flippityflopitty sends this Washington Post article at truthout concerning an investigation of a key initiative of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law, “a program besieged by allegations of financial conflicts of interest and cronyism”.

For decades liberal Democrats have controlled public education. But it’s only now under the sheer pretense of introducing competition and standards that the dastardly Bush-contributing corporations have moved in to rip off the public and create a real mess that threatens the future of our children.

What about the conflict of interest that motivates teachers and their unions to favor immigration because it means more students and thus more money and power, despite the harm it does citizen children? I never read about that in truthout or WaPo.

How about the conflict of interest between the one-size-fits-all, multiculti, politically correct, gay-lifestyle-glorifying, feminized, anti-corporate, anti-military indoctrination my children are getting from their predominantly liberal-leftist teachers who see them as little Eichmann-vessels to be filled with scepticism and indifference, if not rage and hatred, toward all things Western under the guise of shoring up their self-esteem; versus the unvarnished and objective exposition of science and rationalism and history I’d like them to get? Never seen this mentioned in truthout or WaPo.

Despite the constant flowery words to the contrary the interests of the teachers and their unions always trump those of the students and their families. When the budget gets tight (and it always does, regardless of constant spending increases) there goes the computer lab, there goes band. Anything to save a teacher’s job. California spends $8K per year per kid. Who pays for that and where the heck does it all go? More truths not deemed worthy of exploring by truthout or WaPo.

We can be rid of all the conflicts of interest in public education. Abolish it. Stop taking my money to force poisoned alien world-views down my children’s throats. Voucher games (and teachers don’t want even that minimal flexibility) only give back a fraction of the taxes paid toward education. Let me keep all my money and select where and how much I’m willing to pay to educate my children. A 12-student class with a teacher of my choice sounds good to me. I’ll bet $96K/year sounds good to teachers.

Most people don’t necessarily like the sound of that. They believe that somebody richer or with less children helps pick up their tab, it’s ok to screw the rich and the childless, and as if by magic the enormous bureaucratic waste in our current system is actually cheaper in the end.

Probably because they went through the homogenizing dehumanizing meat grinder otherwise known as public school.

You aren’t compelled to loan your car to anyone who wants it, but you are compelled to surrender your school-age child to strangers who process children for a livelihood, even though one in every nine schoolchildren is terrified of physical harm happening to them in school, terrified with good cause; about thirty-three are murdered there every year. From 1992 through 1999, 262 children were murdered in school in the United States. Your great-great-grandmother didn’t have to surrender her children. What happened?

If I demanded you give up your television to an anonymous, itinerant repairman who needed work you’d think I was crazy; if I came with a policeman who forced you to pay that repairman even after he broke your set, you would be outraged. Why are you so docile when you give up your child to a government agent called a schoolteacher?

Another transmission from Das Heimchen:

As you know, I always look for positive signs of changing attitude in the European media. The attached is a translation of a commentary I read at Tagesspiegel online. It shows a sign of awakening to reality, though the entire article did not mention the War on Terror once, nor was there any reference to the threat of the Islamic menace, which is at the base of Iran’s belligerence. But I liked the author’s realization that it would take the US and our military might to stem the advancing threat.

His attachment:

4/11/07

The following is a translation of an article that appeared in today’s Tagesspiegel, a leading Berlin newspaper.

The Nuclear Disorder

Iran’s nuclear plans can only be stopped by the USA – By Sibylle Tönnies

As long as the British sailors remained in Iranian custody, everyone made as if there was no connection between this affair and the nuclear controversy, as if this episode happened at the hottest border of the world purely by coincidence. For diplomatic reasons, this obvious connection was viewed with a blind eye.

But the most recent events in Iran underscore the need to consider the world-political context in which this kidnapping happened. The triumphal celebration of the enrichment successes, the proclamation of the exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, reminded the western world of the fact that Iran is their archenemy. Instead of discussing the question whether the young Brits may sell their stories to the press, the public needs to ponder a more important fact: With their imprisonment Iran has symbolically set the scene for claims to its territorial integrity, before it threw down the gauntlet to the West.

And successfully. In any case, Tony Blair was forced to attest to Iran – something, which otherwise might have been lost from memory – that the land has a great history and possesses its own dignity. And implicitly, that it is not a rogue state whose territorial integrity may not be ignored. With that, Blair confirms explicitly the principle of equality of the states, which Iran cites when it demands the same right to go nuclear as other nations.

That Iran is an archenemy I stated guardedly. It is a problematic old term, which should not imply that Iran is evil, more evil, for instance than the USA. Not at all! The question here is not about good and evil. The subject here is a necessary antagonism, which leads to a necessary world-political metamorphosis.

Each of the two antagonists represents a position that has its legitimacy. While Ahmandinejad insists on the old principle of equality of the member states, set by the UN Charta, which is based on territorial integrity, the Bush politics, is led by a new, though undeclared and undeveloped structure of world security: A unilateral, world police-based guard against the dangers of nuclear proliferation and that does not worry about sovereignty.

The current world order is undecided between the two positions. The current system of collective security, headed by the UN, though without military force – this system that prohibits attacks on the territorial integrity of others, without offering protection from those attacks – is no match against nuclear threat. The balance of terror of the Cold War had hidden this flaw for a long time.

Yet, there is no resolve amongst the community of nations to give up the sovereignty of nations in favor of a central world police. The thought alone causes fear – mostly because the US alone should not take charge of it. However that would be quite inevitable. Because like any national police, the world police would also need an over- whelming potency of thread, an effective military force. And faced with this requirement the UN is powerless. Only the US would be up to it. But for Heaven’s sake! No one wants that, not even the Americans themselves. But on the other hand, the thought of nuclear proliferation is horror inspiring. It is not because he is a rogue that no one wants to see Ahmandinejad nuclear armed, but because he is not allied with the US. One would much rather see the nuclear powers under one command.

The balance is held by two kinds of fear and a decision is difficult. This is why it is hard to find un-ambivalent opinions in favor of multi- or uni-polarity. Therefore, the question is avoided in that abstraction. The concrete “line in the sand” lies in the waters between Iraq and Iran.

The author is a professor of law and teaches at Potsdam University.

Yes, it’s quite a conundrum for the anti-American worldview. They’d like to think a nuclear Iran really isn’t any different than, say, a nuclear UK or US. But whenever the shit hits the fan anywhere in the world (including Europe) they don’t call on Iran. Deep down some even know, for man-made disasters at least, Iran may have planned, funded, or carried it out.

When help is needed even anti-Americans expect the US to lead the cause, pay the bills, and if necessary send it’s boys to kill and die. That is at least as long as doing so won’t interfere with any non-American “territorial integrity”, the economic interests of the anti-American’s own territory, or the interests of “presidents” and “freedom fighters” who act an awful lot like lawless gangsters.

But then an anti-American doesn’t really want to go there. Because resolving the conundrum might require sorting out the difference between good and evil, which is of course more distasteful for them than accepting a nuclear Iran.

Cricket-reader Pablo emailed the following to several media pundits and cc’ed me.

I respectfully request that you do a story on the subject of why some American politicians, Democrats and Republicans, support amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. And as a follow-up ask them how they justify supporting bringing more non-citizen guest workers into America.

The telling line in this North County Times article
is Congressman Brian Bilbray calling the president’s support for amnesty “felony stupid.” The question is, Is President Bush acting as the lapdog of unscrupulous employers, illegal immigrants and non-resident, non-citizen future slave wage guest workers and not representing American citizens and legal immigrants? Is he simply following the wishes of employers of cheap laborers? Or, is this Karl Rove’s master manipulation? Is President Bush selfishly attempting to stack the deck, setting the stage for his 30 year old, half Mexican, nephew George P. Bush (Google him) to be elected the third Bush POTUS. As a Republican or if need be a Democrat it wouldn’t matter. Screw America, screw the Republican Party. History is what matters. Is the lure of being the first three president family in American history so irresistible as to make Bush felony stupid? Viva Bush.

My question posed to Democrats would be, “How do Hillary, Obama, Edwards and the other Democrat presidential candidates justify to blacks and other lower to middle class American citizens, (mostly Democrats) that they have their interests at heart while at the same time they are supporting amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants who are doing the jobs that used to be available to Americans? How do they justify supporting bringing more non-citizen guest workers in to make sure the supply of hard working poor is always plentiful and cheap for unscrupulous employers? It is so anti American worker, anti legal immigrant worker, so anti Democrat. Why aren’t the Democrats representing their constituents?” Are these so-called Democrat leaders so dumb, so blinded by their own egos and ambitions, that they don’t realize that they are being trapped to go against their own constituents, being suckered by Karl Rove. Don’t they realize that the one and only initiative that Bush can possibly get passed and then only with their complicity will stack the deck, set the stage for Bush’s nephew George P. Bush to be elected the third Bush POTUS. Either as a Republican or if need be a Democrat it wouldn’t matter to Rove or W. How gullible are they?

My question posed to those Republican presidential candidates, McCain, Guilani, Brownback, etc., who support the amnesty and guest worker proposals would be “Why?”

Don’t you agree those questions and the answers would make national news and a great story?

Svengali Rove has mesmerized GW and hoodwinked Democrats? There is no reason to invoke paranoid conspiracy theories. Rove and GW are drinking the same koolaid the rest of their Wall Street buddies. “They only come for jobs, jobs Americans won’t do.”

On this issue Ds and Rs have the same problem: a disconnect between leadership and constituency. The elected officials of both parties misunderstand who they represent and disregard the oaths they have sworn.

It is a great story. But it isn’t being told and never will be because our media elite – like the business, political, and religious elite – overwhelmingly favor open borders.

Pablo’s NC Times article for example, like virtually every other immigration story told by the for-profit media, subtly slants some issues and ignores others. There is far more truth to be found in the reader comments. There you find the righteous indignation of betrayed citizens and the brazen taunts of La Raza.

Bilbray’s “felony stupid” line makes him sound like a hard-liner. He isn’t. Only a fool or a knave would pretend that a “guest worker program” will in any way fix the very real problems caused by the immigration invasion status quo. Half the illegal aliens in the US are visa overstays – people who came legally on temporary visas and never left. US judges and politicians have already very thoroughly demonstrated their inability to prosecute visa violations. Another problem is the traditional liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to the children of people here illegally. Guest workers will expect equal or better treatment – and they’ll sue and get it by appealing to the 14th Amendment – no matter what the guest worker plan says.

Any lawyer should realize these things, including the ones who become politicians and concoct guest worker lies. This should not come as a surprise. None of the excuses for the immigration status quo make any logical sense, much less the arguments in favor of legitimizing or expanding the mess.

They do not come here only for jobs.

They take jobs Americans would do.

They do not help the US economy, they hurt it. By sending billions home. By bringing disease. By bringing a culture of violence and crime.

The facist, racist, and xenophobic slurs open borders advocates throw at anyone who opposes the chaos and insanity of the status quo are intended to shut down debate. They do so because they have no rational position from which to debate. They did not achieve the status quo by reason or votes, and most are happy to “compromise” by simply stalling and allowing the chaos to continue.

Our legitimate outrage will continue to be minimized by the media and the leadership of both political parties. It is plain to see for anyone with access to the internet.

Got this one in my email today.

This is an extract of an National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Army Lieutenant General Reinwald about sponsoring a Boy Scout Troop on his military installation.

Interviewer: “So, LTG Reinwald, what are you going to do with these young boys on their adventure holiday?”

LTG Reinwald: “We’re going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.”

Interviewer: “Shooting! That’s a bit irresponsible, isn’t it?”

LTG Reinwald: “I don’t see why, they’ll be properly supervised on the range.”

Interviewer: “Don’t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?”

LTG Reinwald: “I don’t see how, we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm.”

Interviewer: “But you’re equipping them to become violent killers.”

LTG Reinwald: “Well, you’re equipped to be a prostitute, but you’re not one, are you?”

End of the interview

It was followed directly by this one from flippityflopitty:

“It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these journalists/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I’m readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I’ll, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials – after the fact.”

   – Robert E. Lee 1863.

Today’s vocabulary lesson comes from Das Heimchen (The Cricket), who writes:

"Migrationshintergrund" is a new German term which describes the woeful handicap that poor immigrants, particularly those from Muslim nations, have to deal with in Germany. Its literal translation is migration background or immigrant’s background.

In his book "Hurrah, wir kapitulieren" by Henryk Broder, the author describes how his Grandmother had a Migrationsbackground because after WW-2 she was displaced from Silesia. I.e., had to flee the Red Army to find Asylum in what was left of Germany. But, he explains, while she harkened back to the peaceful days of her homeland and she complained about myriad things, she was too polite, she had manners that prevented her to act like today’s "foreigners" when they riot and burn and destroy. Her favorite saying was, "one does not do things like that".

The following is a translation from the German of the author’s book and his views on the kind of license that Migrationshintergrund affords the Muslim population of today’s Europe.

Today, on the other hand, "Migrationshintergrund" means a sort of free pass for any situation. He who has a Migrationshintergrund, only will require an Attorney in the most extreme of cases. For instance after he has slaughtered a film maker in broad daylight on the streets of a big city. Lesser infractions against rights, law and order only require a mention to the media and the public that he has a Migrationshintergrund, which will immediately evoke sympathy for the perpetrator and critical words vis-a vis the behavior of the victim (a provoker, who respected nothing and no-one), and the proven question: "What have we done to them that they hate us so much?"