Just in case you're not making the connection, click on this link and see who's listed as the executive director of the school.
Thoughts on politics, faith, sports and other random topics from a red state sympathizer in indigo-blue Portland, Oregon.
In the meantime, the legislature is passing less important budgets (i.e. spending money) while the education self-interests are pleading for delay. Their hope is that by running out the clock they can break legislators who don't agree with the numbers they have already proposed for the budget.So it is, as Atkinson correctly points out, a game. The two parties use the extended time without a K-12 budget to bludgeon those with whom they disagree, perhaps in person (though the public isn't privy to those discussions) and certainly in the press. Democrats are spending money like drunken sailors and plan to raise every tax known to man, and a few that haven't yet been invented. Republicans want to put 87 kids in each classroom and cut everything that doesn't use the Bible as its sole curriculum.
We already know liberty is God's gift to man; make statements that are less emotive and more fact-filled, more strategically coherent . . . Find Osama -- it is a scandal that the man who started the new era is still free, still taunting the West, still inspiring those who see the world as he does. It was a mistake to think finding him was not as important as a wider war on terror. Finding him is key. It is almost five years since he did what he did. Get him, try him, kill him.Issue 2: the economy.
This is President Bush's triumph. And yet in polls Americans don't credit him with it. (My hunch: Americans, a deeply savvy lot, never want to tell a politician he's doing well on the economy because their applause may lead him to feel he can shift focus to, say, colonizing Mars. Americans always name prosperity in retrospect. In real time they like to keep the pressure on.) . . . The president should talk about the economy -- not in a braying, bragging way but in an instructive, engaged way that discusses the philosophy and actions that allowed the market to do what it wants to do, grow . . . Did the tax cuts, at the end of the day, help the economy? Why? How? Will a change in the tax structure, or will making permanent the tax cuts, help? What impact does high federal government spending have on the economy? Where should we go on that, and why? Talk about the flow of money in America.Issue 3: the integrity of America's borders.
This is both an economic issue and a national security issue; it naturally connects to issues 1 and 2. On this, Washington is talking a lot and doing nothing . . . Close down illegal immigration, now. Then talk. (A hunch for liberals: Your views will be received with greater generosity once the air of daily crisis is removed.)Read the whole thing.
. . . the thing that best described the evening to me was what my husband said on the way home. When I asked him what he thought of Jason and his positions on the issues brought up. He said, "I didn't get that slimy feeling." When I asked him if it was compared to Kevin Mannix and Ron Saxton, he said, "No. I generally get that feeling from *all* politicians ... they're slick and polished and I don't trust 'em. I didn't get that feeling with Jason Atkinson."Check it out.
(Former Chattanooga Mayor Bob) Corker's use of the Jackson-Alvarez Group of McLean, Va., headed by Gary Maloney, is the subject of news stories and other material recently mailed anonymously to the news media. Maloney has a reputation as a Republican opposition researcher, who did work for Corker when he ran against fellow Republican Bill Frist for the Senate in 1994, according to news accounts at the time. Frist won the election.USA Today, in a 1999 story, described Jackson-Alvarez as "a firm in McLean, Va., that does research on opposition candidates."
Ben Mitchell, Corker's campaign manager, said Corker is using Maloney to "make sure that we fully understand the public record so all communications are factual and true." He said all candidates have such research done.
"Campaigns are about candidates, not about staff. The campaign should be about Bob Corker, what he has done and what he plans to do and what other candidates are running on," Mitchell said.
As for the material mailed anonymously, Corker's campaign has made no attempt to determine who is responsible for it, he said.
The return label of one envelope mailed to the News Sentinel has an address of the Lebanon Democrat in Middle Tennessee. Clint Brewer, the newspaper's managing editor, said his newspaper did not mail the material.
"The one we received had a return address from another newspaper in Memphis," he said.
"I don't think you can find any issue where I have changed the answer I would have given you four years ago," Saxton says, denying he's altered his political stripes.From someone who helped Saxton in his school board race, on the difference between 2002 and today:
"It's a breathtaking right turn," says Mark Wiener, a mostly Democratic strategist who worked on Saxton's school board race. People who admired his moderate views "simply don't recognize the Ron Saxton they see today."Hmmm...
The president has taken, those around him say, great comfort in biographies of previous presidents. All presidents do this. They all take comfort in the fact that former presidents now seen as great were, in their time, derided, misunderstood, underestimated. No one took the measure of their greatness until later. This is all very moving, but: Message to all biography-reading presidents, past present and future: Just because they call you a jackass doesn't mean you're Lincoln.
As a judicial candidate who is now (and must remain) officially neutral in all nonjudicial races, I just want to say that I loved Jason's video. I think his positive, can-do message is exactly what people are dying to hear.To see the video, click here.
Does my feeling for immigrants, and my afternoon at the march, leave me supporting open borders, or illegal immigration? No. Why should it? To love immigrants is not to believe America has no right to decide who can come to America and become a citizen. America has always decided who comes here. That's why it all worked.As always, Peggy Noonan is a great read. Check it out.
While the marchers seemed to be good people, and were very likable, the march itself, I think, violated the old immigrant politesse--the general understanding that you're not supposed to get here and immediately start making demands. It would never have occurred to my grandparents to demand respect. They thought they had to earn it. It would never have occurred to them to air mass grievances, assert rights, issue a list of legislative demands. Especially if they were here unlawfully.
I happen to think America in general has deep affection for immigrants, knows they are part of the dynamic, a part of our growth and our endless coming-into-being. But when your heart is soft, and America's is, your head must be hard.
We are a sovereign nation operating under the rule of law. That, in fact, is why many immigrants come here. They come from places where the law, such as it is, is corrupt, malleable, limiting. Does it make sense to subvert our own laws to facilitate the entrance of those in pursuit of government by law? Whatever our sentiments and sympathies as individuals, America has the right, and the responsibility, to protect the integrity of its borders, to make the laws by which immigrants are granted entrance, and to enforce those laws.
I think open-borders proponents are, simply, wrong. I think those who call good people like members of the voluntary border patrols "yahoos" are snobs. I think those whose primary concern is preserving the Hispanic vote for the Democratic Party, or not losing the Hispanic vote for the Republican Party, are being cynical, selfish, and stupid, too. It's not all about who gets what vote, it's about continuing a system of laws that has allowed America to become, among many other things, a place immigrants want to come to. And it's about admitting immigrants in a coherent, orderly, legal manner, with an eye first to what America needs. That's how you continue a good thing, which is what we've had. That's how you leave Americans who've been here for a while grateful for immigration, and immigrants, and loving them, and even wanting, sometimes, to kiss their hands.
While we don't question [Murtha's] motives, we do question his assumptions. When he called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, there was a sense of respectful disagreement among most military personnel. But when he subsequently stated that he would not join today's military, he made clear to the majority of us that he is out of touch with the troops. Quite frankly, it was received as a slap in the face.And what the extreme anti-war left doesn't grasp (or is unconcerned with) is that most of their rhetoric does nothing to help the situation in the Middle East, except demoralize our family, friends and neighbors serving there and further divide our country against them. As Zirkle said to conclude the column, "All citizens have a right to express their views on this important national challenge, and all should be heard. Veterans ask no more, and they deserve no less."
When my husband and I heard that our son Forest was going to Iraq, we were concerned -- like any parents would be whose son was going into harm's way.Such a study in contrasts: Cindy Sheehan turned her back on her son's efforts; Diane Ibbotson focused on what her son felt was important.
But we knew that Forest believed in the mission. In fact, he signed up for active duty after the September 11, 2001 attacks because he wanted to defend our country from terrorists.
Tragically, Forest was killed on a volunteer mission -- with Cindy Sheehan's son Casey -- to set up a medical evacuation point for fellow soldiers wounded and trapped in an abandoned building.
I will never forget the day we received the news that Forest had given his life for his country.
Unlike Cindy Sheehan, however, my family determined that we would continue the fight against terror that our son gave his life for.
That is why we joined Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission.
As someone who has personally borne the costs of this war, we know the loss; we know the grief.
We just wish the media would give half as much attention to the accomplishments.
They can push for the ideas that they believe strongly in, and take their message to the people. (Rich offers a good agenda; I would just add that the administration ought to point to Europe. The continent is demonstrating every day why larger, more intrusive government with more regulations and higher taxes eventually reaches a point where it just can't work. In France and Italy, problems just don't get solved anymore and voter cynicism is off the charts. In Germany, Merkel's fighting the good fight, but has an uphill climb.)That's why, for all my distaste over some of the Bush administration's policies and weariness over its missteps, I can't choose option two. The answer is not withdrawal -- the answer is to push for what's right, to oppose what's wrong, and to work for a permanent Republican majority.
Or conservatives can throw up their hands and say, "I'm through with this, I'm leaving the party, all of this is pointless."
With option one, conservatives may win, or they may lose. On option two, they will definitely lose.
Derb [John Derbyshire] compares illegals to bank robbers and yesterday called them "interlopers." Polipundit, host of the eponymous site, calls them "invaders." I don't understand how, with this kind of talk on our side and the "give them all immediate citizenship" talk by the marchers, there can be any kind of conversation on this subject that can lead to any kind of working political consensus. The radicalization of the rhetoric on both sides seems designed to make any kind of rational discourse impossible.My thoughts exactly.
Her junior high school non-relationship with her fellow County Commissioners.And, I might add, her fellow county commissioners (with the exception of Lonnie Roberts) aren't exactly grown-ups, either.
"The Governor already has the authority to solve the problems at the Department of Human Services, but he refuses to exercise the leadership that would be necessary. The Governor’s refusal to act just puts the exclamation point on why new leadership in the Governor’s office is absolutely critical. We have to stop doing things the way we’ve always done them. It increases the impression among voters that their government does not respect them.”What do you mean, "impression"?
Yes, if I ever needed proof of the kind of men my grandfathers were, it was in a cedar chest in my parents' bedroom. Those heavy triangles sent the message before I could fully understand it; they told of Messerschmitts and 38th Parallels and bombardiers before I knew what those words meant. Later, they allowed me, in some small way, to mourn the passing of heroes I had never known. They are much more than flags.It's a must read.
As you should know, during the House debate, Chairman Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to reduce the bill's penalty for illegal presence from a felony to a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, this amendment was unsuccessful, primarily because all but eight of our Democratic colleagues decided to play political games by voting to make all illegal immigrants felons. A felony penalty is neither appropriate nor workable. We remain committed to reducing this penalty and working with you to this end.In other words, a wider perspective on the issue would be helpful.
Simply put: If Democrats win a majority in either body, the war will be deeply compromised. If Democrats win both, the war will be lost in a replay of the retreat from Vietnam the Democrats orchestrated in the '70s.If you doubt that, just re-read Christopher Hitchens' comments with Hewitt last week.
The insurgents are fighting on in the hope of one thing: That America will quit.
The Democrats are committed to quitting.
We had a very unfortunate series of events with the Rossi election. But the good news is, Dino's noble effort to contest that election scrubbed the rolls of a whole bunch of felons and dead folks, so we're going to get a slightly cleaner set of registered voters this time. That's helpful. And then, you've got to make sure Eastern Washington turns out fully, because they don't turn out as often as we see people in Western Washington turn out. And then, you've got to campaign, and open hearts and minds here in Western Washington.He added later in the interview:
The battlegrounds are going to be getting turnout in Eastern Washington, as we mentioned, and then it's about making sure that we get to the rural portions of Western Washington, and help folks understand how the policies currently in place are destroying jobs and opportunities in those communities.Are you listening, Eastern Washington? If you're tired of Maria Cantwell, you've got to turn out in droves.
Who said the following? “[N]othing” in federal statutory lawRead the whole thing. Oh wait, you just did.shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities. Nor shall anything … be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government.Was it “King George” Bush (ludicrously referred to as a “monarch” by Sen. Russ Feingold today)? Vice President Cheney? Or maybe Karl Rove? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? National Review?
Well, no. It was none of those. Instead, the foregoing forceful assertion of robust executive power to do whatever in the President’s judgment was necessary to protect the Nation against foreign threats, including to conduct electronic surveillance inside the United States, was made by … the United States Congress.
It is from Section 2511(3) of Title 18, United States Code – a provision enacted in 1968 in conjunction with the first federal wiretapping law. Its purpose was to make plain what had been universally understood since constitutional governance began in 1789: it would be unconstitutional for Congress to enact a law that purported to seize control of, or reduce, the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence in order to protect the American people from hostile foreigners.
The Congress, with the complicity of President Jimmy Carter, blatantly violated its own statute when it enacted FISA in 1978 and undertook to seize what a decade before it said could not be seized.
So embarrassingly obvious was the transgression that Congress felt compelled to bleach it out by repealing Section 2511(3) and pretending the whole thing never happened. (Unlike the President, when Congress violates the law, it can make that law disappear.)
It was an imperious maneuver by the 1978 Congress, ignoring checks and balances and declaring that Congress, not the Constitution, was our ultimate ruler. It was downright oligarchical.
So should we censure Congress?
Maybe Sen. Feingold, staunch libertarian that he purports to be, should read the Federalist Papers. He might start with No. 72, in which Hamilton warned, for the sake of liberty, that Americans remain on guard against “[t]he propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments[.]”
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other—our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes and ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, some we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.Another interesting note was that Franklin wrote his own epitaph, which is now found on his gravestone: "The body of B. Franklin, Printer (Like the Cover of an Old Book Its Contents torn Out And Stript of its Lettering and Gilding) Lies Here, Food for Worms. But the Work shall not be Lost; For it will (as he Believ'd) Appear once More In a New and More Elegant Edition Revised and Corrected By the Author."
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.—Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service.
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling:The whole thing is great.
In fact, the earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change -- remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Middle West -- must be bad?
- Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.''
- Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed'' that we must "prepare for the next ice age.''
- The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect,'' Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance,'' "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter'' and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.''
- Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World,'' April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous'' that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age.''
- The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable'' now that it is "well established'' that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950.''
Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is "over''?
About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the "problem'' is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon. Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.