Can there be any doubt that Sen Obama doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected president of the United States?

Yesterday, Obama, the quintessential politician with a shrewdness that rivals Bill Clinton on his best day, bent over backwards in an effort to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his comments at the National Press Club.

Obama described himself as outraged at his former pastor’s most recent remarks. This is wreaks of political posturing to anyone with a third grade education. Why? Primarily because Wright’s most recent comments didn’t seem particularly beyond the Pale for him. The only difference between these and previous Wright comments is that they were aired in midst of a national media spotlight and not in the confines of his Chicago sanctuary, but now all of a sudden Obama is “outraged” and shocked and so on and so forth...what nonsense.

It takes a particularly mediocre person to make Hillary Clinton seem like a viable candidate. Indeed one could have more respect for Obama if he were honest, after all he has supported Wright for over 20 years, but now when it is politically expedient he becomes shocked a and disillusioned. Are there no politicians in this country who do not have such contempt for the American populace that they are foolish enough to believe that they can get away with such foolishness.

One thing is for certain, the Democrats have fielded the poorest quality candidates in their 180 year history. In no previous election have Democrats been forced to choose between the two least qualified individuals to serve as president. Why not nominate the Mayor of Paducah?
http://www.thestar.com/USElection/article/419829

New York Teacher of the Year, John Taylor Gatto, unloaded during a reception in his honor, shocking his fellow teachers and administrators in a diatribe sure to ruffle feathers and perhaps give cause for New York school officials to carefully screen future honorees. Gatto's remarks could not have been more accurate, judge for yourself:

I Quit, I Think

In the first year of the last decade of the twentieth century during my thirtieth year as a school teacher in Community School District 3, Manhattan, after teaching in all five secondary schools in the district, crossing swords with one professional administration after another as they strove to rid themselves of me, after having my license suspended twice for insubordination and terminated covertly once while I was on medical leave of absence, after the City University of New York borrowed me for a five-year stint as a lecturer in the Education Department (and the faculty rating handbook published by the Student Council gave me the highest ratings in the department my last three years), after planning and bringing about the most successful permanent school fund-raiser in New York City history, after placing a single eighth-grade class into 30,000 hours of volunteer community service, after organizing and financing a student-run food cooperative, after securing over a thousand apprenticeships, directing the collection of tens of thousands of books for the construction of private student libraries, after producing four talking job dictionaries for the blind, writing two original student musicals, and launching an armada of other initiatives to reintegrate students within a larger human reality, I quit.

I was New York State Teacher of the Year when it happened. An accumulation of disgust and frustration which grew too heavy to be borne finally did me in. To test my resolve I sent a short essay to The Wall Street Journal titled "I Quit, I Think." In it I explained my reasons for deciding to wrap it up, even though I had no savings and not the slightest idea what else I might do in my mid-fifties to pay the rent. In its entirety it read like this:

Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents. The whole blueprint of school procedure is Egyptian, not Greek or Roman. It grows from the theological idea that human value is a scarce thing, represented symbolically by the narrow peak of a pyramid.

That idea passed into American history through the Puritans. It found its "scientific" presentation in the bell curve, along which talent supposedly apportions itself by some Iron Law of Biology. It’s a religious notion, School is its church. I offer rituals to keep heresy at bay. I provide documentation to justify the heavenly pyramid.

Socrates foresaw if teaching became a formal profession, something like this would happen. Professional interest is served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating the laity to the priesthood. School is too vital a jobs-project, contract giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be "re-formed." It has political allies to guard its marches, that’s why reforms come and go without changing much. Even reformers can’t imagine school much different.

David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal development, when both are 13, you can’t tell which one learned first—the five-year spread means nothing at all. But in school I label Rachel "learning disabled" and slow David down a bit, too. For a paycheck, I adjust David to depend on me to tell him when to go and stop. He won’t outgrow that dependency. I identify Rachel as discount merchandise, "special education" fodder. She’ll be locked in her place forever.

In 30 years of teaching kids rich and poor I almost never met a learning disabled child; hardly ever met a gifted and talented one either. Like all school categories, these are sacred myths, created by human imagination. They derive from questionable values we never examine because they preserve the temple of schooling.

That’s the secret behind short-answer tests, bells, uniform time blocks, age grading, standardization, and all the rest of the school religion punishing our nation. There isn’t a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don’t need state-certified teachers to make education happen—that probably guarantees it won’t.

How much more evidence is necessary? Good schools don’t need more money or a longer year; they need real free-market choices, variety that speaks to every need and runs risks. We don’t need a national curriculum or national testing either. Both initiatives arise from ignorance of how people learn or deliberate indifference to it. I can’t teach this way any longer. If you hear of a job where I don’t have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know. Come fall I’ll be looking for work.

Can there be any doubt that John Taylor Gatto is perhaps the most deserving recipient of the Teacher of the Year designation, perhaps his statememnt should become mandatory reading for teacher, administrators and students alike. Somehow we doubt that will be the case.

Links:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue2.htm

When it comes to the issue of oil prices, never are politicians more on top of their game and of course the game is one of distraction. Capitalizing upon the fact that the average American is completely ignorant of even the most basic principles of economics it comes as no surprise that these politicians, particularly those on the left, attempt to levy a preponderance of the blame for high oil prices on the Exxons, Chevrons and BPs of the world. And because the oil companies apparently devote not a single dime toward public relations the average American is inclined to believe the drivel that comes out of the mouths of these socialist politicians.

So much is made about these so-called “windfall profits” and “tax breaks” that the oil industry receives. To the leftist, profit is a four letter word. But why is it we never hear about the concept of profit margin? In other words why is it we only hear about net profit rather than the share of profit per dollars invested or profit vis-à-vis revenue? Why? Because it we did we would quickly discover that these so called oil companies profit margins are eclipsed by other companies that aren’t so easy to vilify.

Why is it we never hear about windfall taxes, the amount of taxes levied upon every gallon of gas far exceeds the profits of any oil company. The federal government earns far more per gallon of gas than ExxonMobil could ever dream of earning, but here again our esteemed leaders in Washington take advantage of the fact that most of their constituents have no knowledge of this.

We here nothing of Wall Street and the role trading of oil futures has in influencing the price of oil. We hear nothing of the concerted effort by Washington to prevent increased production or refining capacity, thereby inflating profits further. Exactly why is it that these same politicians have worked to prevent exploration or the construction of new refineries here at home which would significantly boost supply? And why is it that we never here about the economic concept of supply and demand, specifically the role emerging economies like China and India (and their increased demand for petroleum) play in limiting supply and therefore driving up prices.

We don’t hear about these things because A.) These facts don’t suit the interest of these demagogue politicians and B.) Reporting such facts would reveal the complete incompetence of most politicians in addressing this energy crisis. Indeed all we hear from such do-nothing, know-nothing, achieve-nothing politicians is talk of tax increases, which further highlights their naiveté (or shall we say, stupidity) how else do you rationalize calls for tax increases which will serve only to drive up prices.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/01/news/companies/oil_hearing/