My Beauty Best Teacher

There is no debate with the left- there is submission or opposition which must be submitted. This fact is not just in evidence when our leftist President speaks- Obama in his infamous health care speech said that there is no debate and that he will not tolerate any discussion on the issues. But it isn't just the President- I think this is an inherent feature of a leftist liberal Democrat- that there is no debate with them, and this reminded me of a recent run in I had with another teacher.

As you are aware, I'm a teacher at a secondary school near Detroit. In my social studies department, which is quite large, we have many teachers, most of them liberals and one or two conservative. Last week I was talking to another teacher, who considers himself to be the guru of history and who's style of teaching is to let students bathe in his brilliance, and we were talking about methods of teaching history.

So I said to this liberal teacher- "So what method of history do you focus on when you teach? Do you subscribe to the regressive model, where the past was a romantic perfect world and we have fallen? Or do you subscribe to the progressive model, where in the past man was less evolved and intelligent but as we progress in the future man gets better? Or are you perhaps a fan of the Great Man Theory, where history is shaped by great individuals?"

To be perfectly honest, I already knew what sort of method Mr. Liberal History Teacher taught in his classroom- he believed that history was a conflict, and out of these conflicts man moves forward. Typically in his class he would present a conflict, talk about the response to the conflict, and then teach about how the tension between the two was resolved. The key conflicts that he focused on was the conflict between classes. He also likes to focus in his classes on how the minority groups dominate or exploit the working class and the importance of revolution. In a nutshell, he is a Marxist. I already knew this, but he answer as to what sort of method he taught in surprised me.

"There are no different methods of teaching history," the liberal teacher said, "There is no politics in history- the only possible way that history can be taught is as the progress of the workers against capitalism. You can not teach about wars. Do not teach about religion. You are not to teach about free market economics. There can be no debate on this if you are to teach history."

This surprised me, so I said "That sounds to me like a method of teaching history, one that is kind of political in nature."

"It is not political in any way- it is the way that history is to be taught. There is to be no debate on this, and no discussion on this. The only way that history can really be taught is this way- if you do teach about wars, religion, economics, freedom, liberty, property rights, or other concepts like that, you are politicizing the issue. Don't make history a political game- teach it like I do," he said- which meant teach it like a Marxist.

It was the way he said this that bothered me. I switched the subject and moved past it, but it took him a while to let go of his belief that there was only one way to teach history, the Marxist way, and that any debate or discussion about methods was wrong and a game that I was playing to score political points. Then when I watched Obama's speech on healthcare and heard him accuse Republicans of playing games and say that there was to be no debate on the issue, and it hit me- for liberals there can be no discussion or debate on issues, only submission to them.

Liberals want you to submit to their authority. Sadly, liberal teachers believe this is their job- to stop debate and discussion and use their classrooms to make you submit to their authority and buy their version of events in the world. In my classroom, there is intelligent discussion, lively debate, questions posed and asked, and different views and methods presented. It is a lively room, where a conservative teacher teaches students how to think, read, write, and do well in life and on tests. In his classroom, there is one view presented, and students are driven to subscribe to that view by a liberal teacher who teaches students to submit and grovel before his brilliance.

This is what is happening in schools today, in little ways and big ways, and although it might scare you, it is important for you to hear stories like this from a teacher like me, who battles every day in the trenches to advance the principles of liberty and freedom.

Every single time I have received a letter from Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) about global warming the opening line from her letter has been "the science on this issue is settled and there is now no debate over global warming." A good way to test this hypothesis of the good Senator would be to call thousands of people and conduct a survey and ask them whether they think the science has been settled and whether they think there is still debate on the issue.

If the Senator is correct and 'the science is settled' and 'there is no debate', then the people would agree, since they are educated about science and they are the source of debate. Oh, there would still be some nuts, but you could expect 60-70% to say that the debate is over and the science is settled.

Scott Rasmussen has done such a survey, and so we can test the claims of Stabenow.

Senator Debbie Stabenow is wrong, and every letter she has sent to me has been filled with lies. According to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, just 25% of adults think that the science is settled and that there is no more debate on the issue. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure. The majority of Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming, that the science is not settled, and that there is still debate on this issue.

Stabenow is clearly out of step with the majority of Americans and clearly out of step with the constituents of her own state, and time and time again she has sent me a letter making false claims demonstrating how far she is out of step. Statistically and verifiable her views only represent 25% of Americans, and yet for some reason she represents our entire state on these very issues.

Go ahead and email Senator Stabenow at http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm and let her know that the majority of Americans think that there is still debate on the issue of global warming and that the majority of good and decent and intelligent Americans still feel that there is debate on this issue, and that she should listen to the majority of Americans instead of small radical environmental groups before voting on the issue of global warming. I think she is a true believer in the Green God though, so you'll probably get a reply that is all mush and mumbo-jumbo, but the facts of the issue may at least inject something to her views. Cite those facts in your email to her- the Rasmussen Reports story can be found here.

Senator Stabenow and the rest of the Democrats in Congress are wrong- the majority (52%) of Americans think that the science on global warming is not settled and that there is still debate on this issue, and the majority of our nation should be listened to before Congress enacts any sort of cap-and-tax schemes or other global warming legislation.

Hat-tip to powerline.

As many of you know, I am from Michigan, and actually live very close to Oakland University, so I was very excited about the Republican Presidential Primary debate that was recently held there regarding the economy and jobs. As a teacher, the way that I approach this debate may be a bit different than some- I imagine in my mind my students- who are learning about government but are coming from a weak background and years of liberal indoctrination- asking me about the debate and wanting me to give my thoughts on it as an impartial political scientist and also as a hip and cool and connected to the youth high school government teacher.

This debate was one of the better ones that I have watched, and I believe it demonstrates the depth and maturity of the GOP field of candidates. While Democrats focus on demagoguery and constantly throw out rhetoric and boilerplate language about hope and change and doing things different, the GOP field from top to bottom displayed in this debate depth of knowledge on a range of issues facing our nation on to the topic of the economy and jobs. Their answers were candid, focused on the points addressed to them, and they took time in their answers to really try to get their points across. There appeared to be much less 'game-planning'- they weren't trying to 'score points' or 'do anything', but were instead doing a great job answer the questions and trying to convince the American people why they would make a great President of the United States. The moderators did a good job too- asking tough questions but staying away from the 'gotchya' questions that really annoy me as a viewer.

To me, the field has clearly separated after this debate into three candidates who are clearly head and shoulders above the other candidates, each having unique strengths and each having a good shot at winning the nomination. The three that I see emerging after this debate are Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Hermain Cain. I'll come back to those three in a moment after considering the other candidates on the stage.

John Huntsman should drop out of the race- he is not the sort of Republican that the Republican Party is looking for or needs this election. In too many of his answers he asserted that he personally knew what the right size of banks should be, or that he could 'right-size' industries, as if he knows what the 'right size' industries should be. He is trying to come off as a sort of GOP caring and trusting candidate, but I don't think people are looking for a hug and a shoulder to cry on this election- they should be looking for leadership and competence to fix the blunders and mistakes of the past administration, and Huntsman does not represent that in any way. He adds little to the discussion and should drop out.

Rick Santorum is a nice enough politician, but his desperation for attention is bothersome to me and he clearly is a one-trick pony. Most of the other candidates listened to the other candidates and bounced off their ideas, but it appeared at times if Santorum was in his own little world, hearing only what he wanted to hear while bouncing up and down whining 'look at me.' His self-promotion was annoying. And government should not pick winners and losers in our nation, even if you think that winner should be manufacturing- that sort of mentality is what got our nation in the mess it is in right now. He's a nice guy, but not President, and also should drop out of the race.

Rick Perry, I hate to say, should also bow out of the race at this time. I really wanted to like Perry- I heard him speak on Mackinac Island at the GOP Leadership Conference and walked away impressed, but he is clearly out of his comfort zone in running for the President of the United States. Yes, not remembering what department he wanted to axe is embarrassing, but it was more than that- his answers on a range of issues were boilerplate and the kind of stuff that I find trite and shallow and lacking in specifics of sophistication. I thought that he would be able to take what he did in Texas and communicate how he would bring that model to our whole nation, but it increasing appears as if he doesn't fully understand or isn't able to communicate what that model is or how he can bring it to our whole nation. He has been measured, evaluated, and found wanting- he is a good Governor of the State of Texas, but I feel nothing more, and should exit stage right now.

Ron Paul I also feel should drop out of the race, although I understand him staying in the race- he still adds something to the discussion and gives the GOP candidates still in the race someone to agree with and disagree with. He is good at stirring the discussion and is a great legislator- although he is not going to the nominee for President because he lacks leadership and executive qualities that are needed to be President of the United States. During this debate he looked good- restrained, having a good time, and trying to teach America views and policies- but in other debates on foreign policy or family values he looks lost, and sometimes in this debate and others he fell back on 'conspiracies' and little black men to explain away our issues and problems. You need a guy like Ron Paul in Congress and running for President- but he should not be the nominee for President.

Michelle Bachman really impressed me- she has really gotten a lot better and a lot more comfortable up there on stage and she now looks like she belongs. She showed depth of understanding on a range of issues and was able to approach issues with a more complex understanding that I am looking for in a President- I liked her stance on lower taxes, on having everyone pay a little something in taxes, reforming healthcare, and focusing on how our spending problem is what is leading to a rising China. She was good and I'd like to see her stay in the race and continue to improve- but I don't think she should be the GOP's nominee. On too many issues, she simply fell back to being critical of Obama rather than articulating a clear position of her own, and I felt at times like she was quoting from articles that I had read on the major newspapers or heard on talkshows rather than being a President. She is a good Congresswomen and commentator- but not yet Presidential.

Hermain Cain did not impress me. 9-9-9 is not the answer to every question that our nation faces- it may be a bold reform plan, but it will not address every issue facing our nation and can't be the answer to every question that he is asked. For example, when asked on how he would get along with Democrats, he tried to answer that that wasn't important and that was important was passing 9-9-9- that's naive and misguided, because there are going to be Democrats in the House and Senate still after 2012 and 2014, and they aren't even going to give 9-9-9 a chance, and most Republicans aren't either. This guy is living in a dream world if he thinks he can just blow by those sorts of questions and shout 9-9-9 at people, and to me this speaks to the fact that Cain has never been in politics and has never run a government and has never had a position of leadership working in an environment where the other side hates his guts and will do anything possible to stop or sabotage his plan. In addition, on a range of answers he lacked knowledge of the details and issues- and this was domestic policy, his strong suit, not foreign policy, where he is very weak indeed in spite of the fact that foreign policy is a huge part of being President in our nation. He's a likable guy and easy-going- but I'd rather have as President a rude and stiff guy who knew what he was doing and could approach complex issues with complex and knowledgeable policy options. Hermain Cain would make a good Senator, but not a good President- increasingly I feel like the GOP likes him because he's the GOP's version of Obama- a weak on details, likable, easy-going fellow who can get off some good lines but has no experience and leadership and will be quickly overwhelmed with how boring and immense the office of the President is.

Newt Gingrich was the candidate that I was very happily surprised by. The best thing about Newt is that he doesn't let the liberals and Democrats frame the debate or control the direction of the debate- if he were the opponent of Obama I really think he would go after the guy and fight the battle on his terms. He has a stunning command of the issues and the complexity of the issues, easily referring to policies adopted by other nations and other areas as examples of what the United States should do while also drawing on history and economics concepts and philosophy with ease. His ideas about firing Bernake, auditing the Fed, reforming Freddie and Fannie, pushing Medicare to the states, expanding FSA's, giving more young people choices in Social Security, reforming student loan programs, and making America more competitive are all great ideas that the Republican party should and can get behind. Newt is a legitimate contender for the nomination, I feel, and would make a good (although wonkish) President of the United States, holding his own against the other party and executives from other nations, pushing for policies that would be innovative and creative to tackle the challenges that America faces in the 21st century. Obama might look for inspiration to FDR and the Great Depression of the 1930's- but Newt is a bold thinker looking ahead and pushing for new policies that could move America into the future. I think he would be a great addition to any ticket the GOP put forward.

Mitt Romney with this debate should have solidified his spot as the front runner. His knowledge of the issues and comfort with attacking problems with sophistication is only surpassed by Gingrich; his ability to attack Obama and roll of 'red-meat' lines that the base likes is surpassed only by Bachman; his experience as an executive and record of success in government is surpassed only by Perry; and his moderation and appeal to all-important middle-class voters is only surpassed by Huntsman. But put together all of these assets, combined with his general positive nature and range of experiences and Presidential look, and he makes a good nominee for the Republican Party. Not the best one- but on a lot of levels, a better nominee than McCain or Dole or Ford or Goldwater was, and comparable to others too. I believe that he speaks to the 'silent majority' in America that is always the key to winning elections- conservatives might not like this and might want him to be fully owned by the conservative movement, but the 'silent majority' of slightly right middle-class moderates is the group that really determines the President in our nation, and we'll need to win over that group to win the Presidency, and Romney can do that. Frankly, I don't know why conservatives hate him so- he was against the bailouts, against the auto bailouts, wants government to follow laws and processes, wants a flatter and broader tax base with less deductions, will cut the deficit, believes in federalism, talked about injecting the free market more into healthcare policies, and said that he'd push for more free trade. Oh, I know he also talked about keeping in place a safety net for the poor- but so did Ronald Reagan. And he was the only person who talked about he moral reasons for balancing the budget- about how it isn't right to pass that sort of debt down to our children. And he knew what sort of levers and buttons to push as President to get China to 'cheat' less in international trade while the other candidates didn't. I'm not endorsing him at this point- but there is a lot to like about him from this debate.

The best thing is that all of the candidates- from RINO Huntsman to libertarian Paul and everyone in between- all want to lower taxes, all were against the bailouts, all wanted to get rid of Obamacare, and all wanted to expand energy production in the United States. Right there, we know that whomever the nominee is, they will be a better President than the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, and will make America a better place for us to live, a more free nation for us to live in, and will create and protect our prosperity better.

UPDATE: Welcome readers from The PJ Tatler and from The Hill! While you are here, please take a moment to look around my site and check out some of my other posts or look through my archives and read anything that catches your interest. Bookmark my site or link to it on your own or subscribe by email and become a regular reader!

This current healthcare debate is not at all difficult to understand- it is a standard debate between freedom and tyranny. In one corner, there are conservatives and Republicans who are advocating a capitalist health care system where market forces are unleashed and people can freely choose what insurance they get and what treatments they want to receive. In other other corner, there are communists and Democrats who are advocating a state-run health care system where the state makes more decisions and puts in place bureaucrats who will make decisions about what sort of insurance or treatments that people get.

The details of this debate are not that important. If this seems as if it is simplifying the situation, then it is- the situation is simple. The only way to cut costs and make health insurance more affordable is to make it more capitalist and more free. If the system is made more communist and less free, than costs will go up and insurance will be less affordable. The current failures in the system stem from the state, and thus the state is the problem, not the solution.

At the center of this health care debate are several deeper ideas. One idea that is debated is the nature of the system. Is it the best in the world, covering almost everyone who wants to be covered, and providing unmatched service and quality? Or is it a broken system, in a crisis, needing a radical change? What is the reality of the situation?

Another idea at the center of this debate is whether people will turn down medical treatments and willingly not seek out more and more expensive cures and drugs in an 'enlightened' attempt to keep costs down for all society. Listening to liberals and Democrats talk about health care, they reject the nature of man and pretend that man can transcend to heaven and will willingly give up freedom, liberty, wants, and desires in order to keep the costs on the system down. Many liberals feel that society's needs come before individual's needs, just like Hitler did (that's a quote from Hitler). But this is not reality- the absolute truth is that man operates on the principle of enlightened self-interest, and will not willingly surrender freedom, property, and choices, and so the power of the state will be used to make him do these things unwillingly.

Think about what the Democrats in Congress want to do with the healthcare system. Do they want to free it, remove barriers to commerce, limit lawsuits from lawyers on businessman, let trade operate freely across borders, and lessen regulations and rules on doctors and insurance companies? Or do they wish to shackle commerce, control it, limit it, and regulate it? James Madison said that commercial shackles are unjust, oppressive, and impolitic, and I agree with him- the Democrats agenda is not the agenda for America, and the details to their bills only reinforce this central fact.

After the Democrats pass Obama's healthcare plan and Pelosi's cap and trade scheme, ask yourself whether you can still freely make your own decisions any more. Do you control your won destiny anymore? Do you command yourself- do you decide what you want to do and what you don't want to do? Or does someone else command you now- does someone else make decisions for you? Democrats, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all the others are working to make you less free- Pythagoras wrote that no man is free who cannot command himself.

This healthcare argument may seem complicated and overwhelming, but don't let it be. Trust yourself. Trust your morals, knowledge, and logic. You know in your heart and mind that Obama is wrong, that the Democrats plan for our country is wrong, and that liberalism doesn't work. Don't get confused by details or sucked into claims of racism, nazism, or personal attacks. Just stick to the truth, and you'll come through this okay.

This post drew for inspiration on a powerpoint presentation put together by the Constructive Curmudgeon called The Moral Basis of Capitalism. Thank you.

Democratic Incumbent Congressman Gary Peters flew back from Washington DC on Monday night to debate his challenger, Republican nominee Rocky Raczkowski, and the lively debate did a great job of contrasting the two opponents.

Over a series of questions on 'don't ask, don't tell', 'campaign commercials,' 'tax breaks,' 'illegal immigration,' and other issues, the two candidates contrasted their styles and hammered away at their strategies to win the upcoming election on November 2.

Gary Peters hammered at Rocky through a series of personal attacks, questioning his honesty, integrity, and motivation. He seized on jokes, mischaracterized Rocky's positions, slandered him, and frequently referred to the frivolous lawsuit by the cocaine addicted customer that provides much of the information that Peters is campaigning on. At every opportunity, he dodged his votes and his stands on issues, and promised that if you give him another two years in Congress, he will continue to work hard and make sure that he does nothing other than vote the Democratic party line. At one point he even accused his lack of production on legislation on the Republicans, who are the minority party (by large numbers) in Congress, hoping that voters wouldn't realize how lame that excuse is. Peters campaign is going to be 'Rocky is a birther, Rocky is being sued, Rocky had someone controversial at an event he was at, and Rocky is corrupt.'

Oh, I also liked when Congressman Peters said that Rocky couldn't be trusted because he was a politician and had run for office 6 or 7 times in the past. This is the kind of logic you get from a politician who has run for office 6 times and is trying to make the campaign into one of trust. Voters don't have to worry about that with Peters- we already know that Congressman Gary Peters takes the word of a cocaine-addict who has had his frivolous lawsuits dismissed already and therefore can't be trusted.
 
One other thing I'd like you to chew on from this debate. If you haven't read The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs in a while, you should. Peters really hates Wall Street and the stock market because it's had a really bad downturn lately. He doesn't want you to put any money into those. That kind of philosophy is a good way of killing the Golden Goose.

This debate was one of the best debates in terms of each candidate expressing their opinions on domestic issues clearly, without filter. Because of this, I call this debate, as I did the last ones, as a narrow victory for McCain- that gives McCain 3 narrow victories over Obama.

Somehow though, whether McCain ties or wins a narrow victory, it doesn't matter- Obama only needs to tie or slightly lose. What does that say about Obama, that the best he needs to do is be present to win? He is a master at this present stuff- he never needs to take a stand, win anything, or show any leadership at all- just be there, and he wins. Must be nice to be able to advance to the highest position in the world by just being present.

Obama's answers all were about enlarging the size of government, redistribution of wealth, and spending more money. He couched his responses in a lot of qualifiers and a lot of words, but that is the essence of them, and as proof I point to his voting record in the US Senate and Illinois Senate. Although I disagreed with most of his positions, the only one that truly caused me to yell at the TV was when Obama said the main job of a Supreme Court Judge was to provide fairness and justice to those who don't have it- I shouted at my TV at this point that the main job of a Supreme Court judge is to judge on the law, above all to judge on the US Constitution. Obama never mentioned the US Constitution in his discussion on judges.

I guess when I think about it I did yell at the TV at another point in the debate. When the two candidates were talking about free trade, Obama talked about how he nixed the Columbia free trade agreement because labor leaders were getting killed in Columbia, and showing international solidarity with the labor movement is more important to him than helping America with jobs, drugs, or fight terrorism. That pisses me off.

McCain missed a lot of openings this debate- on abortion, Ayers, spending, etc. McCain's problem is that he knows that the winning formula is conservative ideas- he knows that conservative arguments are the best, the most moral, the most logical, and resonate with Americans more. But McCain isn't a true conservative, so many times he says the argument, but doesn't hammer it home. That could be McCain is just too nice of a guy, or that he is underestimating Obama's skill, or overestimating Americans intelligence- regardless, he missed many chances to expose Obama for the liberal socialist fraud that he is.

One thing that I liked that McCain did, probably by accident, was call Obama "Senator Government." McCain corrected himself, but he shouldn't have- Obama is Senator Government- he believes in big government, and he wants to run it like an all power legislative branch, not as an executive. Obama is Senator Government.

More thoughts later.

This week is the Oakland County (Michigan) Republican Convention, and to be honest, I'm still a little annoyed about the last one. At the last convention- which I wrote about here- each precinct choose leaders for the county executive board, which plays a large role in shaping the direction of the party at the county and state level.

I stood up and volunteered my services, and spoke about my youth, enthusiasm, and new conservative take on politics- and lost to a group of old same-old moderates. Many people liked me, but were unwilling to support me for any sort of leadership, fearing change and lacking hope.

If there is one thing that I took from Obama's rise to victory, it is that as Republicans, we need to embrace change and speak once more of the hope for the future- and both change and hope are indeed deeply conservative ideals.

Let me quote a bit from William Kristol's article:

Republicans, newly liberated, need to resist calls to shackle themselves to prematurely announced agendas and already anointed leaders. This is the time for a thousand Republicans to bloom. Congressmen used to looking to the White House for guidance or approval--or fearing disapprobation--should show some healthy ambition and unleash their inner policy entrepreneur. Backbenchers need to come forward with heterodox ideas. There should be vigorous debate. Disharmonious disarray is in the short term much less of a danger than a false and stultifying unity.

If party leaders and ideological guides had succeeded in buttoning everything down, if there had been harmonious unity and a coordinated strategy and an agreed-upon message in early 1977, there would have been no Reagan Revolution. And if politicians--or for that matter pundits--had been deterred from changing their minds, worried over charges of inconsistency, there would have been less progress during those years. When you're out of power after having been in power for a long time and when there are new realities requiring fresh thinking, a foolish consistency really is the hobgoblin of little minds. Or at least politically unsuccessful ones. So a little chaos, lots of debate, tons of political entrepreneurship--that's what we need.

I'm all about chaos, debate, and testing new methods of politics- what I am running up against as a conservative Republican are those people who lost us the last election, those people who want to play it safe, stifle debate, and do things the old way- those people who want to play not to lose rather than play to win- I'm running up against the Republican Party that wants to lose again.

At this next convention, if I can find a way to, if I can find the means to, I will speak about liberty and freedom, I will speak about founding principles and the bright future of our country, and I will fire up our party and try to spark debate and new ideas- if I can figure out a way around the safe, staid, confining rules that bind the Republican Party convention itself.

Today around the nation there were rally's held to oppose the Democrat's healthcare plan, and I attended the one in Birmingham, home of Democrat Gary Peter's. It was a great turn out, and there were quite a few notable people there- Oakland County Executive L Brooks Patterson, County Commissioner David W. Potts, Michigan Governor-hopeful Michael Bouchard, and even theplogprof. It was a good time- saying hello to friends, educating one another about various issues, and sending a message to politicians that the people are opposed to this Obamacare proposal.

There were also supporters of the healthcare plan at the rally, and like the Greeks of old or our revolutionary forefathers, I engaged these people in debate, and the crowd circled us and listened to us as we each advanced our aguments. And every time, through every twist and turn of logic that these healthcare supporters took me, I won the debate by relying on facts, statistics, history, and the core principles of our nation. And every time I won the debate, these liberals would give me the finger or yell 'f-you' at me, and I would simply say that I am trying to fight tyranny and stand up for life, liberty, and property.

My favorite debate was with a guy from England, who, over a course of several minutes, went through all of the talking points of liberals- Bush bankrupted America, spent all our money on the war, Obama needs to put our nation more in debt to dig us out of Bush's jobless recovery, etc. I really enjoyed how proud he was of having not read the bill (HR 3200)- when I started quoting from it, he started yelling that that isn't the bill he supports. I wondered what bill he does support, and he told me that one that would create a heaven on Earth, as if man could create such a thing. After a while it grew tiring to talk to this guy though- his world was a maze of conspiracies and evil capitalists- and when cornered, he quickly would turn to character-assassination- he called me a liar, another guy a stooge, another guy unintelligent, etc. Typical rules for radicals- if you can't win the argument, attack the person.

This was usually the way I won the intellectual arguments- I found it much easier to win the ethical arguments. One Obama supporter (she had an Obama hat on) told me that it wasn't personal- that all she was trying to do was make me pay for insuring more poor people and provide better coverage for those who were in need in our nation. I told her that that was personal- my property was not hers to distribute to those who she favored. Her reply was that the government already does it- she mocked me by gloating about all of the liberal projects that my tax money already funds, and mocked me by saying that now that the Democrats were the majority, they were free to take my money and redistribute it for whatever they wished. When I told her that she was proud of tyranny and gloating about taking away my liberty and property, she said "yes, we can" and turned away from the debate, as if tyranny were something to be proud of.

Recently I bought a yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag, and I brought that to the rally to wave. One lady, who was holding up a 10 foot long banner supporting healthcare (paid for by a special interest group- it had the logo on the back corner), asked me what the flag meant. I told her that my position on this issue as simple- I don't want government to get in my business, to tax me any more, and to let me live my life in freedom and liberty. She scoffed at that- she said it wasn't really a free world because of all the capitalists and private companies that ran the world, and that the only way we can truly be free is if the government runs everything. I think Stalin and Mao made those same arguments.

The highlight of the afternoon came as I was engaged by a supporter of the single-payer system (that's what her sign said), and told me that my view didn't matter at all, and that I should just pay for the increased healthcare and be happy about it. I told her that I was a person who had rights, and she laughed at me, and several of her friends came and told me that I was in the minority now. I started to grow angry, so I began to yell louder and louder that I was a person, that I was endowed by God with rights that no one could take away, and that those rights were life, liberty, and property. These Obamacare supportes laughed at me, and said that I was in the minority, and I began to yell louder and louder yet- the rights were God-given and include my right to live free and to keep and earn property. Liberals may laugh about these things, but I still believe in the Declaration of Independence and the ideas it espouses- revolutionary ideas that say to fight tyranny such as this proposal.

Don't get me wrong- the overwhelming number of people at this healthcare rally were patriots who were waving flags asking to be treated fairly, asking to not pay for government programs with debt, suggesting positive solutions like tort reform or increased competition, and voicing concerns about the constitutionality of the Obamacare program. They were grandmothers and young children, teachers and car workers, and when spoken to, they were good people who frequently had a good grasp of history and economics. They understand that this healthcare proposal is bad, and they were against it, and the only thing that they are hoping that will change is that they want our leaders, our Representatives and Senators, to hear them and their concerns.

UPDATE I: theblogprof has some great pictures from the event up as well, click here to see his post. I'm visable in one of the pictures.

UPDATE II: Welcome readers from Instapundit and Moonbattery!

UPDATE III: Welcome readers from American Power!

The following is the complete text of a Statement from Senator Barack Obama on the topic of Foreign Policy and Defense, delivered on Wednesday, April 13, 2005, regarding the so-called 'nuclear option' that was just invoked by now-President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the US Senate with his support. President Barack Obama's own words condemn him and his own parties actions, and in the strongest possible sense convict him of utter hypocrisy. Here is the statement:

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications the nuclear option would have on this chamber and this country. I urge you to think not just about winning every debate, but about protecting free and democratic debate.

During my Senate campaign, I had the privilege and the opportunity to meet Americans from all walks of life and both ends of the political spectrum. They told me about their lives, about their hopes, about the issues that mattered to them, and they also told me what they think about Washington.

Because you've all heard it yourselves, I know it won't surprise many of you to learn that a lot of people don't think much gets done around here about the issues they care most about. They think the atmosphere has become too partisan, the arguments have become too nasty, and the political agendas have become too petty.

And while I haven't been here too long, I've noticed that partisan debate is sharp, and dissent is not always well-received. Honest differences of opinion and principled compromise often seem to be the victim of a determination to score points against one's opponents.

But the American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And at the end of the day, they expect both parties to work together to get the people's business done.

What they don't expect is for one party - be it Republican or Democrat - to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster - if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate - then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber. But we need to rise above an "ends justify the means" mentality because we're here to answer to the people - all of the people - not just the ones wearing our party label.

The fact is that both parties have worked together to confirm 95% of this President's judicial nominees. The Senate has accepted 205 of his 214 selections. In fact, we just confirmed another one judge this week by a vote of 95-0. Overall, this is a better record than any President's had in the last 25 years. For a President who received 51% of the vote and a Senate chamber made up of 55% of the President's party, I'd say that confirming 95% of your judicial nominations is a record I'd be pretty happy with.

Again, I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, this is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority.

Mr. President, I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it's good for our democracy.

Right now, we're faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we've ever had, all while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe.

These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we don't all agree how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who asked us to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere of Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn't serve anyone's best interests, and it certainly isn't what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.

We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more. Thank you.

Democrats routinely blasted GOP's efforts to invoke the nuclear option, which they considered but never implemented. I mean, come on- in 2005 Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the thought of eliminating the filibuster is just another sign of the "arrogance of power of this Republican administration" (source)- but today he did something that not even the GOP was arrogant enough to do and showed that although the GOP might be bad, the Democrats are far far far worse when in power.

I expect the influential liberal website MoveOn.org, who was instrumental in the elections of Barack Obama in 2008 and Democrats for years before and after, to immediatily condemn this action and demand that all of their members contact their Senators to oppose this action, like they demanded their members to do in 2005! They won't though, because MoveOn.org is as rotten to the core as the entire Democratic Party.

The Democrats reveal their utter contempt for the American people- they didn't discuss this option, they didn't talk about it beforehand, they just suddenly invoked the nuclear option when no one was looking, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you give this party an inch, they'll put us under a tyranny.

UPDATE: This is a response to the story now running on www.memeorandum.com regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid triggering a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules. Reid triggered this option because he was upset that McConnell wanted to force the Democrats to vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which apparently is so radioactive and bad that even Senate Democrats don't want to vote on it and will do anything, I mean ANYTHING, rather than vote on it. That's how bad President Obama is and how badly a job he is doing as chief executive of our nation.

Back in the hellish years of Republican domination of our nation, back when economic growth was a respectable number, unemployment was low, and things generally were happier, there was a period of time for several months when our nation debated rules regarding whether or not public lands should be developed and how that development should work. Columnists wrote about it, policy advisers debated it, talking heads discussed it, and a rousing public debate was held in an open and free society on the issue. Ultimately, in 2003 Bush decided to order the Bureau of Land Management to allow more forests and wilderness lands to be open to road building, so that firefighters could more easily fight deadly forest fires that destroyed these forests and wilderness lands, and to restore the power to manage wilderness areas and forests back to the states, which had held this power from 1866 to 1979.

Look back at the historical record- go to http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Bush', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2002 to 2004, and you'll see this debate, see the analysis, see all the time and effort and due thought that a guy like Bush put into this small but important change on federal policy.

Today, with no discussion, analysis, thought, regard, public debate, open forum, editorials, round-table discussions, or any real analysis, the Obama administration decided to suddenly announce that the federal government was claiming once again the sole power to decide how all lands in our nation should be managed, including lands that environmentalists and fanatics think about pretending to claim are 'wilderness' or 'forest land', and in doing so will result in lower economic development of these lands, less jobs, less prosperity, more forest fires, less access to these lands for citizens enjoyment, less ability to manage them, and a general worsening of society. As is usual with Obama, his attempts through this policy to make the world a better place will in the end result in the world a far worse place, and as is usual with Obama, his actions were conducted in a manner more fitting of a despot or dictator than the leader of a free nation.

By contrast, type in http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Obama', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2009 to 2010, and you'll see the lack of debate, the absence of analysis, no time and effort and due thought that a guy like Obama put into this small but important change on federal policy- par for the course for a despotic dictator, but not at all what a nation of free people should tolerate from our President. Of course, liberals and Democrats cheer this, but then again, they cheer and support and like it when unelected bureaucrats, life-time appoint judges, and dictators make choices for free people, usurp their authority, and violate their sovereignty.

Our nation slips bit by bit into tyranny, and the damage to our Republic is growing so great I fear that we will never again be able to recover from it. The damage comes in ways large and known, such as Obamacare or the Porkulus bills, and in ways small and hidden, such as the EPA unilaterally rejecting Congress' role in our system of government and deciding that it will install cap-and-tax on us, or the EPA violating the 10th amendment and attacking Texas, or the FCC seizing control of the internet in violation of a liberal Congress' will. Obama is a Democrat, his actions can not be checked because citizens of some states voted Democrat in the last election, and our only hope that actions such as these can be mitigated is because some residents of some states voted Republican. Republicans have their problems and commit their fair share of blunders and bad decisions to, but it is the Democratic Party and their elected officials who today represent the greatest threat to your life, liberty, and property.

Not sure if this was one of the decisions that made it in Bush's book- I still need to read Decision Points.

My students (high school seniors, about 17 and 18 years of age) had an interesting take on the debate- they framed the debate as one between someone who has street smarts (McCain) vs someone with book smarts (Obama).

They thought that McCain had street smarts because he had been there, done that- he had experience, history, and the school of tough knocks on his side. He talked about how he had learned from the past, learned from past actions, and now was smarter because of it.

They thought that Obama had book smarts because he sounded like he knew what he was talking about- he sounded like he had read a lot about the issues, like he had studies and prepped for the debate for a while, and that he had a lot of learning from Ivy League schools behind him. He talked about how he had learned from people he had talked to, learned from things he had read, and had a lot of his own ideas that he had come up with.

My students compared the two, and felt that what you want in a President is someone with more street smarts. The President is supposed to be older and more experienced- that's why it has the highest age requirement. The President is supposed to be a person of character, values, and wisdom- and that description fits McCain better than it does Obama. And, McCain it isn't like McCain isn't book smart- this isn't like last elections, when the media ran story after story about how Bush isn't smart. McCain is an intelligent, learned, widely read individual- in my view, more widely read and learned than Obama. And although learning is important, there is something to be said about learning the wrong stuff- when Obama read Kissinger, he took the wrong messages from his book. How many other books has he read and arrived at the wrong conclusions after reading? His book smarts may not be that smart after all.

My students felt that although they like Obama, and they want change, and they are against the war, and they don't like the economy, and they like the cooler and younger guy, that after weighing everything, McCain should be President. I agree with them.

North Oakland Republican Club and Let Freedom Reign hosted a debate for the Republican candidates for the 9th Congressional District. The candidates are Rocky Raczkowski, Richard Kuhn, Paul Welday, and Anna Janek. The winner of the primary will move on to face Gary Peters in the general election. This is an important election- Gary Peters needs to go (for more details, see my posts Gary Peters Scores a 90% On the Pelsoi Index- A Vote by Vote Analysis of Peters Liberal Record in Congress, or Oppose Gary Peters, or Peters Hasn't Done Any Independent Thinking- Congressman Gary Peters Votes 96% of Time with Liberal Democrats).

The debate was well-attended- the Oakland County Commissioners Auditorium was filled with about 250 people (including Peter's hired thug Paul Spurgeon). Jim 'J.J.' Johnson moderated the debate. Candidates began with a prepared statement and then answered a series of questions and ended with a concluding statement. The following are my impressions of each candidate, based on my best recollections, as well as further commentary by me.

Richard Kuhn is a judge who worked in the House- from 1943-1946. That should give you some indication as to his age. He was is a Reagan conservative, and has a solid judicial record of conservative decisions. He wants to cut spending and put in place a balanced budget, is strong on the 2nd amendment, wants to win the wars overseas, and thinks Gary Peters needs to go. He is a good judge, but may lack the energy and political savvy necessary to deal with being a Congressman.

Anna Janek grew up in Czechoslovakia, and was motivated to run for Congress because she sees our nation going down the same path to communism that she fled from years ago. She is a strong economic conservative who wants to abolish the federal reserve and get the government out of healthcare, and also was non-interventionist and wants the US to pull its military out of nations abroad. She is a Ron Paul supporter, and shares some of his conspiracy theories about international bankers running the world and cars that run on water, and wasn't familiar with many of the hot-button issues of the day.

Paul Welday is a politician whose biggest accomplishment appears to have been one of the chief legislative aides to ex-Congressman Knollenberg, who Peters soundly defeated. Welday feels that his 10 years working in Washington and with Washington elites gives him the ability to be a good Congressman for the 9th. I feel that being part of a moderate GOPer who spent big bucks and had a lot of bad votes isn't a positive this election, and perhaps he shouldn't run on that alone. Welday approaches everything as a politician should- when asked about Obamacare or Cap-and-Trade, he feels those are bad pieces of legislation that were poorly crafted. When asked how he would fight Democrats, he says he knows procedural gimmicks to combat them. He is a conservative, but I think that he is a conservative more so because it is popular rather than because he feels it in his gut. Welday throws out a lot of hot-button words, and obviously listens to Rush and Sean and reads the blogs and papers, because he uses a lot of the same lines and reasoning on issues. I got the feeling sometimes that he is approaching this as a big game of political power- not that it isn't, but it is more than that too. For example, when asked what Welday would do with social security, he repeated over and over that he would make the tough decisions if he got elected, but never once said anything tough that he would do. He wants to be the kind of candidate that others want him to be, and that's okay- it's just that there is another candidate who is the kind of candidate that others want. Lastly, Welday interrupted the moderator and others several times, and was the only candidate who launched negative attacks on the others, and I didn't like that.

Rocky Raczkowski is a former legislator (House Majority Leader) and military veteran (enlisted at age 17, recently called to duty as Major in Army Reserves). During his opening statement, he went out into the crowd and told them that he wanted to represent them- that he wanted to listen to them and serve them in Congress. He mentioned the Constitution quicker than any candidate, and came back often to it. He is a solid conservative on a range of issues- pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, lower taxes, control spending, balance budget, repeal Obamacare, stop Cap-and-Tax, against regulation, against taxes, etc.- and wants to expand nuclear power in the US and approaches the War on Terror from a warrior perspective (he quoted Sun Tzu!). Although Welday knew his stuff, Rocky quoted Animal Farm, the Heritage Foundation, the New York Times, and other sources, demonstrating his much larger range of knowledge. To me, he approaches things a true conservative should- he doesn't oppose Obamacare because it is a bad bill, he opposes it because it is against life, liberty, and property (my words). His parents were immigrants, and they obviously raised him on the old-school myths of our founding fathers, on being proud to be an American, on believing in the old-fashioned American dream, and on doing your duty, and now he has dropped everything to go all-in to defeat Gary Peters. Watching him speak, I saw our next Congressman from Michigan's 9th.

These are my thoughts and impressions, for what they are worth.

I'm going to come back to this post several times in the future, because there is a lot of gold to mine in this debate. Here are my running thoughts- I'll expand on some of these later.

First, while I was watching the pre-debate on ABC, as they went through the history/biography of both candidates, I thought to myself how surprising it is that this election is even a contest. McCain is a true American hero- a war hero who has been at the forefront of legislation for 20 years, has few scandals, and is a decent person, running against Obama, who is... what? A world traveler? A community organizer? Black? I don't understand how Obama could win- it's like everything our country has been about for the last several hundred years is all being forgotten. Our Founding Fathers would not be proud of us if Obama won. For a more comical take on this, see this earlier 'joke' I posted on this idea.

Economic Plan- Obama. Obama talked about putting forward a series of proposals to solve the economic crisis. Did he actually do those things? To whom? Was it in the form of legislation, or just talk? I don't recall this ever coming up in the news- if you brag about this sort of thing, shouldn't it be well-known? Obama then summed up the issues facing us. He emphasized that things are really bad right now and getting worse.

Economic Plan- McCain. McCain talked about the fact that he has been a leader on this issue and is trying to get a bipartisan approach passed. He talked about specific elements of proposed legislation that is working to pass. Although I got the sense that he is more about trying to be a leader than actually crafting the legislation, that's not really a bad thing for a President. He ended with a good quote about how this isn't the beginning of the end, but is the end of the beginning of the crisis- projecting hope. Going back, he did project a lot more hope than Obama throughout the whole debate- I don't get why Obama is the candidate of "HOPE".

Obama emphasized that the question to ask about this crisis is what did we do wrong several years ago. McCain stressed asking what we can do now and in the future. Again- why is Obama considered the candidate looking into the future- all he does is talk about how he would have made different decisions in the past. That's great if we have that time-travel machine invented, but we don't, so I want to hear about what you are doing now and will do in the future- both areas Obama can say very little about.

Obama said that there are problems that need solutions. McCain mentioned specific solutions that he was working on. Obama mentioned problems with the solutions. McCain offered solutions for the solutions. Obama offers visions and questions, McCain offers legislation and answers.

Obama thinks tax breaks for the rich are bad. As he said, he wants to grow the economy from the bottom-up- give money to the poor, and then the money will trickle up to the top. Has this economic theory ever worked in history? For that matter, which economics believe in this idea, or is this just another case where Obama has decided he is really smart and knows what to do. I guess this means that Obama believes in "TRICKLE-UP" economics!

Obama wants to give 95% of people a tax cut, but then clarified that it would not be a tax cut, it just wouldn't be a tax increase. Such a politician- not raising taxes is just that- not a tax cut. If this is what he means by cuts, I'd be worried- anything he wants to 'cut' will just stay the same, and anything he wants to stay the same will be going up. I guess if 95% get cuts, the top 5% will pay more now? That's a lot of money. That's anti-trickle down economics!

Obama talked about how the market doesn't solve problems and that deregulation doesn't work. See, Obama does not believe in the free-market- he does not think that you are smart enough to make the right choices about what products to buy and how much to pay for them. He wants the government to run the economy. He might fudge this, he might clarify this, but if Obama had been in the Soviet Union in the 1980's, he would have been closer to Gorbachev than Reagan!

Obama again references using the line-item veto to solve the issue of earmarks- he said he would "go line-by-line and veto stuff"- am I mistaken about this? I'm 99% sure he can't do that right now. Does he even understand what powers the Presidency has? See my earlier post on this subject- I've noticed this in the past too- this is a reoccurring claim by Obama, and really speaks to the fact that he is less knowledgeable about what the President can and can't do than a high school government teacher (me). Someone who is a constitutional scholar should educate Obama about this, or write an article on how Obama doesn't know what he is talking about.

McCain talked about looking at his record on tax cuts, fighting spending, etc. He emphasized that a tax system has to be fair for everyone, not one sided 'anti-rich'. He is a fighter of earmarks and government waste, and an independent or moderate would really like his record. As a conservative, I like it less so- he did vote against Bush's tax cuts, and has supported some large expansions of federal power. Regardless, his record is a 1000 times better on this issue than Obama's, who is the most liberal left-wing senator in Congress.

Obama talked about how oil companies shouldn't get any tax breaks, because if they do, others will have to pay more. This logic only works if tax cuts don't cause growth in government revenue- which they do- or you refuse to lower taxes overall- which as a liberal Democrat, he could never ever even imagine lowering taxes overall. Obama wants energy independence now by developing more solar and wind power. These will not work now- although in 20-30 years, maybe!

McCain cited specific attempts of his to fight wasteful spending by talking about contracts he had fought as wasteful, legislation he introduced to combat wasteful spending, etc. McCain took this chance to talk about his proposal to increase nuclear power in the US, which is a common-sense solution to our energy needs while satisfying those who believe in the global warming myth.

On what spending would be delayed, Obama said nothing specific would be, and instead just attacked lobbyists. McCain said that he would be in place a spending freeze until after the crisis was over. Obama will not freeze spending due to the financial crisis- instead, from his answer, it sounds like in a time of crisis when money was tight he would spend more. That's the change we need! McCain said that he would help the economy grow to off-set losses.

Lesson of Iraq. McCain said the lesson was on developing a good strategy and getting the tactics right. He said he pushed for these and got them, and then success happened. Obama said the lesson he learned of Iraq was that 6 years ago he opposed the war. The lesson he learned is that it is important to always say you were against decisions that are now unpopular. He really wants that time-travel machine. Odd that again he is more backward looking than McCain. Obama then said that he would never hesitate with the use of force, but he will hesitate a lot about whether to use it in the first place (ha ha ha). Read the transcript. That's what he basically said.

Obama said that McCain was wrong that we would be welcomed as liberators, thus showing his lack of judgement, and thus why he was unfit for command. I'm always curious when I hear this one- exactly who has not welcomed us as liberators? The bad guys? People who strap bombs to their children to blow up innocents shopping to show their opposition to democracy and freedom? So what if these people don't welcome us as liberators. Most of the population has. McCain hinted at this by saying that the good guys are winning now.

Obama that the role of the President is to make the first call, but let everyone else settle on the correct tactics. McCain said that making the right tactics is also important as President. Obama said this is just managing bad problems- that's actually a good point. Maybe the only job of the President is to set the big vision and not worry about the details. Although, the Democrats and Obama have spent the last 7 years ripping Bush for his weakness with details and lack of micro-managment of everything, so I think that although this might be a good point, it is not a fair one.

Afghanistan. Obama said that we should send in more troops, by pulling them out of Iraq. He denies that there are any bad guys or terrorists in Iraq. He wants to press Afghan government to give more welfare to its people and have a stronger national government. McCain said that a troop surge isn't just it- you need to change tactics too. He also said that you shouldn't tell people your moves ahead of time. Obama implied that he would allow attacks into Pakistan if cross-border attacks continue, McCain said that you have to think of Pakistan as a failed state, and treat it with caution. He only goes all-in if he can win. Both candidates bring up bracelet- did Obama steal this idea from McCain? That's sad. Says Afghanistan is the central conflict in the War on Terror. McCain says Iraq is. And says that if Obama thought that, he should have visited Afghanistan.

Iranian Threat. McCain wants to come up with a "League of Democracies" to combat Iran. Obama doesn't want to provoke Iran, and wants Russia and China to get involved in diplomacy with the US for sanctions. Obama said that isolationism has never worked, and elaborated that never in history has not sitting down with dictators worked. McCain gave example after example of when it had worked. I guess using actual events and experience is just not that important to Obama- or for Obama voters. Obama said that he has been a leader- he said that he had suggested that we need to think about looking at talks with North Korea, and this might have started progress. McCain said that North Korea isn't progress, and implied that if this is Obama's experience, then it is rather weak. Both candidates then got into an exchange about Kissinger- Obama is flat wrong on this.

Russia. Obama said that Russia is bad, but you can't piss them off. McCain said that this is naive, that Putin is bad, and that he's been there and seen it. It really doesnt' even matter if Russia or Putin is bad, Obama doesn't believe in good or evil, just how he can win more power. I wonder- has Obama the world traveler ever been to Russia, Georgia, Afghanistan, etc.? McCain called out Obama's slow response to Georgia conflict. Obama replied that he was the first to call for foreign aid for Georgia to help them build a bigger welfare system. He then said that one of the reasons that Russia is resurgent is because of oil, and so he supports increased drilling. Did I miss something? I'm pretty sure he never has done this and is way against drilling. But actually citing experience, past voting records, and real events is probably just boring.

Preventing another 9/11. McCain said we are safer now and led push for 9/11 Commission. Obama said safer in some ways but not enough. Isn't he supposed to be about hope? He was the less hopeful of the two. He then talked about world perception and how important that was. Is improving world perception more important than sponsoring legislation? McCain said we should stay in Iraq and win, Obama disagreed. Seriously? Isn't this the debate from 4 years ago? I thought Obama's position was thoroughly discredited by now.

Obama talked about catching Bin Laden, and that this is more important than winning in Iraq. Iraq is not worth it. It's about a broader strategic vision. McCain said that Obama does not have the experience and judgement to seriously say these things.

McCain said that his record speaks for himself.

Obama said that the children of the world no longer respect us, and that's why we should elect him. Has anyone seen the research on this claim?

The after coverage was also interesting to note- I was flipping around. Here is what I saw. MSNBC said that Obama missed his chances to get McCain, and that Obama looked better. CNBC was interviewing Democrats who repeated talking points I heard last week. CNN said that McCain knew his stuff and was more in command, but Obama looked good and wove themes well. Fox News said that Obama was more direct and knew more, but Obama was more nuanced and sounded better.

I judge the winner of the debate to be McCain.

First question was on thoughts about the bailout, whether it was a good thing or bad thing. According to Biden, Obama was THE mover and shaker on it, that his ideas were shaping this policy, and that his ideas became the bailout plan. Huh- so this is what it is like to live in Venezuela- politicians can just make stuff up. Palin's reply was to make it real to every day people. I guess this means she is dumb, because Americans are all dumb, right? She sounds nervous and very coached. Less good.

Asked about gap of polarization. Biden solved many problems, is noted bipartisan... really? He then mocked McCain by going after the "fundamentals are still strong" comment- didn't Obama make that same comment this week? Palin's response- Obama is same old liberal Democrat, bought and sold by special interests. Moderator says "neither answered the question"- what was her question anyways?

Asked about predatory lending. Huh- notice how every issue is through the lens of a liberal- pro-bailout, Republicans are more polarizing than Democrats were, 'predatory lending'... wonder if the next question will be on global warming or something. Palin has to play on their turf. That's rough. Missed their answers- both blah.

Biden did say that the best way to fix economy was to give more power to government. Palin should point out this fundamental difference between the two candidates- Obama/Biden believe in government, McCain/Palin believe in the people. Biden talked about more regulation. Palin talked about tax relief. Biden accuses Palin of not answering the question on deregulation- there was a question on deregulation? That's the Palin I like! She is not going to be led around by Biden or the moderator- she is going to say what she needs to say. That smile is real now. Now look at her go. Opps, cut off now. Time up? Wonder what kind of clock the moderator was using to time this exchange.

Biden says that under McCain's plan 100 million households would have their taxes raised. Are there even 100 million households in the US? I wonder how accurate this figure is. It sounds 100% made up. Palin points out that Obama's plan is a wealth redistribution plan, and that the increased taxes will fall on small businesses. Government is problem, not solution. Biden says that it isn't redistribution when money is taken from rich (small businesses, wealthy individuals) and given to the poor- it is fair. Ring... ring... hello? Soviet Union? How you doing?

Moderator- would you like to defend McCain's healthcare plan? Is she going to ask Biden if he would like to defend Obama's healthcare plan? Nope. The moderator never asked this. Palin says feds can't run poop, so don't give them more power. With the bailout, what expansions of government will you now forgo? Biden says nothing, in fact, like Obama did last week, he said he would expand government further, and eliminate wasteful spending with line-item veto and closing loop-holes in the tax code. Palin says that Obama is hypocritical- voted for tax breaks and now talks about getting rid of them. She interacts well with Biden and the camera. Biden isn't bad- he is a good speaker- I can see why he is a long-time Senator. I don't mind him- he's better than Obama is.

Moderator- Palin, can I get you to say something bad about McCain's policies? Palin, with a tired reply, says you won't suck me into your trap. Moderator- Biden, speak about how your vote helped out people? Biden- okay. Will give more power to courts to adjust your mortgage rate. Wow. Did I hear that correctly? Did he just say he would give our courts the power to tell a bank to lower your monthly payments? Seriously? Palin talked about energy- wasn't really the time for this card to be played.

Moderator- talk about climate change, and how anyone who doesn't agree with the mythology to it is an idiot. Palin- there are cyclical changes, let's not argue with the causes, let's focus on what we can do. Biden- climate change is man-made, without a doubt. Cause is man. Must kill man. Man is destroying polar ice cap. America uses a lot of energy. Must stop Americans from using energy.

Moderator- Biden, you talk about what you support- can you reconcile this with your voting record? Palin- drill, baby, drill. All of the above approach to energy issue. Biden- you can't take my statements at a rally out of context- look at my record. Huh. Obama never said 'look at my record'- I remember Obama pulling random out-of-context quotes out.

Moderator- do you believe in granting same benefits to same-sex couples? Biden- Constitution calls for it. Must have a different version as me. Palin- careful about redefining the age-old definition of marriage. Had to defend herself from 'bigot' charge. Biden didn't- it is okay to be anti-conservative, but not okay to be anti-liberal. Palin is not supportive of gay marriage. Biden says not supportive of gay marriage either. Moderator twists question and asks it of Palin- Palin refuses trap again, and answers same question Biden was asked.

Moderator- missed question, but something about Iraq and funding of troops. Biden said he and Obama agree fully on one thing- that implies that on a lot of other issues, they disagree. Biden wants to 'end the war'- and probably forget it was ever fought. Palin points out that it isn't about 'ending the war'- it is about winning the war. Palin jokes that Biden was very supportive of McCain- I like Palin, and I like Biden. They're good politicians. Biden says that McCain voted against funding for the troops- I think that that's playing games with votes, and not an honest attack. McCain has been wrong on a lot of issues with Iraq. Moderator lets that stand.

Pakistan or Iran- who to fear? Biden- Iraq not part of war on terror. Should be building schools and hospitals in foreign countries. Palin- military and terrorists both consider Iraq central to war on terror. Iran more unstable, needs to be dealt with. Diplomacy is hard work- it isn't just 'let's sit down and talk it out.' Obama's ideas on diplomacy are dangerous. Biden- Iran not even controlled by Achy, need to sit down and talk. Brags about Bush's diplomacy with Iran, saying he'd do the same- don't brag about bad ideas, brag about good ones.

Moderator- Palin, solve Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palin- will work for two-state solution, will back Israel. Biden- Joe Biden friend of Israel. Hezbollah same legitimacy as Israel. Moral relativism. Moderator- do you support Bush? Palin- nope. Positive change coming. Biden- McCain the same as Bush. Moderator let this stand. Palin brought up Obama's reckless comments about our soldiers being bad- we will win in Afghanistan. Moderator- you can talk about whatever you want Biden. Biden- touted Obama's loose-nukes legislation. Disagreement on what McClellen (leader in Afghanistan) actually said. Wonder who is right? If it's Palin, that's stunning- Biden is a 30 year senator, Palin is rather new to this.

Moderator- Biden, you have quite a record of intervention. Biden- Success and winning is important. End result is it worked. It saved lives. Why doesn't he apply the same logic to war in Iraq? Partisan logic- he was against Bush. Good old leftist- wants to intervene all over the world, but doesn't want to use the military. Palin is a good old righty- doesn't want to intervene, but when do wants to win. Palin brings out the old 'for it before I was against it line'- she is getting the better of this debate. She is nicer, nice smile, serious knowledge. Talks to Biden. Gives him credit where it's due. Biden is okay too, smiles as well, good knowledge, talks to Palin. I like him, just don't agree with him. Obama I don't like, he scares me, and I don't agree with him.

Moderator- Heartbeat away. How would Biden be different from Obama? Same in principle, different in practice. Palin different than McCain? She's a maverick, and McCain likes that, so they don't agree on everything. Will make government more relevent to everyday people. Biden- McCain is the same as Bush, and Bush has been unmitigated disaster, overseeing 7 years of recession, war, and disaster. Palin- folksy answer about looking forward and change, transitions well to policy points about education.

Moderator- both candidates dissed VP spot. Palin joked that both made jokes that no one got, so no big deal, don't read too much into it. Biden also knows role to play. The thing is- which joke does the media focus on? Which joke, Biden's or Palin's, does the media say reflect on the candidate? The media talks about Palin's joke, not Biden's. Moderator- do you agree with Cheney's ideas about the VP? Palin- flexible and understands how policy is created. Biden- Cheney is bad man and evil. Although I think that is baseless, I actually agree with Biden on this what role the VP is supposed to play in our system- VP is useless position in our government.

Missed question, but caught Biden talking about what people on the streets want. McCain= Bush. Palin replied that McCain is a maverick, and pointed to record and support from Democrats.

Final question to Biden- can you think of a single policy issue where you have changed your views? Biden- wasn't tough enough on judges early on. Seriously? Same question to Palin- didn't veto some budgets, wanted to work more with other party, but some regrets that had to pass those budgets.

Final question, first to Biden- how do you change the tone in Washington? Learned lesson from Mike Mansfeild- Republican? Democrat? Don't question motives of politicians- just disagree with their policies. That's fair enough. I believe Biden on this- Obama questions motives all the time. Palin- appoint quality people, regardless of their political beliefs, to positions of influence in administration. It's all about policies and proposals, not about meaningless empty rhetoric. Rained solid blows at the end.

Closing statement of Palin- enjoyed debate, doesn't like filter of media. Will have to fight for freedom, have to fight hard to maintain our liberties, will fight so that we don't look back and think about what we've lost as a nation. Closing statement of Biden- again mentions that this is the most important election ever. Says we need fundamental change- and not change towards lower taxes, not change towards less government, but fundamental change towards higher taxes and more government- a government that controls education and healthcare.

Good debate. Thought moderator stayed out of the way. I thought Biden did a good job, but Palin did even better- more personal, likable, and made policies more real.

After debate coverage- CNN- Palin did good for a women, but she dodged questions. MSNBC- someone spewing Democratic talking points I heard last week, word-for-word. FOX- balanced, thoughtful- most thoughtful comment- journalists are too baised and can't make this call.

President Barack Obama's remarked today after the passage through the House of his new health control law that "after nearly 100 years of talk and frustration, after decades of trying, and a year of sustained effort and debate, the United States Congress finally declared that America's workers..." have health care reform.

Obama is right- the battle between communism and liberty has been raging for over a hundred years, and last week, communism won a great battle. The headlines are shouting how after years and years of fighting, finally healthcare reform is here. The way they say it makes you think that the reform is the good guy and the bad guys were the people fighting it- but in reality, the good guys were fighting the reform, and in yet another case of bizzaro world striking, the newspapers are cheering on the bad guy, health care reform.

That is not to say that health care reform is a bad thing- don't get me wrong, I think it is nice that millions of people are now going to get healthcare, that people with pre-existing conditions get covered, etc. It's just sad that to do that, the government is going to hold a gun to my head and make me work harder and longer so that others can benefit from the fruits of my labor. In a way it's like forced charity, but not really, because it is a very inefficient charity and it is a charity that makes me not want to give and the recipient not feel thankful for the gift that is being given to him. This healthcare reform, like much of communism, degrades the human condition, by forcing one person to give to another what they did not earn, demeaning the transactions that make our society civilized and humane.

People are claiming this health care reform is historic- it isn't really. Most communist nations long ago jammed through healthcare, overcoming opposition by those who fought for rule of law, liberty, freedom, and private property protection. Stalin greatly expanded health care for poor people in the Soviet Union in the 1930's, and so whatever victory Obama achieved he did so much later than other great communist leaders of the past. I guess what the newspapers are cheering is that Obama is right- after 100 years of determined efforts to keep the government out of private transactions between a medical professional and a person, the government finally managed to do what Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did long ago and inject itself between those groups and gain power and control over the transaction.

The sadness and anger I have is that after 100 years of talk, debate, and deliberation, our nation went stupid for two elections (2006 and 2008) and that was all that Democrats needed to end talk, debate, and deliberation and ram through the society-changing initiatives to move our nation away from a Republic of laws to a Dictatorship of men. Obama is right to gloat- he did what other dictatorships only dream about, and took a society of liberty, life, and property and reformed into into one of tyranny, death, and poverty.

Today I demonstrated Google plus to my students as we compared and contrasted Google Hangouts with Skype and Oovoo. As I went into Google plus, I just happened to be there as Stephen Downes pointed out a grammatical mistake I made on my Leadership post yesterday.

My students said:

"Hey, Mrs. Vicki, is that guy talking about you?"

Oops. He was. I had made a grammatical mistake (again.)

Stephen Downes' Google plus post about my mistake.

I don't want to debate my mistake here. I made one. Period. I aim for zero grammatical mistakes and this mistake wasn't in the original post but came when I went back and tweaked the post this morning - as I often do when I think I've written something I like. I didn't proofread after I made the correction and thus embarrassed myself greatly, especially because someone of the stature of Stephen Downes caught it and let everyone know. I totally goofed up.

Quite a debate with those who know more than I do about grammar has ensued, and yet, I don't defend my grammar. Here was my final comment on Google+ about why this particular post made me so incredibly angry.

I am not qualified to debate grammar and will let those more studied in the field do this. I do know subject and verb agreement and if I had proofread more thoroughly I would have caught it. Again, +Stephen Downes the issue I have here is that you called me on a mistake but did not tag me in the post, thus denying me the ability to 1) correct myself 2) learn from this and 3) include me in the conversation. It came across as a behind the back jab. THAT I made a mistake doesn't make me angry at anyone except myself - but with what I've been through lately including a pretty bad illness - I'm going to cut myself some slack and hope that the meaning behind my words is powerful enough to bring people back to my blog.
What made me angry is that you didn't tag me in the Google plus post and I found this by accident.
Thank you +Keith Hamon for sharing your thoughts. You are more qualified to discuss this than I am.

I was angry because this "felt" behind my back. He didn't tag me and so I might not have seen it. 


So, as my students watched me make the first response and fix the original post to correct myself. We finished up and then discussed what we have learned from this. Here are their findings:

1. Making grammatical mistakes can harm your credibility. (A good lesson for students to learn.)
   
2. There are people who will publicly embarrass you when you make grammatical mistakes. (They were angry that he did this to me, but I told them that because I have put myself out there and am writing for  a larger audience, the expectations are higher for me. Although I certainly have excuses, I will make none. The mistake was mine and mine alone and I DO know better. I have to continue to try to be better.)
   
3. When you talk about someone on a social network like Facebook or Google plus that it is BAD MANNERS to not tag them in the post. We discussed what would have happened if I hadn't been online at just the moment Stephen wrote this and WHY that made me angry.
   
4. Sometimes when something is new even experts make mistakes. I pointed out to them that Stephen Downes is someone that I respect a lot and learn a lot from his blog. I consider him an expert in the field of educational technology. I also think that from now on he will double check his tagging of people in Google plus as I will also work harder to do a better job of proofreading. One mistake does not write his expertise off in my book - hopefully one grammatical mistake will not write someone off in the books of my readers. If it does, then so be it. I feel like people deserve the benefit of the doubt.
   
5. A typo should not discredit someone's entire statement especially when written by a single author. When Stephen says the following statement, he misspells my name (I guess he didn't proofread either) - does that mean he doesn't know what he is talking about either? Of course not, he made a typo. "Why does this bother me? Because failure to align subject and verb demonstrates that the writer quite literally does not know what he or she is talking about. Vicking is talking about"
   
6. Making social netiquette gaffes can also harm your credibility.
   
7. The standards you use for others will come back to you eventually. In this case, in the same post. He publicly called me on grammar and as he did, he made a social media gaffe, so the public timeline also was told about his gaffe because he had made the conversation public in the first place. I hate it was public but it is OK in retrospect as there are a lot of teachable moments here.
   
8. You should always fix your mistakes if you can. Mistakes are human but not fixing your mistakes is unprofessional. Fix your mistakes, try to make things right.