Targeting the Hate and Denial, 2014

Yeah, it's not man bites dog..

 

Just another day in the non-Fox media.  But it's like a sport pointing things out.  For instance, is there any guess as to the identity of these brave patriots standing up to the Republicans haters and deniers?  Gasp--Michelle Obama, Bill Nye the science guy, and Eric Holder.  Conservatives--do you really think these same people will cover any Obama scandal fairly? 

Not to be outdone, a sub-link within the article pointed to more commencement wisdom from the likes of Puff-Daddy, Tiger Woods' ex, and Joe Biden.  They also liked astronaut Rick Mastracchio's speech, so much so they placed at the very end  of page 2 in their report.  Later in the morning their scrolling top page banner headline invited visitors to watch Maddy Albright's commencement speech, live.  And a video on their page showed clips of ABC's (and former Clinton guy) George Stephanpoulis' address.

Not available for review: Condi Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  These women of color were denied speaking engagements (and in Ali's case, an honorary degree) at prestigious universities due to hounding from the tolerant and diverse left on their campuses, including some professors.

Ali, an atheist, uses more than a hashtag to describe the embedded discrimination against women in some Islamic countries, having lived it herself, but apparently too graphically for some on the left.  And Rice is, well, a Nazi or something.  Neither woman will officially be called victims of the war on woman and neither can claim discrimination due to race. They are simply graduates of the unprotected class of the United States of America in 2014.

But perhaps the oddest duck of the season is former New York Times editor Jill Abramson.  She was also to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis, but backed out after the brouhaha.   All she did was claim pay discrimination at the Times--right up Obama's rhetorical alley--but wound up being fired and called a bitch and worse by the whisper campaigners.  So a liberal Jewish woman may now find herself out of the protected class because she dared to speak out against the house organ of liberalism.  If it had been Fox News she'd have received a ticker tape parade down Madison Avenue and bold coverage on ABC News.

BANNER DAY FOR ABC  5/18/14

Wow, ABC outdid themselves.  Underneath a headline feature on Karl Rove calling for Hillary to 'cough up' her medical records--but without repeating Bill Clinton's admission that Hillary was on the shelf for 6 months recovering from a severe concussion that the State Dept made sound like a little bump on the head (in a story written by a person named "Dukakis"), they went for broke:

Although the scientists concede that there are exceptions, “the really well-to-do have lost a little of their moral character,” psychologist Dacher Keltner, coauthor of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said in a telephone interview.

Keltner, who led the research along with fellow psychologist Paul K. Piff, said his inbox has been jammed with feedback, mostly from working class citizens who say “it’s about time” someone paid attention to this problem. “People are just feeling there’s an imbalance in our culture,” he said.

They actually pass this advocacy off as 'news'?   That it happens to blend in nicely with the administration's mid-term political strategy is of course totally coincidental.  But someone should ask ABC what we should do with those unethical scoundrels George Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet.  Wait what?  They are the good rich?  Never mind.  Onward with pitchforks to the Koch Brothers' house!

Risk? What Risk?

A presumptive GOP candidate for 2016 sets his table:

Bush said immigrants capture the entrepreneurial spirit of America. “People who come here legally and illegally are the risk takers,” Bush said. “If you’re living in a rural area of Guatemala and you come, you’re a bigger risk taker than those who stay.”

There's just so much wrong with that comment. One, what other criminal activity does he consider to be 'risk-taking' and worthy?  Two, he grouped both legal and illegal activity in the same breath.  Does he consider people who follow the law no different than those who can't be bothered?  Three, what risk is there for illegals coming into the country anymore?  If they get past the Border Patrol and settle somewhere they immediately become knighted saints with absolute moral authority, often held in higher esteem than tax-paying law-abiding citizens who suggest they be deported for breaking the law. 

As to education reform:

Aside from immigration, Bush’s advocacy for Common Core State Standards has earned him enmity on the right.

Bush isn't the only Republican jumping on Common Core, many Republicans have embraced it. One of them is the Republican governor of Tennessee. Ads have been running on local radio in the state pushing CC. Why? Do the various characters involved in the development of the program not bother these guys? Or have they been convinced otherwise?  Or something else?  Someone should ask them. 

And here's a potential question-- why do we need new national standards when the US education system has a long history of training some of the most brilliant minds in history that gave rise to a great nation?  Sounds like the problem is more with teachers and parents, not inadequate national standards.

The Real Enemy

Happy New Year, all!  Let's begin 2013 with a Georgetown constitutional law professor opining in the NY Times that we should give up on the Constitution:

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

And here's the President of the United States in a radio interview from 2001 talking about the flawed founding documents:


Here he is specifying the lack of 'redistributive' powers therein, ie, criticizing the document because it only limited powers of the state, not granted them:


Oddly, both are/were law professors.

So it would appear that GD piece of paper Bush allegedly trampled was actually not worth the outrage because it tends to get in the way of progress--like spreading the wealth around, passing stimulus bills and nationalizing health care.  It allows gun rights. It protects religious nuts. Sounds as if more than a few people would like to "change" America into something else. They should advocate for a new constitutional convention and be as open as the Times op-ed writer, but most prefer the death from 1000 cuts approach.

Obama, Circa 1990

The vetting continues, this time from a news article posted in 1990 featuring an interview with president Obama when he was at Harvard.   Nothing earth-shattering; it confirms he's been a redistributionist for a long time, ie, hugging professor Bell and hobnobbing with Wright and Ayers wasn't some goofy college phase.  But the story is worth a few clips, so here goes..

Concern for Obama’s education led his mother to return him to Hawaii, where he attended public schools through high school. In 1983, he graduated from Columbia University with a degree in political science.

Isn't Punahou a private school? Yes, yes it is. As we'll see, that little falsehood was perhaps convenient as to where he wanted to take the interview. Next,

“I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me. And I’m not interested in isolating myself,”

He met Joe the Plumber in a suburb.  More..

“It’s crucial that people don’t see my election as somehow a symbol of progress in the broader sense, that we don’t sort of point to a Barack Obama any more than you point to a Bill Cosby or a Michael Jordan and say ‘Well, things are hunky dory,’” Obama said.

Right, progress doesn't mean progress!  Just don't call it token progress--not when he's dropping his name alongside a couple of icons, one of which plays a sport that has been dominated by blacks since well before 1990.

“Professors may treat black students differently, sometimes by being, sort of, more dismissive, sometimes by being more, sort of, careful because they think, you know, they think that somehow we can’t cope in the classroom,” he said.

They may, and they may not.  Anecdotally speaking, of course.

..Obama was not trying to solve local problems, he said. Instead he sought to construct something more lasting — a forum for the community, “I’m interested in organizations, not movements, because movements dissipate and organizations don’t,” Obama said.

Was he talking about ACORN?  It would make sense. 

“Hopefully, more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we’re going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous,” Obama said.

Hmm. First, who is 'we'?  Second, America has had organizations trying to 'shape' people into being more generous and less mean-spirited for a long time--they are called churches. Obama clearly believes that kind of work belongs in government, hence Obamacare, et al.   And finally..

“I mean, I really hope to be part of a transformation of this country. ”And the future of black people and of America generally? “It depends on how good I do my job,” he said.

Wow, hopefully there were some context issues because otherwise he must have felt pretty high about himself back then to think his appointment at Harvard meant he carried the fate of the entire black race on his shoulders.  But it appears he was talking about his future 'reshaping', which means he was fairly prescient seeing as how he became the first black president.  So where does he think we are on progress now?  Is the reshaping complete or just getting started? What does he plan to work towards if reelected?

Such questions are why vetting is important.  There's nothing wrong with him being a champion of the black poor in America, it's who he is.  The problem lies with the media and intelligensia so afraid of the truth they would try to keep such facts from the voters.  And they are still doing it.

DOE, Freeze!

The net is buzzing over another no-knock raid on a homeowner, this time from a Department of Education paramilitary team looking for someone regarding a problem with student loans:

The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in the S.W.A.T for his wife's defaulted student loans.

"They busted down my door for this," Wright said. "It wasn't even me."

According to the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General, the case can't be discussed publicly until it is closed, but a spokesperson did confirm that the department did issue the search warrant at Wright's home.

They've since clarified to say it wasn't just some poor schmuck in arrears on their college loan but something more, but they can't discuss details. Hell with that--the story here is that the Department of Education has what amounts to a SWAT unit. From this story (last year) there's a DOE fact sheet that lists all the busts related to education fraud [digress] a few involving employees accessing Obama's student loan records [/digress]. Looking back most of the incidents seem to be fraud not late or no payments.

Their mission statement talks about stopping "waste, fraud and abuse involving Federal education funds, programs and operations", which is fine, but it seems like a job for actual law enforcement agencies. Most of those are white collar crimes that don't involve public safety. So why again do they need a police force? And now that the student loan program has been entirely federalized, any need to worry? Sounds like the DOE Public Affairs officer has his/her work cut out.

Attention Please...

Remember those PA announcements from the principal? Now the president himself can beam right into the room and bore the tears out of students more than ever before, and he will do so Tuesday. Through the magic of the interwebs the speech is already here.

Adults are probably the target audience since they'll be discussing it ad nauseum anyway for the next few days, completely ignoring the Van Jones controversy. Obama can't seriously think he'll more of an impact than the principal, teacher, dad, mom, steve or whomever is king of the hill at home these days, although that doesn't mean he shouldn't deliver the message.

Since adults are partially targeted let's let the mean-sprited hate mongering discussions begin! As written it looks like a boilerplate positive and encouraging speech to our nation's yoots that any president might give, aside from a faint overtone of cultish collectivism. For instance,

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that - if you quit on school - you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.

One quibble of a nitpicky fashion--going back to the beginnings of this nation Patrick Henry said, "give me liberty or give me death". He would have never considered replacing 'liberty' with 'country'. Indeed, many early Colonials wanted their "country" to remain tied to Great Britain. It's never really been about country for Americans, it's about what the country means, what the flag means. It would have been nice to see him make that distinction during the speech.

This line of thought remains curious, though:

When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday - at 4:30 in the morning.

Hmm, is he saying they had to study under cover of darkness before he was whisked off to the Madrasa and the morning call to prayer? Is that why he never mentions Lolo? Was Mom a subversive trying to poison young Barry with Americanism to the objection of the evil anti-American stepdad? Is this why he says "Mom" couldn't afford to send him to American school despite the fact Mom was married to a father figure with income? The father of his sister Maya? Strange, that. But the message was positive.

And right wingers should be careful criticizing positive messages, even in speeches yet to be delivered. Perhaps we should just be thankful Obama came along to encourage our children to seek their talents and abilities so they can productively work for the collective needs of our country.

Q & A 09/09/09

Linked via JOM, here's the transcript of Obama's Q&A with students, where there was politics in play. Luckily for the One it was brought up by a student, not him..

Not to say the Q&A answers were bad--many were good. Obama is using his experiences in trying to motivate kids, which is what a president should do. But if he's gonna use those experiences and analogies they become open for scrutiny. Most conservatives are talking about his Facebook/internet warning vis a vis Van Jones (and perhaps a covert attempt to chill speech) or his reply to the health care question but one thing that continues to intrigue me is his refusal to acknowledge his own step-father, the father of his half-sister Maya.

I realize he is saying 'not having a dad around' in the literal sense--his natural father--but Obama is very good at sharing his life in an effort to connect with people to make a point. Many of the kids in that room likely have step-parents. Why waste an opportunity to make a point about it? Is his airbrush a sneaky attempt to keep the birther controversy broiling in regards to that document circulating on the net showing he entered school in Indonesia as an Indonesian Muslim?

No Child Left Behind, Memphis Style

The right wing uproar over the upcoming presidential speech to Dick and Jane has New York Daily News sportswriter Mike Lupica all fired up. His column, entitled "Loons should shut up and listen: Obama not out to brainwash schoolkids", takes parents to task for saying they'll hold their kids out of class that day. Here's an excerpt:

This is no longer about dissent, or disagreement with Obama's policies. This is something deeper and meaner, something that seems to come from a foreign country, not this one. How else do you explain a speech about education and hard work being seen as a threat?

Another idiot, Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer, has suggested that Obama is trying to "indoctrinate America's children to his Socialist agenda." Somebody needs to inform Greer, and fast, that Glenn Beck's time slot on Fox News hasn't opened up, at least not yet.

It's ironic he'd use Beck in a column about kneejerk reactions to Obama's perceived socialism message, as if he didn't just successfully help force the resignation of social justice environmental jobs czar Van Jones from Obama's non-vetted executive branch add-on wing. No reason for concern there. Lupica's newspaper attributed the resignation mainly to his signatory of a 9/11 truther petition but it was clearly just as much about radical associations. Oddly enough, the Daily News included a Jones comment in an August 30th editorial slamming those who want to change the meaning of Patriot's Day:

Van Jones, an Obama environmental adviser, said 9/11 would be an opportunity to "connect, to find other people in your peer group who are also passionate about repowering America but also greening up America and cleaning up America."

Meaning his own paper called out Jones as too radical a transformer. But remember, only the right can be reactionary loons in America these days!

Lupica seems to find it strange parents might be suspicious of an Obama speech to kids. Well, here in Memphis we have a bold new program designed to go against his assumed message of achievement; the city has a new policy designed to remove the potential for failing in grades K-3 through eliminating the grading system:



It's being touted as a money issue designed to stop unpopular politicians from having to levy unpopular property tax increases to support consistent failure. To others it seems like another attempt to water down standards in the name of cultural diversity.

The man running this change, as shown in the video above, is Superintendent Kriner Cash, a former associate Dean at Howard University who got his superintendent feet wet in of all places Martha's Vineyard, the liberal fantasy island where Obama just vacationed. According to his CV Cash got his Ed.D at U Mass in "Cultural Diversity and Curriculum Reform Concentration". So there you go.

But before any liberals kneejerk over the above (in an un-loony fashion of course) this is NOT to say that reform in itself is sinister. Dr. Cash is very bright and accomplished and is one of many, no doubt including Jones, who've spent years working on ways to raise achievement in the minority districts via experimental methods. It's odd he'd begin that journey in Martha's Vineyard, which suggests it was a sort of liberal test bed, but that's just wild speculation. In general people aren't against reforms, they are against bad reform based on flawed premises.

How does this relate to Obama and the speech? Well, when talking reform it's hard not to consider Bill Ayers, who worked with Obama on various reform projects in Chicago and has made reform his life's work since he officially transformed into a washed-up terrorist. Ayers focuses on minority issues and has emphatically stated that he wants to abolish capitalism, which represents a common thread among many of his peers who believe the western system rewards those who are privileged, who then rise above others based on this flawed racist system to become white men of greed in a world of need.

Therefore he's shifted his radical reform from molotovs to textbooks, although it's still just as radical as before illustrated by a stated admiration for the educational reforms of Hugo Chavez. This is the same man for which Obama once wrote a book recommendation. With all that in mind it's hardly loony to connect a few dots and have some concerns. Indeed, some of the curriculum and philosophies emerging in today's reforms--to use Lupica's description-- "...seem(s) to come from a foreign country, not this one." Personally I'd let my kids attend the speech so it could be discussed at home later, but there's nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious. It's even democratic.