Obama on Education: He's a Democrat

This is Part One in this series. As you know, this series is not for Democrats. If you're voting for whatever Democrat is on the ticket in November, this is not going to dissuade you.

We begin with Senator Obama's own words on the issues, starting with education.

My dad was a secondary school teacher and my husband is a college professor. Both of them are bright, well-read and probably underpaid. This inequity, however, never translated into their beating the NEA drum of "more money for education is the answer"(God bless 'em). It's a popular drum to beat and it looks like Obama will beat it long and hard. Here are some exerpts:

Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.

Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.

Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.

It appears that increasing funding for every federal educational program is Senator Obama's solution. How audacious! This is consistent with his Woodrow-Wilsonesque progressivism that enlarges an already chubby Nanny State. Is this really change for the better?


Consider, we spend about 2.5 times more on a per pupil basis than we did forty years ago (adjusted for inflation). Is education 2.5 times better than it was in the 50's and 60's?

In an age of climate change, jihad and $4 gallons of gas, education may seem trivial. It isn't. It deserves an audacious approach that dares to look beyond throwing money at the problem. "Increasing funding" means taking money from someone, and it isn't Barack Obama.

Worse, it's trying to cure a disease with a placebo.

This isn't intended to be an exhaustive look at the problem of America's educational system. It's about understanding Senator Obama, what change means to him and who/what is likely to influence him should he win the office.

The Case Against Barack Obama

Somehow girlfriday has become all American Idol, all the time. It's time for a fight over something other than which starry-eyed teenager is a better performer.

Long threatening to write this, I will set aside my perfectionism and self-consciousness and just get started.

I'm not writing this for Democrats. You all vote for whomever you like. (I heard Senator Clinton's speech on Super Tuesday, though, and if I were a leftie, she'd have my vote.)

This series (simple though it may turn out to be) is for the handful of Republicans and Independents who read girlfriday and who see in Barack Obama hope for a shift in politics as usual. People who want change.

I will label every post "The Case Against Barack Obama" so it will be easy to reference them(once my temperamental Technorati Tag Cloud updates, that is). And I will try to break down every post by subject, so we can focus on what I consider the major issues.

My goal is to convince you not to vote for him. It's really that simple.

If I'm wrong and Barack Obama turns out not to be the dangerous, idealistic, flaming left-winger I think he is, the better for all of us. Because he has a very good chance of winning.

Birthday at the White House

Something about this really touched me.

The crowd spontaneously sang "Happy Birthday" early in the ceremony, and a formal, more full-throated version came at the end.

Isn't that sweet? I think the fact that it was spontaneous makes it memorable.

Then Bush said:

"We need your message to reject this dictatorship of relativism and embrace a culture of justice and truth...In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but in a spirit of mutual support."

Go Dubya.

"It Can Be Done!" Part Deux

After several days of neglect, my clean, unfolded laundry was able to be formed into a mountain that almost reached the ceiling. The picture is of the north face of the pile with a Nalgene bottle placed at base camp for perspective.
Also, Sen McGee may want to use this photo (notice the west face of Mt. Laundry) in future campaigning. I'm thinking something like, "There won't be any dirty laundry aired while I'm in office. What you will be able to anticipate is large stacks of april fresh, line dried, unfolded laundry, like that of the common Idahoian."

Better Late than Never

I don't want a single reader of girlfriday (insert self effacing remark about "all three of you") to miss this. I'm sure most of you have seen it and laughed your ever-loving butt off (and maybe cried a little) but just in case, as a courtesy to you who may have missed it (DAD), take a look.

"Rob Riggle goes undercover to report on Berkeley, CA's reaction to a new Marine recruiting station."



Read the comments on The Daily Show's website if you had any doubt about which direction Stewart's viewers swing.

I'd like to take a moment and ask the readers of this blog to teach me a thing or two.

1) I was just reading the delegate counts for each state on CNN (you can see it here), and I'm confused. It shows delegates given to each candidate from every state. Are primaries not a winner take all system? Do you still get the delegates who have pledged to vote for you even if you don't "take" the state? If so, why do we do that in our primaries and not our general election? Or am I just reading the site wrong? Also, if Obama happens to win the Texas caucus vote, he'll get more delegates, right?

2) Why all this sudden talk about NAFTA? It doesn't see like it's a topic that has gotten a particularly large amount of air time in recent years. How is our involvement in it a positive thing? How is it negative?

I realize I need to do my own research on these things, but I'd like to hear what y'all have to say first, so please do oblige me.

On a side note, my interest was unexpectedly piqued by a Ralph Nader interview on The Daily Show last night. Watch if you please, but I think he has some really interesting things to say, especially if you've ever found yourself thinking like a Libertarian at all.

Texas Teachers Will Be Voting For Him

Even if you think he might be the anti-christ his views on changing the educational system, and particulary high stakes testing, are right on the money from this teacher's point of view.
Also, be sure to listen to about three minutes in.

Why Are They Celebrating? They Might Confuse Oliver Stone.

"As news of [Castro's] resignation spread, motorists honked vigorously at police patrol cars and television reporters. Shouts of "Free Cuba!" echoed in the streets, and small groups gathered to chat in local eateries. But there was no widespread celebration, just caution."

I'm puzzled. These celebrants are treating Castro's resignation like it was a good thing. I thought Castro was our friend, spirtual guide and inspiration.

"I hope this is the beginning of the end of the system, but we have to wait," said 35-year-old chemist Omar Fernandez, who left Cuba for the U.S. six years ago.

Poor soul; he's been misinformed. He should have dined with Steven Speilberg and Fidel until the early morning hours. Spielberg announced that his dinner with Castro "was the eight most important hours of my life."

Model Naomi Campbell declared that Castro was "a source of inspiration to the world," and Oliver Stone called him"Very selfless and moral. One of the world's wisest men."

Personally, I'd trust Naomi, Stevie and Oliver before I'd trust a bunch of Cuban transplants dancing in the streets of a free USA. What have they contributed? Who are THEY? Bunch of ungrateful serfs.

The beautiful people always know best, especially when they have nothing at stake.

Via the AP and CNS News

Remember When Liberals Were the Tolerant Ones?

I have been laughing out loud and I'm going to keep laughing every time I recall the stupidity of what I'm about to relate.

I'm becoming a liberal.

But that's not what's funny.

New theory. The ratio of flaming left-wingers to conservatives on social networking sites is 10:1. I'm not saying right-wingers aren't on the Internet; I'm saying they don't spend (read: waste) as much of their time on like Digg.*

But I've been going there mostly just to Digg articles, but once or twice I've commented on another post. (I can feel my heart starting to bleed.)

That was the case when I saw someone's Digg for Jon Stewart’s Farewell to Mitt Romney: “F*c# Y%u. Watch it if you want to see what Jon Stewart really thinks. Oh, you already knew? Hmmm, he usually sticks to humor and avoids partisanship. How odd.

I think I pretty much summed it up when I commented, "Remember when Jon Stewart was funny? Now he's just a hack."

I SO offended 47 people who dugg this article, I got -47 diggs for my comment.

One of them, nogChoco, even went so far as to say, "Remember when your comment was still on +1 ?" And THAT was so well-received by readers that 16 people dugg HIS comment (to my comment, which was a comment).

As the kids say, ROFL.

PS: Digg this post.

*Note to the old fogies: If you don't know what Digg is or don't care, you may not understand this post. I'll call you on your green rotary phone later and explain.

This One's for JEB

I know we were disappointed about Fred Thompson, and I picked on him.


But the good doctor has defended him in such a sensible manner I'm a little ashamed.

Iowa Caucus Tonight, and I'm Just Curious...

Who are our readers hoping to see emerge as frontrunners?


I just saw Guiliani's campaign ad and WOW.

What happened to Fred Thompson? Talk about sound and fury signifying nothing.

Seeking Female in South Dakota, S or M, Must be Judicious, Thoughtful, Open Minded. Sense of Humor Optional.

I have been looking around for bloggers who call my new home theirs: South Dakota.

I've linked to about five, so far. One of them, Lone Prairie, I've been reading for years, and so should you. Another I've been reading off and on is Dakota Women.

These aren't women I generally agree with, but they're women interested in politics in South Dakota, and I was hoping for some lively discussion and the occasional meeting of the minds.

I did not anticipate meeting a writer as unbalanced as Anna. To call her writing biased is an understatement. To Anna, there are two kinds of people: Good people and the deceitful, indifferent, cold-hearted despots who call themselves pro-life.

Two weeks ago, she was complaining (generous word) that the vast right-wing conspiracy known as the pro-life movement makes women act like "helpless, idiotic victims."

Today, she claims that "Olga Reyes is merely one out of about 70,000 women who will die this year as a result of restrictions on abortion." (Ms. Reyes died because of her country's uber-restrictive abortion laws that don't permit doctors to perform an abortion when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.) Never mind that the need for an abortion as the result of an ectopic pregnancy is an exception, not the rule, and you would be hard-pressed to find a reasonable pro-lifer in the U.S. who supports a ban on abortion on these cases.

But that would be the balanced approach; it would show signs of thoughtfulness and consistency. Instead, Anna maintains that women die as a result of restrictive laws--and not as a result of their own choice to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy, nay. Helpless victims, anyone?

Later she blithely accuses "lots of people" (this means pro-life people in Dakota Women parlance) of "not be troubled in the least if stuff like this happened here."

That's "not being troubled in the least" if women die painful, preventable deaths in case you had trouble connecting the dots.

I wasn't very nice in the comments.

I have been quarreling.

At Dakota Women, pro-lifers have been accused of being dishonest about their motivation behind opposing abortion.

As evidence of this dishonesty, the author has linked to this article, that cites this report. (This is only the abstract. You have to register--free--if you want to read the study).

ADDED: I suspect few of my readers are going to read this whole post (not even my adversary at Dakota Women can be bothered to do it). So why don't the rest of you just click on that link above and go read our debate.

Before I proceed, I want to make this very clear: I believe that women have and will continue to have abortions, regardless of its legality. This does not mean that I do not want to reduce the number of abortions, or that I don't care about those women injured by the procedure. But that is not an argument against outlawing abortion on demand.

I hope you can follow along, because this is interesting.

The study in question, authored by Gilda Sedghat at the Guttmacher Institute, (visit their site--I don't have to tell you where they stand on the abortion issue) makes the claim that abortion rates are dropping in countries where the procedure is legalized. It goes beyond its research to assert that the numbers are dropping because abortion is legal in those countries.

Below is their definition of an unsafe abortion. You will see that in nations with restrictive abortion laws every abortion is defined as unsafe. Naturally, then, they can say that restrictive abortion laws lead to unsafe abortions, because they have simply defined it that way.

"Abortions done either by people lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards, or both. These include (a) abortions in countries where the law is restrictive and (b) abortions that do not meet legal requirements in countries where the law is not restrictive."

If you don't read anything else, I hope you read that paragraph!

The paragraphs in the block quotes below show that the researchers are using estimated data. A couple points about the data.

First, every time they can they estimate the number of abortions up. Sometimes this is done to an extraordinary degree: for example they estimate Bangladesh stats up by 300%. Because the nations with restrictive laws also tend not to collect abortion data, their estimates influence the statistics from those nations most. So regarding those places with restrictive abortion laws, the researchers have estimated the abortion rate up as high as they can.

They then say that the laws cause the high abortion rates, when it is more likely their estimation methods. One should note that the ideological tendencies of the researchers are obvious, so it is reasonable to doubt their estimations. If I was quoting from a report by LifeNews, pro-choicers would do the same.

"For two-thirds of countries for which official reports were available, and in which abortion is considered safe, the reports were deemed complete and the data were not adjusted. In the remaining countries, the average correction factor was 1•4 (which corresponds to an inflation of the official estimate by 40%). The correction factors ranged from 1•05 (USA) to 3•0 (Bangladesh).

In countries for which surveys showed more abortions than were counted in the official statistics, we deemed the survey estimates to be more complete, since even they are known to undercount abortions.

The findings presented here provide new estimates of abortion incidence at the worldwide and regional levels, which had not been updated since 1995. In the face of a dearth of information for many countries, particularly those in which abortion laws are highly restrictive, this study drew on all available sources of information and used systematic and consistent methods to estimate abortion incidence."

Beyond all this, they do not consider alternative variables. I am not a researcher, and I haven't taken stats, but my husband suggests that a solid research program would collect data on all variables likely to influence abortion rates (of which legality would be one variable. I can think of others). The researcher would then run some sort of statistical analysis to see which variables are statistically significant.

Have these researchers done the statistical analysis requried to make such a broad assumption? If not, even if we accept their numbers, we cannot, as a matter of social science, say that restrictive laws are causing a higher abortion rate. The researchers have assumed this without adequate proof.

The Nobel Peace Price and What it Isn't

Members of my wonderful family were here this week. The visit was too short, considering it took them three days to drive here, but having them here was like being given a huge, bow-wrapped gift full of everything sweet.

It turned out that this is the week Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I wondered inwardly, "Why?" and felt foolish for not knowing the answer. My sister-in-law even said at one point, "If this doesn't show you what a joke the Prize has become, I don't know what will."

I wondered if we were just being naive or excessively partisan.

After reading the venerable Ken Blanchard's post at South Dakota Politics, I feel vindicated. Or at least better informed.

Aren't you curious? Didn't you scratch your head and wonder where the connection lies? Blanchard gives a devestating explanation.

Naked Women Don't Help

In the infancy of this blog, I wrote a post about the problem women pose to politics. Re-reading it now, I'm not sure I was very clear. But the thesis is still true. And these women know it.

They represent members of the new Polish "Women's Party" whose objectives, among others, include a demand for more OBGYNs, free contraception and the "right to pain-free birth." (How the government can provide these things or why they are its responsbility is a puzzle.)

Read the article. If their tactics are unorthodox, there's nothing original about what they're proposing. They feel underrepresented, express a lack of confidence in the men in power and want to escape the "concrete details that trap the suburban housewife, the continual demands on her time."

“The poster is intended to shatter stereotypes in the anachronistic world of politics,” said Ms Gretkowska. “We are beautiful, nude and proud.”

What I fail to understand is how posing nude is going to advance their cause. What stereotypes are they shattering? That women don't have to be naked to get men's attention? Oh, wait.

Is this funny or sad or what?

Does this surprise anyone at all?

Senator Craig's self-imposed deadline to resign his seat was September 30. He has not chosen to do so. The reason, he states, is the continuing effort to "clear" his name, which began with a hearing before a markedly skeptical judge. This judge will rule this week whether Craig's case will be reopened, and given that Craig is a lawyer with, one hopes, some understanding of the legal process, the judge will deny the motion. No doubt this will result in an immediate appeal, which will also be denied, followed by another appeal that will be thrown from court so hard it will dent a Subaru station wagon parked at the curb in front of the courthouse. Whereupon he will appeal to the State Supreme Court, which, if it has any sense at all, will refuse to hear it.

By that time, Craig's term will have concluded and he can slink off into the night with his name entirely unrehabilitated and his reputation as a prevaricator and word parser par excellence secured. Unless he chooses to run for re-election, and one can only imagine the fun that will bring about.

The most honorable politician I can point to is Brent Coles, former mayor of Boise. On the day he was indicted (on a ticky-tack charge), Coles resigned his office and the city got on with its business. Contrast that with what Senator Craig is doing now. Stripped of seniority, he is no better than a freshman, and has less credibility.

He thinks he can ride this out now, and he's probably right, but at what cost? Does anyone really believe he can be an effective voice for Idaho?

UPDATE: Wow. There's a surprise. Senator Craig lost his appeal with the Minneapolis judge referenced above, then issued a statement to the effect that he is staying, and anyone who does not like it can...lump it. Somewhere in Boise, you just know that Governor Otter is absolutely infuriated at being played for a sucker. As well he should be. I'm pretty steamed myself.

It became absolutely apparent that he was going to weasel when he went back to the Senate and the story largely died down. The fact that the story lost feet isn't because anyone believes his denials or thinks he was not trolling for boy-toys in the airport potty. Frankly, Craig is such small potatoes (sorry; the pun is apt here) nationally that, in the throes of a presidential election/rugby scrum, media attention on a small state, colorless senator was bound to ebb.

And so he stays. I suppose it could be worse. He said he would not run for re-election, but I haven't read his statement yet. It could say "I have no intention of running for re-election."

University of Florida Student Tasered

I don't agree with one thing this UF student said in his diatribe to Sen. John Kerry, but he had a right to say it without being arrested for it. If you haven't seen this, go to the Gainesville Sun website and check out the story and the video.

It is creepy to me how quickly the police started moving back and forth behind him, when he started to make controversial statements. As once commenter on the Gainesville Sun's website noted, when did we become a society in which politicians are so coddled and protected that the people who elected them can't question them without being brutalized by the police. Since when are we not allowed to ask controversial questions that they don't want to answer??

Also, listen in the background of the video, right about the time the student is being tasered, for John Kerry to comment sarcastically that it's too bad the kid can't get up and help get him elected President. It is a weird, "shew"-brow-mopping moment in which you breathe a sigh of real relief that he was not elected President for Pete's sake!

girlfriday adds: That link is no longer valid. Click here to watch the incident and read more.

Six Years Later

Today was 9/11, and I didn't post about it but not because I don't care. What can I say that has not already been said?

I could say that I was living five miles from the Pentagon when that second plane struck. But millions of other people were too.

Work was at a standstill, I could write. So was everyone's work.

My understanding of and confidence in American security was changed. So was everyone's. We thought our misgivings would last.

They didn't.

It wasn't the event in my life; the time and place where everything is turned upside down and waking, breathing, eating, and trying not to dream become the answer to "what I did today."

I had survived and so had everyone I knew. My changes were just a nip here, a tuck there. Everything limped back to the way it should be. People had died but they were not my people. Terrorists were real, but they would never find me. Economies were shaken, but they would be restored.

My confidence in America faltered but did not ultimately fail.

What can I say about 9/11? Forgive me, you who still grieve. I have forgotten you.

I won't forget your enemy.

It's ON!

As you East Coasters already know, Fred Dalton Thompson officially entered the Presidential race tonight on "Jay Leno." Go to http://www.fred08.com/ and become a "Friend of Fred" today!

Oh, for Pete's sake!

I have been busy today and tuned to CNN this evening to catch up on the national news...or their version of it...when Anderson Cooper began talking about how Senator Craig may - or may not - resign, depending on how the attempt to reopen his case in Minnesota goes. According to press accounts, the slippery wording in his statement on Saturday, that he "intends to resign on September 30" is nothing more than that...an intention, subject to re-evaluation and reconsideration. What this sort of parsing reminds me of, more than anything, is the ruminations of former President Clinton on the nature of the word "is," and what it might mean at a particular moment in time.

This is sad, pathetic, and unconscionable behavior, not worthy of a politician of his tenure. While I have no doubt that he regrets his decision not to fight the charges in the first place, the fact remains that he did not. And the reason he did not is that he feared the reaction which ultimately came to pass.

Is it reasonable that police spend their time sitting on toilets, trying to catch toe-tappers in public restrooms? Who knows? But I certainly would not want to find myself in a restroom where public sexual relations are occurring, and I absolutely would not want to subject children to behavior of that sort. And I could not care less whether the sex in question is homosexual, heterosexual, or has to do with plants, gourds, or watermelons. It is simply not appropriate behavior in a public setting.

Well. More than anything, it brings to mind the joke about how politicians are like diapers. They both need to be changed a lot, and for the same reason.

I sincerely doubt that the case will be reopened. Craig is a lawyer, and if I can read the statement he signed and understand that he absolutely forfeited his right to reconsideration or reversal, he clearly ought to understand the English employed by that document. There just isn't any wiggle room. And the thing is, the only thing that fighting that fight will accomplish is keeping the scandal on the media radar for the next couple of months. He cannot unring this bell, whether the case is overturned or no. His political career is over.

I believe that Senator Craig should gather the remains of his dignity and resign. Without equivocation. Immediately.