter, but if you want to just use your imagination, here are the letters:

The Obama Administration's Official Alphabet Guide for Learning Government's Role in Your Life

Hi, I'm Omar, the Obama administration's official kid's ambassador. Today I'll be guiding you through some of the many necessary regulations that government imposes on us for our protection -- and we'll learn the alphabet at the same time!

• A is for auto. The size, speed, fuel and bumpers of autos must be regulated to protect us from ourselves!
• B is for business. Government must levy taxes, regulations, fees, surcharges and paperwork on businesses, lest they take advantage of workers.
• C is for cupcakes. Every aspect of child nutrition must be controlled -- because we can't leave it up to the parents!
• D is for doctor. Health care guidelines make sure every doctor practices medicine the same way.
• E is for electricity. Americans must expect to do without electricity from time to time, because we use so much of the world's resources. That is why American coal, nuclear, gas and other sources of energy must be restricted.
• F is for fare. Cab fares must be tightly controlled down to the tenth-mile because small business owners simply can not be trusted.
• G is for ginkgo and other medicinal herbs, which can not be sold without oversight by the FDA, state and local agencies. They're looking out for us!
• H is for Happy Meals. Selling toys with food is an evil marketing tactic, which kids and parents should not be exposed to!
• I is for immigrants, documented or not. We must welcome everyone into our country, because open borders and a welfare state promote tolerance and unity.
• J is for junk-mail. No longer can marketers promote their products without a complete review by federal, state and local authorities.
• K is for knives. Even pen knives and bottles of shampoo represent threats to airline safety and must be confiscated for our protection!
• L is for lollipop. Only organic lollipops that contain less than 25 grams of sugar can be sold in the U.S. It's for our protection!
• M is for MRI machine. Overrated tests and diagnostics aren't always needed for seniors, based upon the government's "Complete Lives System", which ensures fair and equitable treatment for most healthy Americans.
• N is for NEA, the teacher's union that has its first priority educamating us kids (after electing big government politicians, that is)!
• O is for oil, the source of automotive energy around the world. Government must prevent drilling for oil because cars represent freedom to move around the country.
• P is for prescription drugs. For safety reasons, government must put drug manufacturers through decades of testing and regulatory hoops even if certain patients could use experimental drugs. These dying patients could actually die if they're exposed to drugs that aren't ready for the market!
• Q is for QWERTY keyboards, the electric current, operation and safety for which must be reviewed by multiple agencies for our protection.
• R is for the rich. At some point, they've made enough money. Those who have grown too wealthy on the backs of the workers should have their excess riches confiscated for redistribution.
• S is for shower-head. Unrestricted flow wastes water, which is why government must regulate how all shower-heads work.
• T is for toilet. All toilet designs must be reviewed by federal officials to ensure less wasted water.
• U is for unions. Unions are collectives of workers who band together to protect workers and elect big government politicians.
• V is for vending machine. Government needs to set standards for what kinds of drinks and snacks may be sold to gullible consumers.
• W is for warmal colding, the climate change phenomenon caused by humans which results in crazy streaks of hot and cold weather.
• X is for X-ray machine. X-rays are discouraged in medical settings (for cost reasons) but used extensively in airline security.
• Y is for yacht. Democrat leaders like John Kerry use yachts to visit constituents, but others who own them should be considered overly rich.
• Z is for zebra-suits -- the nickname for federal prisoners who violate the hundreds of thousands of regulations that protect us 24 hours a day!

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

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

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

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

Wrong.

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

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

Basic Friend and Publication Structure

How "Friending" Distributes Your Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this impact Teachers?

Teachers become "human hyperlinks" between groups of people.

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

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

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

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

A true-er picture of the world

 But as most teachers say,

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

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

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

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

Parents are a Big Part of the Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36 hours - issue resolved.

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

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

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

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


Remember your noble calling.

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