Over the last few decades there has been a decline in the math scores at public schools pretty much nation wide. Well I think I can shed some light on the reason. I was sent this by a friend years ago and I honestly do not know who wrote it, but to whoever wrote my hat is off to you:
Teaching Math In the fifties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In the sixties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In the seventies: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
Teaching Math In the eighties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20 Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
Teaching Math In the nineties: A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)
Teaching Math In 2005:Un ranchero vende una carretera de madera para $100. El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Cuantos tortillas se puede comprar?
I think that should just about wrap up the confusion over why math scores have been dropping nation wide.
NRO has the story that Congressional Democrats have decided to use some intelligence assets to write up estimates about global warming. You would think that after 9/11 that we would have learned from our intelligence failures and work harder on ensuring that our intelligence agents are used to track real threats to our nation, like terrorists, but once again the powers that be in Congress have decided that they will live in a 9/10 world instead and forget about reality. Here is what they have:
Today marked a new low for the way congressional Democrats deal with national security. This morning, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a joint hearing on a “National Intelligence Assessment” on global climate change. This analysis was ordered by the Democratic Congress last year and was issued a few weeks ago. Some highlights (or low-lights) from the hearing:
1) In response to a question by Global Warming Committee member Greg Walden (R-OR), the Intelligence Community admitted they had “low to medium confidence” in the accuracy of this estimate because intelligence officers lack the expertise to write such an estimate (it was mostly contracted out to other organizations) and climate change science is so uncertain. As Walden started to ask about why an analysis of such low reliability was issued, Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA), the Global Warming Committee Chairman, cut him off and told him he was out of time even though Markey let all the previous Democrats speak substantially past their time limits.
2) Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Peter asked what intelligence was used for this estimate and whether intelligence collection requirements were prepared. National Intelligence Council Chairman Thomas Fingar said no clandestine intelligence was used and that intelligence officers extrapolated what would happen if the “mid-level estimates” by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were correct. When Hoekstra asked why the U.S. Intelligence Community would write an major analysis of low to medium confidence that contained no intelligence, Fingar answered, “because you [Congress] told us to.”
3) Hoekstra noted that intelligence assessments of high confidence have proven to be wrong and he wondered why an intelligence assessment of low to medium confidence would even be published. In an attempt to dispel the debate over confidence, Intelligence Committee member Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) responded by noting that the 2002 Iraq WMD NIE had high confidence in its findings. Some Republicans thought Rep. Eshoo’s statement actually made their case about the futility of issuing an intelligence assessment that intelligence officers cannot fully back.
With the Democrat controlled Congress at work on such tough issues like this doesn’t it just make you feel sooooo much safer?
I have been meaning to get to this subject for quite sometime, but it has been hectic as of lately.
I have been thinking lately on tax returns and have come to notice how many people plan on using their tax returns for this or that and it made me stop and think. Why are we so excited about a tax refund in the first place? After all it was our money to begin with and the Government is ever so graciously letting us have it back (dripping with sarcasm).
Why is it that the Government takes our money and then returns it at the end of the year?
Well here is my take on it. A tax return check is just a way for the Government to make you believe that they are giving you something back, but in reality they are just giving you your own money back.
So why do they take it in the first place? The only thing I can figure is they take our taxes and invest it in the country and then they keep the earnings off of this investment. This is the only reason I can see that the Governement would take and tax our paychecks and then give us the money back at the end of the year; otherwise why would they take it if they never needed it in the first place?
If this is indeed the case would that not be wrong? I mean would you put your money in a savings account that the bank got to keep all the interest earned? I wouldn’t.
I figure they go this route instead of having us just pay our taxes in full at the end of the year as it is easier to use our money for pork barrel spending this way. If they were to send us a tax bill to pay in full at the end of the year instead of a tax return after we fill out our tax forms I would have to believe that people would pay more attention to where our Government has decided to spend our money.
Of course we have to pay taxes as our country could not function without them. If we did not pay taxes how would our Military, Emergency Services (Police/Fire), and other necessary functions of legitimate government expenditures receive payment. I do feel that their are better ways to collect taxes that would be fair across the board and make people really stop and wonder what their taxes are being used for.
My top choice would be a Federal Sales Tax. I believe that this would be the best route to take as everyone has to purchase goods and services. Of course there would be somethings that would be exempt from a sales tax such as food, housing and medical services as these are necessities to sustain life. By going over to a Federal Sales Tax I truly believe that we could cut the size of the IRS down as there would no longer be millions of personal tax returns and the savings in this one cut would be tremendous.
Once again the top two primary system is in the news, but this time it is due to some candidates getting creative with their party label they are listing on the ballots. Some are not listing anything at all (like Curtis Fackler, who is running for state insurance commissioner) or they are getting very creative with labels: America’s Third Party, The Party of Commons and The Salmon/Yoga Party.
As the FoxNews story I linked above notes that even Dinno Rossi has opted for G.O.P. (Grand Ole’ Party) instead of using Republican, but then again Dino already has name recognition and most people know that GOP is synonymous with the Republican brand.
Though FoxNews does note that one Republican is not backing off calling himself a Republican at all. Steve Beren had the following to say:
“Have bold colors, wave the Republican flag boldly. Wave fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, immigration conservatism — boldly,”
Good for Steve for standing up and telling the voters who he is and what he stands for. The real down side to this creative labeling is that it has given the Democrat party something other than the issues to talk about and that will only hurt all the campaigns. Just see what Dwight Pelz had to say about it:
“Dino Rossi and these folks that are trying to hide the ball … they’re trying to hide who they are, what they stand for, where they come from. I think it’s shameful,”
I am sure this is just the start of what the Democrats will use as a way to steer the direction away from issues such as Gregoire’s out of control spending (and the benefits of it to her donor’s) and McDermott’s calling our troops mercenaries.
In response to this Rudy Giuliani comment, “Democrats want to go back to a pre-Sept. 11 view of terrorism – what I call being on defense. They want to treat it mostly as a criminal justice matter, use grand juries’ investigations,” Giuliani told FOX News Wednesday. “I would just describe it and just say this is not a realistic approach. Time has proved that being on offense is better than being on defense.”, Sen. Biden had the following to say:
“It’s no surprise that it takes a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience to defend the policies of John McCain and President Bush.”
That is really funny when you consider the lack of any national security or foreign policy experience the presumptive Democrat nominee Freshman Sen. Obama has. Of course the MSM has not called Sen. Biden on this as of yet (and I am not holding my breath).
So what is the Freshman Senator’s plan for foreign policy? Let’s take a look at what Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House has to say about this:
Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”
Well I guess that could work if we are ever facing a radicalized group of Heffalumps or Wuzzels.
If you are like me you are tired of hearing Congressmen like Jim McDermott demean our troops with comments that claim our troops are “mercenaries” while allowing illegal aliens to have more rights than American citizens, both natural born and legal immigrants. These are just some of the reasons this Iraq War Vet and Conservative Blogger supports Steve Beren.
Steve is not afraid to stand up for Conservative principles such as fiscal responsibility, tax cuts, border security first, the right to life, a true energy policy, and the protection of our second amendment rights. Steve knows that we can and will win the War against Islamic Radicals and truly supports and believes in our troops.
This is why I endorse Steve Beren, but Steve needs all of our help to ensure that there is a Conservative on the ballot in November. If everyone that receives this email would donate to Steve (instead of buying that daily Mocha Latte) it would go a long way to ensuring Steve’s Conservative message makes it onto the ballot in November and that will go a long way to bringing back a voice of dissent against the liberal left in Seattle. To donate to the Steve Beren for Congress campaign, go to http://www.berenforcongress.com/donate.html
After hearing about the Supreme Court ruling giving unlawful enemy combatants Habeas Corpus rights I started to think back to my US History teacher in High School. Why do you ask, well because he was an excellent teacher who actually taught US History to include this:
Operation Pastorius was a failed plan for sabotage in series of attacks by Nazi German agents inside the United States. The operation was staged in June 1942 and was to be directed against strategic U.S. economic targets. The operation was named by Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, chief of the German Abwehr, for Francis Daniel Pastorius, the leader of the first organized settlement of Germans in America.
Why is this so important you ask, well here is what the Supreme Court decided in 1942 regarding trials by Military Commisions (or Tribunals) and the writ of Habeas Corpus to unlawful combatants:
(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied….
So why is it that the Supreme Court found that Trial by Military Commisions was lawful in 1942; yet now they are not? And why did the Supreme Court rule that unlawful combatants that were caught on US soil did not have the same rights as US citizens in a time of war in 1942; yet now unlawful combatants caught on foreign soil and held outside the US do?
This is an obvious case of judicial activism by five justices of the Supreme Court that further erodes the meaning and content of the US Constitution.
So where do the two Presidential Candidates stand on this decision:
“This is an important step,” he said of the ruling, “toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeascorpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.”
It seems to me that Obama must not have ever heard of Operation Pasterous and the Supreme Court ruling that said what Congress and the Bush Administration had done was legal.
“These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,” he said. “Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it.”
Now if only we could get McCain to support the last sentence of that statement when it comes to immigration.
National Review had a look at what each Presidential Candidate had to say about what kind of judges they would appoint (a special thanks to Steve Beren 7th CD Candidate for sending me this information):
McCain assailed activist judges, saying that his judicial appointees would interpret the law rather than make it. McCain said he would be looking for nominees with a record of restraint; he would not just trust his instincts about them. In other words: no more Souters; no more Mierses. Liberals said that McCain was battling strawmen, since judicial activism is a myth. Have they met Barack Obama? His announced criteria for judges are rather different from McCain’s. “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old.” Empathy for gun owners, or property holders, or corporations, or the unborn does not appear to be something Obamais looking for. If you want judges whose sympathies are with those who have the law on their side, McCain’s the better bet.
This was sent to me from a friend over here in Iraq. It is a short story that a chaplain over here in Iraq had witnessed and wanted to pass it on and I agree it does need to be passed on to as many people as possible:
For those who are unaware, at a military theater, the National Anthem is played before every movie.
From a Chaplain in Iraq : I recently attended a showing of “Superman 3,” here at LSA Anaconda. We have a large auditorium we use for movies, as well as memorial services and other large gatherings. As is the custom back in the States, we stood and snapped to attention when the National Anthem began before the main feature. All was going as planned until about three-quarters of the way through The National Anthem the music stopped.Now, what would happen if this occurred with 1,000 18-22 year-olds back in the States? I imagine there would be hoots, catcalls, laughter, a few rude comments; and everyone would sit down and call for a movie. Of course, that is, if they had stood for the National Anthem in the first place. Here, the 1,000 Soldiers continued to stand at attention, eyes fixed forward. The music started again. The Soldiers continued to quietly stand at attention. And again, at the same point, the music stopped.
What would you expect to happen? Even here I would imagine laughter, as everyone finally sat down and expected the movie to start. But here, you could have heard a pin drop. Every Soldier continued to stand at attention. Suddenly there was a lone voice, then a dozen, and quickly the room was filled with the voices of a thousand soldiers, finishing where the recording left off: “And the rockets red glare, The bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night That our flag was still there. Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, O’er the land of the free And the home of the brave.”
It was the most inspiring moment I have had here in Iraq . I wanted you to know what kind of Soldiers are serving you here. Remember them as they fight for you! Pass this along as a reminder to others to be ever in prayer for all our soldiers serving us here at home and abroad. For many have already paid the ultimate price.
Chaplain Jim Higgins
Balad Airport in Iraq, north of Baghdad
These brave men and women that I have the honor and priveledge to work for deserve far better than the political showmanship that is often presented by politicians, the press and some fringe groups out there. We truly need to get behind the troops and support their mission and that is all they ask, to give them a chance to do their job with the support of their fellow Americans.
I must say I was utterly shocked at this latest decision by the Supreme Court. How can the court bestow habeas corpus rights (a right given to Americans by the Constitution) to enemy combatants that were not even captured on US soil? This goes above and beyond crazy and has lead to some of the following questions I have heard over hear in Iraq:
Does it mean that before they capture an enemy combatant are they going to be expected to read them their Miranda rights or face the possibility that they will be released? Are the courts going to decide that since the enemy combatants, that were already captured, did not have their Miranda rights read will they be released? If so, what kind of an influx of enemy combatants will this cause (remember we have AQI on the ropes here in Iraq right now and a release of the enemies would be a huge reinforcement to AQI)? How will they go about prosecuting these enemy combatants without giving away intelligence assets (remember we have a lot of Iraqi’s that are helping us and this could put them in direct danger; hence making it less likely that they will continue to help us out)?
My take on this is the US Government will more than likely start handing the detained enemy combatants over to the Governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is about the only way I can think of that the detainees will be able to continue to be detained. Of course this is not a fool proof plan. The governments of both countries could decide to release them, they could even decide to prosecute them (Just think Saddam). If we do not hand them over to the Iraqi or Afghan government and allow them to go to the civilian courts for trial this is what I could see happening:
The enemy combantant ACLU lawyers go court shopping to find the most liberal courts in that land. They argue that the enemy combantants should be released due to something along the lines of not being read their Miranda Rights. At this point they will probably use the same ACLU lawyers to sue our government (in other words the taxpayers), win the lawsuit and then be granted citizenship as a way for the liberal courts to say “we’re sorry for your detention”. At this point the same ACLU lawyers will already have briefs ready to file in case their clients are ever considered suspects in any kind of terrorism investigation. The briefs will state that the Government is harassing their clients by keeping tabs on them in a terrorist investigation and that it all stems back to the Government being a poor looser over the botched criminal case against their clients.
Justice Scalia writes, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Justice Scalia’s 25-page dissenting opinion concludes, “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
I saw this quote from Ronald Reagan and felt it appropriate:
We’re in greater danger today than we were the day after Pearl Harbor. Our military is absolutely incapable of defending this country.
In other words, if we continue to hamper our military and our President as they prosecute this war against Islamic Radicals how can they possibly continue to protect us against the enemies of our great nation?
Nope they aren’t care packages; instead this group plans to bombard our troops with conspiracy theory letters and DVD’s about how 9/11 was an ”inside job”:
U.S. troops serving in Iraq may be getting more letters during mail call, but they won’t be care packages — one group is sending them letters and DVDs claiming 9/11 was an “inside job” and that they should rethink why they’re fighting.
Mark Dice, founder of The Resistance, which he calls a media watchdog group, says that the U.S. government was responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and that the armed forces should know it.
“People want the facts. The Marines are hungry for the truth — what got them there [in Iraq], why are they risking their lives — and we’re going to help them understand that,” he told FOX News.
Dice plans to send letters and declassified government documents that he says can prove the government’s responsibility for the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people — and he’s urging others to do the same.
This statement of non-fact really made me laugh and I love the response from Vets For Freedom:
Dice says he is convinced that many servicemen share his views. “The Marines that I know say that 20-25 percent of the Marines believe that 9/11 was an inside job and they’re very angry,” he said.
Hegseth, however, wasn’t convinced. “We represent 24,000 veterans at Vets for Freedom,” he said. “We believe in finishing this mission, we believe in what we’re doing and that’s how most veterans and troops on the ground feel.”
I doubt that this will effect the troops in any way other than to give them a much needed laugh (though I am sure they would love to get some care packages instead).
It is people like this guy that have lead me to say that I don’t doubt their support of the troops; I only question whose troops they support.
On a brighter note, If you would like to help out here are a list of some of the places you can get in touch with for sending “real” care packages:
or contact your local VFW, Amvets or American Legion and they will be glad to help you out.