The Coolest Kid Here

I am currently setting up a pathway for our youngest member to our writing team to post directly. For now, I am going to post the text she sent me. Once we have her ready to post directly, this will be reposted under her name and I will delete this post. And now the moment you have all been waiting for, TheCoolestKidHere makes her debut:

Teachers contracts in Nashua NH has become a weary subject for everyone for the past couple months. My fellow students and I have gotten to the point where we just don’t give a damn what the teachers want and what they receive, we just want something done. It’s rather disappointing to see our teachers pulling the “work to rule” ethic just because they aren’t getting the contracts they want.

In Nashua, teachers are required to stay after school once a week to provide extra help for those who need it. Due to the strike, if you cannot make the extra help day, or miss it, then you’re on your own; there is no compromise. Teachers are refusing to stay after days that aren’t their extra help days. This has become an issue for students participating in sports and other activities. Some of our classes require us to participate in after school practices on one predetermined day every week. When practices and extra help days collide then we are forced to choose which class is more important.

Teachers are also refusing to advise clubs. Without an advisor those clubs cannot exist. The only clubs that are open now are the more basic ones like yearbook, newspaper, literary magazine, honors societies, etc. The library is also not open as long after school because, like club advisors, the librarians are refusing to stay after and supervise.

Some teachers have taken the strike to an extreme and have refused to write teacher recommendations for students applying to colleges. It is disappointing when teachers are willing to hurt us and risk our futures to get a contract. I feel bad for juniors and seniors who don’t have clubs, teacher recommendations, or the opportunity to get the extra help they need during the most important years in their grade school careers and.

As much as I would love to see the teachers get a new contract, they are asking for too much. Their salaries are average for the state and they receive superior dental and healthcare coverage. I’m sorry to say that some teachers don’t deserve what they already have. Don’t get me wrong, I have had some truly gifted teachers that I appreciated and even inspired me to become a teacher. However, I’ve also had teachers that barely spoke English, taught classes while drugged on Vicodin, never gave back any of the work I passed in, and even a teacher that let the class watch Saw II during class. The list goes on.

If teachers can’t deal with the contract we have now then they should just leave. At least it would be one less problem teacher to pay. I think the Teachers should stop acting like children and stop using me to prove their point.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to everyone from the bottom of my heart. Remember that your loved ones are what is important today, and the greatest gift God has personally placed in you life is your family (The greatest gift was his son, Jesus Christ). The second gift God has blessed you with is your friends. This week make an effort to tell those who you have been blessed with how much they have touched your life. My family and friends are the greatest gifts I have personally received, more precious than any material object I may unwrap this morning. I thank God for those who have touched my life, and made me who I am today.

Merry Christmas to the men and women of the United States military who can not be home with their families today. God bless you all, and may God keep you safe. Thank you for your service. Your service, and those before you, has made it possible for us to celebrate today. God bless every one of you.

From my family to yours; we wish you a merry Christmas.

God bless.

Republican YouStooge Debate

First and foremost, I want to apologize. You asked for my analysis, and I made you wait. Why haven't I written about the Youtube Debate? This is a great question, especially since Mitt stole the show. There are a few reasons why I did not write about this, the most obvious is because of the blatant fraud CNN committed. I should have posted my thoughts the day after the debate, but I wanted see what else would unfold excluding the "Clinton plant." This was supposed to be a debate not and evening of Democrat plants from one side of the room to the other. As the evening unfolded, I noticed that even the questions were erroneous, or portrayed in an erroneous light.

Typical, I would have to back up my arguments here, but I just feel like I am telling you what you already know. CNN flew a guy out from California to Florida to accost the candidates face to face. Why would CNN fly him out? Simple, because the Clinton News Network (CNN) thought it would be good to have a member of Hillary's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Tran-sexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee spout rhetoric at the Republicans on the stage. Way to go CNN. You really showed your "fair and slanted" side there didn't you. Don't get me wrong, I like and watch CNN, but this stunt went too far. The next mornings follow up with John Roberts was pathetic. Keith Kerr tried to say his "…friend…" just "put (his name) there" on the steering committee list and he had nothing to do with it. I don't know what is worse, the fact that it happened, the lie from Kerr, or Roberts sitting there trying to act like CNN had no idea about this mans background. It took me one quick web search and I knew were this "Log Cabin Republican" stood. (Can you taste the sarcasm?)

You know, I am enjoying this, so let me continue dissecting the deceit in an indirect way. I have not read much from Michelle Malkin, but look at how much she has uncovered. Hillary was not the only Democrat to be represented at the "debate," Obama and Edwards also were represented. So what's the deal? CNN can pull this stuff on the Republicans but the Democrats are allowed to skip a FOX debate? Oh look, here we have the New York Lies, I mean, Times trying to justify the withdrawal of the Democrats from said debate. … Sorry, I went off on a tangent there … Anyhow, Michelle pointed out other issues with the people selected, but she did not point out my thoughts from the evening of the debate; "What did CNN do, look for the worst videos to portray conservatives as pathetic extremists?" What was with the questioners, and more importantly what was that music video they used to open? The whole debate format turned me off. The candidates were great and took it in stride, but I do not feel I "got my money's worth" from the debate. At least they didn't use these videos.

CNN and Youtube did a great job disappointing me, just like the Democrats youtube debate. Just about every question seemed out of place in a GOP presidential primary. Almost every question that leaned towards conservative beliefs was asked by a "youtuber" who looked or acted like they escaped from a mental institution, or came straight out of the movie "deliverance." It seems that CNN hand pick the most unstable looking people to ask a conservative values question. The most eloquent of the questioners asked questions with a liberal slant. Why can't we have relevant questions asked in a mature manner by one moderator? If you want input from the constituents, ask them to write in a question, and then create a list of the questions asked. Present the list to the candidates and let them debate the topics. This would allow the constituents to see how their candidates fair on the issues. If candidates have differing opinions, this gives us an opportunity to hear both sides and understand both viewpoints. You know, like a debate!

Many of the questions were good at the heart, yet ridiculous on the surface (I like the bible question, but not the way it was asked). Conversely, many were simply ridiculous. This style of "youtube debate" is degrading to the candidates, and degrading to me. So what was the point of the Youtube debate? It was so real Americans could ask the candidates question … if CNN liked the slant. The debate left me with more questions and less answers. Did we learn anything about the candidates, or did we just hear grandstanding by the democrat sympathizers? Why was there so much rhetoric in the questions and audience responses? Why did CNN transport a Hillary committee member to the debate? Incase I haven't explained this well enough, CNN=liberal.

For anyone who has been paying attention over the past few months, you learned almost nothing.

For those who were not paying attention until now, you learned this:

Republicans make really bad Democrats.

My Mood? I'm Gonna Jihad!

Iranian President Mahmood Amadinejad has reason to be smug these days - In his eyes, he's just been vindicated.

The new The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report released on December 4th states that in 2003 the Iranian regime halted its nuclear weapons program. The New York Times and liberals in general have been having a field day with this, shouting from the proverbial rooftops about how Iran isn't a threat, seemingly to stave off any talk of a US-led invasion.

But what did the report really say?

For starters, the keyword to focus in on here is "halted", not "dismantled". In fact, the senior intelligence officals who gave the reporters their findings feel it is even possible that Iran's cessation of nuclear activity was part of a deceptive strategy, basing their beliefs on a continued policy of denial in other areas. They went on to say that there was a somewhat high likelihood that they were keeping open the option to resume operations at a later date.

As was the case with Saddam, there's no evidence that they destroyed one shred of nuclear weapons equipment. Unsurprisingly, the mullahs aren't exactly being forthcoming with the IAEA in regards to the inspection of their nuclear facilties.

One of the least-cited findings by the team was the increased agreement that Iran had in fact been running a covert nuclear weapons program, moreso than they felt in 2005 on the date of their last report. Just to remind our good readers, these reports are based on extensive evaluation of intelligence data. There's a much heftier stack of data on Iran now as opposed to two years ago because the US has taken a much closer look at Iran than they did in 2005.

Why? Well, let's look back at 2005 for a moment. Two things happened that year; one, Mahmood Amadinejad rose to power that year; and two, the US first became convinced that many of the terrorists in Iraq were coming from Iran.

But back to the present, let's not forget that Iran is still enriching uranium in their centrifuges to a high degree of purity. They state that their nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes only, yet some experts have raised alarm at the quality of the centrifuges they bought - units that could enrich weapons-grade uranium, not just the cheaper stuff needed to run a reactor.

Also not to forget are the remarks (and I use that term loosely) that Iranian President Mymood Ahmgonnajihad has made regarding Israel - among his reported assertions are:

• that Israel should be wiped off the map,
• that the Holocaust was a myth,
• that attempts to normalise relations with Israel were against their best interests,
• that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a trick,
• and that Israel should be relocated to Canada or Alaska so that they could have their own land.

That last one threw me, but it's clear this is a guy who just doesn't like Israel, or jews in general. That may sound like an understatment but it was intended for those of you still not paying attention, so let me summarize:

• The guy hates Israel. (no, really?)
• He has equipment good enough to build the bomb when it only has to be good enough to make a reactor.
• He won't let UN inspectors in to see what he's doing.
• The experts largely believe he still intends to build the bomb at a later date.
• Overwhelming evidence exists that he is responsible for sending terrorists into Iraq to incite unrest and cause the US to be delayed there longer.

Still think Iran isn't a threat?

No Merit for Teachers Part 3

I understand that union based laborers think they are entitled, and they should get exactly what they ask for. Seeing as this thought process has impeded negotiations with the Nashua Teachers Union and the city of Nashua, I have a better idea. Why not run the school more like a business and pay teachers based on the good (and hard) work they do? Keep in mind you already have a system in place for merit pay that does NOT include student evaluations. In the work force, the worker has a supervisor, who has a manager, who has another boss and so on. In the school, a teacher has a department head, who has an academy head, who may have a vice principal who has a principal (do I have to keep going, or can I stop at principal?). So as we see the structure is very similar.

In the work force, the supervisor watches and evaluates the work being done at the most intimate level. The input of the supervisor is very important to the evaluation of the worker. The manager is the boss of the supervisor, and is responsible for the evaluation of and for the supervisors. Hence the manager is the balance for a fair evaluation of the teacher by the supervisor. Further, the final decision on increases is made a step removed from the worker (IE manager or higher).

Teachers tell students to think outside the box, please apply such advice here. Now if you insert the word "teacher" for the word "worker" and "department head" for "supervisor" (and so on) you will see how this structure falls into place. Your ability to perform with the students you have (whether they are top of the class or future drop-outs) would be evaluated by your department head. Your department head has been in your shoes, and is still in the classroom. Because they are responsible for the same job as a teacher, they know how difficult teaching is. The department head is in the best position to give a teacher a fair evaluation. Administration then reviews the evaluation and you receive the increases due to you for your performance with your students. Not only will this style of management work, but it has been working for decades in the modern business world.

Now to be preemptive, I know the department head has classes to teach, and can not be in your classroom everyday to watch you work. They do not need to be over your shoulder to evaluate your abilities. In the work force, there are many times I have had to evaluate employees with whom I saw two or three times a weeks. They were judged the same way as employees who I saw on a daily basis; their ability to show up and complete their job. Margins we added to all employees to allow for intricacies of their respective position. These margins also allow for issues relating to individual positions. For a teacher, this would account for teaching students of differing calibers. The margin of error for a supervisor is limited by the adequacy of the supervisor and their respective boss. In other words, if you could not "cut the mustard" in the position you hold, you would not retain your post. This system adds accountability to your boss, not just you. You are held to a standard, and so is the management; Perform or move on.

To sum up my idea, if you are a good teacher, you would reap the benefits of a higher salary, and compensations would not be such a burden on your paycheck. You would be wealthier if you are an "above and beyond" teacher. On the flip side, you would hate merit pay if you are a "do nothing" teacher who feels you are entitled. If you teach economics, think about the "free market system" and how competition breeds greatness. If you know you can make more money by working smarter, you're going to put more effort into your job. On the flip side, you also know that if you do nothing, you are not going to get the compensation you desire and may lose your job. This is fair. In the work place you must perform you duties or lose your job. The better you perform, the higher your compensation at time of review.

I want the teachers to have a fair contract, and I would love for them to receive past due compensation. But if you're going to take things out on my kids (the ones I am currently teaching) then I have no pity for your situation. I have proposed an idea that I think is fair, though it would need to be fine tuned. Consider it a viable framework and think of a way to expand and adjust it as needed. I am more then willing to work with any suggestions you have, and I am full of ideas. Problem solving is a gift of mine.

Oh, you must be joking

Ok, I know most of you have seen my poll questions, and you know I put up one "funny" answer. I am just letting you all know that Ron Paul was not the "Joke" answer, I was being serious. Obviously you thought it was a joke answer and thought it would be funny to vote for Ron Paul, but let's be serious for just one second. Ron Paul did not win the last debate, nor did he win any debate. Ron Paul was completely unimpressive, yet very comical while he babbled on like a mental patient. He lost on all the issues and had his hat handed to him by the heavyweights on the stage. Honestly, if you really think Ron Paul is the right guy for the job, your almost as misguided as those who think Hillary has experience because her Husband was president.

I have noticed something common about people who support Ron Paul. Every person I have talked to who is a "Ron Paul Supported" seems to have blinders on. They seem to only hear what they want to hear, and ignore the parts they do not want to hear. Here is an example from a conversation I had at the local Ron Paul headquarters:

I asked a gentleman what was going to happen to the United States if we pull the troops out of Iraq with no regard for the climate of the middle east. The response was "Who cares what happens in the middle east, they are not here."
I assumed that he might have misheard what I asked, so I rephrased, "So when the middle east falls into chaos, oil hits $150 a barrel, and fanatic Islamic terrorist start blowing up targets in Europe and United States, your ok with this?"
Again, he said "Who cares what happens over in the middle east."
Frustrated, I tried one last time, "So you don't care if the collateral damage from pulling our troops out causes oil to hit over $150 a barrel, and suicide bombers start blowing up you family and friends here in the United States."
He looked exasperated and exclaimed, "Don't you understand? If they want to blow themselves up, let them. If they raise oil to $150 a barrel, we will just use other fuels. It's not our problem, we are not the world police."
Dumbfounded, I blinked and said "Ok, thank you for the information. I don't think you are listening to me. I am sorry that we can not have an intelligent conversation."
He wished me a good afternoon and thanked me for stopping by. I nodded then asked if he heard a word I said. He nodded and explained "Ron Paul is the wave of the future. We are tenacious, and we will prevail."
He either never heard a word I said, or just did not understand what I was asking.

Tenacious? Well, maybe so if you mean stubborn or obstinate. Is this the message that should be coming from your political headquarters? Just like his supporters, Ron Paul seems to have blinders on. His view seems narrower on Iraq than any other issue. I would love to see Dr. Paul explain his feelings about the collateral damage that he wants to reek on the world. I dare you to address the fall out you intend to cause when you pull our troops out immediately. I know Paul will not address this because he knows he is wrong.

One piece of advice to the misguided, "don't miss the forest for the trees." Get the big picture.

No Merit for Teachers Part 2

I have always been good with a quick quote. This is the one I had for the end of the aldermanic meeting last night: "As a teacher, you will witness temper tantrums, hear people shouting out of turn, stamping their feet, and generally being disrespectful … then there are the children." The teachers of Nashua have yet again showed how indignant they can be. As a public display, the teachers decided to throw their temper tantrum to sway public opinion. Public opinion is everything for the teachers, and they are not doing anything to their credit.

At this point, I am going to give the teachers some sound advice. First and foremost, we know you want a contract but slighting our children is not going to get you a contract any faster. Second, find a better way to get the money you want in the new contract. The teachers want retroactive pay for increases they have not received. I agree with the teachers. They should receive the past due income. But here's the question: In the next contract, when the teachers want to pay less health care and get higher raises, do we just give it to them? Should we give in to the extortion tactics of the teachers for new every contract? I say we make the teachers earn their pay the same way as the rest of us. Merit pay would make the good teachers better and the bad teachers quit. Our educational system would be the best one in the state because only the good teachers would continue to work here.

The teachers who have approached me over the contract issue all have one thing in common; they agree with me. They all agree that the contracts need to be settled equitably for both sides (I don't know the solution, but I have some great ideas like merit pay). The other area we agree is that the students are being affected. We disagree about the severity of the affects on the students. I have stated that the teachers are hampering the students' ability to excel in their studies. Teachers think I am blowing this out of proportion. I will let you be the judge.

Before the teachers adopted the "work to rule" ethics, I tutored some students from Nashua. Most of my tutoring was simple touch up work and brushing up on skills. Today I am teaching entire lesson plans to students because they do not understand their schoolwork. In my eyes, this is absolute proof of the effect on the students at the high school level. I might be 100% wrong, and the kids I am tutoring could be the problem, but I doubt it. I believe that if students require me to be a teacher, the "work to rule" ethic is having an adverse affect on our students.

Alright Nashua and others, tell me your thoughts. Are our children dumber, or are the teachers robbing them of precious instruction that is vital to a child's educational success? Who is really being hurt, the teachers or the students? If you agree with me, stomp you feet in a childish tantrum!

Do You Speak Spanish?

So I was in work the other day, when a lady addressed me in an unusual way. I said "Hello," and introduced myself as I do with all our consumers. She responded in Spanish, and asked "Do you speak Spanish?" I answered in English, "Yes." The conversation was very unusual because I do understand Spanish, but I can not talk eloquently or efficiently in Spanish. During our conversation, I chose to respond to this lady in English while she chose to speak to me in Spanish. When the conversation was near the end, she noticed I had not spoken any Spanish, yet I answered all of her questions. She looked at me quizzically, and then asked in English, "If you speak Spanish, then why you no speak Spanish?" I simply replied that I was sorry, but I could explain things to her easier in English. She nodded then thanked me, in Spanish, then left the store. I couldn't help but smirk knowing that she understood everything I said to her IN ENGLISH!!!

So why did I speak English to her? Two reasons; number one, this is The United States of America, and we speak English. Number two, I do not speak Spanish, I understand Spanish, and so I can not talk to you in Spanish. Did I lie to the lady? Yes, I did because I was not fully honest with her. I told her I spoke Spanish, and I do not. I do understand Spanish, but that's not the same.

Why should I speak a foreign language in my home country? Let's think about this for a minute. In America, you either speak English or you are not a citizen. If you are not a citizen, you are visiting my country. If you are going to visit a country and you do not speak the native tongue, you either learn prior to going or you bring a dictionary that helps you to interpret the language spoken in the land you are traveling to. If I was to go to Germany, I would know German. Sprechen Sie Deutsch (Do you speak German)? Ich spreche nur ein bisschen Deutsch (I only speak a little German). But I do not speak enough to get by unless I have a German to English Dictionary.

So what is my point? Why do I have to learn your language if you are in my country? Why do you expect me to speak your language? This is the USA. We speak English, and if you are here, then so should you. Do not expect us to accommodate you, the world does not revolve around you, and therefore you should not expect accommodations just because you breathe. This goes for Americans too. When you travel abroad, you need to know the language of the land. NEVER expect people to accommodate you. Always be gracious and accommodate those who you visit. Think about it this way; when you visit your friends and they have different rules, you accommodate the rules your friend has for their house out of respect. I have a friend who wants all shoes taken off at the door, so I take my shoes off when I enter their house. I don't care about shoes at my house as long as you're not tracking mud in my house. Another person's country is their house, so follow their rules.

Welcome to American, please speak English.

Happy Thanksgiving

Today, my daughter is playing for the last time in Nashua High North marching band. The 4^th annual Turkey bowl is under way; the local high schools, the Titans of the North and the Panthers of south, compete for the city of Nashua. At the end of the first quarter the Panthers are up 6-0.

My wife left to watch the game, and I am home making a feast watching on Channel 99. Being by myself, I am left with quite a bit of time to stop and think about what this holiday means to me, so I thought it would be nice to say my thanks to everyone in my life who made it possible for me to write my blog..

I want to say thank you to my family, starting with my wife for putting up with my passion for politics and supporting my side project. Thank you to my daughter for challenging my thoughts, and sharing my passion. The two ladies in my life are the major reasons I can bring my thoughts to you. Thank you.

Thank you to my parents for molding me into the adult I have become. It was a long tough road, but you stuck it out and showed me the way to lead proper life. Thank you.

I would like to thank my friend Scott for beating me into submission and making me start my blog. Thank you for convincing me. Thank you for telling me I should write my thoughts for others to share. You are a great editor, web advisor, and friend. Thank you.

Thank you for the United States Military. Jennifer Horn says something to the effect of, "Please say a prayer for the good men and women of the United States military who everyday would give up there life for yours." (Check out Jennifer's Thanksgiving day post) I second that statement, and her Thanksgiving post. Thank you to the troops for the great sacrifice you make for us everyday and today. I can not explain to you how much I am in debt to the Military for the incredible job you have volunteered for. You are all an inspiration to me. Thank you to all of the men and women who are fighting for our country.

Thank you to all my friends for talking with me and debating topics. I know I am very headstrong and passionate, but you have all stuck to your guns and made me rethink my positions. This has lead to a greater understanding of the topics that I write about. You have all balanced my views, and helped me with the empathy I tend to lack. You are all great friends, and I could not wish for a better group of friends. I know that if I need you, you will be there. I will always be here for you. Thank you.

Thank you God for my life. It has been a rollercoaster ride, and is never bland. Thank you God for all those in my life, and all the blessings you have bestowed on my life.

Thank you to everyone for all you have done. I love you all, my family and friends. Thank you for you love, and everything you have added to my life.

Thank you for being a part of my life and reading my thoughts,

God bless.

No Merit for Teachers

Teachers' contracts in Nashua have been a major grip of mine over the past 12 months. I have no problem with sitting down and finding a mutually beneficial contract for the teachers of Nashua and the town of Nashua. The problem I have is with the tactics of the teacher's union and teacher's application of those tactics. For some reason, the union and teachers have decided that the best course of action to take would be to extort the tax payers of Nashua. They are using the quality of our children's education to force a new contract. Many people have been asking me how I can make such bold accusations and I have told them all the same thing; because it is true.

The definition of extortion that best fit the description of the teacher actions is the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority. Though I think this is pretty self explanatory, let's break this down and explore the application of the definition.

Crime; the abject neglect the teachers have for students I consider to be a crime. You will understand this point a bit later as I describe the neglect I have been witness to and have heard from the children I work with from the schools. A quick way to explain my observations would be to say I have to teach the students because the teachers are not taking the time to teach the necessary concepts to the children.

The second part is to obtain money or some other thing of value; In this case, the teachers are trying to get both. The teachers are seeking money in the new contract, and also health care concessions from the city. Granted, health care does fall under the money angle, but I don't want to lose sight of the healthcare piece. Further, I believe the teachers have the right to renegotiate their contract with the city, and have no issue with the renegotiation. The issue is the teachers have decided that they would sacrifice the education of our children to force the city into a contract. The taxpayers and children can not do anything to grant the teachers a contract. We have now become collateral damage in the fight between the city officials and the teachers, further our children have become pawns in the chess game the teachers are playing.

The last part of the definition states; abuse of one's office or authority. Earlier I alluded to neglect, and this is where it fits in. The abuse in this statement is the mannerisms of the teachers toward our children and the neglect of the teacher's responsibilities. The teachers have pulled the "work to rule" card. This does not seem to break any laws, but I see it as a breach of duty or better stated, abuse of the power they have with the future of our children. A teachers' job is to teach subject matter to the children within their classrooms. This does not mean the teacher ONLY teaches in the classroom, but rather teaches those who are part of their classrooms.

Again, I relent to the teachers as they are only obligated to bring forth the approved curriculum and to present it to the students while addressing issues of the students during class. I have never known a teacher who would not make themselves available at another time for the children who need extra help. Should a teacher make themselves available for those who need a more in depth explanation? Every teacher I have ever known or worked with has met with students at times that were mutually agreeable outside of normal classroom hours. I admit the teachers of Nashua are making some effort outside of normal hours; they will only make themselves available on one day and time with no flexibility for the students. If a child is not able to meet with the teacher at the teachers predetermined time, that student will not get extra help from the teacher. The teachers do not seem care about the child's ability to be successful with their academics. The only concern the teachers appear to have with their students is using them in their extortion scheme. We could stop the extortion with two words, "merit pay."

Nashua teachers have no problem with our children slipping between the cracks and falling behind. By their actions, the teachers have proven to me that they do not care if your child gets a full and beneficial education. Why should the teachers care, they get paid either way. It might not be the exact figure they are looking for, but they still get paid. I forgot to add that when a new contract is approved the teachers will get their new pay retroactive. How are these teachers going to give our children a retroactive education? This is why I feel the teachers of Nashua do not care about our children: There is no way to give back the lost time. Time is the largest of the opportunity costs, and the students of Nashua are paying dearly.

So You Think I’m a Bad Parent?

Frequently, we hear people complain about how children are raised. I also complain about this, but my complaints differ with the collective voice that we hear about on a daily basis. People often try to explain away the actions of our youth. They say, "It's just kids being kids … It's not their fault," and the worst one, "They never had a father (or real family)." What happened to accountability? Where is the world I grew up in where kids were responsible for what they did whether it was right or wrong? As a child, I was well aware of what my parents expected of me. I followed the rules or met the consequences for disobedience. My parents taught me how to act and converse from a very young age. I knew that when speaking to adults, we were to call them "Mr." or "Mrs." Using words such as "Please" and "Thank you" were parts of fluid conversation, not a mandatory statement to get something from someone.

So when did we lose focus on parents actually parenting? Why are we trying to be our child's friend and not their parent? As a child, I knew I could play a game with my mom, or fish with Pop (I called my father Pop), but I was never confused with the idea that my parents were my friends. Time with my parents was special, and it was a great opportunity to learn from the best (I thought they were the best, and I was right!). I could trust Mom and Pop, and I could tell them anything without fear. Sure, I could play a game with my friends or go fishing, but it wasn't the same. My friends were the ones who judged me, and turned on me when the chips were down. My parents were always there, even when I wasn't being a "good boy." They were my greatest, most dependable allies in my journey to adulthood. Friends were never reliable, but my parents never faltered.

Commonly, a child's negative actions are blamed on external forces and not on the internal. I will not subscribe to the idea that a video game or a cartoon can cause a child to act irresponsibly. When I was growing up, I watched a cartoon coyote fall off cliffs and get smashed with huge boulders. I never tried to drop large rocks on people, or shoot someone after playing a violent video game. The difference between children of earlier generations and children of today is this; we were brought up with values, morals, and accountability. I was taught right from wrong, and my parents showed me what morality and responsibility are. My actions reflected on my parents, and more specifically my parents' ability to be parents. I bring up my children the same way as my parents raised me. Therefore, I should expect my child to act in the same manner as I would. My children should be respectful toward others, and be accountable for their action. Essentially, if my child was to act in a manner that was not socially acceptable, I have not done my job as a parent. It is my obligation to raise my children so they will grow into proper young adults.

One small disclaimer here, I have a blended household, and my biological child does not live with me. I personally feel that my biological son is not headed down the correct path, but I do my best to instill my values morals in him his mannerisms. I can only influence him in small increments as I only see him on the weekends. I have a responsibility to my son, and therefore I must do everything in my power to ensure my son knows right from wrong. Though I am not the primary parent in his life, I feel it is my obligation to teach my son to grow up with the correct morals, values and accountability. I might not be as influential with him as I am with my two bonus children (Stepchildren for those of you who do not know the term bonus-child), but I am responsible for showing all three children the correct way to live their lives.

Now, if it makes me a bad parent for being strict, having guidelines, expecting manners, and punishing bad behaviors, then you will never understand what it means to guide a child to become successful. I don't care if an "expert psychologist" doesn't agree with my parenting style, they are wrong. My children and I are the proof that they are wrong. Look at the local news and you will see what happens when kids are not raised with positive influences or held accountable for their actions. In a recent story, a minor in Rhode Island was caught transporting alcohol. The parents of one child said, "Kids being kids," and asking for the cops to look the other way. You look at all the kids that have gone wrong and you will notice one of two things; either they have limited guidance from their parents, or they have a "parent/friend." A "Parent/friend" is the parent who let there kids do anything they want, and "talk" about the issue with their child. There is no punishment, and no expectations. So when the child grows up, they believe that all they have to do is talk about what happened, and everything is better. The child never expects to be held accountable.

Let me think about how I might handle one of my kids if they transported alcohol. Um … how would I phrase this … (imagine a raised voice and a firm tone, not yelling) GO TO YOU ROOM! YOU ARE GROUNDED INDEFINITELY!
When I calm down, we can TALK about possible parole. I don't care why you did it, give me your cell phone, the computer is blocked, and I cut the cable to you TV. I took the speakers from your stereo, and your DVD player. Oh, and while I am at it, I'm borrowing the IPod I bought you. I hope you like country music because while you're grounded it will have my music collection! While I am thinking of it, here is your new chore list; clean my house top to bottom. I am going to the state prosecutor to make sure your punishment make you think twice before disobeying me or breaking the law again.

This is my main point: A child's actions are a reflection of a parent's ability to parent. You are the reason your child becomes who they are. By your actions, you are the one who influences who your children become. A parent should be a disciplinarian, a manager, a councilor, a therapist, and a teacher. There are many other things we become when we become parents, and I could not possibly list them all. But as parents, the most important thing we become is accountable for our children.

The Next President of the United States of America Part 3

Personally, I think Bill Clinton is one of the best politicians in the world, though I have never and would never vote for him. Nothing seems to sticks to the "Teflon Clintons", no matter how bad it may be. If we learned anything from Bill, it is that not even a major mistake is enough to topple a Clinton. So effectively, Hillary has the best political adviser at her disposal. This means that by her own actions, name recognition, and Bill's advice, she can lose only if she makes a major mistake. Hillary continues to prove this as she avoids taking a stand or decides to alter her statements with the political tide.

The latest example of Hillary twisting in the wind came forth at the latest debate. When Hillary was asked if she was for or against the Governor of New York giving out driver licenses to illegal immigrants, she said at first she was for it. In case you missed it, by proxy she was for it when she said, "… So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap." She was then rebuked by her colleagues, and in the next breath, she was against such a proposal: "I just want to add that I did not say that it should be done but I certainly recognize what (why) Governor Spitzer is trying to do it, and we have failed, we have failed." Chris Dodd again jumped at the bit, and interjected with, "no, no, no, you said... you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Hillary challenged Chris with an outright lie, stating, "no… no I didn't, Chris." I am sorry, but yes …yes you did, Hillary. But why are you so upset about being caught in a lie? It is not news when a Clinton lies, but you're acting like someone just said you broke one of the Ten Commandments. Oh, wait, that was your husband… who you're still married to… who you knew cheated on you… numerous times….

Moving on, she was then asked unequivocally if she supported the New York Governor's plan and she responded with, "This is where everyone plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense; what is the governor supposed to do?" Then John Edwards hit one out of the park when he wanted to "add something to what Chris Dodd (said because he) didn't want it to go unnoticed." He pointedly stated that, "Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." John might not be the most eloquent man on the stage, but his comment really drove home the inconsistency of Hillary's statement. Will this be a negative thing for her? Maybe, but this won't stick to Hillary, nor should this be a complication for her while running for the nomination. Want proof? This 3.5 minute video will show how little people are affected by Hillary and her "two minute flip-flop." Hillary will be representing the democrats for 2008 and we still don't know where she stands.

Rudy may be running as a Republican, but he is not running to the right for the primary. He has been fairly liberal on a number of social issues (immigration, pro-choice, pro-gun control, gay rights). He seems to be running to the center during the primary, and is popular enough with conservatives to get their vote in a general election. Right now, it looks like Republicans will take anyone who qualifies as Republican so long as they think that person can beat Hillary and/or Obama. I can't shake the feeling that Rudy isn't running to the center from the right, rather he is actually left of center. He may be just slightly right on some issues, but the social inconsistencies make me very hesitant. Rudy became America's Mayor in September 2001, and is now a household name. He passes as a Republican, and handles the spotlight well. He may not be the best Republican by his record, but I think he can hold his own against Hillary. As I have said, he is a bit liberal and Republicans just won't vote for Hillary. This is a very attractive combination for a Republican running for election in 2008. Conservative Democrats and independents will vote for Rudy and maybe he can capture the moderate and slightly liberal independents. There are some good points to draw the conservatives closer to him during the general election; he is tough on crime, and that may transpose to a tough military leader. Rudy was about getting the job done when he ran New York City, and that might be an approach that would work well with Iraq and also the war on terror. If Rudy is half as tough running our military, there is a good chance he can end the current conflict we are having with the Islamic jihadists. Then again, he might metaphorically knock down a beehive, stirring up the nest, to remove it from the building.

One other quick point on Rudy; one of his recent commercials personifies my greatest fear. Rudy has stated, "…I want people to look at those and say if I agree with most of them, then this is a person who can bring them about. And if they disagree with it, they should vote against me, because I am going to bring it about." So what Rudy is saying to me is that he wants to do it all his way. So Rudy, are you willing to make concessions to pass legislation? When you are president, how thick will you make the log jam of legislation? Again, I think we need a leader who knows how to make concessions, and works well with others. I do not believe headstrong bullheaded policies are good for the nation, but I do believe that mindset will cause polarization and hyper-partisanship. Rudy might win the nomination, but I still don't think he is the right person for the job.

As you all know, I am having a hard time leaving Mitt Romney out of the mix here. I can't help but think what Mitt could do as President. As I stated in my last post, Mitt can do it all, but I also feel that he can handle the Iraq situation with greater finesse than any other person on either stage. Mitt has the right idea when it comes to immigration, taxes, extremists, and health care. Mitt is the best candidate on either side of the aisle, and would be a great president. Rudy might be a good president, but Mitt would be great. I have heard every candidate, and met many of them. There is no question in my mind that the next leader of the free world should be Mitt Romney. I may not agree with everything Mitt has to say, but I do agree with him on every issue that I find important.

Considering my feelings about the next election, and who will be the nominees, there is one slim silver lining; we will have a Republican in office next. Unless Mitt Romney can overcome Rudy Giuliani in the primary (I am crossing my fingers and praying real hard for Mitt), ladies and gentlemen, your next President of the United States of America is Rudy Giuliani.

The Next President of the United States of America Part 2

In the last post, I decided who I thought would be the Democrats nominee. To get the Republican nominee, I have to remove the dead weight on the Republican side. To do so, I will remove Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul. We also have to remove one who is moving up to viable status, Mike Huckabee. You may argue with my choices for elimination, but let's be serious; none of these guys have a chance to win their respective parties nomination, not even Mike Huckabee.

As for the major candidates on the Republican side, a haggard John McCain has only been marginally significant at the debates until late. McCain has taken a stronger stance on a few key issues. This has made his agenda line up with the conservative party's mentality. Unfortunately, I fear it may be too little too late for him change his mind. To come out and say, (paraphrased) 'yeah I was wrong on immigration and NOW I am listening,' is not good enough for me. I feel that when he addressed his change of heart, McCain forgot to add that he is listening because you are not voting for him. As of late, McCain has been looking livelier on stage. He is now pushing the conservative agenda. Yet when we look back at his recent record and we see that McCain has gone completely in the wrong direction for the heart of the conservative party. McCain has also changed the game plan in his bid for nomination. He has decided to deflect the flip flop allegation by moving the heat to Mitt Romney. McCain has gone to great lengths to show Romney as a foe conservative by Mitts actions as Governor of Massachusetts. Mitt had to work with liberal legislators in Massachusetts, but in the senate you have to push the agenda of your party, not the agenda of the opposition. McCain seems to have forgotten this as evidenced by campaign finance reform, Illegal immigration, and gay marriage (you have to go back to early 2005 to find this one). I am not saying one should not make concessions in the senate, but rather push bills that are aligned with the party mindset.

Fred Thompson landed with a thud. The poor boy hit the ground, but forgot to start running. He was wholly unimpressive with his first debate being fairly vague yet comical. Fred threw out a few comedic one liners without taking any major stands. Thompson was using the January dodge maneuvers of the early primary candidates. At his point in the game, he should be taking the bull by the horns and talking about the specifics that voters are looking. Thompson has been better with specifics, but not with his charisma. I have been reading article that tell about crowds that didn't even know when Thompson was finished with his speeches. I saw Thompson here in Nashua, and was not moved by anything he said. If Fred had not have spoken he would have received a better reaction. To be honest, every time I have heard him speak, or read a transcript, he loses points in my book. If Fred was not on Law and Order, I do not believe he would be any higher in the polls than Tom Tancredo. In another strange twist of events, Thompson seems to think he should be picking apart Giuliani. If I was speculating as to Thompson's game plan, I would say he is going after Giuliani to make headway in his stalled campaign. By attacking Giuliani, he is making himself relevant to the voters and media outlets. His speeches and debates do not seem to resonate with conservatives; therefore attacking Giuliani will get the headlines he can not generate on merit alone. I am not sure if this is the right move, but he is getting more air time, and sound bites.

The man who shows the most promise in the Republican race is Mitt Romney. Romney has been solid from day one with his family values, conservative mindset, and his ability to work with both sides of the aisle. His record shows parts of liberal legislation as he worked together with the heavily Democratic legislature of Massachusetts. Romney used the line item veto to cut out excessive spending and to bring forth a fiscally conservative bill to the populace of his constituents'. The legislature did over-ride many of his vetos, but keep in mind that Massachusetts has a legislature that is 85% liberal. You must also note that when a Governor veto's a bill, you can not count it against the Governor when a veto is overridden. To put this in perspective, if your car is stolen, and involved in an accident, it is not your fault. Sometimes you need to make concessions to get what you want. Hyper partisanship causes a log jam for legislation and Romney knows this. In other words, Romney has the conservative values that conservatives crave, he can work with both sides of the aisle to the elation of the independents, and he also will allow a concession which appeases the liberals. We need Romney now because he can work legislation though, and he would work the hardest to get the job done. Not to say the others would not work their hardest, but the others candidates hardest is Mitts easy pace. The man never breaks a sweat because he thrives on pressure and success. Romney has the record to show he would be effective as president. Unfortunately, I have not predicted Mitt as the nominee, though he would be the best candidate and President. If nothing changes, Mitt only has a 49% chance of becoming the nominee for the Republicans. Even though Mitt can, and would, mop the floor with Hillary Clinton, Rudy has a very good chance of winning the nomination. Though I know Romney should win hands down, in the contest of Romney VS. Rudy, I can't say Romney would win.

… And the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani …

The Next President of the United States of America Part 1

Around the middle of August, I made my first prediction about the presidential race. When I decided to post my thoughts on the election, I assumed you would be more interested in who I think will win and why. With that in mind, I had to weed out two viable candidates from the vast fields and make a final choice. This is not an easy task as there are some real strong candidates on both sides. Considering the length of my analysis, I decided to cut down the level of detail I used to explain my positions, and split this into a few different posts. The hardest part was eliminating the top tier candidates on both sides. In once case it was almost impossible to eliminate a candidate as he could, and more importantly, should get his parties nomination.

In this post, I decided to eliminate the candidates that we should not waste time with. I also decided I should reduce the major contenders on the Democrats side. Except for one candidate, I feel all of the Democrats are second tier material. Therefore I will not waste time with most of them. Let's start by removing Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd. In all honesty, there is no chance that any of these men can compete with the front runners for the Democrat nomination. Moving on…

Now we can weed out the other major Democrat contenders starting with Barack Obama. Barack just does not have the experience needed to be successful in a general election, never mind the Presidency. He seems to have a major issue with the stress related to public forums such as debates. Though he is great at rallying people while giving a speech that does not include feedback, he does not seem to handle direct questioning well. Barack gets flustered and losses his eloquence when he is faced with a difficult question. How can you lead the "free world" if you can not handle the lime light of a debate? Further, he seems to know what issues he should talk about, but Barack does not seem to have a solid answer to anything. I have frequently listened to him highlight some major political issues without giving his solution. On the rare occasion that he give a solution to a problem, his ideas reek of inexperience. He has often retracted his statements by altering his viewpoint or stating that he did not mean what he said. On the other hand, if Barack is going to make a serious run for the nomination, he needs to change his approach. Unless Obama starts chipping away at Hillary and her policies to weaken her stance, how can he compete with the "Clinton Machine." As of late, Obama has been more aggressive with Hillary, but I can't help but wonder if it is too little too late. Obama may have enough time to get a good foot hold on the nomination, but he may be cutting it too close. This is not to say Obama does not have potential at this moment, but I do not think his potential is going to blossom during this election. He may have staying power, but he is not a great threat to Hillary or, more importantly, the Republicans. Obama is going to be a force to recon with in a few years, but for now, he needs to get his political legs beneath him so he can stand against the Republican in the General election.

As far as John Edwards, I don't really know what to say except that his voting populace seems to be a very specific type of Democrat that is a bit further to the left than independents feel comfortable with. I may be wrong, but he doesn't seem to know where the middle is and Democrats need the independent vote as much as the Republicans. Obama and Clinton are the only two that I can see who could sway the independent vote, each for different reasons. I wish I could be more descriptive with John Edwards, but there really is not much to say. He does not have any realistic strong standpoints, no viable policy, and can not compete with Hillary (or Bills) charisma. My final point is the most important; Democrats are intelligent, no matter what a Conservative says. Therefore, John Edwards will not win the nomination because Democrats know he can not win a general election.

… and the nominee is … Hillary Clinton

Welcome To My Mind

On a small scale, I have been wowing people with my bold assessment, and general grasp of the political world for about two years now. After some of my more famous (or brazen if you will) predictions and analysis have proven to be reliable, people have asked me to put my thought into words. I have been asked by many people to start a blog, yet it never seemed interesting to me. About a month back I predicted the next President while I was talking to a local radio personality, one who I have been talking with for quite a number of months. He rejected my ideas and protested slightly before asking me to "hang on the line." Once the commercials began, the host came on and told me I needed to start writing my thoughts down and "get them out." Later in the week, while this was floating in my head, a friend of mind reminded me about my Mitt Romney prediction. Back when Mitt Romney looked like he was fairly comfortable presiding over Massachusetts, I raised eyebrows by saying that he was going to run for the Presidency in 2008. This was not so surprising considering people have been speculating such actions for a few years except I said it with absolute certainty. Suddenly, Romney announces he is running for President, and all eyes turn on me.

In the past, I have made some reckless predictions with varying amounts accuracy. More often than not, I try to stay away from predictions and work more with the analysis of the events that are at hand. My intention is to address weekly an event that I see in the news or something that has been on my mind. I will editorialize, and you will disagree with me. I hope you will disagree with me; otherwise this will be a very boring side project for me. I like differing views, but be forewarned, I do not dabble with quibbling, and will not tolerate ignorant personal attacks. I will try to address any comments, questions, and the likes there of in a timely fashion, but please remember, my postings and time spent here with commentary is a side project to my life and family. Further, if you can not be respectful, your posts will not be listed, nor responded to. You may disagree with me, and I hope you do. I would love to have a debate at any respectable level you wish so long as we can agree that we will be adults. We also have to agree to disagree at time. (Lord knows my wife and daughter disagree with me frequently!)

With that said … Welcome to my Mind … It's a very scary place.