My Beauty Best Teacher

Here is a thought- the real reason why our country might be on the decline and we elect legislators who are economic morons is because our school system is run and staffed by those people who have no experience in business, work in an industry severed from economic reality, and frequently have ideologies that oppose capitalism and free markets. The reason why this country elects people who think any sort of spending is a stimulus (Obama) is because the very people who are training and teaching our students about economic principles are the worst sort of people to do so.

This is not just an off-hand comment- I'm a little ticked off today about a conversation that we had in our department meeting about the teaching of economics. The MME test expects students to know basic principles about economics, and yet the students who graduate from our school don't have the foggiest notions of supply and demand, and when I talk about inflation and investment, they get blank looks in their eyes. So in our staff meeting, I tried to bring this up, and got lectured by two 'veteran' teachers about how economics should be taught- these two teachers thought that scientific principles were beyond students comprehension, so instead spent class time debating such things as minimum wage, CEO compensations, buy-American policies, and low pay for teachers.

Yes, that's right, rather than teach students economic principles, we are teaching them how to think and vote like a liberal Democrat (since liberal Democrat's usually also have no idea on how basic economic principles work). I tried to battle back, pointing towards the curriculum, and mentioned how an example like the Great Depression could be a good opportunity to connect economic principles, history, and modern day together, and suddenly most of the department was against me- they were upset that the curriculum attempted to be balanced when dealing with the Great Depression, and they phrase "capitalism caused the Great Depression and there is no arguing it" was thrown around once or twice.

If any of you are in business, if any of you are conservative economists, or even if any of you have read a good book in economics, I suggest you contact your local school and find out if you could come in one day to explain the book or an economic principle to these students. If you can't get in to the schools, at least make sure that you teacher your own students about economic principles, because they sure aren't going to learn about them in public schools.

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.

When I was in high school, I was concerned about how much history students knew, so I created a test that I felt would measure historical knowledge. It probably wasn't scientific or perfect- I was a young kid with no training on developing tests- but it was 20 multiple-choice questions. Every student in the high school took this test- I gave it out at lunch with free candy that I bought. The results were startling- my fellow students knew very little about history. The average score was 20% correct- they only knew 1 in 5 answers.

Flash forward to today. I read an interesting story over at Education Watch International called "Trendy British teaching is 'producing a generation of history numbskulls'". Professor Derek Matthews, an economics lecturer at Cardiff University, was also curious about his students' historical knowledge that he decided to investigate by having them take a simple test- five simple questions on British history. Over three years, 284 students took the test- like me, a sample probably too small to count as scientific but providing enough data to draw a conclusion. And the conclusion Matthews drew was the same as mine- that another entire generation of teenagers know almost nothing about the history of Britain.

It's not that that students know little- they know next to nothing! When I asked who the United States fought in the War of 1812, only 20% knew. When Matthews asked who led the British to victory at the Battle of Waterloo, only 17% knew. When I asked who the British defeated at Waterloo, only 20% knew. When Matthews asked students to name a single British Prime Minister from 1800-1900, only 1 in 10 could. An entire generation of students in America and Britain do not know anything about the basics of their country's history.

But don't students have to take history classes in high school and in college? Yes, they do- every year they are taking some sort of history class. But what exactly are they learning in these classes? Open up your son or daughters history book and really look at what is in there. Massive amounts of information with no theme or purpose. Trendy topics. Long sections on women and minorities, small sections on battles and economics. Generic skill training, like how to read a map or read primary text, after which students can recall nothing from the map or the text. Yes, students take history classes, but they aren't learning history.

In a later report on the 'death' of school history teaching, Professor Matthews said levels of ignorance among the young were an 'outrage' that 'should be intolerable'. Should be intolerable- but aren't. These levels of ignorance are tolerated in our society- many feel that it isn't fair to punish a student and not let him or her graduate just because they don't know useless information about our past.

Society puts pressure on students to learn how to Twitter or design a Facebook page more so than learn what policies worked and didn't work. Students spend more time reading Harry Potter than reading a single word of literature written before they were alive. In students' minds, the world did not exist before they were born, contributing to an increasingly egotistical and self-centered society that votes for politicians who pretend to be The One.

So, what is the solution? I'd be happy to hear your thoughts- please email me how you think history could be better taught in our public schools. Next year I am teaching a couple sections of World History, and am looking for some ideas. I'll only be teaching them for a year or two, and then going back to all government classes. I'm thinking something revolutionary and daring- having the students spend time reading history from the textbook, discussing in class the 'holes' like battles, biographies, economics, and principles, and then discussing the lessons learned from it. A real focus on learning history, not simply flipping pages and doing reports on women and minorities. What do you think?

For kicks and giggles, today me and another teacher played a little prank on our staff, although they never knew they were being punked.

"Did you guys here about the conservative teacher in Clarkston who kicked out the pro-gay student in his class," I asked my fellow teachers today while we were eating lunch. They hadn't heard about this incident (which is made up) or the real incident in Howell (which is the exact opposite of what I related to them), so I told them: "What happened is that one of the students in this conservative teacher's class was wearing a rainbow flag Tshirt, and this teacher didn't like gay people so he asked the student to turn the shirt inside out, and the student responded by asking why he had to do that when the teacher was wearing a Confederate Flag belt buckle. The teacher then explained that gay people were bad and that Confederates were good. The kid disagreed with the teacher, and then the teacher told the kid that he was wrong and that his opinions were wrong, and when the kid told him his reasons, the teacher threw him out of class and suspended him for class for thought crimes. Later administration reprimanded the teacher for his behavior. What do you all think about that?"

This was purely a fishing expedition for me, to see if I could bait some of these liberal teachers who fill the public schools of our nation into agreeing with administration (something that teachers rarely do) and talking about how this teacher was indeed wrong, and to be honest I caught a lot!

"This teacher was so wrong to make kids comply with his beliefs," one teacher said. Another said "This is bullying and shouldn't be tolerated in schools." A really liberal teacher was very angry and said "I hope they fire this teacher- he shouldn't be allowed to continue to push his conservative views in public schools!" As a whole, my gauge of the discussion after several minutes was that most teachers on our staff were supportive of administration's attempts to 'silence the conservative teacher for pushing his views.'

It was at this time, after this pre-arranged amount of time, that my buddy came into the room, sat down, got out his lunch, and listened to the conversation for a minute, and then interjected- "Excuse me guys, but I think you are a little confused. It's the exact opposite of what you are talking about." My buddy then proceeded to tell the teachers what really happened.

In the Howell School District in Michigan, on Oct. 20 an economics teacher named Jay McDowell told a student in his classroom to remove a Confederate Flag belt buckle. The girl complied, but another student asked the teacher about how the flag differs from the rainbow flag that the teacher was wearing on his shirt. The teacher explained that he thought that one flag stood for slavery and the other flag stood for gay rights, to which the student replied 'I don't accept gays.' The teacher then told the student that he wasn't allowed to personally express his view that he didn't like gays, even though the student explained that his objection was based on his personal religion. The teacher then told the student that it wasn't 'appropriate to say something like that in class', and gave the student a one-day class suspension and kicked the student out of the room. Administration then reprimanded the teacher for his behavior for violating the students' free speech rights as well as school policy."

The reaction to hearing the true events was priceless. There was a long moment of silence as liberals were forced to stare their previous statements in the face and fit in reality with their views, and then with a shudder, these liberal teachers jerked back into the recesses of their minds and reversed course and revealed their hypocrisy.

"The teacher should be able to run his classroom however he wants," one teacher said. "This teacher was stopping bullying and intolerance and encouraging diversity" another teacher said. A really liberal teacher said "I hope they suspend this student for a long time- he shouldn't be allowed to continue to push his conservative views in public schools!" As a whole, after hearing the true story of what happened, my gauge of the discussion that most teachers on our staff were opposed to administration, were supportive of the teacher, and were very hateful of the student who expressed his private viewpoint on gays in a high school economics class.

I've pointed out many times that I don't mind people who really believe in individual liberty, freedom, free speech, or conservative views. I honestly don't mind socialists or communists that much (although I don't agree with them), as long as they are consistent. But liberals seem to have a problem being consistent and having an ideology which really has no any mooring on anything, and this does bug me. Support or oppose the teacher, and don't switch based on the teacher's views. Support or oppose the student, and don't switch based on views. Public schools are not the place to force viewpoints and religious views on students- they are places to teach economics, science, math, reading, or critical thinking. Bullying students, whether they are conservative or liberal, should always be punished- in both the fictional story and the real story, the teacher was wrong and administration was right.

UPDATE: Welcome readers from For a Better Day, FreedomPub, Weird and Pissed Off, and Conservatives on Fire! Please be sure to take a minute to check out other great posts on my blog!

A a recent article that Charles Moore wrote, I think he put his finger on exactly what is going on today- the success and advance of the twin threats of fear and doubt. Moore, who is a British journalist and former editor of The Daily Telegraph, in an article about Margaret Thatcher, wrote that after the long boom and success of capitalism and free market economics that "the worm of doubt entered the system":

You borrowed all the money needed for the price of a house. This made you, in your mind, though not in full fact, an owner. Because the value of the house was rising, it also made you, again in your mind, richer. The bank, which actually owned the house, found clever ways of mixing and selling on the loans it had granted so that it, too, felt richer. Governments, happy at rising revenues, thought it was their business to make sure that when the symptoms of high risk began to present themselves, they were suppressed.... (then) the roof fell in... (and now) when people now hear words like globalization or capitalism... they feel slightly sick.

Free market economics and capitalism did not lead our nation to failure- rather, during its wild success at making millions around the world more prosperous over the past centuries, communism and socialism and fascism latched on to it, sucking from its prosperity to feed its sick aims like parasites, and over time, many smart people began to become confused and unable to see the parasites from the concepts that they latched on.

Where free markets and capitalism created wealth and encouraged personal responsibility, governments and elites put in place rules and regulations which weakened the foundations of the system, subsidized risky behavior such as sub-prime mortgages and leveraging investments, and gave out handouts to favored industries and distorted the market by doing so. When banks, businesses, and corporations operated in a free market of capitalism, they could succeed or fail based on their own efforts and innovation; but in the new markets, which were no longer capitalistic or free, government subsidies and spending and lobbying and regulation and rules determined whether or not a business, corporation, or bank was successful or failed. And although this was no longer capitalism or free markets, but rather markets once free now twisted to the aims of elites and socialists and communists and fascists, many smart people became critical of the markets or capitalism because of the failures of the government bureaucrats who were twisting and corrupting the system.

And then the parasites of leftism began to weaken and kill the free market and capitalism, and the people cried out 'capitalism and free markets are failing us'- when it wasn't the free markets and capitalism that failed, but rather the people who failed the system.

They were led to this failure by fear and doubt- they did not believe in the hand of the God and the freedom of individuals and life, liberty, and the protection of private property.

The people (or The People, as leftists call them) feared that although they were becoming prosperous and their lives were rapidly improving, they were somehow falling behind others who were advancing more rapidly. Rather than looking at why they were successful in the free market capitalism- because of their hard work, innovation, and yes, luck- they instead demanded government policies to hold back others and help out themselves, corrupting the very system that had brought them so far. They doubted that if people were free and made free decisions, they would make 'the right decisions'- that is, the decisions that they would make if they controlled the other people and had power over them (their definition of 'right decisions').

Rather than just letting go and trusting that the unseen hand of God, trusting to the thousands and millions of individual decisions, and working to ensure that private property rights are strengthened and respected, they doubted that this giant experiment of capitalism and a free market would work, and feared that they would somehow fall behind others in material wealth if they didn't vote for and support people who promised to corrupt the system and abuse the system and circumvent the system. Many people trusted and believed in the power of men to control other men and redistribute property to other men, and in so doing rejected free markets and capitalism.

Fear and doubt came to the people's mind every time there was a recession, or even during periods when great wealth was created but wasn't immediately distributed evenly. The people reacted to the Great Depression by doubting that the free market would correct (as it had done in the 1920's and dozens of times before in the 1800's) and feared that he return to prosperity wouldn't come fast enough- and so they worked to destroy the system, corrupt the system, and make the market less free- and the results were a slight recession during into a decade long destruction of wealth.

And today, government policies and regulations and taxes and laws which corrupted the free market and corroded private property rights have let the worm of doubt creep once more into the people's minds, and in their fear that maybe they won't get to loot the dying Republic of its wealth they vote for Democrats who promise to manage the downfall and distribute the ever-decreasing wealth in the system to their supporters and voters and friends.

To return to success and advance again as a nation in wealth and happiness, we must reject doubt of the free market system and capitalism and trust the people- we need to trust and believe again that the thousands of decisions of free people will create more wealth and make more people happy, and reject those who suggest that having a smaller number of elites make those decisions for us is better. We need to let go of our fear that if we don't control the market and the system that you'll lose out, and instead work hard, innovate, save your money, and invest wisely.

UPDATE 12/7/11: President Obama delivered a major speech today on the economy, in which he expressed his doubt that the capitalist system could continue to provide wealth and prosperity for many and work to make society more equal, and from this place of fear he instead wants to trust himself and his fellow men to run a better system that will somehow do a better job of creating wealth and distributing it than having free people make free decisions.

Via memeorandum, in his Remarks by the President on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas, we read the following fear and doubt from US President Barack Obama, one-term Democrat. These are selections from the speech- (you can read the whole thing yourself here if you want):

My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried -- no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success -- from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.

In this passage, Obama communicates to us that his parents believed in capitalism and free markets and personal responsibility and liberty and protection of property. And furthermore, Obama knows that this system worked. But yet, he has this nagging doubt and fear...

But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

He doesn't BELIEVE in capitalism. He has no faith in people, freedom, liberty, and rights. It's clear he doesn't have any hope that people will make the 'right decisions' (the decisions he would make) and he wants to therefore control other people. He continues:

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.

And it is around here that we get to the heart of the matter- in the last quarter of his speech, after ripping on capitalism and freedom for 3/4's of the speech, that we finally here what he wants to do...

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want.

We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools. Of course, those productive investments cost money. They’re not free. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.

So, in summary, here is Obama's alternative to free markets and capitalism- give him more power. Give him the power and authority to tell employers what to pay their employees, give him the power and authority to combine big government with big business and big labor (ie, fascism), give him and his cronies the power to give money to favored constituent groups to fund pet projects of vanity (palaces, statues, etc), and the power to demand that all of these decisions are paid for by someone else who does not want to pay for it- to use the power of guns to the head to make people give up cash to Obama and his people to feed their wrong ideas about the power of men to control others for their benefit.

Obama is wrong. He needs to be defeated- not just politically, but his ideas and beliefs need to be rejected by all good people and good citizens and patriots and he and his policies need to be forever rejected in decent society. We must instead look to capitalism and freedom and liberty and property protection to our future, and not look backward to the sort of tyranny that Obama is proposing.

One of the great things about teaching social studies is helping students to make connections between things that they are learning about and the world around them. In my classes, it isn't just 'economics,' 'us history,' 'world history,' or 'government'- it is how their knowledge of economics, history, or political science can help them better understand the world around them and make better choices with their lives.

For example, another teacher friend of mine just gave this article to her students and had them read it, and I think it is a great example of good teaching. Sadly, I don't teach world history this year, so I can't use it, but what this teacher did is give her students the following article and have them discuss it. The article is called U.S. Decline, Sloth Look a Lot Like End of Rome and makes connections between the end of Rome and the fall of the United States.

Is the United States falling apart like Rome? I happen to think that there are some similarities, but that since the US is exceptional and different it can still be saved, but the point is, it doesn't matter what I think- the goal of the exercise is to get students thinking and have them start realizing that it is important to learn about the fall of Rome because it may provide lessons for our nation, real lessons about what types of politicians to elect into office, what types of policies to lobby in support of, what types of ballot resolutions to vote down, or what types of investments to put their hard-earned money into. The fall of Rome teaches us, and teaches students, and we need to learn from the wisdom of the past, and once students get that, once they understand that, it opens up a whole new world to them.

U.S. Decline, Sloth Look a Lot Like End of Rome is the article that that other teacher used in her classroom- if you are a teacher, you may also want to use it, and then afterwards pose questions to your students that asks them about the history of Rome, the recent policy decisions in the US, how those might be similar or different, and if the results will be similar or different. Enjoy the fun discussion that results and watch the learning occur!

This isn't the whole thing- I recommend you read the whole thing- but here are a couple teasers from it:

Historians cite the late second century as the turning point of the Roman Empire, when the once- proud, feared society began its descent into infamy. As the ruling class was undermined by civil wars and attacks by outsiders, the Romans’ respect for law and social institutions began to erode. In the end, a combination of political and economic mistakes led to the empire’s downfall.

The U.S. today is a mirror image of the Roman Empire as it tipped into chaos. Whether we blame our bloated government, a greedy elite or a lethargic population, the similarities between the two foreshadow a gruesome future.

The Roman economy grew fat from the plunder of conquered territories and the added productivity offered by new lands. The waning of expansionism didn’t bode well for the empire.

While the U.S. ascended quite differently, it also used its position as a superpower to fuel economic expansion. Because the country had the strongest military and economy in the post-World War II era, the U.S. dollar became the de facto global reserve currency, ensuring endless competitive advantages -- which have vanished in the last decade.

Americans have become less productive while relying more on social safety-net programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- and now expanded health-care insurance. Worse, like the ancient Romans, a sense of entitlement has replaced the drive and motivation we once championed. With easy access to abundant government handouts, it’s no wonder so many jobless people have stopped looking for work....

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.

If you haven't gotten a chance to watch this yet, please do. If you teach economics, fiscal policy, monetary policy, or teach government, show this to the students in your class. It's sweet. The video is 8 minutes of pure awesome.

In Fear the Boom and Bust, John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, two of the great economists of the 20th century, come back to life to attend an economics conference on the economic crisis. Before the conference begins, and at the insistence of Lord Keynes, they go out for a night on the town and sing about why there's a "boom and bust" cycle in modern economies and good reason to fear it. Get the full lyrics, story and free download of the song in high quality MP3 and AAC files at:http://www.econstories.tv/. Plus, to see and hear more from the stars of Fear the Boom and Bust, Billy Scafuri and Adam Lustick, visit their site: http://www.billyandadam.com/.

A friend of mine does some work for the Michigan Department of Education, and he let me know what some of the questions on the Michigan Merit Exam (MME) are about. Now, I'm not going to tell you what the questions actually ask or what standard or information is being tested, but I think it's okay to tell you the general liberal thrust of the questions that your taxpayer money is paid to write.

There are several questions about why Wal-Mart is bad written in the guise of economics questions. The questions pretend to ask questions about economic principles that students are supposed to learn, but the correct answer to every question is 'Wal-Mart is evil.' Since students are usually taught this instead of economics principles, I guess it's okay for them, but I think that these types of questions are wrong to put on this state-mandated test. Besides, Wal-Mart isn't as bad as it is made out- see my earlier post Undercover at Wal-Mart.

It's surprising how economic questions rarely ask about supply and demand, and yet there are several questions on saving gas and helping the environment disguised as 'supply and demand' questions. Seriously, the correct answer to several questions on the MME test is 'save the environment, drive green cars, save gas, and vote Democrat' (okay, I added that last part). Although saving gas might be good for the environment, are these concepts really fundamental to education in Michigan? Never mind, they probably are- my students can repeat the liturgy of global warming to me, but know few economic concepts.

Oh, and for those of you who believe in a religion other than global warming- according to the state-mandated, taxpayer funded MME test, you are a barrier to progress. Yes, several questions on world history can be answered with the correct answer of 'church is barrier to progress.' I guess that's not exactly wrong- conservative values have been standing in the way of Progressivism for many years, fighting to make sure that the values of men are protected and respected and we don't progress to a tyrannical inhuman society. Still, I hope students aren't being taught that the church is bad- I know schools have interpreted the 1st amendment to mean they can't talk about religion, but I hope they haven't interpreted the 1st amendment to mean that they can't talk about religion in a good way.

Just thought some of you would be interested in what the state is producing. Imagine all the great things it will produce now that it has forcibly appropriated massive amounts of your property in the form of a 'stimulus bill.'

Telegraph.co.uk is presenting its second list of the 100 most influential conservatives. Conservatives are people identifiably – though not always self-described – as right of centre. The lists go by intervals of 20: 100-81 80-61 60-41. I'm going to just point out one or two people that I have been influenced by, but I suggest you look over the entire list and see who inspired you:

84. THOMAS SOWELL (64 on 2007 list)
Economist and commentator. Currently the Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on public policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and one of America’s most prominent black intellectuals, Sowell, 77, writes mainly about economics, history, race and social policy. A prolific columnist, he criticised Obama from almost his first day in office, accusing the president on his Townhall.com blog of “dismantling America”. Strongly free-market, against abortion, gay marriage and affirmative action and in favour of racial profiling to tackle terrorism, he has a pronounced libertarian streak and favours de-criminalising narcotics.

71. DICK ARMEY (- on 2007 list)
Chairman, FreedomWorks. An author of the 1994 Contract with America and former House Majority Leader, Armey now leads FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy organisation.

A Texan libertarian and former economics professor well versed in Washington’s rougher political arts, he was forced to give up an lucrative consultancy with DLA Piper when FreedomWork’s links to populist opposition to health care reform created difficulties with the law firm’s clients. The 69-year-old chain-smoker is a major influence on the tea party movement, which could become the conservative powerhouse in 2010.

66. VICTOR DAVID HANSON (58 on 2007 list)
Military historian and columnist. Although registered as a Democrat, Hanson strongly supported the Bush administration, particularly on foreign policy, and reluctantly accepts the label (though he acknowledges it is also a slur) of “neo-conservative”, arguing that the Democrats do not have a morally responsible foreign policy. He rejects, however, the jibe from paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan that he was the “neocon court historian”, arguing he had hardly ever visited the Bush White House and had never been in the pay of a government.

“I came to support neocon approaches first in the wars against the Taliban and Saddam, largely because I saw little alternative,” he wrote in 2008. Three years earlier, he had argued that that Democrats were like Republicans in the mid-1960s – “impotent, shrill, no ideas, conspiratorial, reactive, out-of-touch with most Americans, isolationist, and full of embarrassing spokesmen".

His verdict on the current president, when much of the country was in the grip of Obamamania a year ago, could turn out to be prescient: “If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.”

44. CLARENCE THOMAS (85 on the 2007 list)
Supreme Court Justice. Thomas has been on the Supreme Court for nearly two decades, making him one of the longest serving justices in history as well as a reliable conservative vote on virtually every issue. Only just in his 60s, he could be on the court for at least two decades more. Adored by the Republican party establishment, a candidate is guaranteed a round of applause when he cites Thomas or Antonin Scalia as model jurists. Thomas shrinks from the limelight and is renowned for hardly ever asking a question during hearings. But his judgements are lucid and often tart.

He endured contentious confirmation hearings that threatened to stop him becoming the second black Supreme Court justice, running the gauntlet of accusations of sexual harassment. The indignity of this still burns and in his autobiography he described the experience as being “pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony". An originalist, he believes in strict interpretation of the constitution and also describes himself as having “libertarian leanings”.

In "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem, I wrote:

If you haven't gotten a chance to watch this yet, please do. If you teach economics, fiscal policy, monetary policy, or teach government, show this to the students in your class. It's sweet. The video is 8 minutes of pure awesome.

Click here to watch the original video!

In Fear the Boom and Bust, John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, two of the great economists of the 20th century, come back to life to attend an economics conference on the economic crisis. Before the conference begins, and at the insistence of Lord Keynes, they go out for a night on the town and sing about why there's a "boom and bust" cycle in modern economies and good reason to fear it. Get the full lyrics, story and free download of the song in high quality MP3 and AAC files at:http://www.econstories.tv/. Plus, to see and hear more from the stars of Fear the Boom and Bust, Billy Scafuri and Adam Lustick, visit their site: http://www.billyandadam.com/.

It turns out that this video was a big hit, and there have been demands for sequels and updating of it. So at a recent event (The Economist Magazine's Buttonwood Gathering), the financial managers and CEOs, politicians, central bankers and nobel prize winning economists there were treated to an unusual experience: a live rap battle between John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek. It's a live rap referencing current economic events- it is blow-your-mind good, and if you have time be sure to also show this in your classrooms! Here is the video:

One of the other school districts that I worked in has a gifted and talented program that I thought would interest some of my readers because it shows how possible and how extensive the liberal agenda can stretch into the government-run schools in our country.

In some schools, gifted and talented programs for students may offer increased enrichment opportunities, ask students to take more leadership on important issues, hold seminars to improve critical thinking skills, or include visits to local museums. But in other schools, just the the program that I observed in a local middle school, the gifted and talented programs instead are serving as laboratories for molding future communist-left-leaning Democrats.

In this government school, gifted and talented students are usually identified in elementary and middle schools and then put into a program apart from other students, where they learn and work on an additional or alternative curriculum. They are told over and over that they are not different from other students, just unique- separate, but equal. Myself, I'd just tell these students the truth- 'hey, you're farther along and advancing more rapidly, so let's put you in a different class or give you additional projects and challenge you.' But the liberals who run the education system instead say to these students 'we're all equal, but we're going to put you in a special class to mold your unique skills.'

And the scary part is what they are trying to mold the best and brightest into. Apparently what this school is trying to mod its most gifted and talented students into is government planners, communists, bureaucrats, and solid liberal Democrats. They do this molding in several ways.

These gifted and talented students have to create and run United Nations type projects. That is, the United Nations projects that are funded with other people's money, unaccountable, full of corruption, and tend to make the situation they are supposed to 'fix' worse. Students work on projects that have to deal with environmentalism (how to force businesses through government power to do certain things, or propose laws to do this, etc.), global appeasement policies (peace on earth, how to stop the war, stop the war in Iraq, how to make friends with France, etc.), tax and spend schemes (pretend money comes from air and isn't stolen from hard working people's pockets, and think up ways to spend it, etc.), wealth-redistribution schemes (collect for charities, can drives, etc.), and focus on human rights abuses (especially caused by the US).

The gifted and talented programs that some government-run school districts are setting up for their impressionable youth steer clear and never mention anything related to individualism, morality, or personal rights. In fact, not a single project touched on those issues. The goal apparently with these programs is to emphasis themes of government control and elitism, but steer clear of morality, individual rights, and individual responsibility.

The students get the time to put together these projects by being pulled out of classes that are deemed 'unimportant' by the liberal elites who run the school- they are pulled out of business or economics classes, they are pulled out of shop, home economics, or auto mechanics classes, and they are pulled out of gym and physical education classes. According to the liberals who run the school, these are 'dumb' classes for the 'dumber students', and the gifted and talented students should instead be learning how to rule us, make decisions for us, and control our behaviors.

Where gifted and talented students could take on more real life examples and challenges, and begin to train to be our future business leaders, and improve their discipline and teamwork skills, and be part of the tradition that made our nation great once- skilled mechanics, dedicated farmers, good shop keepers, smart accountants, and hard-working factory workers- these students instead spend vastly more time talking and learning about government intervention in business and society in the belief that if our country had more lawyers, bureaucrats, and communist leftist pinko's, it would be a better country.

It is a scary thought- in schools all around the nation, our future leaders- our most gifted and talented- are being put into government re-education programs designed to make students into liberal Democrats. Scary indeed.

Chamberlain Peterside recommends a number measures to stimulate the fundamental base of Nigeria's economy.
"...It is quite realistic to recommend that Nigeria earmarks $5,0 billion of its foreign reserve for this purpose. Even after paying-off the foreign debt, Nigeria will still be left with substantial amount of money to sustain its current account status, support the currency market and tuck away some nest-egg for future generation. That is if subsequent governments don't steal it. Hypothetically, the $5,0 billion development fund could be deployed as follows:

1. Utilize $2,0 billion for infrastructure and power generation, to boost capacity to 10,000 – 20,000 megawatts over the next 5 years, electrify the rural areas and rehabilitate decaying road network and bridges nationwide.

2. Utilize $1,8 billion to create a Fannie Mae (US Federal National Mortgage Association) type housing fund to stimulate secondary mortgage market in Nigeria, guarantee home loans for low to middle income families and buy such mortgage notes from primary mortgage institutions (PMI).

3. Utilize $1,2 billion to fund agro and micro lending schemes, underwrite and guarantee loans to genuine micro businesses and mechanized farming organizations.

4. Utilize the $1,0 - $1,5 billion savings in debt service payment to target the lowest population segment and offer them social benefits that could translate into improved life-quality – basic education, primary health care, low cost housing subsidy, rural infrastructure etc..."

John Lonsdale critiques the thinking of Africa as an enduring victim, he suggests the rebuilding of African higher education as a necessary first step.
"...How far are the professed “friends of Africa” – scholars, students, activists – to blame for the mix of everyday indifference and latent fear, tempered now and again by pity? What can we do to repair our failures in representation? Perhaps it would be to do what best serves our own professional interest: regard African colleagues as allies in a common cause, and repair the failures in African higher education that so diminish the African ability to speak to the rest of the world as intellectual equals, expert witnesses in their own cause, full citizens of our one world...Why do we need celebrities to enlist our attention? What Bob Geldof and Bono have done is marvellous (the Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen tells me that Geldof proved to be a sharp student of development economics in the telephone tutorials Sen gave at the popstar’s request in 2004). But there are also two dangers in the “celebritisation” of Africa’s needs:

• the sense of guilt that Geldof and Bono arouse in their audiences may prove fleeting and ineffective – when it is important that the G8 and the European Union need to be subjected to intellectually sustained and politically creative scrutiny
• the image of the secular saint flatters the self-regarding, even racist, European image as the heroic dragon-slayer riding to the rescue of a voiceless and helpless African continent, trapped by poverty, ignorance and disease

...Africans need our advocacy as well as our learning; without passionate commitment there can be no dispassionate research. The best way to combine such passion with its opposite, professional disinterest, is for European Africanists to concentrate our public energies on demanding that our governments support the properly funded, properly protected, rebirth of African universities – a matter to which the Commission for Africa paid some, but too little, attention..."

Via OpenDemocracy

As many of you know, in addition to teaching AP Government, Military History, and US History, I also teach World History (yeah, I know- 4 preps!). At the end of each year that I have taught World History, I have my students do a capstone project or final project that requires students to integrate, interpret, analyze, synthesize, and link together different ideas, concepts, people, and events from world history.

It's not a complicated project. First, I take all the important words from our course, including people, places, events, concepts, and terms, and put them on a list and then randomly sort them. Then I break the list up into 10 separate groups. Students are to pick one word from each group. Then they are to create a timeline that demonstrates the relationship of the words through time. Then they are to write a paper linking together all of the words into a coherent and comprehensive essay that hopefully displays some sort of big understanding of history, religion, science, government, economics, social structures, etc. The theme drives which words are chosen and that in turn drives the timeline and essay.

Reading through the essays written by my regular World History High School students, I was struck by the wisdom that even high school students sometimes can exhibit.

One student wrote about an interesting pattern that she saw after looking back on world history- she wrote about the long history of anti-Semitism that stretched from burning Jews in the Middle Ages to the Holocaust to events of today (for this example, she used the biased coverage of the Gaza boat controversy). Another high school student wrote that one pattern he saw was the continuing struggle of freedom vs tyranny, even in countries that seemed to have had it figured out- he pointed out that at various times in history freedom has seemed to have won, but then later tyranny rose up and overwhelmed freedom (examples used were Greece, Rome, Germany in 1920, Japan in 1910, and the USA today), demonstrating how fragile and fleeting freedom really is.  Another student pointed out how it has been such a long struggle for women's rights in our world, and documented all the progress that we have made, but ended her paper by concluding that our society still doesn't treat women equally (as an example she used the Sarah Palin Boobgate controversy). Another one of my high school students pointed out that history is always seems to be more of the same- that although there are the occasional true revolutionaries (Locke, Socrates, Newton, Einstein, Da Vinci were the examples used) that turn things on their head and advance ideas that are brand-new, most of history has been filled with more of the same- people promoting old theories as new or recycling bad ideas all over again (Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Napoleon, and Obama were all used as examples).

People lose hope in our next generation, feeling that the years of public schooling and liberal indoctrination that goes on in those facilities has created a group of people who are somehow less than future generations. But they are wrong- students today, just like students in the past, are as smart, hard-working, intuitive, and creative as previous generations, as long as the previous generations get out of the way and let them be all that they can be. Have hope- after a year of going through World History, you can clearly see that students recognize the big themes that are out there, and I'd be more than happy to have them as voters someday, provided they are not crushed, demoralized, and further indoctrinated by those previous generations.

Texas Board of Education on Friday recently approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

But liberal blogs are going crazy, stating that it is totally wrong to put a conservative stamp on social studies curriculum and that the only allowable stamp allowed in education is a firmly liberal stamp. Blogs like the Daily Kos, which Obama reads often, suggest that it is better to homeschool your children now that the Texas Board has prohibited discussion of "transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else."

There are a lot of reasons to homeschool children- look at Detroit Public Schools, in the firm solid grip of liberal policies and an utter disaster- but suggesting that you pull your child out of public schools because they won't learn valuable important information about transvestites in social studies is disgusting. I mean, in Detroit (firmly controlled by Democrats), kids have an equal chance of being shot or graduating high school, but that's okay to liberals and readers of the Daily Kos, as long as those students learn in their history classes about transvestites and transsexuals, and that's wrong.

For fun sometime you need to slum it in blogs like the Daily Kos and read the comments that liberals and Democrats put on that blog. They're voters too, don't forget that, and some of you may have even voted with them last election (or voted third party, which is the same in reality as voting for the most communist person on the ticket).

It's fun to read things on the Daily Kos like "unlike with socialist governments, we don't get a vote" and "But, in Texas, it is not a democracy. Their governor (Bush) lost the popular vote; and then lost the electoral vote. And then was appointed by the Supreme Court. So, to Texans, this is not a democracy." Yup, that's why I went back to school to get my teaching degree, and why I am a conservative teacher- I really hope that I can catch these idiots in school before they are released into the wilds and teach them that socialist governments (like China or Soviet Union) are bad, and that Bush won the 2000 election according to the laws of our nation.

Hopefully, the more conservative we can make education, by changing curriculum and standards and textbooks and methods and teachers to conservative ones, the better educated our children will be, and there won't be Democrat voters out there who comment "I compare the Texas right wing to the Taliban."

According to a study of over 14,000 college freshmen and seniors nationwide, students that go through college become more liberal on many key controversial issues.

Here is the study, although I am going to highlight two of its major findings.

Finding one. If two people otherwise share the same background characteristics, as well as equal civic knowledge, the one who graduates from college will be more likely than the one who does not to favor same same-sex marriage and favor abortion on demand, for example. Similarly, a college graduate will be less likely than the non-college graduate to believe anyone can succeed in America with hard work and perseverance or favor teacher-led prayer in public schools.

Why is this? Contrary to liberals smug beliefs that it is because they are smarter, the real finding is that when you surround impressionable young students for 4-5 years with solid liberal professors who make passing their class dependent on you buying into their worldview, you make kids more liberal.

Here is finding two. Being a college professor alters one’s worldview on propositions involving education, economics, religion, and America. If two people share the same basic characteristics, the one who has taught at the college level is more likely to agree that America corrupts otherwise good people, The Ten Commandments are irrelevant today, Raising the minimum wage decreases employment, Educators should instill more doubt in students and reject certainty; and Homeschooling families neglect their community obligations. So, professors are liberal, and they teach our children and shape their minds, thus these kids come out liberal.

Those were two of the main findings from the study The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs by The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). The ISI is a non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt educational organization. The Institute receives no funding or any other aid from any level of government.

These findings fit with my own studies into this issue, of which I read dozens of books, did my Master's thesis on, conducted my own (although assuredly amateur) study on, and have observed through anecdotal evidence from former students.

From my heart, I really do hope that all of you have a wonderful Christmas, filled with family, friends, and joy. Forget politics, forget economics, forget the environment, and just enjoy the real things that matter in this world.

Merry Christmas everyone!