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.

Abandon Abstinence?

President Obama's new budget would eliminate most money for abstinence-only sex education and shift it to teen pregnancy prevention — a U-turn in what has been more than a decade of sex education policy in the USA. Obama's budget proposes almost $178 million for teen pregnancy prevention, including $110 million for community-based programs. About 75% of that is for programs proven to have delayed sex and increased contraceptive use or reduced teen pregnancy. The other 25% could be for "innovative" programs.

USA Today

While I don't believe we should abandon abstinence education, I also don't believe we should focus only on abstinence. The way I see it, it's like military training. You don't just train a solider on the most effective weapon in his arsenal, you train him on all of them, in case he ever finds himself without that first weapon. Same logic applies here. We should keep pushing abstinence education, but we should also push contraceptives and other preventative measures, to make sure our kids have as much information as possible. We can;t control what they are going to do, but we can try and guide them down the right path, and give them some defenses in case they stray from that path.

Sotomayor Boosts Gun Sales?

While most investors have been rightly focused on the crisis in the markets and economy lately, some Americans have been focusing on other political issues, namely the Second Amendment. They wonder, will the Obama Administration and new Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor put the right to bear arms in jeopardy? Clearly, many think so, as evidenced by an increase in gun sales and an associated rally in gun stocks.

MSN

Ok...I honestly did not see that one coming.

Challenges to California's Ban on Gay Marriage Doomed to Fail

The decision, the court said, “carves out a limited exception to these constitutional rights by reserving the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples, but leaves undisturbed all of the other aspects of a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and to the equal protection of the laws.”

San Fransisco Business Times

The suit that is being brought to federal court is based on a claim of violating gay citizens rights of due process and equal protection. The due process claim is utter nonsense, since a voter ballot is much more respective of due process than a legislative action or court decision. So, the focus is going to be on equal protection under the laws. As noted above, this court decision only allows for a ban on marriage, not on any other recognition under the law, such as civil unions. Therefore, homosexual relationships in California will be protected under the law. As such, there is not equal protection violation. Gay rights activists may not like it, but this was a legal amendment voted on by Californians. This does not mean that the ban will not be overturned, but any such ruling will be based purely on politics, not the law.

Specter is Making Quite a Spectacle

I know I said I would be gone for a couple weeks, but this was just too good to ignore. Also, I apologize for the title, but I couldn't help myself. Various media sources reported today that Arlen Specter, a Senator from Pennsylvania, has decided to leave the Republican party after 43 years. His decision is purely political, due to the fact that he is considered unlikely to survive the Pennsylvania Senate primary in 2010. He admitted that public opinion polls showed that he could not win that primary nomination. Therefore, as a matter of pure political preservation, Specter has decided to join the Democratic party and seek their nomination in 2010.

Needless to say, this is going to have quite an impact, politically, in the power dynamic in the U.S. Senate. Currently, the Democrats hold 56 seats, with one seat left open while legal issues are decided in Minnesota. Comedian Al Franken is expected to win the final decision and take that seat, giving Democrats 57 seats. Adding the two Independents who tend to vote with the Democratic Party (except on matters dealing with Iraq, in Sen. Lieberman's case), this would leave the majority party one vote short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and block a filibuster attempt by the minority. With Sen. Specter walking across the aisle, this will give the Democratic Caucus the 60 votes, assuming complete unity between the majority and the two Independents.

Now, considering the fact that Specter, along with Maine Republicans Sue Collins and Olympia Snowe, had voted with the majority on numerous occasions, Specter's defection is unlikely to have a serious practical impact. His voting is unlikely to change significantly, since he voted with the majority fairly frequently. However, the political implications for the GOP are not so insignificant. Love him or hate him, Specter was seen as a moderate voice in the GOP, often finding himself at odds with the more conservative leadership. Losing him as a party member will only drive the view of the GOP as an extreme right-wing party. This could turn into a public relations nightmare for the GOP.

The fact is, Specter may have been more of a Democrats than a Republican, but that could have more to do with the fact that the Republican party is losing its moderate constituency, and is being driven further to the right, alienating many independent voters. With key "old guard" members like Trent Lott and John Warner retiring, the GOP has a unique opportunity to redefine itself, along more modern criteria. How the party decides to move forward in the coming years will impact its success in the future. Regardless, many Republicans are left wondeing if Specter is just the first in a line of possible abandonment. Time will tell.

Cuba's Turn to Compromise

President Barack Obama said the U.S. had gone about as far as it would go for now in easing relations with Cuba, and that he would wait for new gestures from Havana before taking further action.

WSJ

Wow, twice in one day. Obama is on a roll.

Immunity for "Harsh" Tactics

The Obama administration granted legal immunity to Central Intelligence Agency officials who carried out harsh interrogations of terror suspects following the 9/11 attacks, giving the agency the protection it has sought for years.

WSJ

Finally, Obama does something I agree with. Better late than never.

What is he planning?

Iran's president said Wednesday he is willing to forget the past and build a new relationship with the U.S., adding that he is preparing a new package of proposals aimed at breaking the impasse with the West over his country's nuclear program. The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to thousands in the southeastern city of Kerman took a conciliatory tone not usually heard in his speeches.

WSJ

Forgive my paranoia, but either he has been privately threatened, or he wants something that he feels he can bargain with us for. Either way, I still don;t trust the crafty SOB.

Don't Forget the Stick

When the operating theory in Washington is that deficit spending on every possible priority is conducive to economic growth, there's no justification for slamming the brakes on the defense budget. The world hasn't gotten any less dangerous, a fact to which Capt. Phillips can attest. If we ever tip below the level of capability necessary to enforce a rough global order, we -- and the world -- will regret it.

Real Clear Politics

I could not have said it better myself, which is why, I suppose, Rich Lowry gets paid for this and I do not. The fact is, we have invested billion into future combat systems and other DoD programs. And while I agree we need to take a closer look at what we are paying for, we need to be careful about gutting R&D that will help us stay ahead of the curve in military technology. I am all for this new Obama policy of taking a less aggressive position in foreign affairs, so long as he holds to Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy: Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

Castro Might Be Coming for Dinner

As the Obama administration considers a shift in the half-century policy of isolating Cuba, members of the Congressional Black Caucus returned from Havana saying the Castro brothers are eager to see a new day in U.S.-Cuban relations.

WSJ

Forgive me for seeming skeptical of of our foreign adversaries, but I question the motives of both the CBC and the Castro Brothers. I will not deny the economic opportunities that could result from better U.S.-Cuban relations, but we should not dive into this blindly. The Castro Brothers see new opportunity with the Obama Administration, and I am not sure I like what that says about Obama. Finally, the CBC is simply making a political move, trying to assert its own importance by being the first voting bloc within the Democratic party to hold open talks with Cuban leaders. But while they are getting their names in the papers, we might want to take another look at both Castro brothers and their ultimate motives and desires. Just my opinion.

Talk May Not Be Cheap

In a dramatic break from previous policy, the United States will join direct talks between U.N. and European powers and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program, the State Department announced Wednesday.

CNN

I certainly do not oppose diplomatic solutions to problems. The danger here is that Iran, based on their President's public statement, is unlikely to take any talks seriously. They know that they want and feel we have no business in interfering. What are we going to have give up in order to get what we want? I am skeptical of the success of this shift in foreign policy.

Marriage Becoming Obsolete

Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.

CNN

Do you think it is a coincidence that the problem is that marriage is not taken as seriously as it once was. With all the changes, legal and otherwise, that are being made to the definition of marriage, no wonder most Americans don't take the concept as serious as they should.

Trouble in Paradise?

The lessons from the week: Members of the working group — like any small collection of Democrats — can make a difference whenever they’re ready to side with the Republicans. But the group seems to lack either the appetite or the ability to work in solidarity and undermine the agenda of a popular Democratic president.

Politico

I think what they should have said is that this group of Democrats lack the backbone to go against the President with any real force. I would still recommend reading the article, as it points out the political implications of a small voting bloc within the majority can have on the dynamic in the Senate.

We Should Hold Off on Repairing Certain Relationsips

On Tuesday the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who is accused of orchestrating a string of attacks in Pakistan, warned that Washington may be attacked for offering $5 million for information leading to his location or arrest.

Reuters

I understand that one Taliban leader may not actually be an accurate example of all Taliban leaders, but we may want to investigate further before Clinton continues offering this extremist regime an olive branch in Afghanistan.