 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought December 4, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
We are in a new era of ex-Presidents. Having been the most powerful leader in the world, accepting either defeat at the polls or the finality of a second term, we now have two former Democrat Presidents, Clinton and Carter, who will not get off the world stage, nor restrain themselves from the criticism of the current President. It is worse than unseemly, it is the kind of backstabbing behavior that betrays them for the kind of person they were while in office, i.e., petty, vindictive, arrogant, et cetera. Most recently, it was reported that former President Clinton told an audience in the Middle East that, while getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good idea, the invasion of Iraq was “a mistake.” And he said this while we have our armed forces there! I have lived long enough to see a dozen Presidents in office and I cannot recall any but these two behaving in this fashion. Carter cannot seem to restrain himself from pontificating with opinion editorials that are dutifully published in liberal mainstream daily newspapers. His most recent opus was a litany of criticisms of the Bush administration including the assertion that “top U.S. leaders” are seeking to “exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.” From the earliest days of our history, America has stood virtually alone among nations in its avoidance of imperial behavior. The most recent territory we acquired in combat was Iraq and we restored sovereignty to an interim government as fast as we could! To accuse America of imperialism is to echo every Communist that ever walked the Earth as it is their favorite charge. Why should this surprise us? Carter has shown an affection for despots such as Fidel Castro and Kim Jung Il. Carter is upset that “our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations.” Presumably he is referring to the United Nations that not only dawdled for years as Saddam ignored their endless resolutions following the first Gulf War and then engaged in a massive looting of the UN “Oil-For-Fuel” program intended to provide food and medicines for the Iraqi people. Yup, that’s the kind of international organization by which I want to be restrained. Of course, Carter’s latest blizzard of opinion editorials may have something to do with his latest piece of deathless prose, a book entitled “Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis.” Despite 9-11, he’s all upset about the Patriot Act, treatment of enemy combatants, and, of course, the environment. Clinton isn’t peddling a book these days and for that we should be most grateful, but he is peddling his opinions on the conduct of the war in Iraq and for that he should be severely condemned. I cannot help suspect that this latest opinion was bought and paid for somewhere in the Middle East. Despite Esquire Magazine declaring him “president of the world,” Clinton is not the president anymore and, when he was, his response to al Qaeda attacks on the Twin Towers in 1993 and subsequent attacks on US embassies, and the USS Cole only convinced Osama bin Laden that America was run by weaklings. Osama was wrong and so is Clinton. Those of us who still love our nation enough to want to protect it against all enemies and who support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan need to begin to loudly protest these perfidious former Presidents. |
|||||
Russia has done it again. They have sold 29 anti-aircraft systems to Iran. In their usual display of trustworthiness and kindness to America they have cited a secret agreement with Algore as the reason this was acceptable. I sure would like to see all of the other secret agreements these people made. I still wonder if the decision made by the last administration to force the F-117 to fly in the exact same path every time they went into Yugoslavia wasn’t a secret agreement. That was the reason we lost one of those jets, by the way. There was also that little problem with the enemy seeming to know what we were going to be doing all of the time. Things like that tend to make a sensible person suspect an administration that is in power and making all of the military decisions behind closed doors. The last administration held a view that the world would be a safer place if everyone were equal. That helps to explain the missing data at Los Alamos that mysteriously appeared in a place where everyone had looked for it a hundred times. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The launch codes were taken from the sub commanders during the last administration. One of the most frightening things to an adversary is not knowing where your enemies are and that is the reason submarines are so much fun. If you don’t believe me, ask the Chinese and Russians. They are removing most of their land-based weapons systems in favor of submarines. This is why the Russians are helping the Chinese with a new weapon system that is designed to sneak in under any ABM system we might develop. I suspect at times that it is our view that we can create a division between Russia and China so that China will go ahead and attack Russia or become civilized. China will be inclined to go after Russia only after they think we’re out of the picture. We are a thorn in their side because of the mutual defense agreement we have with Taiwan. I’m sure there are a few liberals out there salivating after having read that last sentence. No. We don’t want to drop that agreement with Taiwan. That is how one convinces the rest of your allies that you are a bunch of bed-wetting liberal pansies and Pelosi-crats. It would show the rest of the world that we have become Murtha-whipped, and that just isn’t a good national policy unless one wants to get a brand new spate of terrorist attacks because they have been emboldened. Emboldening our enemies is a job that has been left to the liberals of today just like it was up to them in the Vietnam War. Like I have been saying, though: Look at you, girl (Hillary)! She’s trying to sound more and more like Winston Churchill, and if it weren’t for Madeleine Albright, she wouldn’t be the first runner-up in the Winston Churchill look-alike contest from that last administration that we shall not name. Hillary has done a nice job in her attempts to look like a rational person, not that she looks or sounds all that rational. It’s only when you compare her with clowns like Dean and some of the others that she looks rational. Democrats are an interesting collection of diametrically opposed groups with a strange and otherworldly bond that unites. They pull together all of the dregs of society and then tell them whatever they want to hear so they’ll be assured of party loyalty. They have the feminists, the gay rights activists, the minority activist groups, the enviro-nuts and even more than that. They promise them the sun, the stars and the moon, and then give them nothing tangible. How is it that they can do all of this and get away with it year after year? It is so simple and so insurgent like that it is frightening but funny. They "feel their pain." It is that simple. That, quite simply, is how they keep them together. That is why Hillary can say anything she wants and it won’t hurt her position with their acolytes one bit. They speak a language that normal people will never understand. It is the language of the radical loser (see link below) The sale of this weapons system under a secret agreement with Algore is just the tip of the iceberg. You have no idea how deep their treason goes. I’m often asked by liberals such as the Nazis, pseudo-conservatives and Neo-communists why I still write about the Clinton administration. The reason is quite simple: We’re still not out of the mess they created. This is but another example. Reference Link: R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Imagine if, instead of crime-ridden Los Angeles, the man who would come to be known as Stan “Tookie” Williams had spent his early, formative days elsewhere. Imagine if he had spent his youth in one of the nice new suburbs to which many whites fled after failing to stave off desegregation in the ‘40s and ‘50s. Would he have lived the life that earned him a death sentence, set to take place this December 13th? Would stars such as Jamie Foxx and Snoop Dogg be rallying ‘round his cause? Would websites like SaveTookie.org be set up to save him? Would his whole life rest in the hands of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Would his very being come down to a question of clemency? Imagine if, instead of co-founding the world famous Crips gang — which inspired waves of crime and violence in cities across the country — the man known as Tookie had, as a young American, satisfied his sense of time and place by pledging allegiance to the betterment of his street, his hood, his city, or even his country. Imagine if he’d been politically active, instead of criminally active. Imagine if he’d lived not for the moment but for the fulfillment of some kind of destiny. Imagine if he had had ambition. Imagine if he had had a dream. Would he have been caught, tried, and convicted of four murders? Would he have been behind bars since 1979? Would we be having this discussion today? Imagine if the American legal system worked quickly. Imagine if, instead of this December 13th, Tookie had been executed — “served justice” — in 1981, the year he first entered death row. Imagine he’d never gotten around to renouncing gang violence in the early 1990s. Imagine he’d never penned the book Life In Prison, or several kids’ titles, which dared kids not to live the life that he lived. Would some kids turn to drugs, without Tookie to turn to? Would young men and women in major cities across the country be better off without some voice of reason, some soul who understands, who sees clearly the context — the destitution — in which they were born and bred and still live? Ask yourself: Would Tookie’s death bring back the four innocent souls he murdered? Would those victims be with their families this holiday season? Would the world be restored to the way it was before Stan “Tookie” Williams walked the streets of L.A.? Would killing a man for killing four others solve anything? Would taking his life somehow make our lives better, even if we’ve already got him right we want him — right where we need him — in prison, without parole? I can’t imagine how it would. Stan “Tookie” Williams is just the latest in a seemingly unending series of death row “cause celebre” cases. But beyond all the hype, beyond all the famous faces — the Jamie Foxxes and Snoop Doggs — lies the scheduled execution of a human. Not just a man with a violent past who co-founded a street gang, but a living, breathing person. This man, good or bad, for better or worse, is scheduled to die on December 13th. Imagine knowing the date of your own impending execution. Imagine knowing how many minutes you’ve got left. How many breaths. How many eye blinks. Can you even imagine that? Death penalty supporters will argue, as death penalty supporters often argue, that a man like Stan Williams deserves to be treated the way he’s being treated. He deserves to die. He deserves the fate that a jury has sealed for him, for sealing the fates of four innocent souls some 20-plus years ago. He hasn’t shown remorse, they’ve noticed. He hasn’t admitted his guilt. And besides: He’s a murderer. All true. But this line of thinking asks the wrong questions. It asks if a murderer deserves to be murdered, not if we, the people, deserve to murder him. It asks: Would society be better off without him? But it fails to ask: Would he be better off without society? Would he be better off dead than alive? Would he be better equipped to contribute — even atone for his sins — if he were buried six feet underground? Many folks who oppose Tookie’s execution ask the wrong questions, too. Some point to his accomplishments over the last 10-15 years. He’s reformed, they say. Rehabilitated. They wonder: Why are we doing away with this man — this invaluable resource? Likewise, others cast a shadow of doubt. They ask: What if we’ve got the wrong guy here? What if Tookie didn’t do it? What if he was framed? What if he was the victim of racial bias? These are all the wrong questions. The position they take is one that lacks principle. They suggest it’s okay to execute someone… as long as it’s the right someone… and as long as he never wrote books for kids. Well, is it okay to execute people, or isn’t it? And what’s it matter who we execute, if we decide it’s okay to execute? Either every human life is an end unto itself, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways. A murderer is no more or less valuable than the murdered. That’s what makes every life wasted tragic. Or: That’s what makes every life wasted no big deal. That’s the real question people ought to be asking here. Not if we should execute Stan “Tookie” Williams, convicted murderer and Crips co-founder. But if we should execute — period. People don’t like asking this question, because asking this question requires imagination. To electrocute someone, to inject him with poison, to suffocate him, or shoot him, is simple. Even spread out over 20 years, it’s a knee-jerk reaction — a quick, easy answer to the complex problem of how we should deal with those who would do, or have done, us harm. But for all the talk of the death penalty deterring murder in this country, it obviously doesn’t. For if it did, murderers would’ve long ago been deterred. Instead, to this day, we’re still debating whether to execute men like Tookie Williams this December 13th. Imagine a world in which that debate was the only thing we killed dead. Perhaps the most famous victim of execution ever was Jesus. Jesus asked God to forgive the people who killed him, because he believed — even knew in his heart — that they killed him out of ignorance, arrogance, and general human selfishness. Jesus also fraternized with the kinds of people who today would lead lives like Stan Williams. He offered redemption to the lowest rungs of society. And he spoke out against eye-for-eye punishments. America is supposedly a Christian country. Religious beliefs are unregulated here; we don’t all have to follow in Jesus’s philosophical footsteps. But still, it’s quite clear our modern American beliefs don’t gel with what he practiced and preached. A life sentence is a better deterrent than a death sentence, because life offers something that death never could: Hope. If murder is something you’re looking to stamp out, hope is something you’re undoubtedly going to need. I say save Stan “Tookie” Williams — not just for his sake, but ours. Only a country that expects the worst from its people would be so quick to give up on them. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Benjamin Bernanke, a former member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, is all but certain to be confirmed by the Senate as the next Chairman of that institution. He may find that the adulation given to Mr. Greenspan does not carry over into his tenure so easily, especially if he continues to help Congress run up huge deficits. Mr. Bernanke is a consummate Fed insider, widely seen by the financial press as the logical heir to Alan Greenspan. In fact, judging by his public statements he may be more like Greenspan than Greenspan himself. What I mean is that Mr. Bernanke appears to have embraced the idea that the Federal Reserve can create prosperity more than Mr. Greenspan ever did. Like his predecessor, Mr. Bernanke views our system of fiat currency as a tool for creating wealth out of thin air by producing more dollars, whether paper or electronic. But he seems to take things further than Greenspan by refusing even to consider the destructive consequences of monetary expansion. In fact, he earned dubious notoriety for this quote in a 2002 speech discussing the supposed threat of deflation in the American economy: "The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost." But there is a cost, and it's a heavy one. It's called monetary inflation, which destroys the value of the dollar and punishes those who save and invest. The money supply, as measured by the Fed's own M3 figure, has increased about 5 times since 1980. Yet for years officials at the Fed have insisted that inflation is firmly in check. Inflation is not in check, as anyone who examines the cost of housing, energy, medical care, school tuition, and other basics can attest. In one sense the remarkable rise in housing prices over the last decade really just represents a drop in the value of the dollar. The artificial boom in the 1990s equity markets, engineered by Mr. Greenspan's relentless monetary expansion and interest rate cutting, ended badly for millions of Americans holding overinflated stocks. What will happen when the same thing happens with housing? The fundamental question is whether a central bank can manage the supply of money and credit better than the free market otherwise would. We shouldn't kid ourselves about the true nature of the Fed, which is inherently incompatible with real free market capitalism. Centralized planning of the money supply is a form of economic control that significantly affects prices, wages, and production levels. Remember how market economists once criticized central planning of prices, wages, and production levels in the former Soviet Union? I encourage all Americans to learn more about the Federal Reserve system and what it means for our economic future. An excellent resource is economist Murray Rothbard's book "What Has Government Done to our Money," which provides a brief yet devastating critique of centralized banking and the reckless government spending it enables. We need to demystify the Federal Reserve to understand the enormous political and economic impact of a system that essentially allows government to print money at will to pay its bills. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
Briefly, while driving to a parent teacher conference for my son this morning, I had the opportunity to listen to recently slandered, former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett discuss a great business idea: that someone should open a conservative coffee shop and call it “Warbucks." A portion of the proceeds would go to help the US soldiers charged with defending freedom around the world. Many listeners called in to say they really liked this suggestion. Now I’m not really sure if he was serious or not because I didn’t get a chance to listen in long enough but it got me to thinking. It sure would be nice to go where conservatives could comfortably hang out and to have some good intelligent conversation over a cup of java. Sadly, living in a blue state in a metropolitan area, I often find myself dominated by liberals who disdain conservative beliefs and ideas. Walking into my son’s school, I felt like an imposter; there for him but acutely aware that my conservative ideas about education would make me unwelcome in any other circumstances. Try and imagine, then, what it is like for me as a teacher seeking employment in the liberally dominated field of education. Lately, I’ve been thinking this must have been what it felt like for blacks seeking employment in traditionally white dominated occupations or trying to integrate into white neighborhoods in the years following the civil rights movement. What did it feel like for black children entering desegregated schools? The application process has been simplified in that after filling in all the questions for one school district you can import most of your information to fill in another district’s application, provided they are using the same program. The essay questions basically read the same. When you think about your students, in what major ways do you want to influence their lives? What two core teaching strategies do you use most to achieve this result? Describe the skills or attributes you believe are necessary to be an outstanding teacher. How would you address a wide range of skills in your classroom? In your opinion, what are the most significant factors that influence student learning? In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing our profession presently and in the future? In the space provided below, indicate any information relating to your capabilities and qualifications for teaching, including technology expertise and experience/training in working with multicultural and diverse student populations. Briefly describe your professional beliefs and principles. How do these values exhibit themselves in the position you are applying for and in your career development? As you can imagine, for new teachers fresh out of schools of education, writing the essays for a teaching application is just another homework assignment. They go back to notes taken in classes like Philosophy of Education and they write about what their professors tell them are the best ways to set up a classroom, meet the needs of their students, or communicate with administration and parents. They gather three letters of recommendation, provide information about previous employment experience, have their transcripts mailed and begin the process of waiting for a response. For a teacher who has been around the block but never received tenure in a district, the application process is a minefield. For one thing, the above questions are designed to find out if the job candidate is likely to toe the line or has a mind of his or her own. They are also set up to determine if the potential teacher will implement teaching strategies geared toward cooperative learning, multiculturalism, and tolerance or if the teacher considers their job to provide subject knowledge using explicit teaching methodology. The latter is not in vogue even though it has been proven invaluable in making sure all students make adequate yearly progress. The former strategies are taught in schools of education even though they are not based on grounded scientific research and often do not hold the students responsible for their own learning. But it is even more complicated than that. In my case, to complete an application process, I must have copies of my transcripts mailed from no less than four institutions at my own cost before I will be considered for an interview. I must fill in pages of employment experience explaining why I no longer work for each school I’m required to list on the form. For each year of prior teaching experience, I’m more expensive to hire. For each additional credit hour in education above my BA, I’m more expensive to bring into the district. Nowhere in the process will I be expected to offer any evidence to show whether or not my actual teaching was effective with students. There are no pretest or post test scores to show potential employers…yet. Although I would be willing to waive the steps I’ve reached on the pay scale to get hired in a good district, union contracts disallow that possibility in a public school. Although I can offer evidence that explicit instruction, homogeneous grouping, and subject knowledge have been proven to contribute to effective teaching, it is politically incorrect to embrace these particular elements as important considerations. Here is the clincher: Some districts now require prospective teachers to complete a teacher style profile by taking a timed multiple choice test to determine whether a potential applicant is the right fit. The results are not provided to the applicant. Being a conservative teacher in a blue state is really hard. Having my education writing recognized by a former Secretary of Education for a Republican administration doesn’t score points. And believing in NCLB and being anti-union for reasons like I listed above doesn’t score points. It doesn’t matter that I’m a really creative, hard working instructor, or that I have a good grasp of the subjects which I’m endorsed to teach. I really miss the students. And I just can’t quite resign myself to the hard cold reality that it was just not meant to be. I keep hoping that maybe, just maybe, there is a school preaching tolerance for conservatives somewhere in this blue state metropolitan area. If there is a principal out there who appreciates a teacher who employs a common sense teaching style combined with valuable experience, my number is… Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:00 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
|||||
