Homeschooling

What an utterly awful article.

Good thing the NEA puts that disclaimer at the bottom. They would go from zero respect from to a negative balance, if possible.

This guy is a pompous ass, implying that, judging from his words, "professionals" such as teachers are better trained to teach my kids than I am (a wannabe). Like 4 or 5 years at a crappy college learning liberal BS is what it takes to teach children.

I know many teachers. They are good people. Some shouldn't be teaching at all, though (McKenzie, you're not included here). Shot, many fail the same proficiency exams the kids are supposed to pass.

And isn't teacher to student ratio such an important thing for education? So what's better than 1 teacher to 1, 2 or 3 students?

-I would have more time to concentrate only on my child(children) than a teacher.

-My child moves at his pace, not the pace of the slowest child in the class.

-I care more about my child and his education than ANY teacher could.

-My child can get plenty of the "needed socialization skills" by playing with children nearby and being involved in sports leagues or other such things(music etc).

And to top this article off, theck out the bottom where it tells us who wrote it.

A head custodian. Nothing wrong with being a custodian. But that is FAR from an education expert.

Rove/Plame

My pal Random Thought asked me post something for him. So here it is. Keeps me from having to post things constantly so I think I like the idea of a guest blogger. And the response to my last one was poor. I was hoping some lawyers might offer some thoughts. But I imagine they were instead doing other important things.

Here it is:

There’s so much BS flying around about those whole affair I thought I’d do some fact-checking on my own. So here are the allegations:

1. Karl Rove, advisor to the President, leaked the name of a covert CIA official to a reporter as political retaliation for Joe Wilson saying the administration lied about Iraq trying to buy yellow-cake from Niger.

2. The President promised to fire anyone in his administration who leaked the information.

3. Karl Rove broke the law.

Addressing #1. Let’s look at what the reporter Matt Cooper says Rove said. Unfortunately, there are only bits an pieces of Emails that Cooper sent to his editor. Here is what I can find:

NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. ... Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA" -- CIA Director George Tenet -- or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

Best as I can find, is that Rove explained how someone, who is a piece of crap (own personal opinion here), and had little if any knowledge of the subject at hand was sent to Niger to research if Iraq had sought to buy yellow cake (used in nuclear weapons) from Niger.

Joe Wilson had gone around telling anyone who would listen than (ok to be fair, he explicitly implied) he’d been sent by the CIA and the VP’s office. He wasn’t. He proceeded to lie about what he found as well. “…First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.”

On February 11, 2004 (or close to it, the story is 11 Feb) the President said, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”

He doesn’t specifically say he’s going to fire anyone but I’m not going to split hairs here. He must mean it. How do I know? Because he says “if the person has violated the law.” No President, whatever you may think of him, wants the political liability of a convicted felon working for him.

But that phrase is key, “if the person has violated the law.”

I’m not convinced a law was broken. But if it was, he should be prosecuted and fired.

Addressing #3. Was a law broken? This really is the crux here. Personally, I can’t find where one was broken (not counting obstruction). She wasn’t covert. Heck, her boss and neighbors knew what she did and said she never tried to hide it. She worked at a DESK!

Those up in arms over this really look like jackasses, to put it frankly. Not all of the information is in on this. The leak itself doesn’t appear to be a crime. Obstruction charges may be coming because for some moronic reason the White House has acted like this is a big deal and it has something to hide. Of course, maybe it does. But we’re gonna need to wait.

Their carefully worded statements so they are telling the truth only in a legalistic manner and not in spirit show poorly. It’s nothing new. All administrations are like this. Not saying we shouldn’t expect more. We should. But we shouldn’t be surprised when we get this.

All of this can, of course, change with new information coming out.

A question:

Do you really think this is a bigger issue than the former National Security Advisor walking out of the National Archives with top secret documents on the way the previous administration handled terrorism stuffed into his pants and shirts?

Fast track to the electric chair

So I'm driving to Home Depot with my dad yesterday and he proceeds to tell me a story he read in the paper.

A mother and a boyfriend have two daughters. The parents are Meth addicts. Move around a lot. the daughters are 10 and 3.

Brilliant parents sell some bad meth to some other folks, who are pissed about it (obviously). They track down the parents in a casino but security escorts the folks.

The folks then decide to go to the hotel where the parents are staying and the children currently are.

The main guy knocks on the door, the 10 year old opens but won't let them in and shuts the door. A few minutes later, the guy has his sister go up to the door. The 10 year old answers and the guy basically surprises her and 3 people (the guy, his sis and his girlfriend) proceed to stab the 3 year old to death and the 10 year old dozens of times, severing her spinal cord in the process.

I was quiet for a bit and told Dad I wish he hadn't told me. He ask why and I told him it ruins my mood for the day because it makes me want to start a vigilante death squad and wipe these people from the face of the earth. Go Boondock Saints on them (a must see movie).

I'm moving away from being a supporter of the death penalty, mainly for the reason that I don't like giving the state that kind of power. And there are some legit concerns about its application.

That said, fast track these mother*uckers to the chair. Hell, hang them. Give them their fair trial, fast track their appeals. Their appeals immediately go to the front of the line and are handled.

This is how it should be for crimes against children, in my opinion. Some of the legal eagles who read here can perhaps tell me any other due process concerns that would need to be statisfied. But if they get the death penalty, it shouldn't take 15 years to shoot a few thousand volts of electricity through their worthless bodies.

But those *uckers need to die and meet their maker. Give them their due process and send them to hell.

And as a perfect post-script, a judge is returning custody of the paralyzed 10 year old to the mother because she married the father and has been sober for about 5 months or so. Brilliant. Like the stress of taking care of a handicapped child couldn't possibly push her back to abusing drugs.

Whatever happens to this child from here on out as a result of her mother should be used as punishment for the judge.

Wonder if I lost Jef on this one...

Why I'm glad I'm not tithing to an NCC church anymore

Got this in my email minutes ago:

Yup. Just what I want my tithe money going to. Lobbying the government on social issues.

The church should be concerned with social issues, of course. But the fact that this organization of churches takes the attitude that the government is to solve these issues is the problem is what rubs me wrong.

Rather than teaching self-reliance, rely on the government!

I don't want my church spending money on these issues. I want it bringing people to Christ. This organization has lost sight of that and is wasting God's money. The church should be concerned with people's souls, primarily.

And yes, I am consistent. I don't want the NCC to lobby the government on abortion, either. Though I have little doubt this organization would be ok with killing babies because choice and convenience is so important it trumps life.

Self-Absored Celebrities

Has there been a bigger waste of time and energy than the recent Live 8 concerts? A bunch of self-absorbed jackasses pushing governments to fix problems that governments created.

Did the concerts raise any money to help? Nope.

Did the concerts prompt people to help find solutions on their own? Nope.

No, the solution is for our governments to continue to take money from me and everyone else who pays taxes and give it to corrupt governments to continue to waste.

Yeah, brilliant solution. One that could only be devised by celebrity assholes.

Didn't watch the concerts but have read many of the celeb quotes and recaps and not ONE, not ONE mention of the problems the African Governments have caused.

Typical liberal solution. Throw more money at it. Especially, when it isn't yours.

Celebs ALWAYS overestimate their own impact on societies. They are next to worthless.