New School Year

Today, I started a new school year. I have been contemplating lately how on Earth I am going to teach U.S. Government objectively. I have become so overwhelmingly anti this current trend the government is in that I am going to find it really difficult not to come out and tell the students that I think we currently have the worst President since Jimmy Carter (and maybe even before that. Hoover, anybody? Or how does Ulysses S. Grant sound?) And then, when I think about it, I start to realize that I don't really have to mask it. Liberals have long used public schools to indoctrinate the nation's children. Just look at Barry's latest plan: Address (brainwash) the school children directly, and provide lesson plans so that teachers ask their students to come up with ways to help the President (I don't even know what to say about this except that I am ABSOLUTELY not doing it under any circumstances. I'd rather get fired). The public education system is a bastion for those who are ultra liberal - probably mostly because their audience (children) either doesn't know enough yet to argue, or because the kids don't feel comfortable doing it. If it's ok for Liberals, it's ok for me. The difference is, I will explain to my students the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, unlike many of my colleagues (this past week one of them looked me straight in the face and told me the media isn't biased, because "the truth isn't liberal" and everyone except Fox News reports the truth. WHAT????). I plan to tell my Government classes what an awful President we have, as many teachers did between 2000 and 2008. Isn't it the same? Besides, I have numbers on my side: currently, 52% of voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing (from 9/3 Rasmussen poll) and Obama's index rating is -11. That means a great deal more people strongly disapprove of him than strongly approve. Additionally, 42% of voters believe that people randomly selected from the phone book could do a better job than Congress. I have to say, I agree. Provided the phone book isn't a directory for a public school district.

Lastly, my husband and his friends were trying to come up with a name for their bowling team last night. They were trying out Big Lebowski references, as well as names related to King Pin and Eastbound and Down. When they began musing that they would probably only play the 1st half of the season, and they most likely wouldn't deliver on all the promises of grandeur they have been making, I suggested Obama and the Bail Outs. They liked it.

Hypocrisy?

Does anyone else find it hypocritical of the Democrats to want a special interim appointment to fill the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat until the special election? Let's review the facts:

-In 2004, the Democrats pushed the passage of a special state law that mandates a vacancy be filled by a special election taking place about 145 days after the seat becomes vacant. At the time, John Kerry was running for President in (apparently) a close race with incumbent George W. Bush. The Democrats feared that then-Governor, Mitt Romney (a Republican), would appoint a Republican to replace Kerry if he was elected President.

-In order to avoid a Republican gaining the seat by appointment, the Democrats came up with this law, arguing that it was unconstitutional for a Senator to take his place in the Senate without having been elected.

-Now that Kennedy has died, the Democrats are urging a special appointment. It's obvious that they want another Democrat in the Senate because they are having trouble getting support for their healthcare legislation. Is it fair that this type of appointment was blocked in 2004, but now that it would serve the Democratic Party it is viewed as necessary? I don't think so.

-Could this also have anything to do with the fact that Democratic candidates are struggling in the polls all over the nation? If the seat remains empty until next year, it gives time for a Republican candidate to organize and prepare for the election.

I'm beginning believe we should have term limits for Congress...

Libya and the "Nuclear Option"

2 short things today:

1. Does it really piss anyone else off that Scotland released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie plane bomber? The kicker for me is that he was released out of "compassion." Is this compassion supposed to emulate the compassion he showed his 270 innocent victims? If it was up to me, he'd rot in prison until he died. Actually, if it was up to me this man would have been executed. So, I guess it's a non-issue. I wonder what Comrade Obama's response to the thousands of cheering Libyans who met the murderer will be? If we take a cue from his limp wristed response to the situation in Iran, he will probably applaud their freedom of assembly.

2. In a sick way I am almost hoping the Democrats DO ram this healthcare legislature through Congress. If they do, I am predicting some massive gains by the GOP in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Chris Dodd (whose office told my husband he will hold no town meetings this recess because he held 2 in the first half of the year) is hopefully gone from CT. Let's go Rob Simmons. Presumably several Democrats in battleground states and states with hefty Independent populations will face defeat also. I know what a colossal mess this healthcare bill will be, but it feels almost worth it to seal the fate of the Democratic Party for the next few years. If it's enough to brand Obama as a single-termer, then I am almost convinced it will be worth it...

Stick to the Facts

I was criticized for being too subjective in my last post, so I want to bring up a fact. I find this next point both alarming and completely infuriating. As we all know (unless you've been living under a rock), many Americans, on both sides of the issue, have gotten out to town hall meetings in recent weeks to offer their representatives their opinions about healthcare reform. Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) recently had this to say about voting for a bill that mandates a single payer:

"I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district. I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."

Does anyone else find this completely enraging? We elect officials in this country to represent us in Washington. They are not supposed to come home and represent Washington to us. If more representatives echo his sentiment, I think this is very dangerous for our country. Our government was founded by the people, for the people. Thomas Jefferson stated explicitly in the Declaration of Independence that the purpose of a government is to serve the people, and when it ceases to, the people have a RESPONSIBILITY to change the government. The audacity of Massa is truly disturbing. There are representatives in this country who will risk losing reelection in order to push an agenda that their constituents do not approve of. This is not democracy in the sense that it was meant for the United States of America.

Now, for the opinion part: I believe we should all fight this sentiment to the greatest extent we can. The government is supposed to carry out the will of the people. I am insulted by statements such as the one Massa made and remarks made by Barney Frank at his recent town hall meeting. The insinuation that they know better than the average American about issues that directly affect Americans is flat out wrong. Perhaps in certain cases it is necessary for the government to push change, but I do not believe health care reform is one of them. These issues surrounding healthcare are near and dear to the heart of every American, and people are worried by the blatant disregard with which they are being treated by their supposed representatives. I would urge anyone who feels misrepresented by his or her Congressman, Senator, or President to get these people out of office at the earliest possible time. Do not reelect those who disenfranchise you. Vote for candidates who will accurately represent you, and if they don't, don't vote for them again. Take this very seriously - we have reached a critical point in American history, and every voting American has the power to put America back on the track it was created on.

Here goes... everything

Alright, guys. Here's the thing. As you can see, this blog consists of one single post from February (6 months ago). The truth is, I've had a busy 6 months. I got married on the 1st, and the build up to the wedding was more than preoccupying. However, that's not the real reason I have neglected my blog. The real reason is that I had nothing to write about. When I started the blog I thought it would be my sounding board for run of the mill every day type stuff. I definitely wanted to stay away from politics, because I didn't want to offend anyone. The problem with that is that the only thing I get really fired up about IS that very subject. If you're not concerned with the state of our country, or if you can't handle a conservative viewpoint, I invite you to not read the blog. But hey, somebody's got to be Right.

Tonight, I would like to address the media. I teach government, and a large portion of what I teach centers about the Constitution. I spend an entire unit on the Bill of Rights, and we discuss at length the necessity of each and every amendment. Almost without fail, when I ask any of my 9th grade students to identify which amendment in the Bill of Rights is the most important, he or she answers without hesitation, "the 1st."

We all know that the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to free speech, assembly, petition, religion, and to a FREE PRESS. Within the past 6 months, I have noticed an alarming and blatant erosion of this right. I do not believe that Americans have access to true and unbiased information. How are people to make decisions when they cannot access the facts? The extent to which 90% of the media goes to protect the current administration is akin to the censorship committed by oppressive regimes of the worst type (Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany). I'm not saying the President is actually censoring the media. I'm saying the media is voluntarily withholding facts in an effort to further its own liberal agenda. The best example I can offer as of yet is the complete and utter disregard of the TEA Parties of the past months by pretty much all news outlets except Fox News. Why are the thousands of Americans who are unhappy with the direction the country is headed in not worth reporting on? It's not because their numbers are not strong - that is not the case. It's because their viewpoint is not attractive to the media or to the ultra liberal politicians pulling the strings. True, one could argue a "free press" is one that reports what it wants. However, I believe a free press is one committed to reporting the unbiased truth, without regard to agenda or partisanship. If this is the definition, WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE PRESS IN THE UNITED STATES.

It doesn't get more un-American (nod to Fire Marshall Bill, I mean Nancy Pelosi) than trying to squash an American's right to free speech. Do I always like what supporters of the White House whack job have to say? No, but I acknowledge their right to express their opinions. It sickens me that we live in a country where our media has stooped to the level of portraying Americans who wish to voice their opinions as "manufactured" and "angry mobs." When protesters gather at anti-war protests and hold signs that say "Peace is Patriotic", the media applauds their exercise of their 1st Amendment right. When conservatives voice opposition to frivolous government spending and a dangerous increase in the government's involvement in our everyday lives, however, the media demonizes them. This administration and the media need to scale back their arrogance and acknowledge that a huge population in this country actually disagrees with them. I am appalled by the President's incredulity at the fact that not everyone thinks he is right. And the fact that he has told Americans to shut up. And the fact that he mocks Americans who choose to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. And the fact that he appoints ex cons and admitted communists to government positions. And the fact that he has manufactured a White House Press Corps that contrives the news and hands it out to media outlets when he doesn't want the media to actually be present at an event. And the fact that he claims the support of entities like the AARP without their consent. But I digress.

To reiterate my original point, every American should be alarmed at the current state of the media. When George W. Bush was president, he was called a Fascist, compared to Hitler, and protested regularly. And it was all constitutional, and the media reported it. It's vital to our democratic system that opposition is recognized and noted to provide balance in Washington. We all need to demand the truth from the media about our President and, more importantly, about Americans. Only through recognizing opposition will this administration move to a more moderate position and choose to represent a greater number of Americans. Do not let them ignore facts. Demand better. Demand we get America back.

Ok, so let's try this again. My first post got me into some trouble on the homefront... Apparently my criticism of New England and its hardy inhabitants was not well-received. Seriously, though, I didn't mean it in a cruel way. I just really don't understand why anyone chooses to stay here.
Which brings me to my point today. Last night, I didn't watch the Carolina/Duke game. I am an '04 grad of Carolina, and I bleed Carolina blue. I buy into the whole bit (If God's not a Tarheel, then why is the sky Carolina blue?), I hate Duke with every fiber of my being. I believe, like the rest of the enlightened world, that Coach K truly is the Devil. Or the Anti-Christ. Either way, his evil heart is as black as his shiny, perfectly combed over hair.
So, why didn't I watch the Carolina/Duke game? It wasn't because we don't have cable (we don't), because my fiance watched it after the UConn game at his parents'. I could have done so, as well. I simply could not bring myself to watch the game with anyone who is not a Carolina fan. I don't mean a person who likes Carolina, or who doesn't have a preference. The Carolina/Duke game is one that can only be watched with others who feel just like me. If I'm watching it with someone, I need to know they anguish at every missed shot like I do. They need to writhe in antagonizing anxiety during each Duke possession, and then bite their nails off during each ensuing Carolina one. I don't want to hear any acknowledgment of a "good" play by a Dookie (if there is such a thing), or a nice shot. I only want to hear the cries of other Tarheels in the worst kind of bloodlust - the kind that leaves you craving the sweetest sight known to man: Coach K passing out on the court, a serious injury incurred by a Duke player, J.J. Reddick crying after a loss at his last ever home-game and Senior night, or Tyler Hansbrough and Danny Green enjoying their 4th straight win at Cameron Indoor.
If I was a real fan, would I have watched the game last night anyways? Not at my fiance's parents' house - under a roof that shelters Duke fans. Not only are there Duke fans there, there are the worst kind - the kind that adopted Duke as their team for no good reason. No ties to the school, no ties to Durham, except maybe that a sizable proportion of the student body at the University of New Jersey at Durham is from New England. And they share the Polish thing with Coach K, so I'll give them that.
My love for Tarheel basketball and my disdain for everything Bluedevil manifests itself in such a way that yes, I would rather miss an historic game than watch it with the infidels. I have no choice. The rivalry brings out another side to me - one that I'm not sure the in-laws are quite ready for. And there's nothing worse than screaming at the television while someone is giving you the "It's JUST a game" look. Not to this Heel. A victory over Duke is a signal that somewhere amid the chaos, something is still right with the world. A loss... well, I won't even bother. It's not necessary. Because, as of last night, the universe makes sense. To the tune of 101-87, Carolina.