This is Getting Interesting

The Iowa caucus has traditionally been an informal vote of about 10% of the voting population. This year was nothing different. About 10% showed up and "voted" for their candidate. We had Obama winning on the Democrats side, and Huckabee on the Republican. Both sides showed very clearly who the most viable candidate for both sides is. I know … how can Mike Huckabee be viable? I never said he was, only that the vote showed us who was viable. Now that I have teased you, let me swing our attention to the Democrats. If you want to read about the Republicans, read this post.

So Obama wins by a good margin, followed by Edwards, and Clinton as the caboose. This is a fitting order in my opinion. I think Clinton makes a good rear end, and I don't want her to think she can just glide in, take the vote and glide out. She is still going to be the nominee in my opinion, but I would like to see her work for it. Further, if she has to raise hell on the way to the nomination, the other Democrats are going to start digging into her past. This will make my job easier (picking her apart), and it also make an easier victory for the Republican candidate (not like they need it). If you expect me to take more pop-shots, please wait for another post. I try to reserve those so I can spread them out and not be too repetitive.

Edwards should be used to second. It seems to me he has been there before. Then again, he HAS been there before, and therefore he knows how to run for office. For Edwards to pull second place is about the same as saying he tripped on a stair. Do not count Edwards out because he is not a new kid on this block. You must watch Edwards, he learned from the best. I am not being hypocritical; I still stand by my other post. John Edwards appeals to a particular group within the Democratic voting population. Hillary is still the favorite.

Our buddy Obama is a wild stallion on the stage. No one knows quite how to handle him. Do you attack him, discredit him, or ignore him? He is the first viable "black" candidate offered in a primary election. Obama has staying power, but I don't think he can pull New Hampshire under his wing. Hillary seems to be the one speaking New Hampshire's liberal language. Obama is going to make this a close race, but I don't know if he can get over on Hillary.

Hillary VS Obama offers a new piece to the game board, one I had not thought about. If Obama take New Hampshire, Hillary might not fair too well in the primary. My assumption was Hillary would resonate with Iowa in the same fashion as she does here in the Granite State. I expected Hillary to get silver, maybe gold, and then plow though New Hampshire like a moose in the brush (New Hampshire reference). Now I am rethinking the ease of access for Hillary. South Carolina is a state that has a high ratio of minority voters. Right now, they are not voting for Obama because they do not think "white America" would vote for him. What happens if he wins New Hampshire and Iowa? Both states are 95% "white," doesn't this prove that Obama can win the white vote? Will this sway the South Carolina voters? Many questions, few answers. Here are my thoughts; Even if Obama takes the first two elections, then takes South Carolina, he can not win. Hillary is the "Hollywood candidate" who will sweep New York, Massachusetts, and the entire "Left Coast." Obama is going to get a HUGE bounce, but it will not rocket him into the general election.

Obama is going to make this one interesting, and Edwards is going to be a thorn in the side. When the dust settles, Hillary will be the only MAN standing.

NH prediction

Barack steals it in Iowa, and sets up the Democrats for “change,” and Mike Huckabee comes out of no where and tears it up. So where does that leave us in New Hampshire? Does Barack get a bounce here, and will it help him going into South Carolina? What about Mike Fluke-abee? What bounce will he get from winning the Iowa caucus? How is all of this going to affect New Hampshire? Simple, it won’t.

Every pundit has been talking about the polls and the bounce from Iowa. I have heard, “Barack is up 7 points!” or some other ridiculous fake number. Yeah the pollsters have been calling, and yeah I have taken the surveys. In one survey, I was asked if I would vote for an African-American candidate. Well, yeah I would. I don’t care about their skin color, I care about their positions. Now if they had asked me if I would vote for Barack Obama, I would have said no. I will not vote for Barack because I do not agree with his position, not because he is black. I think most people are intelligent enough to know that a person’s position is what makes the candidate viable. Skin color, lineage, sex, and religion are irrelevant when deciding who is best suited to run our country. I really think the pollsters are basing the Barack Boom on responses from intelligent people who vote on issues and positions, not cursory items such as “skin color.”

As far as Mike Huckabee, he will not get any major bounce from Iowa. I think he might scrape together 10% of the vote, but that’s only 2% more then I have been predicting. Mike will be off the map the day after Super Tuesday. I think his win lets him hang around until Super Tuesday and steal votes from the “real” candidates. Mike is not going to win the nominations, and he is barely going to surpass Ron Paul in New Hampshire.

Ok, my predictions for New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are your winners. Hillary is going to win by about 4% and McCain will win by about 7%. Everyone has been telling me I am nuts, but I will not change my opinion. I think I may eat my words on the Democrats side, but there is no question New Hampshire thinks it is McCain’s turn.

For the republicans final count, Mitt Romney is going to pull the conservative vote (30%), McCain is going to pull the independent vote (36%). As for the Democrats, Hillary is going to pull the liberal vote (40%), and Barack is going to get the independents vote (36%). You will see the results will reflect this on Tuesday.

Simply put, New Hampshire is all about old school politics on the republican side. On the Democrats side, Hillary will have more appeal because people think they know her. She has been around (and around, and around) the block, so she can be” trusted.” Yeah, good luck with that my liberal friends.

VICTORY!!!

Last night was the Iowa caucus and the first win for Mitt Romney. By now you have seen the headlines, and you know it was a good night for Obama and Huckabee, but the raw numbers only show half of the story. The missing part is the true story of last night’s caucus; Mitt wins, and Huckabee losses. Yes, Huckabee did lose. Oh, you didn’t know the entry survey stated 60% of those voting in the Republican caucus were evangelical Christians? Well, knowing this changes the true reflection of the results of Iowa’s straw polls.

Think about it this way; evangelical Christians are biased. FACT: They feel more comfortable with a Baptist Minister than a Mormon. Out of the evangelicals, Mike was able to pull ONLY 56.6% of the vote. This is a deadlocked crowd, and he only pulled 56.6%? This doesn’t look good for Mike, and I think this is the beginning of the end. I know he won, and I understand he was at 34%, but he only got 56.6% of the possible guaranteed votes. You can not win the nomination if you can only grab a small majority of your minority vote.

Mitt Romney was only looking at 40% of the voters as viable. Mitt pulled 25% for the total vote, or 62.2% of the viable vote. This may seem like an unusual way to evaluate the vote, but it is quite a bit more accurate when you look at the demographics of the voting populace. Can religion make a difference in a presidential race? Sadly, yes, it can, and Mitt Romney is not the first candidate to face such a problem. Romney may have fewer votes than Huckabee, but he had more votes than any of the real candidates.

Com-“Mitt”-Ment

When people ask me who to vote for, I always give them the same advice. To make an informed decision, you need to know where you stand. What is important to you? Look at the issues and decide where you would stand if you were running for President. Now take you opinions and put them in order from most important to least important. Look at your list and match you views up to the candidates. Who matches best with your views? After I compiled my list, I decided there is one candidate who will not only make a good President, but would be monumental. That man is Mitt Romney.

When you break down the issues, you have leadership, national security, the economy, and immigration. Leadership is an issue that can only be gauged by experience. With a strong track record, Mitt is the conservative candidate that the United States needs to lead us into greatness in the coming years. His leadership skills are unmatched by any candidate on either side.

As Governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the nation, Mitt advocated conservative legislation that turned a $1.2 billion dollar deficit into a $700 million surplus. Most figures say the deficit was $3 billion, but either way, Mitt took Massachusetts from the red to black.. This is the same man who took the winter Olympics from rags
to riches.

So Mitt must be worth his weight in gold, right? Well, Mitt actually didn't take payment for his work as Governor of Massachusetts. Likewise, what Mitt received in compensation for his job with the Olympics he gave away to charity. In both cases, Mitt did what he does best, removed duplication and waste from spending. When the chips are down, Mitt will turn it around.

National security and immigration go hand in hand in my view. Romney encompasses my feelings in both, individually and separately. Romney was strong against illegal immigration during his time as Governor, and was against the liberal immigration legislation that was presented in 2005. He has opposed amnesty in any form, and has held strong with the rule of law. He didn't ignore the illegal immigration issue, Mitt allowed the State Police to detain illegal immigrants and enforce immigration laws.

Mitt intends to close the borders to illegal immigrants and to enforce immigration laws. This is what we, the voting public, want. We want the borders secure, and the law breakers prosecuted; we want law and order. This is why the degrading immigration bill I mentioned failed so miserably.

One thing that really bothers me is when people say we should walk away from Iraq. Mitt Romney knows and understands the implications of such hasty actions. We can not let Iraq fall into chaos; we must ensure Iraq has some type of stability. Pulling out of Iraq would be the same as saying the soldiers who gave their lives did so in vain. To back out of Iraq could lead to the collapse of the Middle East. If this happens insurgents gain power and terrorist/terrorism becomes stronger. If you take this a step further, you also invite further attacks on United States soil. Terrorist have already said that if we leave Iraq, they will come here (The United States).

Mitt is known to be trust worthy and ethical. He is the true conservative leader who is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, but also knows when to make a necessary concession. He has proven that he can work with both sides of the aisle and is not afraid to stand his ground. We have the chance to elect a man of fiscal responsibility, morality, and integrity. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this what we all wish for in a candidate?

My friend Blither was quicker than I, and wrote a wonderful piece on Mitt. I hope you will read the next post before leaving this page. After you read Blithers post, I want you to see where Mitt stands for yourself. When you add it up, you will know why I am com-mitt-ed to Mitt Romney for 2008.

Why I'm Voting For Mitt Romney

People have asked me why I'm voting for Mitt Romney, and what I usually tell them is this:

Mitt has the most experience, and also has a platform and voting record that most closely matches what I feel we need in a good president.

That's really all I need to say on the matter. But, like most, I'll assume you're here because you need specifics. OK, let's start with a brief overview of his past....

---

School & Early Life

• Attended Brigham Young University, where he graduated as valedictorian.
  
• Graduated Cum Laude from Harvard Law School.
• Named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top 5% at Harvard Business School.
• Participated in several pro-civil rights marches in the 60's.

Private Sector Experience

• 1978 named vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. (a management consulting firm).
• 1984 co-founded spin-off company called Bain Capital for 14 years, earning them 113% on investments.
• 1990 facing collapse, Bain asked him to come back - he did and turned the company around.
• 1998 headed the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, profiting them $100 million.

Political Experience

• 1994 Ran for senate against 8-term senator Ted Kennedy. He lost, but it was Kennedy's smallest margin of victory ever.
• 2002 Ran for Massachusetts Governor, despite an incumbent Lieutenant Governor running. When it was revealed his popularity was 50 points higher than hers, she bowed out. As a conservative, and with over 50% of the vote, Mitt Romney was elected Governor of the state with the highest ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the state legislature (more than 2 to 1 and breaking the all-time record).

As Governor

• Turned a projected $3 Billion budget deficit into a $700 million surplus by lowering taxes and spending.
• In a very heavily democrat state, he still managed to leave office with a 43% favorability rating.

After Governor

• Won the Iowa Straw Poll in August 2007 with 31% of the vote.
• Has the bankroll to fund a decisive campaign against any democrat candidate.

Mitt has the most executive experience of all candidates on either side in both the public and private sectors, all of it marked by overwhelming success. In addition to corporate executive experience, his time with the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics shows that he can switch gears at will to head a team that is very different from his prior endeavors.

Mitt is the most experienced candidate in the field. Combining that with my firm belief that he will be strong on national security, the economy, and immigration makes him the best prospect to lead the country.

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!