My Beauty Best Teacher

Although picking Supreme Court judges based on their race, sex, and life story is a route to go, I don't think it is the best way to choose those people who sit at the top of our judicial branch. The Supreme Court is the unit of government that specializes in interpretation of the law and the Constitution, trying to discover if the laws and actions of our government conform to the accepted and legitimate supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

I myself dislike the idea of thinking of the Constitution as a 'living document'- what makes it legitimate is that it was voted on and accepted as it was by our ancestors, not as it was going to be- but even if you are partial to that mode of thinking, you should still be picking judges who can best investigate the growth and changes in the Constitution, not race, sex, or compelling life story. Those by no means disqualify you, but there are other factors to consider.

One is how frequently your decisions, which you have reached after careful consideration and deep thought, are upheld. If your best decisions and your best actions are frequently judged by others to be incorrect, poorly thought out, and bad decisions and actions, then that reflects poorly on you. Your best is being rejected as not good enough, and only the best should be on the Supreme Court, because there is no court higher than that one to correct your mistakes and bad calls.

On this issue Democrat President Obama's nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been reversed 60% of the time by the Supreme Court. 5 of her decisions were worded poorly and decided poorly enough that the Supreme Court was forced to spend their precious time going over her work, and after review, the Supreme Court was forced to sigh in annoyance and overrule her decisions 3 times. From what I have read, that is a high ratio of reconsideration and a high ratio of overturns for a circuit court judge, and that ratio is about to get worse as yet another high profile decision that Sotomayor wrote is about to be taken up by the High Court and overturned in the next month or so.

Another problem that I see with Sotomayor is what lawyers who argue in front of her write about her. Democrats freaked out and were hysterically upset about Justice Alito when he was nominated, and many Democrats voted against him after careful consideration of his record. Although pointing out that Democrats and liberals are total hypocrites is too easy, I think we need to compare what lawyers said about one in order to evaluate the other.

The "lawyers' evaluation" of Judge Alito that appeared in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary:

Lawyers interviewed praised Alito's legal acumen. "He is exceptional." "He has brilliant ability." Alito is measured and judicial on the bench, according to lawyers. "He has a fine, nice demeanor--he couldn't have keener demeanor." "He is extremely polite and genteel." Alito is normally a moderately ctive panelist during oral argument, said attorneys. "He is fairly active and asks penetrating questions. Questions can be factual or hypothetical in nature." "He is active. He asks intricate questions, both factual and legal. His legal questions often grasp upon the intricacies of the law that you haven't grasped; it's often in your favor." Attorneys remarked that Alito has exceptional writing ability and uthors succinct, but thorough opinions. "His opinions are very detailed, analytical and thorough. His judgment is quite considered." "He is pretty good in terms of his writing."

For comparison, here is the "lawyers' evaluation" of Judge Sotomayor that appears in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary:

Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability. "She is very good. She is bright." "She is a good judge." "She is very smart." "She is a good judge, but not quite as smart as she thinks she is." Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." Lawyers said Sotomayor is very active and well-prepared at oral argument. "She is engaged in oral argument. She is well-prepared." "She participates actively in oral argument. She is extremely hard working and always prepared." "She dominates oral argument. She will cut you off and cross examine you." Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions. "Her opinions are O.K, by and large." "She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions." "Her writing is good." "Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent."

So, after comparing those two evaluations, I have to come to the conclusion that as a whole, Sotomayor is a competent judge who is okay to good. Is that really the best judge that Obama could come up with? Why would he decide to change the court by nominating an okay judge with a poor track record of being overturned?

Here is my theory. She is Hispanic, and Obama likes to play games with race and try to increase his political power by twisting and capitalizing on racist views. She is a women, and Obama feels that by nominating a women because she is a women he will be demonstrating that he does not discriminate. From the evaluations above, I think that Sotomayor is an angry women who has a bone to pick with the world- just like I think that Obama and his wife are angry people who have a bone to pick with the world (they sat in a church for most of their lives where they ate up this message).

Finally, Sotomayor has racist views- she feels that because of her race that she has certain advantages that others do not, that her race has made her different from other people, and Obama likes this, since he himself thinks the same way (for example, his pastor frequently said that blacks were inherently better at rap because of the color of their skin).

For these reasons, as a Senator, I would submit her fully to questioning to decide if she really does believe those statements of hers and if she is indeed a competent judge. Her race, sex, and compelling life story would play no role in my considerations.

Under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the President has the power to fill any vacancies that may happen during when Senate is in recess. Over the past 100 years, a legal and official Senate recess has been interpreted by scores of Attorneys Generals and the Department of Justice (DOJ) from both Republican and Democratic Party's as the Senate being out of town and not conducting any business at all for at least 10–25 days of duration. No one, not even crazy right or left wing professors or lawyers, has ever before even suggested anything of six to seven days might be enough to count as a recess (source).

Right now the Senate is not in a recess. Every three days it opens up a brief session for a half hour or so and then adjourns for three days before it then has another brief 'pro forma' session. This means that officially, technically, and according to the rules and procedures of the United States Senate, it is still in session. This tactic was invented and used first by the Democrats to block President Bush recess appointments, and it was successful, because legally the President can not make appointments while the Senate is in session.

And so it was quite a surprise to me today that President Barack Obama (one-term Democrat), made several recess appointments, illegally and against the laws of our nation. Check out the many stories on this issue on memeorandum found here or here.

President Obama argued that under his and Democrats leadership America has fallen into such a crisis that he no longer has to follow the laws of our nation. He can simply deem that the Senate is effectively in a recess, and thus appoint whomever he wants to whatever he wants, even without Senate confirmation.

Many bloggers and professors and lawyers have jumped to his defense, arguing that the Senate is indeed in a recess, but that's contrary to what the White House memo says- it does not say 'the Senate is in a recess and the President is making several appointments'- nope, the memo says "Senate has effectively been in recess"- in other words, not technically, not officially, not legally, but "effectively", and so Obama was going to technically, officially, and legally make appointments that would be effective immediately.

Many other bloggers and professors are arguing that the President had the right to break the law here because the Senate wasn't advising and consenting and was simply blocking the one appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but their arguments were again made into useless junk by the President later making further 'recess' appointments to the NLRB, and some of these appointments had been opposed because the Senate opposed the people involved and did not want to give their assent.

Look, there is no defense for breaking the laws of our nation. None. The ends do not justify the means. I don't care if its a conservative, Tea Party Republican, or a socialist, communist Democrat- the President only has the power to make appointments when the Senate is officially in a recess of longer than 10 days. Period. Anything other than that is breaking the law, and is unconstitutional, and deserving of impeachment.

That won't happen though- bit by bit, crisis by crisis, American citizens are learning to tolerate law breaking. Ignoring established bankruptcy laws to 'save the automobile industry' was okay. Pressuring immigration officials to ignore fraudulently filled out forms and security threats in order to increase the number of immigrants in America is okay. Passing a law ordering people to buy a product or face fines is okay. And making recess appointments while the Senate is officially/legally/technically in session and not in recess is okay. Bit by bit, little tyranny by big, we are learning to accept that one man is greater than the system and can destroy it if he thinks by doing so he can save us.

This incident once more reminds me of a post I wrote last year called America is a Republic- It Shouldn't Matter if Most Want to Tax Millionaires More. In it, I wrote:

Our nation is approaching a key election in 2012, much as Rome faced a key turning point in its history when Lucius Sergius Catilina attempted to overthrow the Roman Republic by playing to the lures of democracy and populism. Catiline rallied the poor to his banner by arguing for debt relief for the poor people of Rome, and many supported him because there are always more people who are poor than there are people who are truly wealthy. Because of the destructive policies of the government, which had collapsed the housing market and had taxed and regulated the small farms and small businesses to the brink of destruction, there were many people out of work who listened to the siren song of 'support me, I'll claim majority rule, and take from those who have wealth and give to those who do not.' Thankfully, Rome had an ardent defender of the Republic in a man like Cicero, and the conspiracy was foiled, but I believe that it had come close enough to succeeding to inspire men like Julius Caesar and Pompey to try again soon after, and they were successful in harassing the forces of democracy to institute a dictatorship over the masses.

Obama is following in the footsteps of Catiline, and bit by bit breaking the laws and traditions and precedents of our Republic. He might be stopped, but the damage he is doing is surely going to inspire a Caesar to put an imperial dictatorship on my children and grandchildren.

UPDATE: Let's make this issue even clearer. On Tuesday, January 3rd, the Senate was in session. You can view their schedule here, and see from it that they were called to order at 11:01 AM. They engaged in legislative and executive business. They adjourned over an hour later after completing the session's business. Several hours later, Barack Obama appointed several people to several different positions, arguing that the Senate was 'effectively in a recess' and that he therefore had the authority to make recess appointments.

Liberal bloggers and news pundits and radio hosts are arguing that since the Senate was in a recess for 3 days it was okay- but in reality, the Senate had adjourned for only several hours, and there is no way, no way at all, that an adjournment of several hours can be considered a 'recess'.

The only argument is that the Senate session held on Tuesday for over an hour that accomplished several items of note wasn't a real session, and that argument is utterly laughable beyond question.

The Senate was not in a recess, and thus the recess appointments were unconstitutional and illegal. President Barack Obama acted in a criminal and illegal fashion yesterday, and the only real question I have is whether he did it on accident (believing that the Senate was in fact in a recess) or on purpose (knowing they were not and not caring and breaking the law).

Thank you Powerlineblog for bringing this point to me attention.

UPDATE II: Several days after his power grab, President Barack Obama went further, telling a group of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau bureaucrats that "Now that Richard [Cordray] is your director, you can finally exercise the full power that this agency has been given to protect consumers under the law." The only problem with this statement is that the legislation that created the CFPB includes a section that says many of the bureau’s new powers are to be held by the secretary of the Treasury “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.” Cordray was not confirmed by the Senate- he was appointed to the position while the Senate was in session in violation to the Constitution.

So how does President Obama's pronouncement square with the law? I have two theories- one, that President Obama is ignorant of the law and incompetent in his understanding of it; or two, that President Obama is competent and knowledgeable and just doesn't care one bit about the law and what's legal.

Source- The Daily Caller, via Doug Ross.

From the Belmont Club comes this note. The Washington Post reports that lawyers are successfully arguing that terror financiers can’t be blacklisted because it violates their fundamental rights. The European Court of Justice declared that the blacklist for those people financing the killing of civilians and the bombing of innocent people violates the “fundamental rights” of those targeted. The Court is concerned that the list lacks accountability and makes it impossible for terrorist groups, once on it, to contend that they are not terrorists.

To fight against terrorists, their lawyers, and those who would aid them requires courage, conviction, and force of will. Let's see if our new President has got those.

Image via WikipediaWe don't just need tech geeks who understand technology we need doctors, lawyers, lawmakers, teachers, workers, and my goodness we need judges.

Update on July 5: I have a backchannel conversation going on with a lawyer who is helping me understand the nuances of what this judge has written. I still admit that I don't understand how radio is not radio, but what I'm learning is that the original law is written in such a way that it did not even consider that wi-fi could emerge and now we're stuck with archaic laws and trying to make modern technology work through. My intent was not to demean this particular judge or this profession. My favorite uncle is a lawyer.

A judge has just segmented radio communications in a way that has many in technology circles scratching their heads. According to the Technology & Law marketing Blog:

  This case is a fairly typical "technological convergence" case where we try to interpret technological terms in a statute in light of unanticipated technological evolution. Congress couldn't conceive of private WiFi back in 1986, so the statute doesn't fit the technology very well. Personally, in light of modern sensibilities, I think "radio" most naturally means the entire wireless spectrum. Judge Ware saw it differently and found reasons to separate out pieces of the spectrum for differential statutory application. I could see other judges reading the term more broadly on appeal.

This reminds me of when someone spoofed my email and sent over 100,000 email messages to people in my state saying "come see me here nude" (trying to defame me) back in 1996 and no one would do anything because no one understood what I was talking about. We need people of all professions to understand and work with technology.

The bottom line is that we now have laws written some time a go and judges who have to struggle with the technology to interpret those laws and we're coming up with pretty convoluted, hard to understand things that go against common sense.

How do we update? I think it starts with us as educators.We have to make sure our students understand technology so that they can go on to be lawmakers, lawyers, judges, teachers, and all professions who can help us upgrade our world (including the laws that govern us.)

Do your students understand?

The question for you as an educator is: if a student graduated from your high school would they understand what wi-fi is and how it works?

If they graduated from your college would they know this?

One who does not understand technology increasingly looks uneducated no matter their field. This includes education, my friends.

This is increasingly important if for nothing else, the nature of the blogerati who by-nature are techno-literate,  cover non technology fields like law or politics and a person makes an obvious technology bumble, they are all over it like flies on yesterday's watermelon rind.

Those who have labeled such things "geek" and put them in a box that shall only be opened by those social misfits who dare not show their face at Friday night's football game- are doing their schools, families, and friends a disservice. It is time to stop talking "geek" and just talk about things we need to know. We didn't call a person who liked to fix cars a geek when that revolution happened. They were welcomed as people who brought benefit to us all.

We also need to have people who don't think they know everything and can look for more information when they are lacking. While talking to my husband about this in the car, he said,

"A truly educated person is one who recognizes his limitations and knows when to go find answers."

Exactly.

Time to stop labeling and start learning. Technology is here to stay and just going faster. It isn't that hard to understand if you take the time to look past the jargon and know that this is understandable even though it is invisible.

Update: I rarely edit posts, however, when I do I let you know. I have been talking to someone who feels that I disrespected the judge in this case in a way that was demeaning and that I did not have a full grasp on the issue. First of all, I admit that this case is a bit more confusing that it seemed to be initially from my reading. However, I also want to point out that others are much more harsh than I was on this case.

That being said, it is important that all people are treated with respect. I do think this judge spent hours and is trying to do a good job. He is working with an antiquated law. Does it mean that the law is to blame or the judge or anyone? I was once in a wreck where a lady hit me because she was playing with her poodle. My car was damaged even though it wasn't my fault. I do think that this could be one of those lose-lose circumstances. Judge Ware may be right as rain but the original law stinks and thus his interpretation which may be truer to justice still smacks of a misunderstanding of radio.

The most important thing is that I choose to be respectful here. I'm not perfect nor will I ever be. If I make a mistake, I'll work hard to correct it. I cannot guarantee that I'll agree with you nor you with me but we can disagree in a way that brings honor to the human race.

I've edited, but the point still stands: we all need to understand technology. We are living in a society that is having a struggle transitioning to a digital world and we all need to know not only how technology works but how to treat people in a respectful manner.  

• Traveloteacher: Moving forwards

  My friend and amazing educator Arjana Blazic from Croatia has a wonderful resolution this year. Rather than an "I" centered approach - her goal is to leave more comments on the blogs of those in her PLN. Watch Arjana's blog Traveloteacher grow! This is so important and something I want to do more of as well! Way to go Arjana, you rock!

  tags: education blogging

• Hate Saying Goodbye | Learn Together Collaboratory

  Nice summary of the current "social bookmarking" controversy.

  tags: education socialbookmarking

• Week 8: Final Blog Post « Provost English & Technology Blog

  Excellent reflection from learning and taking slow steady steps towards improvement from mprovost on the "provost English & Technology blog. I love this quote:
  
  "For one, as I focus on my goals, I want to include my students and their parents in the process."

  tags: education pln intentionalr&d

• 12 Ways to eLearning

  Funny take on an old Christmas carol. Yes, Christmas is past, but this is funny anyway and one we can pull out next year.

  tags: education learning

• Stuff your stocking with great PD! | blanchetBlog

  Great posting here by Tinashe Blanchet, on blanchet blog -- love this quote in particular
  
  "I realized that the sky is the limit if you are willing to commit to doing great work on a consistent basis. I am re-dedicating myself to a New Year free of missed opportunities! I would like to start by attending the International Society for Technology in Education Conference (ISTE) in Philadelphia to meet even more tech-savvy educators who are using 21st century tools to invigorate their lessons. Maybe I’ll meet you!"
  
  This is a good reflective post and the kind we should all be writing after attending conferences.

  tags: education professionaldevelopment professional_development

• Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org: Local vs Global - Learning and Teaching Today

  Miguel Guhlin writes about the evolution of education.
  
  "And, it all comes back to the point that Tim Holt suggests in his comment.
  The "education model" has changed...the rest are the equivalent of "walking dead."
  The question is, what will it take to re-animate the corpses, to move from zombie-like stupor to phoenix rising?"
  
  

  tags: education elearning

• Court punishes bay area lawyers who called each other 'hack' and 'loser' — and worse - St. Petersburg Times

  This is the article to share with students. Sometimes seeing adults do this helps students disconnect and see a lack of civility for what it is: childish.

  tags: education digital_citizenship cyberbullying netiquette digital_responsibilities

• Attorneys sanctioned for cyberbullying | NetFamilyNews.org

  When adults act like children.
  
  "“Two Florida lawyers who called each other a ‘retard’ and ’scum sucking loser’ in escalating email insults [over six months] have been sanctioned by the state supreme court,”"

  tags: education digital_citienship digital_responsibilities cyberbullying netiquette

• Tech Learning TL Advisor Blog and Ed Tech Ticker Blogs from TL Blog Staff – TechLearning.com

  My friend Cheryl Oakes now also has the amazing Roku box - a great addition to anyone's home theater. I love mine (now I can watch Twit.tv to my heart's content.) I link to netflix and hulu plus which we watch more than our cable tv box!

  tags: education entertainment

• Teacher Challenge

  Thirty day challenge for teachers who blog!

  tags: education blogging

• Don't Stay Under The Couch: Starbuck and the Bully by Kevin Honeycutt in Children

  Kevin Honecutt's new book published on Lulu. This is a curriculum for bullying on the grade school level. Kevin is a gem and a gift to those of us in education. He has a heart for kids and I admire and appreciate him very much. Yes, he is a friend and yes, I'm very biased as I'm a fan of his.

  tags: education learning bullying

• Play games based upon Martin Luther King studies

  Although what he did is certainly not a game, but rather the most serious of work that began to right a great wrong against the African -American people, Microsoft has some great "games" to play and learn about this important historical figure. This information from Microsoft.
  
  "Students and schools from around the nation will be taking part in MLK Day by playing InterroBANG, a unique socially-networked educational game, and completing real-world “missions” focused on MLK Day themes of making a difference in their community. With today's students it is often difficult to re-create the spirit and urgency Dr. Martin Luther King conveyed and moreover find ways to make his mission real in the eyes of our 21st century students.
  
  
  
  InterroBANG, aimed at middle and high-school students, is a service-learning game, that helps get students excited about learning by encouraging them to take their skills from the classroom into the real world to make a difference through “missions” that challenge them to engage in their communities in some way – such as exploring the local environment, helping the community, creating and sharing art, volunteering at senior centers, and more. The more their solutions positively impact the real world, the more points they get. Students win points and prizes by improving problem-solving skills and connecting with others to make a difference in their community"

  tags: education learning game

• Considering Transmedia: Literature "Born Digital" | GETideas.org

  Laura Fleming's article at Getideas.org on Inanimate Alice and why it is such a compelling method of storytelling called transmedia. "Transmedia is storytelling across multiple platforms, usually digital media..." if you want to understand transmedia and digital literacy, this is a wonderful read.

  tags: education media

• iPadInEducation - Craig Nansen on Diigo

  Craig's list of resources and information on using the ipad in education.

  tags: education learning mobilelearning ipad

• iPadApps - Craig Nansen on Diigo

  Craig Nansen is one of the leaders of using the iPad in education, in my opinion. He's been doing it since day 1 and really has a great grasp. So, when he shared his list of iPad apps from Diigo, I wanted to share them with you.

  tags: education ipad apps mobilelearning

• Water for Sixth Grade

  Dan Klumper's blog. They travel the world! This is one way for a teacher to blog - sharing resources with students. Would be interested to understand more about the online textbook feature.

  tags: education learning

• Official Google Blog: Google Science Fair seeks budding Einsteins and Curies

  "To help make today’s young scientists the rock stars of tomorrow, in partnership with CERN, The LEGO Group, National Geographic and Scientific American, we’re introducing the first global online science competition: the Google Science Fair. It’s open to students around the world who are between the ages of 13-18. All you need is access to a computer, the Internet and a web browser."

  tags: education learning

• Turning 60 – Can it be???????? « Life With Heather

  Happy 60th to my friend Heather now in Beijing. Interesting that many international teachers have to 'retire" when hitting 60 because of some arbitrary rule that says they cannot have visas at that age. Do we think "older" (ha ha) don't have value. This really bothers me.
  
  Heather is a gem and doing amazing collaborative work. I'll see her at the conference in Beijing next month!

  tags: education learning

• Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - Man Of Peace In A Time Of War | SnagLearning

  Lots of useful films on this website. I like that there are "learning questions" below each film. This is from the person representing the firm that contacted me today.
  
  "I wanted to write a quick email to let you know about the free online resource for documentary film - SnagFilms.com. There are now over 2000 films in our library and we have recently launched another platform, SnagLearning, as a free online library of educational non-fiction films available 24/7. In honor of the approaching Martin Luther King Jr., day, we are featuring our full length film on him throughout this weekend. It includes incredible footage, never seen until the release of the film. This is a free streaming opportunity that I believe your audience would really enjoy. Please let me know if I can answer any questions you may have about our sites - this is not a request for funding or advertising...just letting you know about our completely free resource. Here is the link to the film on SnagLearning as well as the link to our original site."

  tags: education learning video

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

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

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

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

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

In July of 2010 in response to a Politico poll that showed how out of touch the elites in Washington DC were from the rest of the nation I wrote "while the countryside is being plundered, the Democratic lords and Emperor Obama are living in a different world based on luxury, hope, and change."

Turns out that I was right- while the rest of the nation has been battling unemployment, falling salaries, and a feeling that things are going in the wrong direction, Washington DC has become the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area according to recent Census data. Whereas in years past wealthiest metropolitan areas were based on producing goods and services, Washington DC has become the nation's wealthiest area on the backs of booming salaries and employment for government workers and booming employment and a growing concentration of lawyers and lobbyists.

Unlike recently passed Silicon Valley which built its wealth on innovation and production of computers or historic wealthy areas like Oakland County Michigan which was built on money generated from automobile production, under President Barack Obama (Democrat, President since 2009) and the Democrats (control of House from 2006-2011 and Senate since 2006), Washington DC simply vacuums trillions of dollars from taxpayers and trillions more in debt in order to give high salaries to ever more inefficient government employees and to distribute gifts and favors and contracts to special interests.

With about 5.6 million residents, the Washington region has an aggregate household income of about $221.4 billion. The San Jose area (Silicon Valley) has about 1.8 million people and income of $67 billion, according to census figures gathered from the American Community Survey. Although there is considerable income disparity in Washington DC (in the District of Columbia almost 11 percent of the city’s population qualifies as “very poor"), total compensation for federal workers (including health care and other benefits) soared last year to an average of $126,369, compared with $122,697 in 2009 and even less than that in years before that. In addition to soaring federal pay, employment has been stable as well- the unemployment rate in the Washington metro area was 6.1 percent, compared with nationally joblessness at 9.1 percent (source).

In addition to booming salary and jobs for federal workers during this recession, there has also been a stunning rise in the number of lobbyists and lawyers working over the federal government- spending on lobbying efforts reached a new record of $3.51 billion last year and in 2010 there were a new record number of registered lobbyists (12,964), with most working in or around the nation’s capital. This is likely the result of the Democrats crony capitalism policies, which award contracts and business to those who are politically connected and make campaign donations to Democrats (see Solyndra or the bailout of General Motors for examples of this).

I personally saw this sort of corruption when I visited our nation's capitol last. After that visit, I was moved to write this:

Washington DC is booming. I think it is one of the few states in the nation to actually have increasingly employment, job growth, and GDP growth. There are signs everywhere of prosperity and building- roads are being repaired, monuments are being revamped, buildings are adding on, and fresh paint and plaster is in abundance. On a guidebook of DC I read that our capitol was designed to look like the capitols of the Emperors and despots of Europe, but it was okay because we lived in a free nation that celebrated liberty and property. Well, as our country becomes more despotic and tyrannical, it is going to look increasingly like those capitols of the old days, when the Emperor took money from the countryside to build himself new statues and bigger palaces.

There is no way to sugar-coat this sort of thing or make it appear to be some sort of sign of progress. President Obama campaigned on cleaning up Washington, and he has done the exact opposite, making Washington a rising cesspool of corruption and money while the rest of the nation struggles to make ends meet. There needs to be a house-cleaning in 2012 to get rid of the people who have been in charge there over the last couple years when the problem has gotten dramatically worse, and since Bush and the Republicans are not in charge any more, that means the Democrats (who control the bureaucracy, Presidency, and Senate) should be thrown out of their fancy palaces in DC so that they can find real jobs making goods and providing services in good old productive American cities.

Mark Levin probably agrees with me- check out his book Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America.

A principle is a fundamental law of nature or a code of conduct that you should follow, and America was built on principles. In particular, our nation was built on six specific principles, which are sometimes called the 'First Principles' or 'Founding Principles', and throughout our history we have followed these fundamental laws of nature or codes of conduct. In no particular order, here they are, with some discussion and things to think about.

Popular Sovereignty. If you have trouble remembering what popular sovereignty is, first think to yourself "What does the word “popular” mean?" (people) and then think to yourself "What does the word “sovereignty” mean?" (king). Popular sovereignty (or sometimes called the sovereignty of the people) is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will of its people- or in other words, that the state needs the consent of the people to rule, because the people of the state are the source of all political power. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." Our Preamble begins by specifying that the power for our government comes from "we the people." But it is important to ask whether America still follows this principle today? Do government officials today behave as if they are working for you- or you are working for them? Does our government still do the will of the people? Who is the servant and who is the master in America today?

Limited Government. This is an easy one to figure out- limited government is a government where any more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not allowed. Also called constitutionalism- government must limit itself to the constitution on which it is based  Another way of thinking about it is that in a limited government, government can ONLY do those things which it is specifically given the power to do. Our nation wasn't based on 'weak' or 'strong' government, or 'active' and 'inactive'- it was based on a limited government that can only do those things that are given to it to do. If it isn't a limited government, that means it is an unlimited government, and an unlimited government is a scary thing. This principle was so important, our founding fathers built in many features of our government to promote it- checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, and even the Bill of Rights. Does America still follow this principle today? If you said yes, show me where in the Constitution the government is given the power to....make schools take assessment tests? Regulate and control healthcare? Regulate companies in the name of fighting global warming? Control banks? Buy stock in housing companies? Punish baseball players for taking steroids? Make someone join a labor union? Speculate on windmills? Tell an executive he/she is making too much? You can debate whether these things are desirable or not, but it is much harder to debate whether or not a limited government has the power to even do these things.
 
Federalism. Self-government was important to our founding fathers, so they put in place a federal system of government, where the power is shared between the national and state governments. Think about it yourself- who should control your behavior- your local township/city? Your state? Your nation? The world? Who should be telling you what you should and should not do? Our Founding Fathers (correctly) believed that your local friends and family and coworkers in your state know best how to run some aspects of your life, yet other aspects should be run in Washington DC- and yet other aspects of our lives should only be run by ourselves. So they put in place a federal system of government to reflect where power should properly lie. Does America still follow this principle today? Do you ever hear this principle mentioned by any government officials, especially national leaders? Do they ever talk about letting states decide major issues, or do they always push for the national government to decide everything? Who should decide (state or national)…healthcare- who is covered, how much, etc? Education- what is taught, what standards, etc? Transportation- where roads, speed limits, etc? Natural Resources- parks, drilling, etc? Before any discussion can be attempted on what to do, you need to ask 'who should be doing it'.
 
Separation of Powers. One of the ways of preventing tyranny is to set up government so that one branch or one person doesn’t have all the political power. So the basic powers of government are distributed among three distinct separate independent branches of government- the legislative (who makes laws), executives (who executes laws), and judicial (who judges laws). In the US, this is Congress, President, and Supreme Court. There are problems with this system- by putting political power in 3 branches, it takes political power from the branch closest the people- the legislative- and give it to branches more prone to tyranny- the executive and judicial. It also creates an inefficient government that can never seem to get anything done, and some people doubt whether or not we have the luxury of following this principle in in times of war? Because of this, this principle has been under attack for years. What do you think- does America still follow this principle today?

Checks and Balances. Although it is important to create three separate and distinct branches of government, you don’t want them to be totally separate or else there will be no way to check them and balance their power. So, in reality, the branches are not completely separate or independent of one another. Each branch is subject to another of restraints, or checks, on it by the other branches. These restraints work to balance the three branches, so that one branch does not become more powerful than the others. The good thing about this principle is that our founding fathers spelled these checks out pretty clearly in the Constitution, and it is rather tough to get around them. But one does wonder- does America still follow this principle today? Are all the branches still balanced? If not, which branch of government has emerged as the most powerful branch today?
 
Judicial Review. One check is so important to our political system, it is elevated to a founding principle soon after our nation was created. What if Congress or the President uses their power in a way that the Constitution does not allow them to do? Or, who decides if everyone is following the Constitution? Judicial review is the idea that the judicial branch can review laws of Congress or actions of the President and judge whether they are following the Constitution. Careful though- judicial review doesn't mean that judges get to decide whether Congress and the President are 'right' or 'wrong'- only whether they are in fact following the Constitution. Is it right that the Supreme Court (9 unelected old lawyers with lifetime terms) get to decide what our Constitution says- shouldn’t the Congress or President do this? What if judges decide to read things into the Constitution that are not there- do we have to follow what they say? Who rules America- judges/lawyers or elected officials? Does America still follow this principle today?

These questions and these thoughts are important, because for some reason, America grew from thirteen little tiny poor states crowding the Atlantic to conquering a continent, and then dominating the world in a way that has never been done before. A lot of nations have a lot of different advantages, but for some reason, America is strangely more powerful then any nations before or after, whether you judge by military power, economic power, cultural impact, or anything else. Why is America Exceptional? What is it about America that makes it different from any other country in the world- different from any other country ever- that makes it exceptional. What is it that makes America exceptional, and not just another country? Is it religious- are we blessed by God? Is it genetic- racial traits or brain drain? Is it environmental- fertile lands, mild climate, rich natural resources? These may play a role, but I would advance that what makes America Exceptional is our our continued belief in the basic principles on which our nation was established. Popular sovereignty, limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial review, and federalism- our ancestors fought and died to build a government based on these foundational principles behind our Constitution, and by following these codes and fundamental laws, our nation has become the greatest ever.

One last question to leave you with today- what will it mean for our country if we stray from these principles?

You've all been great! Class is over.

On Google Plus tonight, I asked a question:

Companies battle to be where we connect.

It is fascinating to see how fast Google+ has grown and yet I still wonder if it is meaningful. Are you using Google+ content? How often do you Google+? Do you use this and Twitter? I'd like to hear from those using it consistently so I can understand (and perhaps blog about it.) If you reply, make sure it is OK for me to quote you. Thank you.

I was quite shocked at how quickly I've got over 2000 followers over there and comparing how long it took me to get there on Twitter. I think perhaps it is because Twitter was built from scratch but Google+ was built on the back of existing networks through Google Docs, email, etc. Certainly Google is to be commended for their growth.

But there was a fascinating comment in the thread that had me thinking:

Kristofer Gigante says "I never used FB or Twitter so because of that, I only check G+ and I check it multiple times a day. I subscribe to lots of blogs (including yours) through RSS and read it in Google Reader. If the bloggers I follow on Reader post more on +, I will probably just use + and discontinue RSS. I have Android phone and tablet and our school is very pro Google, so it is easier to use Google products."

Although I have written several times about what is going on with the auto companies (Government Motors, Obama the CEO, on SNL, Obama Forces Private Businessman Out of Job), I'm not a lawyer, and so I don't have the correct grasp on language that some real lawyers do. I mean, I know intuitively that what is going on is not right (What does a Political Economy look like? and Michigan Businesses Battle Government Regulations ...), but I can't describe what is going on in the US as well as the guys over at Power Line can. This is a great post (read it here):

The Chrysler reorganization is shaping up as another milestone in the decline of the rule of law under Barack Obama. We've said for quite a while that bankruptcy is the only viable option for Chrysler and General Motors, not--as Obama claims--because they don't know how to make the right kinds of vehicles, but because their unsustainable union contracts make it impossible for them to be profitable. That reality has now been turned on its head, as the administration has tried to bully Chrysler's secured creditors into going away, while the United Auto Workers Union, solely on the basis of political clout, would be paid at an implied rate of 50 percent and would emerge owning 55 percent of the company, with the government also holding a stake.

This is banana republic capitalism at its worst. Political influence, rather than the law, dictates the rights of the parties. When some of the secured creditors refused to be intimidated, Obama libeled them in the press, saying, outrageously, "I don't stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices." Actually, under Obama's plan the politically favored parties, principally the UAW, will benefit--will steal money, to put it crudely--from the parties who held out. Those parties call themselves the "non-TARP lenders."

This highlights the government's conflict of interest in this transaction, as in so many others now underway. Some of Chrysler's secured creditors are banks who received TARP money. As the New York Times put it, those lenders are "beholden to Washington" and "defying the administration was never a serious option."

It remains to be seen what will happen in bankruptcy court. Already one key player, Perella Weinberg Partners, "under intense pressure from the White House," has caved in and agreed to accept Obama's terms. Whatever the ultimate result, this episode will have consequences. The Wall Street Journal notes:If the current plan is pushed through, then good luck to any unionized firm trying to raise secured debt on decent terms in the future.

For Chrysler, the administration's plan spells disaster. It is inconceivable that the UAW, the principal source of Chrysler's problems, will manage the company back to profitability. More likely, Chrysler will become a vehicle through which the federal government provides uneconomic subsidies to unionized auto workers and retirees.

Barack Obama's conduct in this affair has been disgraceful. Our bankruptcy laws are well developed and are fairly implemented by experienced bankruptcy judges. Priority among creditors is established according to legal rules and precedents. The process is transparent and subject to appellate review. But in this case, the law did not favor the parties who have the most influence with the White House--notably, the United Auto Workers--so Obama substituted political threats and bullying for due process. Il Duce would have approved.

I would also suggest you check out this article in the Detroit News- here are a couple good parts:

They are being demagogued as "speculators" by President Barack Obama and as "vultures" by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Oakland County Congressman Gary Peters.

They are the smaller bondholders who have refused to bow to the pressure of the Obama administration and accept a minuscule number of pennies on the dollar as repayment for their loans to Chrysler.

This confrontation could have been avoided if the Obama administration had treated the bondholders as equitably as the United Auto Workers, which gets far more money for the dollar.

The good-faith loans from the bondholders provided the operating capital for which Chrysler pledged its assets as collateral, an important role that the Obama administration wants to ignore as part of its forced restructuring program that favors the politically connected UAW.

The heavy-handed tactics of the Obama administration represent another government intrusion into the private sector and attempt to victimize a constituency that does not have the political clout of the unions.

The noncompliant bondholders are going to take their chances on winning back a bigger share of their shareholder investments in bankruptcy court, where the independent role of the judiciary will be expected to fairly judge their claims.

One hopes the Obama administration will not try to bully the courts the way it has private businesses.

It already will be tough to raise desperately needed money in the market for Chrysler to make its future vehicles after Obama's intervention and scapegoating of investors as "speculators." Government intimidation would represent an even greater danger to the country and obstacle to Chrysler's future

A smart man would bet money that the bankruptcy process will not be impartial and free from undue influence by government- rule of law has already be disregarded by the President, who wants to run America as he personally sees fit, and so I don't doubt for a second that he will personally pressure judicial appointments to decide the way he wants them to decide. America is dying, and our President is going to stop at nothing to loot the carcass for the benefit of himself and his friends.

UPDATE: Powerlineblog follows up with another good post to read-Banana Republic, Part II

The Washington Post article by Bill Turque, titled "Staff No Shows Decried as Rhee Aide Testifies" on October 20th has generated numerous emails sent to me by DC educators during this past week. Many of my teacher/provider colleagues were outraged about Richard Nyankori's comments in which he indicated that we do not attend mandatory meetings and are 'willfully indifferent.' My position is "it's a lie for lack of a better word" still stands. Unfortunately, Chancellor Michelle Rhee's comments in this article are devoid of the facts and suggest a draconian approach to dealing with the multi-faceted problems in special education versus utilizing many of the recommendations of such long term studies as the Appleseed Study. This article should have been more aptly titled "Rhee Swings The Axe- Part Two." Here are several poignant emails which I have received lately that are worth sharing on this hot topic.

Email # 1

Candi
"Thank you for your bravery and commitment to the teachers, counselors and staff who on a daily basis try to help the students in special education or in need of special education. They didn't even begin to touch on bilingual special education in the recent Post article . No one has really ever exposed what the psychologists, social workers, special ed. coordinators, et. al have to go through to help our children. The chancellor's office is irresponsible in making comments such as these. Thanks for all you do! Anonymous DC Teacher

Email # 2 (Copied to me)

Dr. Nyankori:
"I was utterly appalled at the inflammatory comments that you have made towards the providers that have serviced DCPS. Collectively we have generated millions for this school system and many of us have defended this school system in court with excellence. I am seething with utter contempt at the day-to-day disrespect to those who have dedicated their professional careers to a system that has seen the changing of the administrative guard many times over. How dare you sir! How dare you blame the providers when the main problem with meetings being conducted are: a) parents who have transient living conditions, b) parents who have disconnected phone numbers, c) parental neglect issues, d) lawyers that cancel meetings ( certified letters that are returned to the school countless times), f) your contracted employees for example; the Columbus Group has called the DCPS staff to use our equipment to their incompetence, g) reports that have not been turned in by your contractors that your administration gave millions too. These are just some of the reasons that these meetings are not conducted.

I have been in this system since the 90's and I have seen many educators and providers go to parents homes who are just out right oppositional and defiant. We have gone to these parents homes to complete IEP's the day before Christmas. Many of our parents live less then a block away from the school. These are physically healthy functional adults that can only find the time to come to school when they want the staff to fill out forms for SSI . Now do not get me wrong, we have parents who have excellent parenting skills but those parents are not the problem. It is the parents that your administration refuses to hold accountable. You want everyone in the school to be responsible for these children except the one that God gave these babies to. Tell me, when you are dropping the hammer on the provider, the special education teachers, the principals at the special education schools and the behavioral staff, where are the parents in this equation ? These children sir are not being rehabilitated. Their minds, souls and spirits were damaged in the home not in the school system. Whether you realize it our not, you are placing the rearing of these children on the educational staff. That is why you are not getting the results you want. This decision making in a bottle with people who will tell you what you want to hear because they are more concerned about their car note is the reason why you have the problems that you have.

If you want change then do not be afraid to listen to those who are in the trenches. Many of us are more highly qualified then the people that you have put in place to develop these special education programs. Do you know how humiliating it is to work with people who get a six figure salary and talk to you like a dog on the job site and then come to you when their proverbial buttock is in a sling and need your expertise because they are too arrogant to listen to wisdom. This is why many things are happening now in the system because there is change with no experience or wisdom compounded by the flagrant disrespect from those that we are suppose to be lead by.

I love these children Dr. Nyankori. Do you hear me? I love these children. I have used my own money to finance my therapeutic center for four years prior to your commencement. Come to the providers and talk to us, not about us or at us. Your office has been extremely adversarial to the providers. Now if you have someone who needs to be held accountable and you have documentation to prove that then you do your job but, to flagrantly accuse us in a judicial setting in what appears to be a convenient scapegoat is in poor taste. Now when we as providers are in meetings with attorneys, your comments have opened the door for more critical analysis and disrespect for the very people that you need to provide services for the children you were hired to serve. " Anonymous DC Provider. Posted by The Washington Teacher.

AginstBabangida "... is a project by CITIZENS FOR NIGERIA, aimed at initiating action to stop Ibrahim Babangida from ever ruling Nigeria again.
Some of the participants in the project, mostly former journalists, lawyers and the like, wish to remain anonymous. They fear possible reprisals from the vengenful Babangida and his cohorts on them or their families, as exploits of this web site is bound to take its toil on the cabal.
Our mission is to wage a civilized intellectual battle against dangers to true and virile democratic development in Nigeria, symbolized by Ibrahim Babangida.Our vision is to provide a fertile soil for the germination of productive democracy in Nigeria. We will achieve this by internationalizing issues that threaten democracy in Nigeria, and make stillborn the ambitions of selfish power usurpers.One of our most potent tools is our newsletter, IBBWatch, which is intended to raise awareness among everyone interested in Nigeria's political development. Subscribe to the newsletter..."

I'm getting sick and tired of the increasingly amount of articles written by liberal bloggists and journalists who argue that Barack Obama can't do anything at all to help the situation with the Gulf Oil Crisis. There is article after article, blog post after blog post, all arguing the same thing- this was a natural disaster, the responsibility for the containment and cleanup is entirely on BP, Obama had nothing to do with it, Obama has nothing to do with it, and Obama and the Democrats in Congress who are running our nation right now are not to be blamed for it. They are wrong though- Democrat President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress running our nation can and should be blamed for their failures during the Gulf Oil Crisis.

First, as I wrote in Obama: Didn't Waive the Jones Act, Made Gulf Spill Worse that:

Don't kid yourself- there is a lot that the government can do to help the situation in the Gulf- like getting the heck out of the way of people who want to help. Obama could have waived the Jones Act and allowed foreign ships to assist in transporting goods (like oil-skimming booms) in order to help clean up the mess. But he didn't. Obama refused to waive the Jones Act.

Second, as I wrote in Mitt Romney on Leadeship that:

Romney is right- what we need right now is someone who will use what power and authority and resources that the federal government has to help, and other than that stay out of the way. Attacking BP isn't going to help anything, and there will be plenty of time for that later if that is what is called for. And sitting down with lawyers, labor union leaders, watermellons, and anti-war activists isn't going to help him come up with any new ideas to solve this issue. It's Day 52- what sort of leadership has he demonstrated from his position as most powerful leader in the world?

Third, New York Times columnist CAMPBELL ROBERTSON wrote in Efforts to Repel Gulf Oil Spill Are Described as Chaotic:

From the beginning, the effort has been bedeviled by a lack of preparation, organization, urgency and clear lines of authority among federal, state and local officials, as well as BP. As a result, officials and experts say, the damage to the coastline and wildlife has been worse than it might have been if the response had been faster and orchestrated more effectively.

“The information is not flowing,” Senator Nelson said. “The decisions are not timely. The resources are not produced. And as a result, you have a big mess, with no command and control.”

Obama should not be held responsible for the Deepwater Horizon Rig blowing up, but after it did, he should have been on the situation, providing leadership. This was federal waters, the federal government has extensive resources available, and the one thing that the President of the United States can do better than anyone else is act as a crisis manager. Once the rig blew up, Obama doesn't have to go out there with a straw to suck up the oil, but he does have to put in place a team who can organize federal, state, and local officials and put in place clear lines of command and clear lines of communication. That's his job. The President's job is to step in when there is a disaster and lead. He doesn't have to do anything- man a rig, visit the Gulf Coast, clean pelicans- but he does have to LEAD, or at least delegate that leadership to someone else who can then lead (like a crisis manager or something).

Fourth, lawmakers passed the federal Oil Pollution Act in 1990 to ensure that plans were in place for oil spills, so the response effort would be quick, with clear responsibilities for everyone involved. This means that Congress and the President are responsible for making sure that these plans were in place and ready to go. Oh, I know Obama has only been President for a couple years now (it seems like a lot longer), but the Democrats have been running Congress for years longer than that- at what point do we hold them responsible for not making sure that that laws in our nation are being followed? If the government can't take responsibility for something like this, passed almost 20 years ago, on what leap of faith can you expect them to take responsibility to do anything right as their responsibilities expand under Democratic leadership?

Obama CAN help to contain and clean up and prevent future Gulf Oil disasters- but he isn't doing that. He isn't helping to contain the spill- in fact, it appears that he is not repealing regulations that hinder fighting the spill and he is hindering efforts by states to build reefs and other means of protection. He isn't helping to clean up the spill- he has created a vacuum of leadership at the top of our nation, a vacuum that is sucking the oil right out of the ground and spewing it everywhere in a potent symbol of his inadequacy for the Presidency. And he isn't helping to prevent future Gulf Oil disasters, unless you consider his attempts to drive the US back into the Stone Age by killing energy production a way to help prevent future spills like this one. Obama can help the Gulf Oil Spill... but he isn't. The same things could be said for the Democrats who are running Congress as well.

Voters need to hold these people responsible and throw them out of office. Unlike a lot of conservatives, I'm not calling for big government and all powerful government to solve the situation, but I am calling for a government that shows leadership during a crisis and works to get out of the way of people trying to help. That's something that is possible, but not happening, under President Obama and the Democrats in Congress.