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...