Wednesday, October 31, 2012
From the piece: STEINER: The only reason they would be told that they couldn’t wear something is if it is a disruption of the educational process, or if it’s not allowed in the handbook.
For those who have forgotten:
When Mitt Romney was asked why President George W. Bush be re-elected despite a less-than-perfect economy said this:
"The people of America recognize that the slowdown in jobs that occurred during the early years of the Bush administration were the result of a perfect storm. And an effort by one candidate to somehow say, 'Oh, this recession and the slowdown in jobs was the result of somehow this president magically being elected' -- people in America just dismiss that as being poppycock."
Of course, when it comes to President Barack Obama - who faced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression - Romney blames it all on Obama, despite knowing better.
From the piece:
I can understand why somebody who never shared Obama’s goals would vote against his reelection. If you think the tax code already punishes the rich too heavily, that it’s not government’s role to subsidize health insurance for those who can’t obtain it, that the military shouldn’t have to let gays serve openly, and so on, then Obama’s presidency has been a disaster, but you probably didn’t vote for him last time. For anybody who voted for Obama in 2008 and had even the vaguest sense of his platform, the notion that he has fallen short of some plausible performance threshold seems to me unfathomable.
Obama’s résumé of accomplishments is broad and deep, running the gamut from economic to social to foreign policy. The general thrust of his reforms, especially in economic policy, has been a combination of politically radical and ideologically moderate. The combination has confused liberals into thinking of Obamaism as a series of sad half-measures, and conservatives to deem it socialism, but the truth is neither. Obama’s agenda has generally hewed to the consensus of mainstream economists and policy experts. What makes the agenda radical is that, historically, vast realms of policy had been shaped by special interests for their own benefit. Plans to rationalize those things, to write laws that make sense, molder on think-tank shelves for years, even generations. They are often boring. But then Obama, in a frenetic burst of activity, made many of them happen all at once.
... It is noteworthy that four of the best decisions that Obama made during his presidency ran against the advice of much of his own administration.
It's funny how much bipartisanship can develop when both parties are willing to play.
Or maybe it's just some super-secret type of new political tactic where you praise your opponent for days, generate nice headlines, then slam him the day before the election?
From the piece:
On ABC, CBS and NBC, Christie hailed Obama as “outstanding.” On MSNBC, he said the president “has been all over this,” and on CNN, he called Obama “incredibly supportive.” The big guy even tweeted his thanks to the slender one.
Most astonishing of all, the New Jersey governor went on Fox News and spoke words rarely heard on that network: “I have to give the president great credit.”
So much for that liberal bias in our public schools, huh?
I guess I'm supposed to be outraged, but I'm not. I think teachers should have wide latitude in the classroom, which means that sometimes they will probably cross the line. I would probably reprimand or suspend her for a couple of days, if that, but certainly not much more. I'd need to find out more, though, in terms of how she structures her classroom.
Is there a lot of give-and-take with students? Is everyone allowed, and encouraged, to express their opinions? Is critical thinking encouraged in all circumstances? If this was a challenge to students to respond in critical and creative ways instead of simply turning on the outrage spigot, then I'm all for it. If it was a political tactic gone awry, I'm not.
Can anyone tell me just when we were a Christian nation, and just what that means any way?
From the piece:
The quote, though, is cherry-picked from a speech Obama delivered in 2006, more than two years before he became president, at the Call to Renewal conference in Washington.
In 2008, during Obama’s first national campaign, the same out-of-context remark was circulated online as sinister evidence that the Democrat intended to curtail religious freedom in America. At the time, the spurious Internet chatter was debunked by FactCheck.org.
Here’s the full quote:
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation - at least not just,” Obama said. “We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation and a Buddhist nation and a Hindu nation and a nation of non-believers.”
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
During my voting life, I've voted for more Republicans than Democrats. But this particular cycle, I don't plan to vote for any Republicans. Why? Because I think it would be rewarding the very thing none of us should want to see in Washington, obstruction for the sake of regaining power, even when the country is facing incredibly challenging, historic problems. The GOP said loudly and proudly it was going to gum up the machine because a gridlocked Washington would make President Barack Obama look bad and make it easier for the GOP to regain control.
Apparently, that strategy has worked on many people. I refuse to be among them.
I believe such tactics should be punished, not rewarded. Allowing them to win will clearly only reinforce the incentive to continue them.