My Beauty Best Teacher

Keguro Macharia writes:

We are curious and, as the jua kali sector proves, we generate new innovative unheralded forms of knowledge all the time.As scholars such as Joyce Nyairo have shown, our most interesting forms of knowledge production and dissemination may not be happening within the universities.Kenya’s knowledge economy thrives and flourishes on matatu graffiti, on street corners, in community-based theatre productions.
But to say this is also to ask, then, about the role of our universities.If most of our knowledge is produced and disseminated elsewhere, what role do our universities have in the knowledge economy?
...We cannot continue to rely on that old, tired “I’m an African” bit so beloved of African participants in international conferences, who use that opening statement to disengage from the tough conceptual demands being placed on them.Locating ourselves is an ethical and political act. Disengaging from tough conceptual demands because of location is anti-intellectual...[continue reading]

Often on Facebook and in comment sections of news articles and through conversations with friends I hear people say "What could President Obama done differently?" To answer that question, we would need some sort of insider view on what options Obama was presented with and to hear exactly what his decision making process was. We'd need some memo's or something that would detail all the paths not taken by President Obama, paths that might have led our nation back to prosperity or prevented the massive deficits that will destroy our children's futures or would have helped encourage businesses to grow and invest.

Such memo's, showing all the options that were there, together with some insider analysis, would be invaluable to answering the question "What could President Obama done differently?" Thankfully for us, that information exists, and has been looked at by The New Yorker's Ryan Issa. Americans for Prosperity sums up what just exactly goes down in the Obama White House and the decision-making of soon-to-be-one-termer President Obama:

Recently, the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza released White House memos showing President Obama’s advisers contemplated multiple options for the original so-called stimulus package. The President’s advisers, including economists Larry Summers and Christina Romer, argued that multiple areas of the economy needed federal stimulus. Despite the advisers’ agreement that the President should engage in some type of big government intervention, the economists and the President differed greatly in their approach to dealing with the economic crisis. The memos reveal that the centralized planning inherent in big government stimulus is not quite the rational process that the Left would like us to believe, but rather a messy amalgam of competing political interests from individual planners.

Decision makers in Washington DC, like President Obama and his advisors, believe government planners can spend money more wisely than the private sector by finding specific areas in the economy where injecting federal funds can presumably improve economic prospects. They draw this so-called “targeted, temporary, and timely stimulus” from the economic philosophy of John Maynard Keynes. Instead of waiting for the free market to sort out economic problems, Keynesians believe that the government must intervene.

However, as economist F.A. Hayek observed, the knowledge required to direct the economy is too vast for any individual (or collection of individuals) to acquire. Hayek diagnosed presumptuous bureaucrats as suffering from “The Fatal Conceit”: they implement programs on the assumption that they know just what they were doing and exactly how the economy would respond. This self-deception is clearly observed in the White House’s plan for the stimulus.

During the planning and negotiations in 2009, President Obama proposed building a national so-called “smart grid” which would allow energy to flow more efficiently. It was, as Ryan Lizza puts it, Obama’s version of the Hoover Dam. But Obama’s advisers disagreed with the President’s “moon-shot initiative,” which they felt would only look good in headlines but lacked economic sense.

Lizza explained that advisers like Christina Romer had to have a “frank” conversation with the President: the smart grid was too expensive and not likely to produce short term economic benefits. Besides, Romer and Summers had plans of their own. Both proposed granting billions of stimulus dollars to states who were dealing with their own budget crises. Even these advisers, however, differed on how they thought the remaining stimulus funds should be spent. Summers preferred a more limited package with targeted spending in different areas of government. Romer, on the other hand, requested an even larger package with a different vision for the stimulus.

And yet, President Obama persisted with his politically-popular moon-shots. The President proposed a project for high-speed trains; a plan favored by Congressional Democrats. But the President’s advisers pushed back with the same argument: bailouts for struggling states were a better alternative for the economy. The President also differed with his advisers over the stimulus package’s price tag. In as attempt to control the costs of the runaway package, the President had to make a choice: give Congress high-speed trains and add in about $40 billion in Congressional “pork-barrel” spending, or cut $60 billion in stimulus that his advisers said would be more effective (the aid to states). The President showed how politics destroys the so-called virtue of government planning by choosing to give Congress its requested $60 billion in pet projects, including the high-speed trains – a direct example of how the stimulus package wasted (at least) $60 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Lizza’s stimulus memos expose the inherent flaws in any centralized planning effort. Hayek’s argument against centralized planning was not simply that it was an unfavorable method of governing, but that it was logically unworkable. Even though brilliant people worked on the stimulus package, people like Christina Romer who has a Ph.D. from MIT, none of them could possibly complete the impossible task gathering the necessary information to direct the economy. The economy is just too complex for government to direct. Their plans were pitched to the American people as objective solutions, but they really represented the individual (and in the President’s case, politicized) interests of the planners at the table.

The result? A stimulus package that failed to achieve the goals that even its own creators set out for it.

The President made bad decisions. He's on the ballot in 2012. Michigan and many other swing states will decide his fate. Vote the right way.

The reason why you probably shouldn't go to the mainstream media for anything but sports editorials and the comics is because whenever it writes about anything else its amazing liberal bias shines through. Take for example a recent 'article' (not editorial) appearing in the Detroit News called Death a sure thing, taxes less so: Uncle Sam's share at 60-year low:

Taxes too high? Actually, as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.

And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency. Corporate taxes will be lower by a third, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

From the way this is written, you would imagine that it is Obama and the Democrats in Congress that are to thank for lower taxes and that because of all those low taxes the Democrats provided us with taxes are now at a 60 year low. In reality, tax cuts were pushed for by Republicans over Democrats objections, and it is the Democrats that we can thank for the job-killing regulations and taxes and uncertainty that has destroyed our national economy leading to few with jobs and few companies earning money, thus lower overall revenue to the national government, thus all that 'lower share' nonsense.

Democrats still don't get the Laffer Curve- that when taxes are too high, they choke off investment and economic growth, leading to less tax revenue to the national government, leading to less revenue to spend on national defense, welfare for the truly needy, money for speculative science, and a secure social security system. It is liberals and Democrats who are pushing higher taxes and thus are creating lower revenues for the national government- under Bush and Reagan and Kennedy when they cut taxes revenue to the national government went up and this could allow the federal government to do all those wonderful things liberals want them to do.

The truth is though that liberals don't really want a government that provides for the poor, the needy, the sick, and everyone else if that means that they control your behavior less with lower taxes. Nope, liberals would trade higher taxes and the control this gives them even if the revenues that the federal government are lower as a consequence. That is the only conclusion to reach, if experience demonstrates time after time the truth behind the Laffer Curve.

The author of the article in the Detroit News demonstrates that lack of knowledge of the Laffer Curve must be pervasive in the liberal community- rather than think 'taxes and regulation and government control are higher and tax revenue is down; I want tax revenue up; perhaps we should have less taxes and regulation and government control' the author of the article pushes for more taxes and regulation and government control, and then will have to cast around for someone to blame when this shortsighted and uneducated policy doesn't work (I've been in Michigan for a while and seen Democrats desperately go through a laundry list of people to blame for the failures of their policies).
For more information on the Laffer Curve, check out Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status or The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen.

Last week I wrote in my post Lessons from Economic Recessions- Introduction and Great Depression:

History teaches lessons- it allows those of us in the present to see how results in the past worked. Economic recessions are a great teaching tool for policy makers and average citizens, because they teach us how the recession may have happened and how to emerge from the recession and therefore inform us as to the policy actions that we must take and those that we as citizens must support.

In that post, I talked about the lessons from the Great Depression. The lessons that I drew from the Great Depression are based though not on just data from that event, but from other recessions that our nation has entered and exited. Most liberals simply say 'government spending got us out of the Great Depression', but when I ask them about all of the other recessions that the United States entered, they have a blank look, as they do not have any knowledge of other recessions or how we emerged from them as a nation.

One of my friends in the media should try this sometime- ask a liberal policy maker- President Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or Carl Levin, or Debbie Stabenow, or Gary Peters- ask them what lessons they have personally learned from the Great Depression. I am sure they will roll off some long-winded answer that sounds educated and learned but basically boils down to 'spend more money.' Follow-up that question with a question on what lessons they learned from the Depression of 1920-21, or The Panic of 1907, or the Long Depression of 1873–79, and you'll be sure to get blank looks from these policy makers, as they don't have any knowledge about those recessions and have learned no lessons from them. They might even snap back some response to you about how unimportant it is to learn about other recessions- but they are wrong, because if you only draw your lessons on economic policy from one recession, the Great Depression, and your lessons are wrong at that, than you are sure to be wrong about very big and important policy decisions that have real effects on our nation.

Of course, my blog should not be the source for your education- I would advise you to spend some real time studying some real economists- but at least the knowledge that I display here and the lessons that I draw here are likely more educated than those of the above policy-makers, including our Harvard-trained President of the United States. So let's discuss today the The Forgotten Depression of 1920.

The Depression of 1920–21, which was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States that lasted from January 1920 to July 1921, which at 18 months in duration is longer than any of the recessions after WWII, and which saw a GDP decrease of anywhere from 3% to 7%. The recession of 1920–21 was characterized by extreme deflation- anywhere from 13% to 18% — the largest one-year percentage decline in around 140 years of data. Unemployment jumped anywhere from 4 to 6% in one year, the AT&T Index of Industrial Productivity showed a decline of 29.4%, and stocks fell dramatically during the recession. It was a very bad recession that led many in society to question the stability and future of the American system of capitalism.

At the time, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — later President Hoover- urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover, as we all know now, was a progressive Republican who believed that active government response by government officials who were smarter than the rest of us could shorten a recession and led to economic growth. Hoover advocated the same policy responses in 1920 that he implemented in 1929- increased spending by the government, increased taxes especially on the evil rich, increased regulation of businesses, bailouts for banks and 'too big to fail' companies, continued support to labor unions, and more government agencies and boards to organize and improve our existing economic system.

As you can see, the responses that Hoover advocated in 1920 and implemented in 1929 are very nearly the same policies that President Obama implemented in 2009. The results of these policies are seen today and were seen in 1929- but not in 1920 because President Warren Harding ignored Hoover and did the exact opposite as what he recommended. Whereas Hoover pushed for more government spending, Harding decreased it; when Hoover wanted more regulation, Harding put in place less; for every board of smart elites that Hoover proposed to control human action, Harding cut boards and agencies so that the common man could be more free; and Harding ignored demands to raise taxes and instead slashed taxes.

The result of Harding's more conservative approach to the severe recession of 1920-1921? The recession ended quickly and ushered in an amazing period of robust economic activity the continued throughout the 1920's as Harding and Coolidge continued conservative policies. It is no surprise that the limited government, balanced budget, low taxes, low regulation, and unleashing of human freedom led to the Roaring Twenties, an amazing period in American history of social, artistic, and economic dynamism, while the active government, increased taxes, massive government spending, and more regulation of the progressive Hoover and liberal Roosevelt led to the Great Depression.

Thomas E. Woods (author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, and Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse) recently wrote a great post on this subject called The Forgotten Recession- I advise you to read the whole article, but here are several important pieces of it:

...It is hardly necessary to point out that Harding's counsel — delivered in the context of a speech to a political convention, no less — is the opposite of what the alleged experts urge upon us today. Inflation, increased government spending, and assaults on private savings combined with calls for consumer profligacy: such is the program for "recovery" in the 21st century.

Not surprisingly, many modern economists who have studied the depression of 1920–1921 have been unable to explain how the recovery could have been so swift and sweeping even though the federal government and the Federal Reserve refrained from employing any of the macroeconomic tools — public works spending, government deficits, and inflationary monetary policy — that conventional wisdom now recommends as the solution to economic slowdowns. The Keynesian economist Robert A. Gordon admitted that "government policy to moderate the depression and speed recovery was minimal. The Federal Reserve authorities were largely passive.… Despite the absence of a stimulative government policy, however, recovery was not long delayed."...

...There was nothing at all unusual about the pattern of American wealth in the 1920s. Far greater disparities have existed in countless times and places without any resulting disruption.

In fact, the Great Depression actually came in the midst of a dramatic upward trend in the share of national income devoted to wages and salaries in the United States — and a downward trend in the share going to interest, dividends, and entrepreneurial income. We do not in fact need the violent expropriation of any American in order to achieve prosperity, thank goodness...

...Harding's inchoate understanding of what was happening to the economy and why grandiose interventionist plans would only delay recovery is an extreme rarity among 20th-century American presidents. That he has been the subject of ceaseless ridicule at the hands of historians, to the point that anyone speaking a word in his favor would be dismissed out of hand, speaks volumes about our historians' capabilities outside of their own discipline.

The experience of 1920–1921 reinforces the contention of genuine free-market economists that government intervention is a hindrance to economic recovery. It is not in spite of the absence of fiscal and monetary stimulus that the economy recovered from the 1920–1921 depression. It is because those things were avoided that recovery came. The next time we are solemnly warned to recall the lessons of history lest our economy deteriorate still further, we ought to refer to this episode — and observe how hastily our interrogators try to change the subject....

Read the whole article- the logic, the understanding, the theories, and the explanation are all in there, and go into economic terms and theories that I am only beginning to gain an understanding of.

The lessons that I drew regarding the Great Depression are supported by the lessons that one can learn from the Recession of 1920-1921- that economic recessions are worsened and lengthened by a government that takes away human liberty, treats people as numbers to manage, takes wealth and property from those who have earned it, and that in every other way violates the Founding Principles of our nation (limited government, federalism, and separation of power). It is up to policy makers to learn those lessons and to vote accordingly on future legislation facing our nation.

Keep reading my blog regularly for future posts on this subject, and I continue becoming educated and drawing lessons from other past economic recessions that our nation faced and overcome.

Dibussi Tande writes in African Path about the impact of educational systems that do not foster ingenuity,resourcefulness and invention amongst other things.Quoting the World Bank:

The ability of a society to produce, select, adapt, commercialize, and use knowledge is critical for sustained economic growth and improved living standards. Knowledge has become the most important factor in economic development.

And comparing Cameroon to India

Today Cameroon is where India was some two decades ago – and it has the potential to become what India (or even Mauritius) is today. However, unlike India, Cameroon is crippled by the “civil service mentality”, and it lacks a crop of creative economic and political visionaries similar to those who transformed Bangalore from a sleepy backwater Indian town into an IT outsourcing and software Mecca.
Nowhere has that absence of vision been most manifested than in the country’s higher education system which was established primarily to train administrators for the post colonial government. Time has not changed the focus of Cameroon’s higher education system even as the world has moved on.

He alludes to a point made in the The Entrepreneur

The deficit of knowledge and learning is killing Cameroon and Africa softly. Despite a proliferation of schools and colleges, the lack of true learning and creativity has held the African captive to underdevelopment. In Cameroon we have graduates who are just producing what they were taught in school, instead of producing new things…This has left Cameroon with millions of qualified illiterates and graduates who are failures as far as life and service is concerned. A Master's degree holder moves with little or no creativity. Thousands of poorly educated Cameroonians only wait for opportunities to work where others have worked. Few are involved in the creation of new things. The outdated education they received then gives birth to confusion.

And brings to our attention a critical piece of analysis by Jeremy Weate on his observations about Nigeria.

The longer I live here, the more I realize that technological interventions or money pumped in by donors will do little to transform, unless there is a primary focus on business processes (whether in the commercial or the public sector)… Nigerians enjoy the benefits of cars, laptops, mobile phones and other modern technology, but live in a society which does not understand the discipline and rigour it takes to produce such technology. This creates an alienated culture where technology and modern industrial processes are seen as a mystery. No one seems to be able to solve the aviation crisis. No one seems to be able to create value-added manufacturing processes; no one seems to stem the tide of an import-economy, turning into an export-economy. So few technological interventions (in any sector) meet with any kind of success.

Truly intellectually curious,technologically innovative and self sustaining societies cannot be built off a bedrock of reactive thinking coupled with disinterest and indolence .The challenge is to disrupt these ossified ways of thought and catalyze the forces of creativity.

Writing about the African University Donald Ekong stated that"...Emphasis will have to be on the formation of graduates who have the flexibility to respond to changing demands in the economy and who are capable of self-employment. With the rapid advances in knowledge, structures will be required to provide a space in the university as well as encouragement for life-long learning. The implication is that the university should be able to cater for a variety of learners and a variety of learning needs through diversification of its programmes, curriculum contents, and mode of delivery. Currently in much of Africa the university has a virtual monopoly as the source of learning. But this will change and should change as other forms of higher education are developed and have already begun to be developed in some countries. Only through creativity, innovation, and flexibility in catering for diverse learning needs will the university be able to retain a leading position in terms of relevance to the needs of society.
A further challenge for Africa is the danger of new forms of dependence which could be just as devastating as the current forms if not even more so, that is, dependence on knowledge and knowledge application processes from elsewhere. The challenge for the African university is to contribute new useful knowledge and application processes that derive from the African environment and draw from African experience and ingenuity. There is also an urgent need to increase participation in higher education from all sections of the population-currently participation in higher education in Africa is the lowest in the world-with a view to raising the collective capacity and productivity of African society. Both aspects are essential for enhancing African competitiveness in the global market place..."

• 11 Tools for the 21st Century Learner

  This is a course for Spring Branch ISD which uses a blog as the framework. I also love how 9 hours of professional development is being given for the educators in this course. We need more embedded PD that gives teachers an opportunity to embed their learning in their daily activity. Embedded PD is the key to transformational learning. While there is a time and place for getting away, we have traditionally only used that "away" method when we also need to use the "learn right here" method of delivery as well.
  
  Take a look at what Karen is doing here as you evaluate your pd delivery methods. I also have to admit that Spring Woods High school is one that has been an outstanding contributor to Flat Classroom in the past, so I personally know they are walking the walk here.

  tags: education news elearning professional_development ird bestpractices

• Wikis in Writing Education Research - WolfWikis

  Although not updated for some time, this wiki has been helpful in my wiki research. This shows the advantage of moving the master's thesis research online. It becomes a useful part of scholarly research. This wiki is dedicated to wikis in writing education research.
  
  The one thing I'd love to see is eventually that such projects would become legacies where another student could build on what has already been created either through a template or handing it off like a baton, but so much of how academia is set up screams opposition to this. But why should a great wiki like this die when the creator graduates? 

  tags: education wiki learning research

• Lessons learned from using Khan Academy content in a blended learning pilot

  Very interesting study on the effectiveness of Khan Academy on the scores of low performing students. The study thoerizes that the success is not the videos at all but the problems and rewards system that accompanies the videos which have a gaming feel. Like many, we assumed the videos would be the predominant learning mechanism for students tackling new material. In fact, the students rarely watched the videos. This result is consistent with some of the observations in the Los Altos pilot. The students greatly preferred working through the problem sets to watching the videos."

  tags: education research learning

• New Learning Environments for the 21st Century

  John Seely Brown's PDF on the new learning environments for the 21st century based upon a 2005 presentation he did at the Forum of Higher Education's 2005 Aspen symposium.
  
  The quote I like best:
  
  "As the pace of change in the 21st century continues to increase, the world is becoming more interconnected and complex, and the knowledge economy is craving more intellectual property. In this environment, it is critical that we shift our focus from education to life-long learning."
  
  This is a great lead from a thought leader in this area.
  
  If you wonder why I'm digging into the research, it is as I work on my second book on collaborative writing. It is amazing to me that I can find so many more things online than I ever could in the Georgia Tech library when I was a research assistant for the then president of the national Economics Association, Dr. Danny Boston.
  
  I may not be in an institution of higher learning but I can institute higher learning in my daily practice. I want everything I write for publication to be well grounded. I hope that is why those of you who gift me with your presence on this blog will feel free to let me know in the comments if you have concerns or pointers to other work.

  tags: education learning edreform

• ScienceDirect - Computers and Composition : The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course

  This 2004 study on second-language writers determined that although students prefer oral feedback that e-feedback has a greater impact on the revisions process. Online feedback is a valuable tool in the revisions process.

  tags: education research learning literature composition

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

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!

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....

Businessweek reports on an initiative to engage Senegal's cotton industry by the HEC School of Management.Bertrand Moingeon a professor at the school outlines some of their goals:

Students would be enrolled—especially those concentrating on sustainable business—in what happens at the local level in the different villages. We can see having students who go into villages and organize meetings with the local cotton producers and could contribute to knowledge-sharing forums. We think that some students, just as they did in Bangladesh, will write their research project or dissertation on these experiences in Africa...At the end of the day, what we expect is that we have an impact on the economy of this sector. If we increase the managerial skills at all levels of this industry, we will foster the competitiveness of this sector. This same knowledge can then be applied to other industries in Africa.

via Annansi Chronicles

Thomas Friedman writing in the NYTimes, contrasts the oil based economy of Iran and the knowledge based society of Israel. African natural resource obsessed countries should take note,In Israel:

The economy is exploding from the bottom up. Israel’s currency, the shekel, has appreciated nearly 30 percent against the dollar since the start of 2007.
The reason? Israel is a country that is hard-wired to compete in a flat world. It has a population drawn from 100 different countries, speaking 100 different languages, with a business culture that strongly encourages individual imagination and adaptation and where being a nonconformist is the norm. While you were sleeping, Israel has gone from oranges to software, or as they say around here, from Jaffa to Java.

Meanwhile:

Iran has invented nothing of importance since the Islamic Revolution, which is a shame. Historically, Iranians have been a dynamic and inventive people — one only need look at the richness of Persian civilization to see that. But the Islamic regime there today does not trust its people and will not empower them as individuals. ...Iran’s economic and military clout today is largely dependent on extracting oil from the ground. Israel’s economic and military power today is entirely dependent on extracting intelligence from its people. Israel’s economic power is endlessly renewable. Iran’s is a dwindling resource based on fossil fuels made from dead dinosaurs.

President Obama, like most liberals and the party it controls (the once-proud Democratic Party), doesn't like the fact that you make decisions regarding your life- he wants to make them. And now that he has the power of trillions in taxpayer money and thousands of employees, he has the means to tell you how to live your own life. And so he has decided that he doesn't like big stores that thrive by providing goods and services to people in efficient and low-cost ways; rather, he likes small stores and so is going to go around the nation and pay for his administration to fly around the nation making speeches ordering you to not shop for great deals and save money at the big stores, but rather to shop at smaller stores, because he wants you to.

Liberals, being the elitists they are, don't really like Black Friday- as E.D. Kain describes it, these liberals reject Black Friday and the larger consumerism that accompanies this season (regrettably) for two reasons

...first, a sense that such overt consumerism is the hallmark of capitalism and that capitalism is somehow morally insufficient; and second, a distaste for the aesthetic of Black Friday – all those plebes rushing about buying things like so much chattel- these denizens of midnight Walmart sales are just icky...

It is the second thing that I believe really strikes me as the case, because most liberals think they are so much smarter than the rest of us and look down their noses at us, wanting to govern and manage us because they don't understand liberty, freedom, private property rights, capitalism, religion, morality, civic mindedness, charity, and all the other hallmarks of the conservative heartland of America. Because they don't understand these concepts, they reject them, pretending that they don't really exist, and that instead everyone who believes in them must be stupid or dumb, and so they wave around their Ivy League diploma's and listen to their pretentious public television or radio, use big words, scold everyone for not having proper grammar, and make fun of all the 'average people' scurrying about on Black Friday getting good deals and saving money and making our economy go around.

You see, you won't catch Barack Obama or other liberals out on Black Friday- he'll be joining the other Occupy Wall Street protesters in boycotting it, because they have enough money not to need deals, they have enough time to spend hours looking for a great deal, and they generally are not thrifty and efficient spenders enough to care about saving money as a family and getting the best deal.

Robert Frank is a great example of the sort of liberal who forms the intellectual backbone of modern day liberalism, the sort that dominates the Democratic Party today. He had time and money to go out and get several degrees in math and statistics, taking time off from his studies to work in government and give lectures, before he settled into an Ivy League school to lecture other elitists and write columns for snooty New York Times and write books with Ben Bernanke. For most of his life he has written and talked about how wealth and prosperity for all has somehow made the poor in America even more poor, and he sees no hypocrisy in doing so as he has flown around the world, eaten in nice restaurants, and lived in a nice house.

In this week's New York Times article How to End the Black Friday Madness, lectures those whom he sees as beneath him with a contempt just hidden (unlike the contempt that I hold him in that I am not hiding). He writes:

ADAM SMITH’S most enthusiastic modern disciples insist that the recipe for economic progress is to push government aside and let unfettered markets work their magic. His invisible hand theory does provide a tidy account of how market incentives can generate enormous wealth. But as Charles Darwin saw so clearly, unbridled competition doesn’t always promote the common good....
....In recent years, large retail chains have been competing to be the first to open their doors on Black Friday. The race is driven by the theory that stores with the earliest start time capture the most buyers and make the most sales. For many years, stores opened at a reasonable hour. Then, some started opening at 5 a.m., prompting complaints from employees about having to go to sleep early on Thanksgiving and miss out on time with their families. But retailers ignored those complaints, because their earlier start time proved so successful in luring customers away from rival outlets...

Frank, being an educated liberal, employs here the usual judgement of other people, feeling that he somehow gets to decide what is a 'reasonable hour' for stores to open, even though he does not run any sort of stores and has never served as a manager of any sort of store at any level his whole life.

From this place of supreme unwisdom and experience, guided by a piece of paper saying that he knows something, he has decided to play God and decide when people should start shopping. He then ignores the overtime that these employees are paid and has no knowledge of the many people hired just for this day- people who are not regular employees but who are given a paycheck on this day purely because the hours are not regular- and with this lack of knowledge of what is going on he has decided that it isn't becoming of employees to go in to work at a job that they choose to be at. Don't worry workers- with a guy like Frank on your side, he'll push for less jobs and less overtime and less hours, and in so doing make you more poor. He's like all other liberals, and the Liberal-in-Chief President Obama, in his utter failure to understand economics, math, statistics, people, or anything else about this world.

Frank believes that if we were all to empower him with the ability to control the world, the collective will would be better served by him controlling when we shop and how much items sell for and all the other sorts of personal decisions made by private individuals that he doesn't understand or know about.

I've never been a big fan of Black Friday, but if the liberals and Obama and Robert Frank are against it, I think that I need to change my tune, and do a little bit of online shopping tonight!

Stick it in Frank and Obama's eye- buy something tonight! Here are a couple suggestions...
Shop Amazon's New Kindle Fire
Shop Amazon's Holiday Toy List
Shop Amazon's Gift Cards - Perfect Anytime
Shop Amazon's Christmas Corner - Holiday decor, tableware, and entertainment

UPDATE: Welcome readers from The Village Voice! Take a look around and learn something!

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.

"We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck."

If bad luck is the reason that our nation has struggled lately, I wondered to myself just what exactly our President and Commander-in-Chief was doing to combat this recent run of bad luck.

Never in my knowledge has any other President had to battle 'bad luck' before- a google search of past Presidents' speeches did not turn up any results of past Presidents, whether they were Republican like George W Bush or Ronald Reagan or Democrats like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, ever blaming 'bad luck' for the problems that the United States faced. Perhaps it was because these past Presidents were religious people, who did not believe in paganism and 'luck' so much as the divine will of God and his plan.

To combat a run of 'bad luck', past Presidents like George W Bush turned to prayer and Bill Clinton took to reading Scripture, but it appears from President Obama's speeches and comments that he has decided not to talk to God or read God's word to turn around the run of bad luck, but rather bemoan the run of 'bad luck' and sing 'woe to me'.

Although in our nation we do have a separation of church and state, that does not mean that there is a separation in our nation between those who believe in a higher power and those who serve in our political institutions. For most of our nation's history, our leaders on both side of the political spectrum have been religious and have prayed and read the word of God and saw in the actions of the world God.

President Bush often said that "these are trying times" when our nation faced tough circumstances like terrorist attacks, hurricanes, the total collapse of our banking system, a recession in 2001, or the difficult times of fighting two major wars against dedicated and evil groups. He did not say that our nation suffered through 'bad luck'- he recognized that God's plan and the free will of men sometimes tried our faith and offered a trial to our nation and its people, whether to fight harder for what is good and right or to not.

Bill Clinton, for all of his faults and failures, was well versed in the Bible and believed that he was doing his best to advance the values that he saw in it- love, hope, forgiveness, etc- and that when he faced trials, that those trials were presented to him by God or by those who freely choose to deny God, and that our nation would overcome those trials by sticking to our values and believing in God.

And yet, President Obama, who resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ after he judged that his affiliation with Jeremiah Wright would reflect badly on him politically, does not quote Scripture or talk about his time in prayer. So how exactly should Obama cope with this run of bad luck- an unaffiliated Christian who does not go to Church or regularly read the Bible or study theology of any sort of any religion?

At some point questions need to be asked about President Obama and his views on God and religion, and I don't just mean the sort of 'is he a Muslim' kind of questions that will lead us nowhere. He does not appear to be a Muslim, and his connection to Christianity is either very very private and unmentioned or thin at best, and since he isn't Buddhist or Jewish, one has to begin to wonder just what exactly does Obama see as the divine plan for our nation. I would suggest that Obama is atheist, but his reference to supernatural 'luck' does not fit with that theory either.

What are President Obama's religious beliefs and what role does 'luck' play in his view of the universe?

UPDATE: Get out of my head Charles Krauthammer! For the record, I posted my post before he came out with his editorial today, but it is amazing that both of us arrived at the same thought days after the event and then posted about it. In his article called Bad luck? Bad faith? he goes a slightly different direction, but struggles like me with Obama's comment about 'luck'.

Via memeorandum.

Those who are interested in learning more about Obama's religion should try The Faith of Barack Obama.

James Shikwati writes in African Executive:

What passes for education in Africa is nothing but a conveyor belt system that churns out labor as opposed to critical thinkers. We must urgently probe political and economic systems that have alienated Africans from their own wealth and relegated them into spectators who watch on the sidelines as huge trucks ship out tree logs and small jet planes ship out minerals and ship back beer, pornographic magazines, cigarettes and guns.

More here

My sense of humor is a bit off, just to warn you, but here are some of what I think are my funniest posts of 2011, filled with a sense of wit and sarcasm and fun. Enjoy.

BREAKING: Barack Obama Time Travels from January to Scold Barack Obama of February of his Lack of Civility in Wisconsin Budget Battle

BREAKING FAKE NEWS: In an unusual move for a sitting President of the United States, Democratic President Barack Obama time traveled from January of 2011 to February 2011 in order to to scold Democratic President Barack Obama for his political finger-pointing and lack of civility and honesty regarding the public discourse over the budget situation in Wisconsin.

January Obama reportedly said to February Obama "(We should all) strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents... more civility in our public discourse... only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation."

In reply, February Obama said to January Obama "Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions..." and then DNC's Organizing for America arm -- the organization and people who were behind Obama's 2008 campaign -- began playing an active role in organizing protests...

(the rest of the post is a long hypothetical conversation between time-traveling Obama's which quotes from him at different times to reveal his shameless hypocrisy in an amusing way)

EXCLUSIVE: Obama Prepared to Demand France Return to 1917 Borders

Following up on his recent calls for Israel to return to its 1967 border, Obama is now calling on France to return to its 1917 border and return the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine back to Germany. For the first time ever, here is President Barack Obama's upcoming speech on Peace in the Middle Europe:...

(the fake speech is quite long- I took the speech that Obama gave at the AIPAC policy conference in May of 2011 and simply edited it a bit- but here is my favorite part of it)

...I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent borders for Germany and France based on the 1917 lines with mutually agreed swaps. In doing so, I give to Germany things which they do not own, and then demand that France trade for those things, as if I have the authority or ability to do any of this. (applause)...

(for similar fun, see John Lillpop's post "Obama to Call for Return of U.S. –Mexico Borders to 1843?")

Obama's Belief in 'Bad Luck' Part of What Religion Exactly?

"We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck."

If bad luck is the reason that our nation has struggled lately, I wondered to myself just what exactly our President and Commander-in-Chief was doing to combat this recent run of bad luck.

Never in my knowledge has any other President had to battle 'bad luck' before- a google search of past Presidents' speeches did not turn up any results of past Presidents, whether they were Republican like George W Bush or Ronald Reagan or Democrats like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, ever blaming 'bad luck' for the problems that the United States faced. Perhaps it was because these past Presidents were religious people, who did not believe in paganism and 'luck' so much as the divine will of God and his plan...

(the rest of the post is a serious attempt by me to investigate the role that karma and luck play in the President of the United States worldview and understand what sorts of policies he will put in place to battle bad karma and bad luck- it's a joke because he's a joke)

Scientists Filling Roles Priests Once Filled?

(I'll be honest, this post was simply an excuse to bring up an earlier funny post I wrote called Is Al Gore the Re-incarnation of the Xhosa Prophetess Nongqawuse?, but it remains relevant still)

...increasingly, scientists are filling a role in our society once reserved from priests- they tell fortunes based on reading omens in the weather, they tell the future (inaccurately) based on models they create, they punish unbelievers and reward those agree with them without questioning, they build themselves great temples on universities designed to add prestige to their profession, they advise people regarding the proper sacrifices to make in order to appease the angered science gods, they peddle myths and run secret societies, and they hold to a worldview that does not allow any other challengers.

It should be no surprise that scientists are filling this role- for thousands of years, humans have turned to priests, shamans, fortune-tellers, soothsayers, magicians, witch-doctors, and religious types of all sorts. These sorts prey on those who are looking for hope, looking for direction, looking for someone to tell them the right way to live their own lives, and these scientists fill that role- many have, after all, devoted their lives to killing the Christian God and subverting his people, and now they rush into that vacuum with their own creation myths, sacred beliefs, sacrifices, and class of keepers of the eternal flame of truth....

Hello John Holdren, Science Czar, believer in the Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes, and Tyrant

As the United States of America continues its descent under President Obama and his New Democrat Party into a third-world dictatorship, I still find myself unfamiliar with the overlords who now control my behavior and distribute to me gifts and favors... So today let's get to know a little bit better our Science Czar, John Holdren...

...Holdren is a believer in the so-called Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes. This theory is that all left wing causes- including global warming, global cooling, overpopulation, endangered species, poverty, diversity, and many others- can all be solved by a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite that will force others to live their lives differently and will redistribute their property as they see fit...

(Here I am simply amused by the phrase Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes, as if this is some sort of pseudo-scientific system out there- check out Powerline's post on this for more)

Chimpanzee Hunting Driving Monkeys to Extinction? Those Damned Dirty Apes!

Scientific American reports that that red colobus monkeys in Uganda's Kibale National Park are being hunted to extinction—by chimpanzees. According to a study published May 9 in the American Journal of Primatology, this is the first documented case of a nonhuman primate significantly overhunting another primate species...

...Scientific American is wrong- this is not the first time that those damned dirty apes have tried to kill other primates. Several years ago I got my hands on an account of apes hunting man- I know it is sketchy at best and is not a complete account, but I am going to pass it on to you now to think about.... here is the other account that I have read of ape hunting man...

(you'll have to read the post to get the joke- you'll chuckle, I am positive)

Funny Rick Synder Story about Bureaucrats

Yesterday I got a chance to sit down and talk for a bit with Michigan Governor Rick Synder and he told me a pretty funny story. I'm going to try my best to rely it to you...

(it's a good story- I can't improve it in any way by summarizing it for you, so just read the post)

Hopefully these all brought you a chuckle to start off the year, and you all will be sure to regularly read A Conservative Teacher for insight, humor, and a dose of reality.