Of course the FDA will not release the information of the manufacture who makes this baby formula and other dietary supplements...
Melamine Traces Found in U.S. Infant Formula
New York Times
The Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday that it had discovered the toxic chemical melamine in infant formula made by an American manufacturer, raising the possibility that the problem was more extensive in the United States than previously thought.
While few details were available late Tuesday, agency officials said they had discovered melamine at trace levels in a single sample of infant formula. It was also discovered in several samples of dietary supplements that are made by some of the same manufacturers who make formula.
F.D.A. officials insisted that the levels of melamine were so low that they did not pose a health threat.
“There’s no cause for concern or no risk from these levels,” said Judy Leon, an agency spokeswoman. Ms. Leon said the contamination was most likely the result of food contact with something like a can liner, or from some other manufacturing problems, but not from deliberate adulteration.
She declined to name the company that made the tainted infant formula.
Melamine contamination became a major scandal in China after it was added to milk to disguise test results that measure protein levels. Since it was discovered in infant formula in September, it has sickened more than 50,000 infants and killed 4.
The F.D.A. has beefed up its inspections of Asian markets to make sure that infant formula and other products from China are not contaminated with melamine. At the same time, the agency said it had received assurances from American infant formula manufacturers that they did not import ingredients from China.
To date, several products carried primarily by Asian markets have been recalled because of melamine contamination, including certain varieties of Mr. Brown instant coffee and tea, White Rabbit Creamy Candy and Blue Cat Flavor Drink. Two weeks ago, the F.D.A. said all Chinese products containing dairy ingredients would be stopped at the border until importers proved they were not contaminated.
Though manufacturers of domestic infant formula say they do not use Chinese ingredients, the F.D.A. began sampling infant formula anyway, using more sophisticated testing than had previously been available.
Ms. Leon said the agency was testing 87 samples and had completed all but 10 of the tests. Of those, only one contained traces of melamine, she said. The F.D.A. allows anything below 250 parts per billion of melamine in infant formula, and the sample contained less than that, she said.
Ms. Leon said the other products containing trace elements of melamine were also below allowable levels. For supplements, the F.D.A. allows 2.5 parts per million, and she said all of the samples testing positive were below that figure.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
My Take On the NEASC Report
I'm going to go out on a limb and tackle a topic I am not all that familiar with. But, I think maybe a layman's explanation could be good thing.
First things first.
Rubric: Generally rubrics specify the level of performance expected for several levels of quality. These levels of quality may be written as different ratings (e.g., Excellent, Good, Needs Improvement) or as numerical scores (e.g., 4, 3, 2, 1) which are then added up to form a total score which then is associated with a grade (e.g., A, B, C, etc).
Rubrics can help students and teachers define "quality". Rubrics can also help students judge and revise their own work before handing in their assignments.
A Rubric should not be confused with a Rubik, which is that colored square we have all wasted countless hours on as children.
I offer the definition because it is used a lot in this report, and I had no real idea what a rubric was until my third-grader started coming home with them this year. So I imagine, they are a new concept to many of you who do not have children in school.
*******************************************
One thing I do have experience with is audits. There are two kinds. The first, I define as the "stealth audit", these occur without notice and are generally aimed at catching a specific deficiency in a specific area of work, or work related procedures. The "Stealth Audit" is not designed to outline long term goals or areas of improvement, but rather to address an immediate problem.
The second type of audit is the one that you know is coming. Both the auditor and the audited have time to prepare information and verify practices. Generally the audit will consist of direct observation of the employees or process being audited, a review of documentation outlining procedures and practices in place, along with areas that need improvement, and always has a broad range of topics that will be covered. This type of audit, to be affective, will vary rarely be full of praise. The reason for this is because if it was, the audited would most likely wipe his/her brow and say; "We did pretty good, there were a few things that need to be addressed, but those aren't so important." More likely than not, those things will never get addressed, at the very least things will likely remain at status quo.
Instead, a good audit will outline and acknowledge the positive, but it will put a greater emphasis on the areas that need improvement. A lighter version of "build you up to tear you down" approach. This ensures that you are motivated to correct your mistakes, and fosters an urge to exceed expectations and continually grow.
To me, that was what the Neasc did (an audit) and the outcome was what you would expect for a system that is performing well, but does need areas of improvement.
***************************************************
Not really knowing the state of affairs at Seekonk High 6 years ago, my overall interpretation of the NEASC report is that Seekonk High is in a state of transition. Great progress has been made, but there is still room to grow. It's sounds like the greatest need (and it has just been re-implemented) is for department heads to be brought back, because it sounds like the biggest hurtle that needs to be overcome is the lack of uniformity within and across departments. Obviously that cannot be achieved without someone at the top of each department affirming a specific method of teaching.
**************************************************
An interesting statistic that was pointed out was the the vast improvement of students MCAS scores. 79% of students scored "advanced or proficient" which was well ahead of the states total average of 69%.
However they were below state and national averages in SAT scoring (and falling) which the NEASC explains as "the overall trend in Massachusetts".
Unscientifically I would say this adds fuel to the fire about he ineffectiveness of the MCAS. At the very least it adds to the discussion.
****************************************************
One thing that annoyed me throughout the report, was the NEASC's frequent mentioning of "Community lack of Funding" or "Community lack of Support". As if they were trying to shift at least some of the blame for the schools deficiency's on the residents.
There is no doubt that there is a money problem for the schools. There is a money problem for the entire town, and services and programs on both sides are lacking in key areas.
This is where we need to start getting creative when it comes to money management.
One thing that sticks out to me like a sore thumb is the technology aspect. Every year when I go into my sons class I see computers in there, and I am pretty sure they are Apple's. I am also pretty sure I have read that the High School has purchased Apples/iMacs as opposed to PC's. I do not see the logic in that. You can get a PC for the fraction of the cost that you can get an apple computer. Not to mention 9 out of 10 times in the real world, these students are going to be working with Windows based PC's...not iMacs.
Not to just pick on the schools, I am sure there are similar changes that can be made on the town side.
We just have to get creative.
************************************************
One paradox, from a philosophical standpoint.
Throughout the report it was emphasized how critical thinking and problem solving was a core criteria of the curriculum.
It occurred to me how much that developmental trait is stunted in our kids, particularly in their early years. The new trend has been that we don't want to make our children feel inadequate at anything. So we tell them not to hit back when they are picked on by a bully. We don't keep score in the baseball games...heck...they don't even strike out anymore. But this curbs their ability to deal with disappointment, to learn that they will not be the best at everything they do, but then again even the best will fail at times. They do not develop the skill of independent conflict resolution, which I think is at the core critical thinking. You have to improvise, and analyze, try and fail, to figure out what works.
Instead we shelter them until we are 18 and send them off into the wolves den that is the real world.
True Story....
I went to a private school in the 6th grade. It was small so we had recess with the entire school that went up to the 8th grade. I was short, skinny, and not particularly athletic.
There was an 8th grader, who for some reason unknown to me, decided that he did not like me, or that I was easy prey. I was constantly pushed, heckled during basketball games, or made fun of in some other manner.
One day while playing a basketball game, this 8th grader who was on the opposing team charged me when i got the ball and pushed me has hard as he could out of the way. Having decided enough was enough; I marched up to him with purpose and promptly game him the hardest punch in the face I could muster...hit him right in the cheak with the palm side of my fist. I was immediately grabbed from behind by his buddy and lined up for a pummeling. Luckily I had a bigger buddy who came to my rescue.
We can debate the right or wrong of it another time, but the moral of the story is this. Yes there were consequences (the whole school lost recess for a week) but that 8th grader never bothered me again. In fact, we became good friends after that. No words were ever spoken about the incident other than a less-than-heartfelt apology right after the fact, we just understood that whatever that unspoken conflict was between us, it was over now. Life goes on...and we both experienced a fundamental shift in our logic.
***************************************************
The teachers certainly put in more time and do more work than I thought they did. Much more than my teachers ever did. As I recall it was a race for them to beat us out of the parking lot at the end of the say so they didn't get caught in the bus traffic.
Maybe that a perception a lot of us have.
***************************************************
I wish I could say that what needs to be fixed will be easy, and unfortunately a lot does depend on funding. Funding the town may or may not have.
But it is certainly clear that the teachers at SHS are working hard, and improvements are being made.
First things first.
Rubric: Generally rubrics specify the level of performance expected for several levels of quality. These levels of quality may be written as different ratings (e.g., Excellent, Good, Needs Improvement) or as numerical scores (e.g., 4, 3, 2, 1) which are then added up to form a total score which then is associated with a grade (e.g., A, B, C, etc).
Rubrics can help students and teachers define "quality". Rubrics can also help students judge and revise their own work before handing in their assignments.
A Rubric should not be confused with a Rubik, which is that colored square we have all wasted countless hours on as children.
I offer the definition because it is used a lot in this report, and I had no real idea what a rubric was until my third-grader started coming home with them this year. So I imagine, they are a new concept to many of you who do not have children in school.
*******************************************
One thing I do have experience with is audits. There are two kinds. The first, I define as the "stealth audit", these occur without notice and are generally aimed at catching a specific deficiency in a specific area of work, or work related procedures. The "Stealth Audit" is not designed to outline long term goals or areas of improvement, but rather to address an immediate problem.
The second type of audit is the one that you know is coming. Both the auditor and the audited have time to prepare information and verify practices. Generally the audit will consist of direct observation of the employees or process being audited, a review of documentation outlining procedures and practices in place, along with areas that need improvement, and always has a broad range of topics that will be covered. This type of audit, to be affective, will vary rarely be full of praise. The reason for this is because if it was, the audited would most likely wipe his/her brow and say; "We did pretty good, there were a few things that need to be addressed, but those aren't so important." More likely than not, those things will never get addressed, at the very least things will likely remain at status quo.
Instead, a good audit will outline and acknowledge the positive, but it will put a greater emphasis on the areas that need improvement. A lighter version of "build you up to tear you down" approach. This ensures that you are motivated to correct your mistakes, and fosters an urge to exceed expectations and continually grow.
To me, that was what the Neasc did (an audit) and the outcome was what you would expect for a system that is performing well, but does need areas of improvement.
***************************************************
Not really knowing the state of affairs at Seekonk High 6 years ago, my overall interpretation of the NEASC report is that Seekonk High is in a state of transition. Great progress has been made, but there is still room to grow. It's sounds like the greatest need (and it has just been re-implemented) is for department heads to be brought back, because it sounds like the biggest hurtle that needs to be overcome is the lack of uniformity within and across departments. Obviously that cannot be achieved without someone at the top of each department affirming a specific method of teaching.
**************************************************
An interesting statistic that was pointed out was the the vast improvement of students MCAS scores. 79% of students scored "advanced or proficient" which was well ahead of the states total average of 69%.
However they were below state and national averages in SAT scoring (and falling) which the NEASC explains as "the overall trend in Massachusetts".
Unscientifically I would say this adds fuel to the fire about he ineffectiveness of the MCAS. At the very least it adds to the discussion.
****************************************************
One thing that annoyed me throughout the report, was the NEASC's frequent mentioning of "Community lack of Funding" or "Community lack of Support". As if they were trying to shift at least some of the blame for the schools deficiency's on the residents.
There is no doubt that there is a money problem for the schools. There is a money problem for the entire town, and services and programs on both sides are lacking in key areas.
This is where we need to start getting creative when it comes to money management.
One thing that sticks out to me like a sore thumb is the technology aspect. Every year when I go into my sons class I see computers in there, and I am pretty sure they are Apple's. I am also pretty sure I have read that the High School has purchased Apples/iMacs as opposed to PC's. I do not see the logic in that. You can get a PC for the fraction of the cost that you can get an apple computer. Not to mention 9 out of 10 times in the real world, these students are going to be working with Windows based PC's...not iMacs.
Not to just pick on the schools, I am sure there are similar changes that can be made on the town side.
We just have to get creative.
************************************************
One paradox, from a philosophical standpoint.
Throughout the report it was emphasized how critical thinking and problem solving was a core criteria of the curriculum.
It occurred to me how much that developmental trait is stunted in our kids, particularly in their early years. The new trend has been that we don't want to make our children feel inadequate at anything. So we tell them not to hit back when they are picked on by a bully. We don't keep score in the baseball games...heck...they don't even strike out anymore. But this curbs their ability to deal with disappointment, to learn that they will not be the best at everything they do, but then again even the best will fail at times. They do not develop the skill of independent conflict resolution, which I think is at the core critical thinking. You have to improvise, and analyze, try and fail, to figure out what works.
Instead we shelter them until we are 18 and send them off into the wolves den that is the real world.
True Story....
I went to a private school in the 6th grade. It was small so we had recess with the entire school that went up to the 8th grade. I was short, skinny, and not particularly athletic.
There was an 8th grader, who for some reason unknown to me, decided that he did not like me, or that I was easy prey. I was constantly pushed, heckled during basketball games, or made fun of in some other manner.
One day while playing a basketball game, this 8th grader who was on the opposing team charged me when i got the ball and pushed me has hard as he could out of the way. Having decided enough was enough; I marched up to him with purpose and promptly game him the hardest punch in the face I could muster...hit him right in the cheak with the palm side of my fist. I was immediately grabbed from behind by his buddy and lined up for a pummeling. Luckily I had a bigger buddy who came to my rescue.
We can debate the right or wrong of it another time, but the moral of the story is this. Yes there were consequences (the whole school lost recess for a week) but that 8th grader never bothered me again. In fact, we became good friends after that. No words were ever spoken about the incident other than a less-than-heartfelt apology right after the fact, we just understood that whatever that unspoken conflict was between us, it was over now. Life goes on...and we both experienced a fundamental shift in our logic.
***************************************************
The teachers certainly put in more time and do more work than I thought they did. Much more than my teachers ever did. As I recall it was a race for them to beat us out of the parking lot at the end of the say so they didn't get caught in the bus traffic.
Maybe that a perception a lot of us have.
***************************************************
I wish I could say that what needs to be fixed will be easy, and unfortunately a lot does depend on funding. Funding the town may or may not have.
But it is certainly clear that the teachers at SHS are working hard, and improvements are being made.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Point to Ponder
Most nights I suffer from insomnia; so most nights I lay in bed, decompress, and analyse random bits of information.
One of those random things (as it has been on my mind a lot lately) was the School Departments fund request of 400 thousand dollars.
The total amount needed to fund the teachers contract for 1 year was somewhere in the 567 thousand dollar mark. Yet the schools did not seek that full amount. I was told that the remaining money would be found in the existing budget.
Now...I am pretty sure, that if I needed it I could find two dollars and fifty cents in my house. But for the School Department to say that it will find the additional 167 thousand in the existing budget raises some flags. That is a lot more that say....ten thousand.
I'm not saying "shenanigans" because the school did return almost 4 times that last year. But...we also cut 700 thousand dollars out of their budget this year.
I'm not accusing...but I am questioning....
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Retraction
I sent the below letter to the Editor of the Seekonk Star today, but in case it does not get printed, here it is for your viewing pleasure.
***************************************************************
To The Editor:
Recently I wrote a letter outlining my disgust at the behavior of some members of the Seekonk School Committee and the School Department. One of the individuals I singled out was Dr. Emile Chevrette, the current Superintendent of Schools. To be exact I accused him of not caring for Seekonk’s best interests, and of being more concerned about “sucking up to the unions”.
Since writing that letter I have had the opportunity to speak with a variety of people; some who share my position along with others who do not. As I absorbed the information and stories that were told, I walked away with two very important lessons which I would like to address.
One of the people I had a chance to sit down and speak with was Dr. Chevrette himself. I was struck by his openness and willingness to not only give his side of the story, but he was more than willing to answer any questions I had and offered to give me any information I was looking for. The first lesson I learned in all of this is that we quickly forget the good, but rarely do we forget the bad.
When Dr. Chevrette first took over as Interim Superintendent he was facing the daunting task restructuring an entire elementary school district. The proposition 2 ½ override had failed, North School was closing and layoffs were imminent. The task was so daunting in fact that the original person slated to take over as Superintendent of Schools left to take another position in another town. Dr. Chevrette successfully overhauled the school system, restored programs that were cut, and has worked tirelessly to ensure that our children are receiving an outstanding education. In short, he has done everything that we hired him to do, and fulfilled the expectations that I as a parent would have for a school system.
I however, chose to attack a man I have never met on his ethics and on his principles. For that I was wrong, and for that I apologize.
While Dr. Chevrette and I may still disagree on how to solve the issues, I do not think that any of us will argue that when it comes to the management of our children’s education, Dr. Chevrette has been exceptional.
The second lesson I learned is quite simple. We need to let go of the past. Many of the people I have spoken to have been a resident of Seekonk for many years, in some cases all of their lives. There is a strong history, and there are strong resentments. I have been in Seekonk for barely 5 years, so I do not share in it’s past, however I, like all of us will share in its future. It’s time to put away whatever resentments we harbor. What’s done is done. It is going to take the whole community working together to weather the rough times that are surely in our future. We need to communicate with our leaders all year long, not just 30 days before Town Meeting. We need to demand that our leaders are proactive and are working together across all departments, and if they refuse, we need to replace them. This will be a long process, and will require a long-term commitment from all of us if we are to see it through.
I may be a Republican, but I will say it anyway….”Yes we can.”
***************************************************************
To The Editor:
Recently I wrote a letter outlining my disgust at the behavior of some members of the Seekonk School Committee and the School Department. One of the individuals I singled out was Dr. Emile Chevrette, the current Superintendent of Schools. To be exact I accused him of not caring for Seekonk’s best interests, and of being more concerned about “sucking up to the unions”.
Since writing that letter I have had the opportunity to speak with a variety of people; some who share my position along with others who do not. As I absorbed the information and stories that were told, I walked away with two very important lessons which I would like to address.
One of the people I had a chance to sit down and speak with was Dr. Chevrette himself. I was struck by his openness and willingness to not only give his side of the story, but he was more than willing to answer any questions I had and offered to give me any information I was looking for. The first lesson I learned in all of this is that we quickly forget the good, but rarely do we forget the bad.
When Dr. Chevrette first took over as Interim Superintendent he was facing the daunting task restructuring an entire elementary school district. The proposition 2 ½ override had failed, North School was closing and layoffs were imminent. The task was so daunting in fact that the original person slated to take over as Superintendent of Schools left to take another position in another town. Dr. Chevrette successfully overhauled the school system, restored programs that were cut, and has worked tirelessly to ensure that our children are receiving an outstanding education. In short, he has done everything that we hired him to do, and fulfilled the expectations that I as a parent would have for a school system.
I however, chose to attack a man I have never met on his ethics and on his principles. For that I was wrong, and for that I apologize.
While Dr. Chevrette and I may still disagree on how to solve the issues, I do not think that any of us will argue that when it comes to the management of our children’s education, Dr. Chevrette has been exceptional.
The second lesson I learned is quite simple. We need to let go of the past. Many of the people I have spoken to have been a resident of Seekonk for many years, in some cases all of their lives. There is a strong history, and there are strong resentments. I have been in Seekonk for barely 5 years, so I do not share in it’s past, however I, like all of us will share in its future. It’s time to put away whatever resentments we harbor. What’s done is done. It is going to take the whole community working together to weather the rough times that are surely in our future. We need to communicate with our leaders all year long, not just 30 days before Town Meeting. We need to demand that our leaders are proactive and are working together across all departments, and if they refuse, we need to replace them. This will be a long process, and will require a long-term commitment from all of us if we are to see it through.
I may be a Republican, but I will say it anyway….”Yes we can.”
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Seekonk Human Services/Community Center Building Project
The Seekonk Human Services/Community Center Building Project Building Committee seeks to be on the BOS agenda for their earliest possible meeting. The Building Committee asks that the Board of Selectmen include the ballot question on the 2009 Seekonk Spring Election voted at the Annual Town Meeting held on November 3, 2008. Warrant Article 14 was passed overwhelmingly in excess of the 2/3 votes necessary by the voters in attendance.
The Building Committee fears some members of the BOS are trying to block the Community Ctr. question from getting on the ballot.
The Committee contends that a public presentation to the voters needs to be scheduled prior to this election so that they may address the concerns of the voters.
The Building Committee fears some members of the BOS are trying to block the Community Ctr. question from getting on the ballot.
The Committee contends that a public presentation to the voters needs to be scheduled prior to this election so that they may address the concerns of the voters.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test
UTICA, New York -- Just 2% of voters who supported Barack Obama on Election Day obtained perfect or near-perfect scores on a post election test which gauged their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.
Zogby Statement on Ziegler poll
Only 54% of Obama voters were able to answer at least half or more of the questions correctly.
The 12-question, multiple-choice survey found questions regarding statements linked to Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his vice-presidential running-mate Sarah Palin were far more likely to be answered correctly by Obama voters than questions about statements associated with Obama and Vice-President–Elect Joe Biden. The telephone survey of 512 Obama voters nationwide was conducted Nov. 13-15, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points. The survey was commissioned by John Ziegler, author of The Death of Free Speech, producer of the recently released film "Blocking the Path to 9/11" and producer of the upcoming documentary film, Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected.
"After I interviewed Obama voters on Election Day for my documentary, I had a pretty low opinion of what most of them had picked up from the media coverage of the campaign, but this poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace," said Ziegler.
Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.
Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden -- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.
In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election -- 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
For content, contact: John Ziegler at talktozig@aol.com.
For more information on Ziegler's upcoming documentary film, Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected, please visit www.HowObamaGotElected.com, where there is a video of Obama voters on election day being asked many of the same questions.
Zogby Statement on Ziegler poll
Only 54% of Obama voters were able to answer at least half or more of the questions correctly.
The 12-question, multiple-choice survey found questions regarding statements linked to Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his vice-presidential running-mate Sarah Palin were far more likely to be answered correctly by Obama voters than questions about statements associated with Obama and Vice-President–Elect Joe Biden. The telephone survey of 512 Obama voters nationwide was conducted Nov. 13-15, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points. The survey was commissioned by John Ziegler, author of The Death of Free Speech, producer of the recently released film "Blocking the Path to 9/11" and producer of the upcoming documentary film, Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected.
"After I interviewed Obama voters on Election Day for my documentary, I had a pretty low opinion of what most of them had picked up from the media coverage of the campaign, but this poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace," said Ziegler.
Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.
Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden -- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.
In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election -- 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
For content, contact: John Ziegler at talktozig@aol.com.
For more information on Ziegler's upcoming documentary film, Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected, please visit www.HowObamaGotElected.com, where there is a video of Obama voters on election day being asked many of the same questions.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Republican Senator Questions Where Bailout Money is Going (Mobile Post)
A while back I mentioned how I thought it was suspicioius that Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail, but AIG was not. I refferenced Secratary Paulson's ties to AIG via Goldman Sachs. Now the Republican Senator is also questioning where the bailout money is going.
By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau - 11/16/2008He criticizes Henry Paulson for changing the $700 billion bailout plan. WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Saturday that Congress was not told the truth about the bailout of the nation's financial system and should take back what is left of the $700 billion "blank check'' it gave the Bush administration. "It is just outrageous that the American people don't know that Congress doesn't know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone,'' the Oklahoma Republican told the Tulsa World. "It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.'' Inhofe's comments, unusually pointed even for a senator known for being blunt, come on the heels of Paulson's shift in how he thinks the bailout funds should be spent. Last week the Treasury secretary announced he was abandoning his plan to free up the nation's credit system by buying up toxic assets from troubled financial institutions. Instead, Paulson wants to take a more direct action on the consumer credit front. "He was able to get this authority from Congress predicated on what he was going to do, and then he didn't do it,'' Inhofe said. "So, that's enough reason right there.'' Inhofe recalled earlier comments opposing Paulson's plan because the administration's point man did not have answers for a number of questions. He also recalled questioning the rush to get the bailout passed. "I have learned a long time ago. When they come up and say this has to be done and has to be done immediately, there is no other way of doing it, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of 10 they are not telling the truth,'' he said. "And this is one of those nine times.'' Inhofe has laid out his legislative plans for this week on the bailout package in a letter to his Senate colleagues. He wants to freeze what is left of the initial $350 billion — reportedly $60 billion, but Inhofe concedes he does not know for sure. Then he wants a provision requiring an affirmative vote by Congress before Paulson can get his hands on the second $350 billion of bailout money. Current law lays out a scenario where President Bush submits a plan on the second half of the funding. Lawmakers have 15 days to disapprove it, but Inhofe questions that wording. "Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary,'' he wrote. "However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.'' In the interview, the senator said his plans can provide "redemption'' for those senators who supported Paulson. Inhofe's plan appears to be a long shot at this point. Senators originally approved the bailout plan by a 74-25 vote. He does not know how much support he has among his Republican colleagues, and he concedes Democratic leaders could block it. Bush also could veto it if it were to make it out of Congress. Neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office nor the Treasury Department commented. Reid, D-Nev., wants to use the upcoming lame duck session to push economic issues such as extending unemployment benefits and aid to the nation's ailing auto industry. Inhofe opposes both. "You don't stimulate the economy by giving away more money,'' he said. In response to concerns expressed by some that allowing even one of the big automakers to fail would be too much of an economic hit for the nation, Inhofe said reality must be accepted. "If we keep on nursing a broken system, then we can't expect to have a different result come later on,'' he said. "I just think we have to draw the line someplace, and the time is here.'' Jim Myers (202) 484-1424 jim.myers@tulsaworld.co
The Schools Bus Bill
It was brought to my attention over the weekend that the School department spent almost 10,000 dollars to but the Athletic teams to out of town games in the month of October. Apprently our Union Bus drivers refuse to work after hours.
Is this true?
Comments are welcome.
Edit 11/17/08 Mkreyssig
Turns out this may actually be for a special needs student.
Article from American Thinker: Obama's Anger
Michael kreyssig (mkreyssig@verizon.net) wanted to share the following article with you:
Obama's Anger - http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_anger.html
American Thinker
Washington Post Mobile - Greg Craig Selected as White House Counsel
washingtonpost.com
mkreyssig@verizon.net sent this to you from http://www.washingtonpost.com
Greg Craig Selected as White House Counsel
The Trail
Updated: 11/16/2008
By Michael D. Shear and Anne E. Kornblut
President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Washington lawyer Gregory B. Craig, who served as President Bill Clinton's lead attorney during the 1998 impeachment proceedings, to be his White House counsel, according to an individual involved with the transition.
Craig has been a longtime adviser to former president Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, but became a close adviser to Obama during the campaign, reportedly serving as the stand-in for Sen. John McCain during debate preparations.
Transition officials declined to comment, and Craig did not return calls left on his machine.
Craig was a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. He has defended high-profile clients, including John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, and Kennedy nephew William Kennedy Smith, who was accused of rape.
But it was his defense of Clinton on the floor of the U.S. Senate during the impeachment trial that vaulted the 63-year-old lawyer to prominence.
As White House counsel, Craig will be responsible for steering the new president through a series of legal thickets that have become controversial during the past eight years, including torture policy and the legal disposition of prisoners at Guantanamo.
(c) 1996-2008 The Washington Post Company
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Obama Already Going Back on His Word
Barack Obama may go down as the first Presidential Candidate in history to start breaking campaign promises before he has even been sworn into office!
For starters he is already bringing in Washington Insiders to his cabinet. Now the Boston Globe is reporting that Obama is bringing lobbyists into his transition team. So much for "No lobbyists will have a place in my administration."
Reader Feedback
Peter Wrote -
"As a teacher, your point is well taken when it comes to consistent participation, and I will do everything possible to encourage school department employees who live in town to attend all Town Meetings. More participation in the process will hopefully promote more honest debate, discussion, and conversation about local issues in the future. However, name-calling, base accusations, and the creation of fake animosity between the elderly and the school department will continue to spiral the dialogue into the gutter, which is what we have now. I believe honest and respectful engagement will curb practices of the past. I think you would be pleasantly surprised on some levels where many within the school department will agree with you on many issues regarding our town. You only need to talk to them and listen. Then at least you can respectfully agree or disagree."
I couldn't agree more. This town (all towns for that matter) are really going to have to start thinking long and hard about the future. Gerald Celente, a trend analyst who correctly predicted the the fall of the Soviet Union, the crash of the dollar and the soaring value of gold, as well as this current real estate crisis; was on Fox News the other night predicting that by 2012 the United States would be in a crisis that will be even worse than the great depression.
Normally I don't bite on the doom and gloomers, but when I researched the guy, and found a lot of other experts that agreed with him, I figured maybe I should listen. Maybe you should too.
We are going to have to get creative, and dare I say (to the delight of the Obamites) make sacrifices. Our current standard of living in this country is in real jeopardy. I've never been more frightened for the future of this country than I am now. I hope I'm wrong, but hope is not going to get us very far. We are going to need to defend ourselves from those who want to take our money, and deprive us of our standard of living.
This is a situation I will be watching very closely. When it evolves...if it evolves...we need to be ready.
That said, I respect the teachers of this town. I really do. My criticism is not so much of the teachers, as it is their leadership. I read a saying once, "When I am weaker than you, I go to you for freedom, because that is in accordance with your principles. When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom, because that is in accordance with my principles." We all become corrput by power, it's human. Some fall victim to it worse than others, but inevitably we all fall. The problem with the school leadership is they have tasted their power for so long now that it has become second nature. They have lost the art of communication, of negotiation and of compromise.
To be sure, my side is human as well. The BOS members have lost their cool. The spirit of vindication is alive and well in our town politics; from board members to citizens. My power is my words, and I use them unapologetically and at times mercilessly.
We are going to have to figure out a way to work together, but in order for that to work, we are all going to have to agree that something has to be done. It's not enough for one group to say, "Okay, we need to fix this." We all need to say it, and then we need to do it.
So I hope that the teachers and others members in the school department will join with the Town in these coming days/weeks/years, and not fight them, but recognize at some point, concessions will have to be made. On all sides.
P.S. As I ran the spell check before posting, Peter had two spelling errors. I had a few more than that, but see...they are mortal...and I feel much better about myself!
-Mike
"As a teacher, your point is well taken when it comes to consistent participation, and I will do everything possible to encourage school department employees who live in town to attend all Town Meetings. More participation in the process will hopefully promote more honest debate, discussion, and conversation about local issues in the future. However, name-calling, base accusations, and the creation of fake animosity between the elderly and the school department will continue to spiral the dialogue into the gutter, which is what we have now. I believe honest and respectful engagement will curb practices of the past. I think you would be pleasantly surprised on some levels where many within the school department will agree with you on many issues regarding our town. You only need to talk to them and listen. Then at least you can respectfully agree or disagree."
I couldn't agree more. This town (all towns for that matter) are really going to have to start thinking long and hard about the future. Gerald Celente, a trend analyst who correctly predicted the the fall of the Soviet Union, the crash of the dollar and the soaring value of gold, as well as this current real estate crisis; was on Fox News the other night predicting that by 2012 the United States would be in a crisis that will be even worse than the great depression.
Normally I don't bite on the doom and gloomers, but when I researched the guy, and found a lot of other experts that agreed with him, I figured maybe I should listen. Maybe you should too.
We are going to have to get creative, and dare I say (to the delight of the Obamites) make sacrifices. Our current standard of living in this country is in real jeopardy. I've never been more frightened for the future of this country than I am now. I hope I'm wrong, but hope is not going to get us very far. We are going to need to defend ourselves from those who want to take our money, and deprive us of our standard of living.
This is a situation I will be watching very closely. When it evolves...if it evolves...we need to be ready.
That said, I respect the teachers of this town. I really do. My criticism is not so much of the teachers, as it is their leadership. I read a saying once, "When I am weaker than you, I go to you for freedom, because that is in accordance with your principles. When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom, because that is in accordance with my principles." We all become corrput by power, it's human. Some fall victim to it worse than others, but inevitably we all fall. The problem with the school leadership is they have tasted their power for so long now that it has become second nature. They have lost the art of communication, of negotiation and of compromise.
To be sure, my side is human as well. The BOS members have lost their cool. The spirit of vindication is alive and well in our town politics; from board members to citizens. My power is my words, and I use them unapologetically and at times mercilessly.
We are going to have to figure out a way to work together, but in order for that to work, we are all going to have to agree that something has to be done. It's not enough for one group to say, "Okay, we need to fix this." We all need to say it, and then we need to do it.
So I hope that the teachers and others members in the school department will join with the Town in these coming days/weeks/years, and not fight them, but recognize at some point, concessions will have to be made. On all sides.
P.S. As I ran the spell check before posting, Peter had two spelling errors. I had a few more than that, but see...they are mortal...and I feel much better about myself!
-Mike
Going Mobile
We have gone mobile!
What does that mean? We can strike anytime...anywhere!
It also means more spelling errors.
The good with the bad I guess...
Monday, November 10, 2008
To the Teachers
To the teachers who were offended by my letter to the Star which stated that none of them would be at another town meeting until it was time to pad their pockets. There will be another town meeting in May.
Prove me wrong!
Prove me wrong!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Why McCain Lost
American Thinker
By Jewish Odysseus
John McCain's incoherent, C- campaign did not deserve to win the Presidency this year. On the other hand, America doesn't deserve the punishment an Obama presidency is about to inflict upon us. Unfortunately, as a great Democrat once said: Life isn't fair.
John McCain, a genuine American war hero with a long, moderate-to-conservative voting record, has just been trounced by the callowest, least-accomplished, most far-left candidate in modern history. It is important to understand how we got here.
The first thing that needs to be said is this: John McCain is really a Reagan Democrat. He joined the Republican Party in Arizona years ago because people like him (patriotic, military background, self-consciously anti-Communist) had no future in the Democratic Party, and he remained a Republican since then, but anyone who watches his demeanor and speeches cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a man much more comfortable with traditional lunch-bucket arguments and policies than the generally more abstract, data-based analyses favored by Republicans.
Conservatives must understand McCain's candidacy in its full context: McCain's nomination represented the joint successes of two independent and mutually hostile projects -- the Media/Political Left's project, and McCain's own.
McCain represented a shrewd strategic choice by the leftist "hive"-he nearly won the nomination in 2000, when he had half as many GOP votes in the GOP primaries as Bush did. That near-death experience should have been a wakeup call to our slumbering "state party activists" to vaccinate their parties against any future Democrat pollution/manipulation. But, unfathomably, they stayed in their comas, and, sure enough, in 2008 the GOP primary candidate who got the 2d most GOP votes became the GOP candidate. He repeatedly positioned himself as "the anti-Republican Republican." And now we wonder why he had trouble making Republican arguments while running as a Republican?
McCain's own project planned to draw massive numbers of "moderate" Democrats and independents over to the Republican side. He had been calculating and executing this strategy since at least as far back as the early 1990s (when he and John Kerry were allies in normalizing relations with Vietnam). McCain's uber-rationale was this: America wanted a moderate leader who would seek out support from the other side, a task which in theory should have been made much easier if the Democrats nominated a far-left candidate. Sure enough, the Democrats did. Unfortunately, the far-left candidate had two unusual, (but by March 2008 easily foreseeable) advantages: he had no recognizable voting record in higher office to hang around his neck to define him; and he had a gigantic money advantage (well over 2-1) with which to savage McCain and glorify himself. This was a completely unprecedented situation, since by definition newcomers are generally unable to drum up the funds to compete with entrenched powerful pols. Obama in fact outspent McCain by a ratio heretofore reserved for shoo-in incumbent Presidents over mismatched challengers.
With these advantages, Obama was able to attack McCain's strategy directly, by in fact making McCain out to be the "risky," even "ideological" choice versus the reasonable, moderate, bi-partisan Obama. Result: McCain was unable to get independents or centrist Democrats not named Lieberman to support him (or at least get them known!) And, quite foreseeably, the media hive has been bursting with stories about "lifelong Republicans who are planning to vote for Obama."
Speaking of the hive, it needs to be said the 2008 election actually saw the culmination of two of their long-term projects, with McCain's nomination being the first. To a lot of media/political types, the Clintons represented a heart-breaking concession to evil capitalism. The Clintons gladly partnered with big business, and almost never manifested the type of red-meat soak-the-rich attitude that had energized the Democrat left for decades. Not only did the Clintons win twice, but they explicitly, smugly, repeatedly lectured the Left that that was the only way Democrats could possibly win. The Left hates, hates, HATES being told that undiluted Leftism is a political loser. Therefore, their second project was to ensure the nomination of a genuine leftist for the Democrats.
History will show that Hillary Clinton was an eminently suitable candidate for the Left, but through a combination of shrewd analysis and execution by Obama's campaign and frankly astounding incompetence, over-confidence and lack of discipline by her own, all topped off by some mischievous and fickle big-money Hollywood backstabbing, the Hillary candidacy finished as nothing more than high-priced roadkill: the most inevitable nomination in modern times was aborted, and the far-left was energized in a way not seen since LBJ withdrew in 1968.
With both the media/political hive projects of 2008 successfully completed, the media/left effectively held a "checkmate" position since March -- no matter what happened, they would get their way in November. Of course, they would do everything to make sure their true choice was elected, but even a docile McCain "who knew his place" and would sign off on Democrat legislation would be acceptable to them. This understanding was what had conservatives so dispirited until August 29.
Enter Sarah Palin. The Palin choice represented an unthinkable occurrence to the hive: McCain had forgotten who his benefactors were, and was instead listening to Republicans. The energizing of the right and the demonizing by the now-wounded hive were almost physically equal-and-opposite effects. The Palin choice restored a strategic parity to the campaign, wherein McCain had a strong, viable shot at repeating Bush's previous electoral wins, and appeared to even open up a few Dem-leaning states such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
But McCain the Reagan Democrat zoned out and failed a critical test a few weeks later. What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy "fundamentally strong"? What was he thinking when he announced on September 24 he was suspending his campaign, including the upcoming September 26 debate appearance, after the financial crisis broke? Did he think the majority democrats would cave in and make him a conquering hero? Did he think it was a one-day crisis that would blow over, and make him look as if he had worked some magic on it? Indeed, as the Obama ads relentlessly drilled, he appeared confused, erratic, and out of touch -- his big moment of crisis in the middle of the campaign, and he blew it. He choked. And everyone forgot about Obama's horrendous response to Russia's Georgia invasion just a month earlier.
At that point, McCain had a month to restore his campaign, but being avalanched by paid Obama ads and the unpaid hive ads (remember the 2004 comment by Newsweek's Evan Thomas that the liberal media support is "worth maybe 15 points" in the polls), he would need to do it the unfamiliar way -- he'd need to argue for it, using information and persuasion, and punchy confrontations in the remaining debates. So how did he use those weeks?
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, McCain never mentioned Obama's "bitter clingers" comment
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Jeremiah Wright's incendiary sermons.
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's breaking his word to use public campaign financing (a McCain signature issue on which he had relentlessly beat up fellow Republicans!)
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's plan to "bankrupt" the US coal industry. (and where was McCain's research staff on that San Francisco interview, which had been posted on the internet for 9 months before they noticed it?! Simply inexcusable.)
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's "price of arugula" comment, a nice populist dig waiting to be made.
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never cited the Clinton campaign's many tough arguments against Obama -- he could have just quoted Hillary!
That was McCain's (and our) downfall: You can't bring moderation to an ideology fight. An honorable, sincere moderate who is behind really hasn't a chance against a cynical ideologue who is ahead. Obama simply dissembled at the debates, while McCain's tongue-tied references to Ayers, ACORN, Khalidi, "most liberal senator," etc., sounded unfairly abrupt, even desperate. Maybe they were? To the bitter end, McCain refrained from "bringing Jeremiah Wright into the campaign," even though Hillary had...Why not?
It wouldn't have looked moderate enough.
So here we are, on the verge of the greatest accomplishment by the American Left since...Well, maybe ever. To them, the Clintons represented the Menshevik phase, while Obama represents the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. So, to quote the original Bolshevik himself, what is to be done?
First, the Republican Party needs to relentlessly reform its state electoral rules to ensure that those voters choosing the Republican candidate are genuine Republicans who have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart. This self-evident corrective of course should have been completed by early 2001. It wasn't, so here we are, with a self-admittedly weak-on-economics candidate trying to talk his way through a financial meltdown. It has been pathetic. Second, we as voters and activists need to re-examine the emphasis we place -- or don't place -- on communication skills. Conservatives need to rediscover the importance of communication and argument in our representatives. It is important to note that the only Republican in recent history who received any compliment from the media hive was Ronald Reagan, who they labeled "The Great Communicator." This was of course an apparent put-down, since they were writing off Reagan's successes as the result only of his hypnotic, inscrutable speeches. But that non-compliment-compliment was the hive's acknowledgment that Reagan had been effective against them.
Going back to Bush 41 in 1988, the Republican's have nominated a string of candidates who have been at best "poor" in communications. As the 1960's Left demographic takes its seats in the highest offices of the media, academia, entertainment, arts, "public policy" think tanks, polling organizations, even business and finance, we have to assume that every one of our initiatives will be maligned, marginalized and targeted for oblivion, while the most crackpot schemes of the Left will be given respectful and favorable commentary. In this environment, we simply cannot afford any more tongue-tied leaders who are unable to argue their way out of a paper bag.
The author blogs at jewishodysseus.blogspot.com.
By Jewish Odysseus
John McCain's incoherent, C- campaign did not deserve to win the Presidency this year. On the other hand, America doesn't deserve the punishment an Obama presidency is about to inflict upon us. Unfortunately, as a great Democrat once said: Life isn't fair.
John McCain, a genuine American war hero with a long, moderate-to-conservative voting record, has just been trounced by the callowest, least-accomplished, most far-left candidate in modern history. It is important to understand how we got here.
The first thing that needs to be said is this: John McCain is really a Reagan Democrat. He joined the Republican Party in Arizona years ago because people like him (patriotic, military background, self-consciously anti-Communist) had no future in the Democratic Party, and he remained a Republican since then, but anyone who watches his demeanor and speeches cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a man much more comfortable with traditional lunch-bucket arguments and policies than the generally more abstract, data-based analyses favored by Republicans.
Conservatives must understand McCain's candidacy in its full context: McCain's nomination represented the joint successes of two independent and mutually hostile projects -- the Media/Political Left's project, and McCain's own.
McCain represented a shrewd strategic choice by the leftist "hive"-he nearly won the nomination in 2000, when he had half as many GOP votes in the GOP primaries as Bush did. That near-death experience should have been a wakeup call to our slumbering "state party activists" to vaccinate their parties against any future Democrat pollution/manipulation. But, unfathomably, they stayed in their comas, and, sure enough, in 2008 the GOP primary candidate who got the 2d most GOP votes became the GOP candidate. He repeatedly positioned himself as "the anti-Republican Republican." And now we wonder why he had trouble making Republican arguments while running as a Republican?
McCain's own project planned to draw massive numbers of "moderate" Democrats and independents over to the Republican side. He had been calculating and executing this strategy since at least as far back as the early 1990s (when he and John Kerry were allies in normalizing relations with Vietnam). McCain's uber-rationale was this: America wanted a moderate leader who would seek out support from the other side, a task which in theory should have been made much easier if the Democrats nominated a far-left candidate. Sure enough, the Democrats did. Unfortunately, the far-left candidate had two unusual, (but by March 2008 easily foreseeable) advantages: he had no recognizable voting record in higher office to hang around his neck to define him; and he had a gigantic money advantage (well over 2-1) with which to savage McCain and glorify himself. This was a completely unprecedented situation, since by definition newcomers are generally unable to drum up the funds to compete with entrenched powerful pols. Obama in fact outspent McCain by a ratio heretofore reserved for shoo-in incumbent Presidents over mismatched challengers.
With these advantages, Obama was able to attack McCain's strategy directly, by in fact making McCain out to be the "risky," even "ideological" choice versus the reasonable, moderate, bi-partisan Obama. Result: McCain was unable to get independents or centrist Democrats not named Lieberman to support him (or at least get them known!) And, quite foreseeably, the media hive has been bursting with stories about "lifelong Republicans who are planning to vote for Obama."
Speaking of the hive, it needs to be said the 2008 election actually saw the culmination of two of their long-term projects, with McCain's nomination being the first. To a lot of media/political types, the Clintons represented a heart-breaking concession to evil capitalism. The Clintons gladly partnered with big business, and almost never manifested the type of red-meat soak-the-rich attitude that had energized the Democrat left for decades. Not only did the Clintons win twice, but they explicitly, smugly, repeatedly lectured the Left that that was the only way Democrats could possibly win. The Left hates, hates, HATES being told that undiluted Leftism is a political loser. Therefore, their second project was to ensure the nomination of a genuine leftist for the Democrats.
History will show that Hillary Clinton was an eminently suitable candidate for the Left, but through a combination of shrewd analysis and execution by Obama's campaign and frankly astounding incompetence, over-confidence and lack of discipline by her own, all topped off by some mischievous and fickle big-money Hollywood backstabbing, the Hillary candidacy finished as nothing more than high-priced roadkill: the most inevitable nomination in modern times was aborted, and the far-left was energized in a way not seen since LBJ withdrew in 1968.
With both the media/political hive projects of 2008 successfully completed, the media/left effectively held a "checkmate" position since March -- no matter what happened, they would get their way in November. Of course, they would do everything to make sure their true choice was elected, but even a docile McCain "who knew his place" and would sign off on Democrat legislation would be acceptable to them. This understanding was what had conservatives so dispirited until August 29.
Enter Sarah Palin. The Palin choice represented an unthinkable occurrence to the hive: McCain had forgotten who his benefactors were, and was instead listening to Republicans. The energizing of the right and the demonizing by the now-wounded hive were almost physically equal-and-opposite effects. The Palin choice restored a strategic parity to the campaign, wherein McCain had a strong, viable shot at repeating Bush's previous electoral wins, and appeared to even open up a few Dem-leaning states such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
But McCain the Reagan Democrat zoned out and failed a critical test a few weeks later. What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy "fundamentally strong"? What was he thinking when he announced on September 24 he was suspending his campaign, including the upcoming September 26 debate appearance, after the financial crisis broke? Did he think the majority democrats would cave in and make him a conquering hero? Did he think it was a one-day crisis that would blow over, and make him look as if he had worked some magic on it? Indeed, as the Obama ads relentlessly drilled, he appeared confused, erratic, and out of touch -- his big moment of crisis in the middle of the campaign, and he blew it. He choked. And everyone forgot about Obama's horrendous response to Russia's Georgia invasion just a month earlier.
At that point, McCain had a month to restore his campaign, but being avalanched by paid Obama ads and the unpaid hive ads (remember the 2004 comment by Newsweek's Evan Thomas that the liberal media support is "worth maybe 15 points" in the polls), he would need to do it the unfamiliar way -- he'd need to argue for it, using information and persuasion, and punchy confrontations in the remaining debates. So how did he use those weeks?
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, McCain never mentioned Obama's "bitter clingers" comment
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Jeremiah Wright's incendiary sermons.
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's breaking his word to use public campaign financing (a McCain signature issue on which he had relentlessly beat up fellow Republicans!)
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's plan to "bankrupt" the US coal industry. (and where was McCain's research staff on that San Francisco interview, which had been posted on the internet for 9 months before they noticed it?! Simply inexcusable.)
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's "price of arugula" comment, a nice populist dig waiting to be made.
- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never cited the Clinton campaign's many tough arguments against Obama -- he could have just quoted Hillary!
That was McCain's (and our) downfall: You can't bring moderation to an ideology fight. An honorable, sincere moderate who is behind really hasn't a chance against a cynical ideologue who is ahead. Obama simply dissembled at the debates, while McCain's tongue-tied references to Ayers, ACORN, Khalidi, "most liberal senator," etc., sounded unfairly abrupt, even desperate. Maybe they were? To the bitter end, McCain refrained from "bringing Jeremiah Wright into the campaign," even though Hillary had...Why not?
It wouldn't have looked moderate enough.
So here we are, on the verge of the greatest accomplishment by the American Left since...Well, maybe ever. To them, the Clintons represented the Menshevik phase, while Obama represents the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. So, to quote the original Bolshevik himself, what is to be done?
First, the Republican Party needs to relentlessly reform its state electoral rules to ensure that those voters choosing the Republican candidate are genuine Republicans who have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart. This self-evident corrective of course should have been completed by early 2001. It wasn't, so here we are, with a self-admittedly weak-on-economics candidate trying to talk his way through a financial meltdown. It has been pathetic. Second, we as voters and activists need to re-examine the emphasis we place -- or don't place -- on communication skills. Conservatives need to rediscover the importance of communication and argument in our representatives. It is important to note that the only Republican in recent history who received any compliment from the media hive was Ronald Reagan, who they labeled "The Great Communicator." This was of course an apparent put-down, since they were writing off Reagan's successes as the result only of his hypnotic, inscrutable speeches. But that non-compliment-compliment was the hive's acknowledgment that Reagan had been effective against them.
Going back to Bush 41 in 1988, the Republican's have nominated a string of candidates who have been at best "poor" in communications. As the 1960's Left demographic takes its seats in the highest offices of the media, academia, entertainment, arts, "public policy" think tanks, polling organizations, even business and finance, we have to assume that every one of our initiatives will be maligned, marginalized and targeted for oblivion, while the most crackpot schemes of the Left will be given respectful and favorable commentary. In this environment, we simply cannot afford any more tongue-tied leaders who are unable to argue their way out of a paper bag.
The author blogs at jewishodysseus.blogspot.com.
And So it Goes...
Well he we are at the dawn of a new chapter in American History. The question is; where will it take us? What does this election mean?
I would first like to recognize the brilliance of the Obama Campaign, as well as the milestone that has been reached in this stage of American History. Our first black President...perhaps the divide now will finally heal.
Where are we going? How will Obama govern? These are the questions we need to now ask ourselves.
Many of the Pundits on TV last night began discussing (once it became clear McCain had lost) whether this meant that the country had moved from Center Right, to Center Left. I think we are still a Center Right Country, but 58 million people decided that they wanted something different. Really, this election signifies the end of the old guard in Washington. The McCain's, Bidens, Franks, Reids, they are all on their way out the door. The dawn is setting on this period of American Politics, and to quote Kennedy, "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans".
This is in fact a new age for America, and the next generation of leaders is beginning to emerge across this great country. If will be a battle of news ideas versus deep-rooted tradition. Our morals will be challenged, even changed.
The America of the future faces tests not only of it's ever evolving world view, but a test of the values we have held dear for generations. The value of our grandparents. The incoming generation, to quote Palahniuk are "The middle children of history, no great wars, no great depressions. Our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives." We live detached from the world around us even though we are connected like never before. We breath fiction into reality, because in our worlds they can be one and the same. We don't know real pain, merely inconvenience and disappointment. The great nation that our parents and grandparents built has sheltered us from the pain that exists outside our borders. Our only exposure being from the 24/7 news shows that change faster than we can blink; YouTube videos that we can turn off if they show something that we do not like, and go back to our world, our fantasies, where the pain cannot touch us.
In the 1930's and 1940's when this country was facing world wars and poverty this nation fought together, bleed together, held each others starving children in their arms together. They hoped together, they prayed together, and ultimately they found faith together. They got through the tough times and came out stronger, more unified. Changed.
My generation for the most part has lacked for nothing. We have either been provided for by our parents, or by the government. We have been taught either directly or indirectly that we are entitled to everything life has to offer whether we have worked for it our not.
That is the new battle in America. Will we allow ourselves to become complacent and reliant on the state, or will we bring in a new dawn in America that shows the world what can be achieved through hard work, determination, creativity, and unification?
If Obama does one thing as President I hope it is this; that he does work to unify the country. I hope he leads the fight in setting aside our differences so that we can work together to bring meaningful change to this country instead of pushing an ideology of the few, so that we can pull ourselves out of the rut of state reliance, entitlements, and again lead the world with our wealth, or innovation, and our might.
Time will tell. Obama is only the first step in what my generation has to offer this country. Will we rise to the challenge and shape a new future, or will we fall back on the past?
I would first like to recognize the brilliance of the Obama Campaign, as well as the milestone that has been reached in this stage of American History. Our first black President...perhaps the divide now will finally heal.
Where are we going? How will Obama govern? These are the questions we need to now ask ourselves.
Many of the Pundits on TV last night began discussing (once it became clear McCain had lost) whether this meant that the country had moved from Center Right, to Center Left. I think we are still a Center Right Country, but 58 million people decided that they wanted something different. Really, this election signifies the end of the old guard in Washington. The McCain's, Bidens, Franks, Reids, they are all on their way out the door. The dawn is setting on this period of American Politics, and to quote Kennedy, "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans".
This is in fact a new age for America, and the next generation of leaders is beginning to emerge across this great country. If will be a battle of news ideas versus deep-rooted tradition. Our morals will be challenged, even changed.
The America of the future faces tests not only of it's ever evolving world view, but a test of the values we have held dear for generations. The value of our grandparents. The incoming generation, to quote Palahniuk are "The middle children of history, no great wars, no great depressions. Our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives." We live detached from the world around us even though we are connected like never before. We breath fiction into reality, because in our worlds they can be one and the same. We don't know real pain, merely inconvenience and disappointment. The great nation that our parents and grandparents built has sheltered us from the pain that exists outside our borders. Our only exposure being from the 24/7 news shows that change faster than we can blink; YouTube videos that we can turn off if they show something that we do not like, and go back to our world, our fantasies, where the pain cannot touch us.
In the 1930's and 1940's when this country was facing world wars and poverty this nation fought together, bleed together, held each others starving children in their arms together. They hoped together, they prayed together, and ultimately they found faith together. They got through the tough times and came out stronger, more unified. Changed.
My generation for the most part has lacked for nothing. We have either been provided for by our parents, or by the government. We have been taught either directly or indirectly that we are entitled to everything life has to offer whether we have worked for it our not.
That is the new battle in America. Will we allow ourselves to become complacent and reliant on the state, or will we bring in a new dawn in America that shows the world what can be achieved through hard work, determination, creativity, and unification?
If Obama does one thing as President I hope it is this; that he does work to unify the country. I hope he leads the fight in setting aside our differences so that we can work together to bring meaningful change to this country instead of pushing an ideology of the few, so that we can pull ourselves out of the rut of state reliance, entitlements, and again lead the world with our wealth, or innovation, and our might.
Time will tell. Obama is only the first step in what my generation has to offer this country. Will we rise to the challenge and shape a new future, or will we fall back on the past?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Coupe D' Etat
Coupe D' Etat: The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.
If you were at the Town Meeting on Monday November 3, 2008 that is what you witnessed. Town Meeting, the governing body of the Town and Voice of the People was infiltrated and suppressed by an (union) organized group employed by the Seekonk School Department.
I said it in the meeting, and I will say it again here. Half of the people in attendance last night will not step foot in another town meeting until it becomes time to pad their pockets yet again. It is a disgrace, and a gross manipulation of the democratic process.
Never have I seen Town Meeting go against both the recommendations of the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee. Especially when they are both in agreement with each other. Instead Robert McLintock stood up before every question was put to vote and in effect directed the back half of the room on how to place their votes. That is not democracy. That is an organized group of people hijacking democracy.
Robert McLintock in every town meeting I have ever attended has preached fiscal conservation. Last night he did an about face, and showed himself to be a complete hypocrite, and that he is nothing more than a whipping boy for the unions. He should resign in shame as soon as he possibly can.
With all respect to Michael Carol, our town administrator, because I think he is doing a great job, this is what happens when you have a Department Head in the town who is not a resident. Dr. Emile Chevrette could care less about the financial stability of the town. He doesn't live in it! All he cares about is sucking up to the unions and solidifying his power-base in the town while he is collecting a 130 thousand dollars a year to do it.
If you think it is over after this, think again. If state aid really does crumble next year, the residents of Seekonk could very well be faced with a Prop 2 1/2 override question being presented to them. Think of what the School Department, backed by the teachers union, will do to get that vote passed, or if it does not pass, think of what will happen to our schools when teachers get laid off in order to balance the budget.
I have two children. I understand the importance of a good education. But we need to set our limits. We need to understand the REALITY that money is not going to come flowing into the town. The teachers need to remember that their paychecks, benefits, retirement pensions, are all funded by tax payer money. My money, your money, your grandparents money. They do not work in the private sector, they work in the public sector, and therefore are not entitled to the pay increases and benefit levels of a private sector worker. I should also point out that in this economy, even private sector employees are lucky to see raises from their employers and often pay a higher portion of their benefits than these teachers do.
These teachers may get their raises this year, but once that budget is passed, they should start looking around and crossing their fingers hoping that it will not be them that gets a pink-slip handed to them next year. Maybe if they had not forced their selfishness on the town it would be in a better position to help them, or least be more willing to help them. For me...when the time comes... I will remind them that they are getting exactly what they deserve.
So I urge every voting member of Seekonk to attend the Special Town Meeting on Saturday November 8th. Let YOUR voice be heard. If you don't agree with me that is fine, but at least the voters of Seekonk would get the chance to let their own voices be heard, and not the voice of a powerful few.
If you were at the Town Meeting on Monday November 3, 2008 that is what you witnessed. Town Meeting, the governing body of the Town and Voice of the People was infiltrated and suppressed by an (union) organized group employed by the Seekonk School Department.
I said it in the meeting, and I will say it again here. Half of the people in attendance last night will not step foot in another town meeting until it becomes time to pad their pockets yet again. It is a disgrace, and a gross manipulation of the democratic process.
Never have I seen Town Meeting go against both the recommendations of the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee. Especially when they are both in agreement with each other. Instead Robert McLintock stood up before every question was put to vote and in effect directed the back half of the room on how to place their votes. That is not democracy. That is an organized group of people hijacking democracy.
Robert McLintock in every town meeting I have ever attended has preached fiscal conservation. Last night he did an about face, and showed himself to be a complete hypocrite, and that he is nothing more than a whipping boy for the unions. He should resign in shame as soon as he possibly can.
With all respect to Michael Carol, our town administrator, because I think he is doing a great job, this is what happens when you have a Department Head in the town who is not a resident. Dr. Emile Chevrette could care less about the financial stability of the town. He doesn't live in it! All he cares about is sucking up to the unions and solidifying his power-base in the town while he is collecting a 130 thousand dollars a year to do it.
If you think it is over after this, think again. If state aid really does crumble next year, the residents of Seekonk could very well be faced with a Prop 2 1/2 override question being presented to them. Think of what the School Department, backed by the teachers union, will do to get that vote passed, or if it does not pass, think of what will happen to our schools when teachers get laid off in order to balance the budget.
I have two children. I understand the importance of a good education. But we need to set our limits. We need to understand the REALITY that money is not going to come flowing into the town. The teachers need to remember that their paychecks, benefits, retirement pensions, are all funded by tax payer money. My money, your money, your grandparents money. They do not work in the private sector, they work in the public sector, and therefore are not entitled to the pay increases and benefit levels of a private sector worker. I should also point out that in this economy, even private sector employees are lucky to see raises from their employers and often pay a higher portion of their benefits than these teachers do.
These teachers may get their raises this year, but once that budget is passed, they should start looking around and crossing their fingers hoping that it will not be them that gets a pink-slip handed to them next year. Maybe if they had not forced their selfishness on the town it would be in a better position to help them, or least be more willing to help them. For me...when the time comes... I will remind them that they are getting exactly what they deserve.
So I urge every voting member of Seekonk to attend the Special Town Meeting on Saturday November 8th. Let YOUR voice be heard. If you don't agree with me that is fine, but at least the voters of Seekonk would get the chance to let their own voices be heard, and not the voice of a powerful few.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Coal Comment
Obama's comment about coal is very interesting and believe it or not could turn out to be devastating.
Why?
Pennsylvania. One of, if not the biggest, producers of coal in the world. And...it is a battle ground state. If McCain takes Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida it could very well cost Obama the election. McCain over the weekend has closed the gap and even passed Obama in quite a few of the battle ground states.
Real Clear Politics right now puts Obama with 278 EV's to McCains 132 EV's (Electoral Votes). With 128 EV's up for grabs. Seems dismal if you are a McCain Voter until you realize that Obama was up as high as 356 EV's earlier in the week, and Friday he had 311 in his corner.
One of the biggest things that any political strategist is going to look at in polling is "trending". If a candidate is trending up in the polls the campaign is happy, if they are trending down, that is bad, especially when it is consistent over a period of time. In politics a week is like 7 dog years.
In order for McCain to win he needs to take Fl,GA,OH,PA, and either NC or VA. He has closed the gap in NC and both Candidates are Polling at 47.8% each with 4.4% either undecided or voting for a third party. So that is a state to watch.
PA Polling is less promising with Obama enjoying a 51.3/43.7 lead. Which is why this coal remark could be so devastating. The Philly area is pretty much the only part of the state that is an Obama Strong-hold. But if Western PA comes out in droves, and Philly doesn't that could turn the tied in McCains favor, and make for a very long election night.
Also watch NH. It's only 4 electoral votes, but Obama is holding a fairly comfortable 10 point lead there. If NH ends up going to McCain, that could be very indicative of where some of the other battle grounds states, and former "Red States" might end up going. NH should be in first. So we may have a good idea if the "Bradly Effect" is in play after all.
Why?
Pennsylvania. One of, if not the biggest, producers of coal in the world. And...it is a battle ground state. If McCain takes Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida it could very well cost Obama the election. McCain over the weekend has closed the gap and even passed Obama in quite a few of the battle ground states.
Real Clear Politics right now puts Obama with 278 EV's to McCains 132 EV's (Electoral Votes). With 128 EV's up for grabs. Seems dismal if you are a McCain Voter until you realize that Obama was up as high as 356 EV's earlier in the week, and Friday he had 311 in his corner.
One of the biggest things that any political strategist is going to look at in polling is "trending". If a candidate is trending up in the polls the campaign is happy, if they are trending down, that is bad, especially when it is consistent over a period of time. In politics a week is like 7 dog years.
In order for McCain to win he needs to take Fl,GA,OH,PA, and either NC or VA. He has closed the gap in NC and both Candidates are Polling at 47.8% each with 4.4% either undecided or voting for a third party. So that is a state to watch.
PA Polling is less promising with Obama enjoying a 51.3/43.7 lead. Which is why this coal remark could be so devastating. The Philly area is pretty much the only part of the state that is an Obama Strong-hold. But if Western PA comes out in droves, and Philly doesn't that could turn the tied in McCains favor, and make for a very long election night.
Also watch NH. It's only 4 electoral votes, but Obama is holding a fairly comfortable 10 point lead there. If NH ends up going to McCain, that could be very indicative of where some of the other battle grounds states, and former "Red States" might end up going. NH should be in first. So we may have a good idea if the "Bradly Effect" is in play after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
