Moved

Moved blog to http://dcspillman.wordpress.com/

Presidential Address to Students

After taking most of the summer off, and now that I am a couple of weeks into my 5th semester of law school, I decided it might be time to start blogging again. Specifically, I simply cannot stay quiet any longer on this "controversy" regarding the President's upcoming speech before public school children. Seriously, there is the President's failed economic policy, his ill-advised health care plan, and any other number of policy issue for which the President should be criticized. An yet, people are focusing on this speech. Really?

I was drawn into a long discussion yesterday, on Facebook, regarding the President's right to give this address. I must admit, I was a little shocked by the question. In my mind, he is the President, he can talk to whomever he wishes. However, to a certain extent, I can understand some parent's reluctance. However, it becomes an issue of censorship, as far as I am concerned. I completely understand if you do not agree with the President or his policies. I have never made any attempt to disguise my own contempt for this Administration. However, he is the President, and he deserves all the respect the office entitles him to. If a man was able to come from somewhat meager beginnings, succeed academically, and eventually become President, why shouldn't he be able to encourage today's students to proceed with the same focus?

Obviously, the issue is not over him speaking to students, but the content of his speech. So long as he confines his address to encouraging young people to succeed in school, I really do not see the harm. Even if he does put a little bit of policy into his speech, what is the harm? At this point, it becomes an issue of effective parenting. If you don;t want your child to be taken in by the eloquent President, it is YOUR job to discuss the issues with your young one. They are going to spend a lifetime being bombarded with different ideas, perspectives, faiths, beliefs, etc..., so why try to shelter them from a few words from the leader of our nation?

It's nothing but pure laziness and fear. Rather than step up as a parent and discuss real issue with your children, you would rather just keep them from hearing something that one of our elected leaders has to say. I would rather encourage my child to explore all possible ideas then try and keep him locked in a bubble. When did parenting become more about sheltering children rather than teaching them?

Now, on the other hand, I am willing to accept arguments that deal specifically with the U.S. Department of Education's letter to schools, encouraging certain "lesson plans" in conjunction with the speech. Education is a local issue, and the federal government has no Constitutional authority to mandate curriculum. However, encouraging teachers to have student think about how the President "inspires" them is a far, far cry from mandating curriculum. In the end, my biggest concern is that people need to pick their battles. When you waste so much effort opposing something as insignificant as this, it takes away from your credibility on the issues that really matter. Or at least that's my two cents.

GOP Morals?

South Carolina GOP Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday to an affair, and resigned his position as chair of the Republican Governor's Association following a strange week in which the governor dropped off the grid and could not be located.

Politico

First Ensign, now Sanford. If Republicans really want to be considered the moral party, they have to start acting like it. An no, I don;t think is a symptom of a corrupt political party. I think it is a symptom of a broken political system, where those in power cannot retain the same morals and values they once held. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

People Need to Learn...Anything!

Polls show that the GOP is wise to focus most of its attacks on spending, government intervention and job losses. (Those same polls show the public has low regard for Republicans on these issues, but it's a significant development that President Barack Obama's numbers are slipping in these areas, too.)

Politico

No, I don't think the GOP will see much of a resurgence in a year, and no, I don't think Obama's numbers will plummet. However, I find the whole thing amusing, in a sad way. It shows that there really were people out there who thought Obama would magically fix the economy. The ignorance of a majority of this nation on issues such as economics and politics will never cease to amaze me.

Fleckenstein Says It Right!

The actual offending cancerous legislation that kicked off the move toward extra reckless lending did involve then-Rep. Fernand St. Germain, a Rhode Island Democrat. But the problem legislation was the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of March 31, 1980. It's important to note that the law was enacted nearly a year before Reagan took office.

MSN Money

Wow, a journalist who has enough intelligence not to blame Reagan for the current culture that led to our economic downturn. That's right, the law that some economists believe helped create out current situation was introduced by a Democrat and signed by a Democrat. But God forbid the mainstream media ever report something so damaging to their beloved party. The article goes one to say...

Deregulation didn't cause this disaster. Incompetence and greed did. The implication from Krugman's article, that regulation or re-regulation would solve the problem, is nonsense. What must happen is for people in positions of regulatory authority to do their jobs.

Wow, I think Bill Fleckenstein might be my new favorite journalist in the financial sector.

45-46% of the COuntry With Their Heads in the Sand

Only 45% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of federal spending, and 46% of his handling of the federal budget deficit.

Gallup Poll

This begs one important question: What they hell are those 45% and 46% of the country thinking?!?! Trillion dollar deficits run up to bailout failing industries? How is it possible that almost half of the country doesn't recognize how bad of an idea this is?

They Can't Learn Because You Won't Let Them!

Today, I watched the House Education & Labor Committee hold a hearing to discuss charter school education, discussing best practices and what more can be done. The hearing was progressing very nicely, with the various panelists describing the programs they support and the charter schools they work with. Eventually, some Democratic members began barraging the panelists with accusatory questions.

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and others began questioning the panelists as to why they have chosen to implement these innovative practices in institutions that serve 2%-6% of the student population, rather than implementing the same policies in the public school system. Many panelists did what they could to try and explain the situations, noting that they have more freedom and more room to move free of the bureaucratic nonsense that accompanies the public education system here in the United States. Finally, Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) made it clear that these members of the Committee were simply not interested in anything the witnesses had to say.

Tierney called out every member of the panel by acknowledging the good they have done, but accusing them of abandoning public school children by limiting their work to charter schools. Tierney claimed that these witnesses were taking the easy way out by refusing to work in public schools. My general outrage of the hypocrisy involved in his statements began to boil. He kept asking that if these policies worked in charter schools, why weren't the panelists working to implement them in the public schools? Finally, logic and reason entered into the equation from the least likely source.

Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) finally stood up for the panel, telling Tierney and the others that to assume that individuals could cut through the bureaucratic red tape that plagues public school systems, and implement these practices in a timely manner only went to show the members' lack of understanding about our public education system. Any attempt to implement these policies would take years of debate and nonsense, with no guarantee of success. If the U.S. Congress wants to see these kinds of practices in public schools, they have to give those schools the freedom to embrace innovative tendencies. With the rigid guidelines and requirements of federal education law, such as No Child Left Behind, public schools cannot afford to take risks and try new ideas, for fear of failing to meet the arbitrary benchmarks set by Congress.

Congress needs to pull itself out of the classroom, and give teachers and administrators the freedom to decide what works best for their students. It is the teacher in the classroom that can best decide what works when it comes to teaching her students, not a politician in Washington. So, Rep. Tierney and his colleagues in Congress will have to get out of the way before public schools can even hope to move forward. Just another example of how Politicians in Washington spend too much time pointing fingers, and not enough time helping to solve the problem.

Who Cares About Balancing the Budget?

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Wednesday urged lawmakers to commit to reducing the nearly $2 trillion budget deficit, warning that the government can't borrow "indefinitely" to meet the growing demand on its resources. Mr. Bernanke also reiterated that the pace of economic contraction appears to be slowing, setting the stage for a return to growth later this year. But that growth won't be robust, he said.

WSJ

Great idea Ben! Too bad no one in power gives a damn about logic or responsibility. The final blame falls with the American people. Until we start making fiscal responsibility a high priority, and vote out those who spend money we don;t have, lawmakers are not going to have an reason to stop.