Let’s see if I can do it!

Do you know people who blindly follow everything that the leaders of their chosen political party or political point of view say? You know – that friend of yours who never thinks that anything a Republican/Democrat (depends on your friend’s point of view) does is worth any good at all. These people bother me. Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of these brainwashed people from both sides of the aisle emerge over the national debt debate. There are conservative minded people who think that the government should stop spending money, period. There are liberal minded people who think that the debt ceiling should have no limit because they don’t think it matters. And then there are the vast majority of Americans who believe that something needs to be done that includes both spending cuts and getting rid of loopholes that allow the ultra wealthy to not pay their fair share in taxes.

In other words, there are people who understand that compromise is the right way to go and there are people who have a blind allegiance to whatever one political party says.

Those people with the blind allegiance frustrate me.

However, forget about the national debate over the debt limit for a moment. There’s an example much closer to home that frustrates me even more. Here in New Jersey we have a very healthy charter school system. For those of you who do not know what a charter school is – it’s a free, public school just like any other public school. There are two primary differences between a charter school and the traditional public school system. The first is that a charter school does not operate under the thumb of the local Board of Education. They’re independent and not beholden to the sometimes crazy local politics that shape local Boards of Education.

The second difference is funding. You know all of that money that you pay in property taxes? Well, that money is filtered through the system in New Jersey a “per pupil” amount is decided for each school district. Ideally, you should be able to track your property tax dollars throughout the system and ultimately say something like, “My 2010 property taxes paid for X students to be educated in the local school district.” Except for charter schools. Yes, they are funded through the same revenue stream as the regular school districts, except they only get 90% of the “per pupil” funding.

Two major differences – independent of the local school board and given less money in an attempt to do a better job at educating your students. Got it? Good!

If you’ve followed the charter school movement in New Jersey, then you know that they are admired by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike. In fact, Governor Chris Christie has ramped up many of the charter school programs that were supported or enacted under former Governor Jon Corzine. There has been a gradual increase in the amount of charter schools operating throughout the Garden State – I think we’re at 70 something schools now. And the most important note to mention about the charter schools operating in New Jersey is that, by and large, they are succeeding.

All you have to do is look at schools like TEAM Academy Charter School in Newark or Camden’s Promise Charter School in Camden or Hope Academy Charter School in Asbury Park and you’ll find students whose parents have rejected the local school districts and are now achieving levels of academic success never before thought possible in these districts. It’s happening, folks – and it’s real. There are a lot of people out there who try to marginalize the charter school movement and their arguments are pretty lame. One of the biggest arguments that I hear goes something like, “Charter schools are private schools! They take money from the public system for a private school!”

That’s totally ridiculous.

Charter schools are totally free, public schools that you can send your child to if you so choose. If there are not enough seats in the charter school to accommodate all of the applicants, then the school holds a public lottery to allocate the seats. It doesn’t get any fairer than that, people.

But what aggravates me the most and what drove me to write this entry is that many of today’s complainers about charter schools didn’t say a word a few years ago when Corzine was governor. Not a word. In fact, many of them lauded the great work that Corzine was doing to support quality charter schools throughout the state. And now we have a very strong, very well-liked Republican governor in a predominantly Democratic state and all of a sudden the supporters of charter schools have become detractors.

It’s sad. It’s pathetic. It’s blind political allegiance.

Mark my words – as soon as a Democrat becomes the governor of this state again, you won’t hear a single peep out of the hate groups that run around these days lambasting Governor Christie’s heroic efforts to support the charter school movement. Those with blind political allegiance will hoot and holler about how great the Democratic governor is and how he or she is fixing all of the problems that Governor Christie “created.”

And amid all of that rubbish there will be nearly no truth.

The truth is that charter schools have succeeded under Republican and Democratic governors alike. The truth is that charter schools have been given a tremendous amount of support under Republican and Democratic governors alike. And the truth is that this state’s politics are so wallowed in people with a fiercely blind political allegiance that those of us with independent voices must continue to shout to be heard above the chorus of blind hatred.

I wonder how long it can last. I wonder how long before someone takes these blind political zealots to task. For the sake of the future of this great state, I hope that day comes very, very soon.

In any event, last year I put myself on the mailing list for the Constitution Party. This party, as I understand it, supports a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. Frankly, as an Adjunct Professor of Political Science I can certainly appreciate the fact that not many people in our society understand the basics of the Constitution nor the powers or limitations of our federal style of government.

Back up for a moment – I’ve also spent some time considering the words that politicians use in their campaigns and what the reality of their campaign promises mean through the vernacular of their campaign rhetoric. For example, then-Senator Barack Obama campaigned to be the President of the United States by making a lot of promises – some of which he simply could not fulfill. Obama promised that taxes would not go up “one dime” for anyone making less than $250,000 per year. Well, that’s not something that Obama can promise because in our system of government the President does not unilaterally make tax policy. More properly stated, Obama should have said, “I pledge to work with Congress and push a policy of not raising taxes on anyone making under $250,000.” However, who wants to hear a promise of “trying” to push a certain policy once elected? Exactly…

But words are interesting in politics and as someone who has been tangentially monitoring the Constitution Party over the last year, I find the survey on their site to be worthy of an entry on this blog. By the way, you can read (and take) the survey by clicking here. What do I find so interesting about it? Well, click on that link and take the survey.

Notice anything? How about the style in which the questions are written? Look at this question:

The undercutting of our free market system, begun by Republicans and accelerated by President Obama, has resulted in near government ownership of too many banks and industries. Do you agree that the Constitution Party (CP) should remain steadfast in opposing both parties’ push for more federal control over our financial sectors and businesses?

For those of you who study this type of stuff (i.e. communication), I’m sure you’re loving this question right now! How about that first sentence? Why not say, “This is what the Constitution Party believes about this particular issue and we’re going to ask you to agree with us in the next sentence, okay?” Honestly, this is a little bit disappointing from a third party that I think has some potential at the local and regional level of politics.

From what I’ve gathered, the Constitution Party is trying to present a real alternative to those in the Republican and Democratic parties who expect this country to be operated as the Constitution dictates that it must. That’s an honorable goal – especially in today’s hyper-partisan political climate where both the Republicans and the Democrats use interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of clauses in the Constitution as the base of their domestic and foreign policies. But where the Constitution Party does itself no good is to put up a “survey” that is packed with leading questions. Not a good strategy.

A better strategy for the Constitution Party would be to go to the 23rd District of New York and set-up camp. This is a district that provided 45.2% of the vote to a Conservative Party candidate. Imagine if the Constitution Party could legitimize itself to the voters in the 23rd District and make a real showing in future elections? Better yet, a good strategy for this party might be to recruit well-known candidates to run for office at the local level and build on local success. It’s almost like building a new business – you don’t just open up 50 Wal-Mart-sized stores in 50 states and expect them to be successful tomorrow. You need to build a brand.

But building that brand should not include time wasted on self-aggrandizing surveys.

And in their article they made the following suggestion:

Since the beginning of March, CNN has fallen behind both the longtime ratings leader, Fox News Channel, which, as the voice of disaffected conservatives, again has an imposing lead, and the upstart MSNBC, which has tried to mirror Fox’s success by steering to the left.

CNN has even dipped behind its sister network HLN (formerly Headline News) on many occasions. Since the beginning of 2009, CNN has finished fourth in prime time among the cable news networks on 35 out of 84 weeknights.

The development raises an obvious question: With its rivals stoking prime time with high-octane political opinion and rant, can CNN compete effectively with a formula of news delivered more or less straight?

Alright, there are a couple of things here that need to be addressed and I’m annoyed that they need to be addressed because I’d prefer to comment on the actual article’s content, not the worldview of The New York Times. First of all, FOX News is not in the lead because it is the voice of disaffected conservatives (in fact, most studies show that more than half of their viewership consists of independent and democratic voters). It is in the lead for a variety of reasons, the biggest of which is that they’ve managed to successfully marry entertainment and news as well as entertainment and commentary.

No one can watch Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Greta Van Susteren and suggest that they are not in the midst of some type of performance. O’Reilly has the American Culture quiz, for Pete’s sake! Hannity has the Great American Panel which introduces an X-Factor (usually an entertainer) into the show plus he’s got that Liberal Translator thing which is clearly a form of entertainment. And Van Susteren is constantly jumping out of planes or throwing out first pitches, plus she’s put together two new segments at the end of her show called “Best of the Rest” and “Last Call” to get people staying tuned. And I’m fine with all of this stuff because these shows are commentary and should show some personality. Nothing wrong with that on FOX or any other cable news channel.

My next problem with the view presented by The New York Times is the idea that MSNBC is an upstart company. Are you kidding me? They were a failed cable news outlet before FOX News was even an idea! The biggest problem on MSNBC right now is the unchecked hatred that they allow to spew on their airwaves, not that they have competition from CNN or FOX News. The difference between CNN and FOX News and the folks over at MSNBC is that they allow completely absurd statements to be made without a strong counterpoint. You absolutely will not find that on O’Reilly’s FOX News show, political leanings aside.

The other problem at MSNBC is talent. Who the hell wants to watch Keith Olberman? The man is a failed ESPN broadcaster and MSNBC gives him his own show? What’s next? The Money Hour with Bernie Madoff? Give me a break.

And the problem with CNN is that they cannot fathom that their opinions are anything other than 100% correct and middle of the road. Look, CNN leans left; not hard-left or hateful like MSNBC, but they do lean left. And the thing is – they don’t get it. For example, I posted a few days ago about that crazy woman reporter from CNN that attended one of the tea parties and was so self-centered that she claimed the tea parties were anti-CNN! Ha! Can you imagine that?!

I’ve seen FOX News reporters go into rallies that truly WERE anti-FOX News and present a set of fair questions to the protesters. Maybe the best thing for CNN, MSNBC, and even The New York Times to do is sit down and actually watch a few hours of FOX News for a change.

Update: The real, straight shooting numbers on who is really winning (“hammering the competition” is more like it) in the ratings war are available at NewsMax.com.

Funny, everyone will say Romney is done for coming in second, but Hillary is fine with third? I’ll make this short, because Iowa only proved one thing – the Republicans are in big trouble.

The energy and participation is off the charts on the Dem side. It went up on the Republican side due to the Evangelical vote. That’s great, but it isn’t enough to win a general election.

The fact is, as things stand, the Republicans don’t have a candidate that can win nationally in 2008.

This is dead on target. Obama is going to turn a lot of the established Democratic heads with the amount of younger support and independent excitement that he brings to the table in this Presidential race. And as a guy who generally does not vote for the Democrats, I’m even excited about something new coming from Barack Obama – though I’m not quite sure what his exact policies are and how they would have a direct effect (if any) on me.

It seems that the Riehl World View post is correct and that Republicans are lacking both excitement and new participation. There really is no, “Oh my God, I have to go vote for this person,” candidate on the Republican side. The only one that comes close is Ron Paul and he’s more of an old school, late 1800’s/early 1900’s conservative (we call them Libertarians today) than he is a modern-day Republican.

While on this topic, I also want to comment that if you’re paying attention and watching the Republican race you can see that the voters WANT someone to be excited about and someone to be jumping up and down over. The majority of voters were disenfranchised with Rudy Giuliani going into the race and then they discovered Mitt Romney and you saw some excitement. Then the voters learned more about Romney and how he’s more of a return to politics as usual and you saw the excitement transfer to Mike Huckabee. Now you’re seeing some of that excitement transfer to John McCain in New Hampshire, but the fact still remains that Obama is bringing new and younger voters out to voice their opinions. No one else is doing that in either party, period.

This is an interesting post to me because Milloy’s article quotes a British judge who has ruled some of Al Gore’s findings as unscientific. In other words, the judge says there is no science to back up some – not all, but some – of Gore’s claims. There is no discussion of where the judge got his doctorate in environmental science, though…

Later in the article, some legitimate incorrect assertions are detailed and I think those are all known to the public at this point (the wrong date being given for a cigarette advertisement, 2005 NOT being the hottest year on record, there not being a cure for polio, etc). But those are all somewhat moot points (except the one about 2005 not being the hottest year on record – that’s an exaggeration of the truth).

In any event, I fail to see how a judge has the standing to make such decisions. This may be more politics than anything else. Of course, this is all taking place across the pond, so I don’t care about it too much, but I thought some of you folks may find it interesting.

Anyway, try Jersey City Locksmith for the best locksmith service in the Garden State!

Fleshing that out is a post for another time, though. I bring this up so that you won’t think my review of Why the Left Hates America is written from a hardcore, right-wing slant. I bought this book (in the $5 bin at Barnes & Noble) about a year ago. I probably should have looked a little closer because the book was published in 2002 and much of what is talked about in the book is dated. However, here’s my review anyway!

Author Daniel J. Flynn makes a clear distinction to open the book. Namely this is that he is NOT talking about the Democrats or liberal-minded policy analysts when he says the “left” hates America. For Flynn, he uses words for what they are (something I admire); in other words, his “left” refers to the extremists who go beyond the liberal ideas of a Nancy Pelosi or a Ted Kennedy. Though the truth is that many of today’s liberals are unfortunately heavily influenced by Flynn’s “left.”

So who are these leftists that Flynn talks about? Well, he begins by citing internal attacks against America from the inside going as far back as the 1800’s. Much of what drove these attacks were not physical disagreements or land disputes, but rather an ideological disagreement between the dissidents and the government. How was this dissidence most blatantly and prominently displayed in modern times? Communists!

Flynn cites many cases where Communists were found employed by the United States government, yet under the direction of the Soviet Union. This part of the book also talks about how the theoretical underpinnings of social revolution in Europe eventually made their way to America and have taken root in our collegiate system (which, anyone who is unbiased and attends America’s colleges can easily tell you is true).

Then he talks about something that I feel quite strongly about and though he doesn’t use this title to describe it, he talks about the bastardization of certain words in the English language. What does that mean? That’s when people use the word “tolerance” to describe a non-violent acceptance of every thought, idea, or way of life in the world…except those with which they disagree. How many times can you watch a cable television talk show and hear a pundit say that we all need to hold hands and sing kumbaya and then in the next sentence have that person bash America’s Heartland, the Catholic Church, conservative values, or any of a myriad of causes or institutes that are not included in their definition of “tolerance?” It’s mind-boggling.

Or how about the asshole who talks about the need for multiculturalism and then rails on about how Western Civilization (a.k.a. white Anglo-Saxon males) are the cause of all of the world’s pains? These people are the far left that Flynn talks about – he cites two different times when academics actually take up and revel in the literary works of people who told blatant lies about other cultures. And all in the name of proving their point and being able to tell America, “You’re wrong.”

Pathetic.

I won’t give away the rest of the book, but Flynn begins to talk about how Hollywood hates America and has embraced anti-American causes, etc. For anyone beginning to get into this type of political debate, I recommend this book. As for those of us who have been more politically engaged over the last few years, you can pass this one by.

What I remember most about John Podhoretz’s Bush Country is the near-infallibility of all of Bush’s moves in Podhoretz’s eyes. True, I believe that a lot of what President Bush has done as the leader of our country is admirable and will mark him as one of the most dynamic Presidents in the history of our country, I’m not entirely sure that a book can be written discussing his Presidency without talking a bit about some blemishes on his record.

If nothing else, I would have liked to see an inclusion of at least some of Bush’s faults. However, this book’s subtitle was, “How George W. Bush Became the First Great Leader of the 21st Century—While Driving Liberals Insane” and this is something that Podhoretz shows time and time again in the book.

You all know that I don’t give away much about the books that I read, but one thing that really made me laugh was how Podhoretz explains how completely out of touch the liberals are with simple Americana references. For example, both Presidents Ronald Reagan and the current George Bush have been called “cowboys.” Now, for those of us who’ve ever watched a western or who know half a dime’s worth about Americana, we know that simply owning a ranch a cowboy does not make.

These men own ranchers, but are by no means cowboys! But, as Podhoretz explains, it doesn’t matter to liberals that they’ve completely jumbled Americana and simple American imagery because the masses will believe just about all of what the liberal media puts before them.

Podhoretz also proves how Bush is not a puppet and how he’s not a moron like most liberals wish he was – some of these topics are covered with a grain of salt since they really don’t warrant full lip service for being so outlandish. I mean anyone who says, “President Bush sounds like a moron,” either only listens to his handful of vocal gaffes from 2000 and 2001 or they don’t like that Texas accent. I worked with an older woman who was from Texas and she had the same accent and I like it!

Overall, I would say to hold off on reading this book if you’re already 110% behind the President. There’s no need to read stuff that you already know. If you’re a leftist thinker who hates the President, then you may want to read this to see how the other side thinks. I got this book on sale, so it was worth it for me to read!