Not In Front Of The Kids

Forget the Alamo - Ann Althouse makes a heroic stand against the marauding WaPo and their attempt to massacre the new Texas educational standards. Apparently Texas tilts right and lefties are troubled, so you know we can go barrel-fishing in the NY Times for similarly silly coverage.

And here we go, as the Times braces for the approval of the new standards:

Texas School Board Set to Vote Textbook Revisions
By MICHAEL BRICK

AUSTIN, Tex. — After facing months of protest, conservative members of the Texas Board of Education were expected Thursday night to vote to teach schoolchildren a version of American history that emphasizes the roles of capitalist enterprise, the military, Christianity and modern Republican political figures.

Hmm - emphasizes "modern Republican political figures"?  Let's stay with that; it is picked up a bit later (second paragraph):

While many of the changes to the science curriculum used coded language to advance conservative principles, some additions to the history standards were more overtly political. Board members planned to add language requiring high school students of the civil rights movement to “describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo.”

In another passage, the board would require students to explain the roles of “Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association.”

Dare we ask - the roles of Phyllis Schlafly et al in what context?  From the social studies high school standards linked by Prof. Althouse we see this (p. 5 of 42):

(10) History. The student understands the impact of political, economic, and social factors in the U.S. role in the world from the 1970s through 1990. The student is expected to:

(A) describe Richard M. Nixon's leadership in the normalization of relations with China and the policy of détente;

(B) describe Ronald Reagan's leadership in domestic and international policies, including Reaganomics and Peace Through Strength;

(C) compare the impact of energy on the American way of life over time;

(D) describe U.S. involvement in the Middle East such as support for Israel, the Camp David Accords, the Iran-Contra Affair, Marines in Lebanon, and the Iran Hostage Crisis;

(E) describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association; and

(F) describe significant societal issues of this time period.

Was there a conservative resurgence from 1970 to 1990?  Maybe!  I don't know how it could be discussed without noting the significant contributions of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter (who gets a Camp David nod), and I am sure Rush is fuming, but I am not sure how the Times would sustain its objection. 

Just for contrast, in earlier standards we see this:

(9) History. The student understands the impact of the American civil rights movement. The student is expected to:

(A) trace the historical development of the civil rights movement in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, including the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments;

(B) describe the roles of political organizations that promoted civil rights, including ones from African American, Chicano, American Indian, women's, and other civil rights movements;

(C) identify the roles of significant leaders who supported various rights movements, including Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, and Betty Friedan;

(D) analyze the effectiveness of the approach taken by some civil rights groups such as the Black Panthers versus the philosophically persuasive tone of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech and his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail";

(E) describe presidential actions and congressional votes to address minority rights in the United States, including desegregation of the armed forces, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965;

(F) describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo;

(G) evaluate changes and events in the United States that have resulted from the civil rights movement, including increased participation of minorities in the political process; and

(H) describe how litigation such as the landmark cases of Brown v. Board of Education, Mendez v. Westminster, Hernandez v. Texas, Edgewood I.S.D. v. Kirby, and Sweatt v. Painter played a role in protecting the rights of the minority during the civil rights movement.

No Malcolm X?  Well, I would need a helpful lefty to tell me whether this passes muster.  Apparently the Times would prefer a section on Civil Rights history in which Faubus, Maddax, and Wallace and other civil rights opponents never existed.  That might be a better world but I doubt it would be better history.

And mysteriously unmentioned by the Times is more catnip for progressives:

(5) History. The student understands the effects of reform and third-party movements in the early 20th century. The student is expected to:

(A) evaluate the impact of Progressive Era reforms, including initiative, referendum, recall, and the passage of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th amendments;

(B) evaluate the impact of muckrakers and reform leaders such as Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Ida B. Wells, and W. E. B. DuBois on American society; and

(C) evaluate the impact of third parties, including the Populist and Progressive parties.

I assume the Times wants a special section devoted to the Age of Barack, but maybe we can let Texas wait another year or two.

JEALOUS MUCH?  The Times' Big Finish:

One opponent of the changes, Benjamin T. Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P., vowed to take the fight to other states.

“The biggest danger is we’ll end up with children who don’t understand history,” Mr. Jealous said in a telephone interview. “The school board members are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.”

Uh huh.  Texas could end this whole controversy if they simply titled their project "The History of Liberal Virtue and Virtuous Liberals".

ERRATA: Phyllis Schlafly gets a second mention:

(24) Citizenship. The student understands the importance of effective leadership in a constitutional republic. The student is expected to:

(A) describe qualities of effective leadership; and

(B) evaluate the contributions of significant political and social leaders in the United States such as Andrew Carnegie, Hector P. Garcia, Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schlafly, and Hillary Clinton.

OK, who is her publicist? 

And I will admit that Texas has me beaten down with one of these names - Hector P. Garcia is "A Texas Legend" and a great American.

Comments

[Pere Ubu.]

Fee Fi Fo Fum
I smell the blood from a culture scrum.
========================

[Clarice]

No chapters on polling. Like describe the effects of polling on views and elections, comparing Gallup and (who BTW has O at -17 again today). Rasmussen,

See, how I sneaked that in w/o going OT?

[Donald]

Not for nothing, but Lester Maddox is not the monster portrayed in the media.

[anduril]

Maybe teachers should read this in front of the kids: Obama's Dangerous Spy Game, by John Lehman, Reagan's Navy Secretary.

After exhaustive investigation, analysis, and debate, the 9/11 Commission unanimously recommended the establishment of a new position of Director of National Intelligence, reporting directly to the president. We intended a position with strong executive authority over the 16 dysfunctional intelligence agencies in the executive branch. We also intended an agile and elite staff of under 300 people reporting to the DNI, drawn from both inside and outside government.

The mission of the DNI was not to be the primary daily intelligence briefer of the president, nor to preside over yet another layer in the bloated intelligence bureaucracy. Instead, the position was intended to break up and reduce bureaucratic layers, tear down the 16 stovepipes that prevented sharing of intelligence between agencies, clear away the deadwood and dross, and infuse a newly streamlined intelligence community with a sense of mission rather than devotion to process, careerism, and turf.

Congress for once acted swiftly and passed legislation that was far from perfect, but sufficient to enable what we intended. President Bush, however, then took this legislation and turned it on its head.

While he had resisted the establishment of our commission and was hostile to it throughout, we did not expect that he would go to such lengths to block our recommendations. His first pick for the job, former ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte, was a superb diplomat with no interest or experience in the intelligence snake pit. Bush then lumbered him with a vast new bureaucracy now encompassing over 2,000 souls. To further ensure paralysis, Bush refused to grant Negroponte the essential powers over intelligence budgets and personnel policy. I can almost imagine the former president muttering under his breath, “There, that will fix those commission bastards.”

With the coming of the Obama Administration and its view that everything Bush did should be reversed, there was hope the president would make a new start with the DNI, and perhaps even read our 9/11 report. Those hopes were dashed when he put his pal Leon Panetta at CIA and then reversed attempts by Negroponte’s successor, John McConnell—and Blair—to exercise some of the powers over the CIA, FBI, and Department of Defense that we had intended for the office.

While three successive DNIs have striven hard and accomplished some useful things, the intelligence community is now even more bloated and just as dysfunctional as it was before 9/11. The solution does not lie in yet another reorganization by a fourth powerless DNI. There will be no improvement until we have a president who gets it. Until then, the burden of keeping Americans safe from terrorism must rest outside the federal government, with individual centers of intelligence excellence like Ray Kelly’s NYPD Counterterrorism Office.

[Clarice]

Jack Cashill has a blockbuster on Sestak.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_senator_from_sandy_berger.html> The Senator from Sandy Berger

[Ignatz]

--“The biggest danger is we’ll end up with children who don’t understand history,” Mr. Jealous said in a telephone interview.--

Indeed. That would be a catastrophic eventuality were it to ever happen in our efficient and well run current school system.
Mr. Jealous is quite wise to wake up to this threat of millions of tiny ignoramuses toddling out onto the playgrounds of America rather than the legions of young Kenneth Clarks and Mortimer Adlers currently being produced.
Thank goodness the NEA and NAACP stand ready in the breech, for the children.

[Cream in your tea?]

The Gorgons' 'heroic stand' is just an Insty knock-off.

That liberal news media screed is also more
of the same claptrap that made Nixon, the pathetic loser, the whining poster-boy of grand mal persecution complexes.

"You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore". If only that had been a serious threat.

You tea-gaggers 'gavage' yourselves with the corn you yourselves grow, then pretend it's pate' de foie gras.

Try another tac.

It's like an NBA team crying about the unfair officiating as the reason for their
miserable defeats.

As pathetic as Tricky Dick in his birthday suit of self-loathing.

[anduril]

Institutional Risk Analyst offers a big picture assessment this morning:

http://us1.irabankratings.com/pub/IRAMain.asp

The legislative process in Washington with respect to financial reform is thankfully at an end and the result is even less impressive than the breathless news reports indicate. Most of the supposed reform is actually window dressing, especially those portions of the legislation that afford regulators "discretion" in terms of changes in the behavior of the largest banks and markets.

What is the point of greater transparency from "private" banks, companies and markets envisioned by financial reform legislation if the condition of private obligors is being undermined every day by the irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies coming from Washington? What difference does greater financial transparency make when the underlying political economy is built upon false assumptions and outright fallacies about finance and economics that stretch back decades to the WW II and the Bretton Woods agreement?

Henry Hazlitt suggested half a century ago that the private markets take their example from Washington and the Fed when it comes to behavior. Don't look for effective reform in the financial sector until we get Washington's fiscal house in order. As IRA co-founder Christopher Whalen told the Ludwig von Mises Institute meeting in Manhattan this past weekend, over the next decade we expect to see higher taxes and more inflation coming from Washington, along with the return of trade protectionism as a tool of national policy.

The engine of future inflation in the US is readily apparent in the Fed's reckless zero rate stance and $2 trillion in "quantitative easing" or QE as the Fed's latest bailout operation is labeled. QE is a direct subsidy to Wall Street and the very banks that the Congress now pretends to reform. But markets do not yet understand that the next leg of the road to global hyperinflation is the refusal of the US central bank to allow financial deflation in Europe.

As we did in WW I, WW II and with the Marshall Plan, the US is once again coming to the financial rescue of what we now call the European Union. The Fed's last stand as the defender of the post-Bretton Woods system for the dollar is to rescue Europe from a deflationary collapse -- but the debt load of the EU makes that an insurmountable task. Readers of The IRA may have noticed that the EU nations have stated that defaults by any member nation will not be allowed -- a sure sign that that is what will probably happen, with or without a bailout from the US.

[Captain Hate]

Benjamin T. Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P.

Sounds like the name of a Howdy Doody character.

[Son of the Sith]

"Don't look for effective reform in the financial sector until we get Washington's fiscal house in order."

Yup. Git that dirty money out of DC.

Publicly-funded campaigns is the ticket.

[narciso]

I'm a big fan of John Lehman, but how did he think the DNI was ever going to work as an effective consolidator, also consider the
impact of the likes of Fingar, Graham, and
the other CIA escapees on the department

[Rob Crawford]

Publicly-funded campaigns is the ticket.

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Talk about corruption -- gubmint bureaucrats deciding who gets to run for gubmint office!

You got a bad batch of crack, 'cleo. Go back to sleep. Try not to wake up.

[Rob Crawford]

What pisses off lefties about this new standards is it actually mentions that the segregationists were Democrats. That runs the risk that someone might notice that the modern segregationists are STILL Democrats.

[Senator Mestak, or Mistake, if you prefer.]

By his thumbs until he tells the intelligence that was so critical it was worth stealing. It's still important. Berger, I mean.
==============

[Flea me to the mean.]

ciyt another nit wit.
=========

[Batter up!]

Hey, Donald. So I've heard. Sorry about them Hawks.
=================

[Captain Hate]

Fee Fi Fo Fum
I smell the blood from a culture scrum.

Is that a Pere Ubu lyric? I'm not a fan of them at all but that's pretty funny.

[anduril]

Publicly-funded campaigns is the ticket.

No, bad idea. I wonder whether the type of campaign finance we need to return power to the people would be something like this:

1. Contributions by individuals only--no organizational donations. Not from corporations, not from unions, not from non-profits. Only individual human persons.

2. Reasonable limits on amounts that can be donated.

3. Issue advocacy limited to the written word--newspapers or internet, leaflets or mailings--to limit deceptive advertising campaigns. Anyone who wants to learn about the candidates and issues will either have to read up on them or learn by word of mouth: from the candidates' speeches or from friends and neighbors.

4. Similar limits on the activities of candidates, to limit the possibility of the rich buying elections.

5. Laws against false statements that would have some teeth, perhaps through reform of US libel law.

I realize these ideas are probably unconstitutional and would never be voted in by the political class anyway.

[Danube of Thought]

"Try another tac."

This clown will be sure to have spelling as part of his curriculum.

[anduril]

narciso, i tend to agree with you on that. what would you think of having the NSC exercising the type of controls that the commission intended for the DNI? That way at least intelligence accountability would become a truly viable (as opposed to rhetorical) campaign issue.

[narciso]

That would seem logical,Ambassador Bolton has argued in favor of that, on the standards I think they are pretty rigorous, which I believe is the real complaint, they require
you to think things out, not repeat pablum we
can't have that, can we

[narciso]

One of the problems is the state run media, has too much of an influence already, their
biases are manifest in how candidates, ideas
are framed, and as we've seen it is either
specious or deliberately dishonest

[anduril]

Well, Lehman is absolutely correct about the fundamentals: powers over intelligence budgets and personnel policy are essential. Without that, "reform" is meaningless.

[anduril]

the state run media, has too much of an influence already

That's the purpose of my (almost certainly unconstitutional) proposal to eliminate ads on TV. That way, the internet balances out the MSM, as it does increasingly. Hey, you can lead a horse to water...

[Ranger]

The logest journy starts with a single step. NEA and the NYT's fear is that enacting these new standards won't lead to the end of the world, which will destroy the myth that the NEA and the east coast brain trust know what is best the country.

As to the DNI issue. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and exspecting different results. The DNI's job description is essentially identical to DCI's job when it was first created. Why would creating a new level of desk jockies mainly drawn from the already disfunctional set of agencies not produce a just another layer of disfunctionality?

[narciso]

The greater problem is who rises to the top to man those bureacracies, not the field operative like Marc Gerecht or Bob Baer, but
the skilled bureacrat, who knows how play games at headquarters, and has little consideration for what those out in the field
have to deal with

[The Renewal is a Legacy of O shit.]

I don't understand why dem candidates won't swear loyalty and fealty to the ONE, O. Hillary is going to be a Dutchwoman for her State Indonesia work because her family won't be ruling in the future. Maybe O planned that, but he knows what's best and it's not like there are palace plots from groups he secretly serves.

Whe.

[anduril]

More from IRA (see above). This is not a happy scenario, but I see little hope of avoiding it, given the state of our political parties and the fact that we're run by Keynsians:

When the dollar gradually loses its position as the global means of exchange and other nations of the world assume a more balanced share of the benefits and responsibilities of living in a common marketplace, we suspect that national treatment and national markets will become the new focus on the 21st Century. The change process will start in the US as early as this year, when the Obama Administration plans to float the idea of a national sales tax to help close chronic US fiscal deficits.

We suspect that the tax raising discussion in the US will eventually come down to this basic choice: higher taxes on shrinking American incomes or tariffs on imports. And we suspect that the answer to the question from a far more populist and nationalist Congress will be "both." Even with the Fed's printing presses running night and day, America's vast fiscal profligacy will require all available sources of revenue.

Readers of The IRA may find such views disturbing, even heretical, but we remind one and all that the great architect of the Depression era economic model of using deficit spending to counter economic cycles, John Maynard Keynes, was no free trader. Writing in Yale Review in 1933, after years of grinding deflation and economic collapse, Keynes condemned free trade and capital movements in no uncertain terms.

(Go to IRA for the Keynes quote: http://us1.irabankratings.com/pub/IRAMain.asp)

[Ranger]

That's the purpose of my (almost certainly unconstitutional) proposal to eliminate ads on TV. That way, the internet balances out the MSM, as it does increasingly. Hey, you can lead a horse to water...

Posted by: anduril | May 23, 2010 at 11:31 AM

The problem isn't the ads. The problem is the content of the supposed "news" that is shown on TV. Have you seen the kind of crap that is being pumped out on morning infotainment shows or heard what the network news blurbs spout on the radio? The crap ABC puts on at the top of the hour every hour sounds like it was written either by the White House or the DNC.

The problem with publicly finaniced elections is that ones in power, the left always finds a way to get around the limits and used government funds to do it. Just take a look at what happened in Canada, where the Liberal party government used a Federal program that was supposed to produce ads supporting national unity to fund shadow campaing staffs that worked for the continued election of the Liberal party. When you think about publicly funded elections, just think porkulus on political steriods.

[anduril]

The greater problem is who rises to the top to man those bureacracies, not the field operative like Marc Gerecht or Bob Baer, but the skilled bureacrat, who knows how play games at headquarters, and has little consideration for what those out in the field have to deal with

What's gotten into you this morning, narciso?

It's a difficult problem. OTOH, people who rise through the ranks are almost always those who seek promotion for the wrong reason: because they've discovered they don't like actual intelligence work to begin with. (Think of all the FBI bureaucrats who quit after 9/11 citing job stress--not exactly what they had counted on in seeking promotion.) OTOH, for an outsider to control those agencies is an extraordinarily steep order. Could these difficulties be overcome with reform of the personnel policies governing intel agencies? Possibly, but I'm not an expert in management.

[narciso]

Right, we dissect the AP news slugs here, but for many the 'increased chocolate ration' in the unexpectedly high unemployment rate is gospel, just like the President's valiant efforts on 'the Malabar front'

[anduril]

Have you seen the kind of crap that is being pumped out on morning infotainment shows or heard what the network news blurbs spout on the radio?

In a word, no. I spare myself that assault on my intelligence. However, increasingly internet coverage has leveled the playing field and taken power from the elites--to a disconcerting extent, from their point of view: hear how they bleat, and see how they fold!

[anduril]

Hey, one more reason to KTTFO. Via FR:

Deval Patrick vows support for Muslims
Boston Herald ^ | May 23, 2010 | Marie Szaniszlo

In his largest meeting with Boston-area Muslims, Gov. Deval Patrick agreed yesterday to take aim at ensuring their rights and addressing racial profiling.

The session came little more than a week after two Bay State Muslims were arrested in a raid following an attempted car bombing in Times Square in New York...

Have law enforcement agency heads and others meet with Muslims to discuss the need for cultural awareness training.

Designate a liaison to the Muslim community.

Urge the public and private sectors to accommodate Muslims’ religious...

Beginning his comments in Arabic by saying, “Hello, how are you. I speak Arabic a little,” the governor said the forum was not his first exposure to Islam, noting that he’d lived in Sudan and Nigeria.

[tommy mc donnell]

if our elected representatives were interested in reform on wall street, they would do something to give the stockholders(the owners of the company) some control over the salaries of the people on the boards of directors. these people on the boards are doleing out money to themselves that actually belongs to someone else. instead all they want to do is give themselves more power and control. they can't handle the job they have now and yet they keep piling on more things for them to control. the windup is more things in the lives of the citizens get screwed up.

[The Renewal is a Legacy of O seperatits.]

O can't be tried for crimes against humanity because all the staring through heads, hearing, dreaming, paining, heart attacks, strokes, etc. aren't acknowledged like his administrations of his rule.

The only way to try him is to get him for what he's done; misleading America with his birth certificate that every other federal employee has to produce.

Maybe we can trick the King and his lucian friends with a movie about knights in space and how they fight nobly with light sabers and only use the force to crash planes, cars and spaceships when they have to; like when an King O has chosen the dark side.

[Cecil Turner]

Well, I see troll-boy has usurped yet another thread. Good thing I have yardwork to do: because if I'm gonna have to wade through horse puckey anyway, might as well get some fertilization action out of it.

[Pagar]

God Bless Texas and the Conservatives on the Texas School board!

[Ranger]

if our elected representatives were interested in reform on wall street of the Federal government, they would do something to give the stockholders voterss(the owners citizens and tax payers of the company country) some control over the salaries of the people on the boards of directors running the Federal Government. these people on the boards running the government are doleing out money to themselves that actually belongs to someone else. instead all they want to do is give themselves more power and control. they can't handle the job they have now and yet they keep piling on more things for them to control. the windup is more things in the lives of the citizens get screwed up.

Posted by: tommy mc donnell | May 23, 2010 at 11:55 AM

There, fixed that for you.

[Son of the Sith]

"1. Contributions by individuals only--no organizational donations. Not from corporations, not from unions, not from non-profits. Only individual human persons.

2. Reasonable limits on amounts that can be donated.

3. Issue advocacy limited to the written word--newspapers or internet, leaflets or mailings--to limit deceptive advertising campaigns. Anyone who wants to learn about the candidates and issues will either have to read up on them or learn by word of mouth: from the candidates' speeches or from friends and neighbors.

4. Similar limits on the activities of candidates, to limit the possibility of the rich buying elections.

5. Laws against false statements that would have some teeth, perhaps through reform of US libel law."

Sounds like a lot of monkey business will course through the inevitable loopholes created by the same thieves who write those laws.

Nope. Just award monies to candidates based upon simple rules and let fly.

Of course, I would expect the locals to object, because it's only right that Big Money candidates should have more free speech than Joe Lunchbucket.

That is the problem for you Corporatists, isn't it?

[anduril]

Interesting: Launch of secret US space ship masks even more secret launch of new weapon.

[matt]

They're still teaching history in Texas high schools? Hooray! Here in California, you have a choice of Chicano studies, African American studies and victimology.

How about civics and home ec? Maybe it's a trend!

[Danube of Thought]

Let anyone contribute whatever he wants to whomever he wants, provided that all contributions are fully disclosed.

[Clarice]

I'M WITH YOU, DOT.. And I think those contributions should be listed online within 24 hours of receipt.

[jimmyk]

Let anyone contribute whatever he wants

I presume by "anyone" you mean "any U.S. citizen." I agree. But that's just too simple and therefore threatening to the kleptocrats in D.C.

A side effect of all these limits is rich guys like Bloomberg, Corzine, etc. running for office instead of giving their money to more capable candidates, since they haven't figured out a way to keep people from spending money on themselves.

[Threadkiller]

Bunkerbuster might be interested in Spaceships:

"Why">http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/05/kenya-believe-it-ny-times-toddling-towards-truth-on-obamas-birth-certificate.html?cid=6a00d83451b2aa69e201348108e272970c#comment-6a00d83451b2aa69e201348108e272970c">"Why would it matter if he(Obama) were born Russian or Korean or Martian??"

His next qualified candidate is from outer space.

[Jane says obamasucks]

Part time members of Congress who work from their districts and telecommute to Washington. Congress meets in Washington once a year in November to say goodbye to all the losers and hello to the new crop. Congressional salaries cannnot top 50k a year - elected officials are encouraged to have second jobs. No pensions or benefits. Elected officials are precluded from playing the stock market when in office.

[Simon]

Next edition includes New Black Panther Party members intimidating voters?

[matt]

this is probably one of the least corporatist crowds out there.

The apparatkultura of our society is overwhelmingly liberal and the media have become a propaganda machine for those same corporatists you mentioned. The largest donors to the Democratic Party are GE, Goldman Sachs, and many other major corporations,

If one then includes the unions, which exist today to serve the interests of a select few in leadership positions and their own corporatist ideologies, and the trial bar, who have enriched themselves by gaming the system, fair is fair.

A corporation is in many ways regarded as a legal person under our laws. I know, this is a logical distinction, which most liberals don't get, but it's really true. Honest. Just because you don't like that doesn't change the facts.

We living in an age of rustlers, cutthroats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits,dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass kickers, sh#t kickers, drifters, grifters and Methodists!

[Melinda Romanoff]

tk-

That's like saying "Beetlejuice" three times.

Shhh.

[anduril]

I presume by "anyone" you mean "any U.S. citizen."

Wrong, I think, jimmyk. I'm guessing they really mean non-individuals: corporations, unions, special interest organizations. And, when you think about it, what could possibly go wrong with having corporations, unions, and special interest organizations funding both parties, rather than only individuals? Don't we already have the best government money can buy, and legislators who consider only the interests of the actual voters? And if special interest organizations and such like didn't fund politicians, how would the politicians know whom to appoint to positions of influence? The system might collapse, God forbid!

But maybe I'm wrong.

[anduril]

matt, the extent to which a corporation is a legal person is far from written in stone in our constitutional law. It remains a contentious issue that may yet return to the SCOTUS.

[jimmyk]

I'm guessing they really mean non-individuals: corporations, unions, special interest organizations.

I meant only that non-citizens would be excluded, not that contributions should be limited to individuals. I don't think voluntary groups of individuals should be excluded. (Union membership seems not to be always voluntary, so I might exclude them to the extent that's the case.) My only concern is foreign influence. I'm not sure if disclosure is sufficient protection.

[narciso]

aggregate organizations like those mentioned above, often run afoul of O'Sullivan's law,
hence what has happened with Ford, Rockefeller
Pew and other institution. Who knows what this
Court would decide, since it admits it's not bound by precedent

[Gmax]

The Texas textbook controversy is a tempest in a teapot. There is no there, there. And much of the discussion revolves around controversies as gripping as deciding what the meaning of "is" is. But it does frost the liberals that they can't just white out inconvenient truths, so we can take great lasting pleasure in that.

[anduril]

I don't think voluntary groups of individuals should be excluded.

Nor do I. Under my scheme each individual member of the organization would be allowed to contribute up to the maximum amount allowable for an individual--in his capacity as an individual. Organizations would still be allowed to seek to influence voters through written materials.

[anduril]

white out

sounds racist to me.

[Clarice]

Powerline, does a reverse althouse. where she showed the WaPo printed stuff about the Texas standards that depart from the text in order to deride them, powerine says the NYT departed from the text of Obama's speech to suggest she slammed Bush when he did not--when in fact his speech undermines the claim that Bush operated unilaterally in foreign affairs.

[Janet the mediocre]

Here is an out of the blue question...when/where did Obama learn to golf?
LUN an article on his golfing while the oil spill comes ashore. Who taught him, and where did he get the money to play? Poor student, community organizer, never MADE much money...how'd he get the time, money, and access to play golf?

[Gmax]

Janet they play that game in the hood all the time! Come on girlfriend, you would think that it was lacrosse or something shockingly racist like that.

[Clarice]

Perhaps at that fancy prep school in Hawaii?

[Clarice]

Yup--it has a golf team.

http://www.punahou.edu/page.cfm?p=1748

[Janet the mediocre]

Maybe so Gmax! But Obama isn't really from the hood is he? The one steady life characteristic that is pointed out is that he was poor.
But he went to a prep high school, Occidental College, trip to Pakistan, Columbia, Harvard, trip to Bali...and somewhere along the way this poor chap learned golf?
Hate to say it, but it doesn't add up...something fishy is going on here.

[Janet the mediocre]

Ahhh...thanks Clarice. He learned golf at the prep school. His Mom was supposedly on food stamps, and he learned golf at the prep school. That makes sense.

[The Renewal is a Legacy of O sets]

He learned from foreigners who came to visit and were real nice.

Pavilion money. Quadrennial reviews.

[matt]

anduril;

the body of corporate legislation is massive. It doesn't have to necessarily be constitutional law.

[jerry stone.]

"I'M WITH YOU, DOT.. And I think those contributions should be listed online within 24 hours of receipt."

I assume 'should' means you want it voluntary.

Otherwise, who would enforce?

Certainly, not another governmental bureaucracy?

[anduril]

anduril;

the body of corporate legislation is massive. It doesn't have to necessarily be constitutional law.

matt, i think i knew that there are many laws governing corporations in general. on this thread we were speaking of corporations in the context of election law, and that is governed--at least in important respects--by constitutional interpretation of corporations' status as persons. I refer you to the Corporate personhood debate. Nothing should surprise anyone less than to see continued disputes in this field, given that in this still young 21st century the SCOTUS has ruled on corporate personhood in the context of the First Amendment and then, within only 7 years, overruled itself.

[Janet the mediocre]

God Bless Texas and the Conservatives on the Texas School board!

Amen, dittos, right on right on, yeah baby!

[Danube of Thought]

I assume 'should' means you want it voluntary.

Dumb assumption, and unwarranted. Just make it a requirement of the law; very little enforcement, if any, would be required.

[Clarice]

We already have the bureaucracy--the FEC-- smartie . This would be mandatory but it would require a far smaller bureaucracy than it takes to oversee the (easily evaded in any case) present legislation.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The solution does not lie in yet another reorganization by a fourth powerless DNI. There will be no improvement until we have a president who gets it.

Hmmm. Bush reacted to being forced to implement a DNI (who has the same job description as the Director of Central Intelligence did) who would be a political appointee with no budgetary authority by building an organization that would appear to be doing something while stillo allowing a president to get intelligence briefings from the DDI and CIA.

And you claim Bush didn't get it?

I think you're misunderestimating Bush again.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Publicly-funded campaigns is the ticket.

(1) "Are the ticket." Nouns and verbs in English should agree in number.

(2) This would just result in ALL the dirty money being in DC.

[Captain Hate]

when/where did Obama learn to golf?

Based on clips I've seen of his swing, I think he's still in pre-school.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Anduril, what's really interesting from that list is that it is, front to back, unconstitutional.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Hate to say it, but it doesn't add up...something fishy is going on here.

Y'think?

[adpatablestorage]

Canadians were for O and made a movie, but Thailand needs our help now.............

http://crackie.ca/

[Bill in AZ]

We living in an age of rustlers, cutthroats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits,dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass kickers, sh#t kickers, drifters, grifters and Methodists!

This must be describing the list of characters in the Cashill article Clarice linked above. Wow, what a collection, with dots connected where I hadn't even seen some of the dots before. Every one of those characters has been discussed at length here in one scandal or another. What a collection of sewage.

[daddy]

The New York Post reports:

"This week, the Senate is expected to extend jobless benefits to more than 5 million Americans through the end of the year. It is the sixth time in nearly two years that they’ve expanded or extended unemployment benefits — putting off, again, a day of reckoning our political leaders seem unwilling to face."

It seems to me that that is the 2012 re-election strategy of the Dem's. Never fiscally deal with the problem. Allow the Repub's to get elected in November, then attack, attack, attack them as heartless if they do deal with the problem, and damn, damn, damn them as hypocrites if they don't deal with the problem.

Go Chris Christie.

[RJ]

Well, wherever he learned golf (and I always thought golf was forbidden under the tenets of Islam, because Obama is a...well, you know), it's just one more thing he sucks at.

But to channel the vibe of the WaPo and NYT, it is a most historic and unprecedented suckiness, clearly demonstrating his fitness to lead us to a new age of collective suckiness. I wonder how the creases on his golf shorts look...

But alas, I veer off the original topic. So with that, I give you a set of proposed liberal revisions to the social studies curriculum of the (future) Republic of Texas:

1) Be prepared to enumerate your hurt feelings and general sense of despair over the policies of the Bushitler/Cheney regime. Perform an interpretive dance demonstrating knowledge of the impacts of their manifold war crimes.

2) Give a brief history of how Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Now give a brief history of how Oceania has always been at peace with Eurasia. Demonstrate no knowledge of what that reference comes from, or what it means.

3) Participate in an SEIU demonstration. Extra credit for burning down the home of a fascist capitalist pig.

4) Explain the pioneering cultural and artistic lessons found in "Piss Christ", the writings of Noam Chomsky, and "The Vagina Monlogues".

5) Given that the Founding Fathers were racist, homophobic, warmongering hypocrite racists, explain the progressive modern Constitutional arguments for rounding those of their evil ilk up and placing them in concentration re-education rehabilitation camps facilities.

[Pagar]

On the subject of the bureaucracy, in the case of campaign contributions reports and a lot of other things I suspect 99.% of all that is necessary is already being entered into the computer. Simply adding another addressee would not require a whole lot more bureaucracy, IMO. I offer in support, my theory of the National auto death reporting sequence. Citizen A dies in an auto accident ON JAN 1, 2010. State Highway Patrol officer A reports the fact that Citizen A has died in said auto accident. This report floats around the bureaucracy for a year, year and a half, two years, being massaged by countless bureaucrats. Not a single one of the bureaucrats add any value to the report-- Citizen A has died in an auto accident as reported by Patrol Officer A. What more needs to be said.
Two years later, the American public learns that Citizen A and 40,000 of his fellow citizens have died in auto accidents in 2010. By simply making the office responsible for the total count of the number of Americans killed in auto accidents an addressee on Patrol Officer A's computer report on the death of Citizen A, all the intermediate steps could be eliminated and all citizens of the nation could see on 2 JAN 2010 how many citizens died in auto accidents. With another command, the computer adds the number of deaths for each of the follow days. Presto, 1 Jan 2011, the nation knows how many Americans died in auto accidents in 2010.
The idea of waiting two years to find out how many auto deaths occurred in America in 2010 is ridiculous.

The same procedure would work for campaign contributions. I suspect many government employees are not really needed, but are make work types, i.e. If Patrol Officer A sends his report directly, it eliminates the need for a lot of employees, therefore Officer A can not be allowed to send his report directly. We need to make reporting more efficient throughout the system.

[anduril]

Anduril, what's really interesting from that list is that it is, front to back, unconstitutional.

So what did I say? Nevertheless, not all of it is. We have the limits on amounts, and no one seems to be arguing that too strenuously. I wouldn't be overly surprised to see the SCOTUS flip flop again on who can donate--that remains controversial. My suggested restrictions on speech? Probably no way.

What I'm saying is that we have a largely dysfunctional system, from the standpoint of the people who wrote the Constitution. A system that developed in ways they really could never have envisioned. It's not like there were a lot of unions and corporations around when the Constitution was written. For that matter, there wasn't all that much money.

[anduril]

Anduril, what's really interesting from that list is that it is, front to back, unconstitutional.

Back to front, I think my answer would be the same.

[Clarice]

Isn't it something, Bill?

Very funny, RJ.

[anduril]

who would be a political appointee

As opposed to what? The Director of the CIA who's elected by CIA employees?

[Soma Galore.]

Dead white men at peace.
Bushes piss into the stream.
It's Utopia.
===========

[daddy]

This continually recurring Textbook conflict has got me thinking that it's time to put aside our parochial Left/Right American bickering, and in future we should adopt the view of our wonderful President Obama's enlightened "Citizen of the World" point of view.

The claim constantly dumped on we Americans is that we are ignorant of how others view us, and if we understood where others are coming from it'd be better for everyone and we wouldn't try to constantly lay our blinded values of freedom/democracy on everybody else.

With that in mind, I think we ought to grow up and go global. Let other countries write the textbooks for other countries!

1) The Mexican's should write the History textbooks used in Texas, New Mexico, California and Arizona. The proper lessons would be absorbed by our kids, they'd no longer do inflammatory stuff like wearing US Flags on Cinco La Raza Day, and they'd know why its wrong to patrol our borders or arrest illegals. Missremember the Alamo!

2) Our America Academics should write the History Textbooks used in China. (Suggest Tom Friedman as overall textbook editor) The Chinese and Mao will come off looking wonderful, and be very happy that we've finally recognized the enlightenment of their dictatorial autocracy. (With special foreword on the wonders of Marxism by the Dalai Lama!)

3) The Chinese should write the History TextBooks used in Japan. That'd finally put those murderous WW2 bastards in their place and educate their children who have been denied knowledge of how horrible they are for 50 years now.

4) The Japanese should write the History Textbooks for the rest of the United States. This way we'd know how horrible we were in WW2, (internment camps) why we caused the whole thing in the first place, and why we shouldn't listen to our old foggies who get upset when National Geographic uses taxpayer funds to do displays at The Smithsonian on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that point out we were indeed the bad guys.

I haven't got it completely fleshed out yet as its too early for Guinness, but I think its an idea whose time has come. L'il help?

The PLO and Hezballah could write the textbooks mandated for student use in Israel, the Hindu's could write the Textbooks mandated in Britain, The North Koreans can write the South Korean Textbooks and vice versa, The Paki's can write the Indian textbooks,...why its a smorgasbord of Kumbaya and thinking out of the Box if you ask me. Enlightened, sophisticated, non-judgemental and citizen of the world friendly. Whats not to like?

[Captain Hate]

It's not like there were a lot of unions and corporations around when the Constitution was written. For that matter, there wasn't all that much money.

Maybe not a *lot* of corporations, but they certainly existed; in fact the country became the land of opportunity by expanding the ability to incorporate to the "little guy" that the left claims to represent yet somehow fails to do anything that directly benefits him/her. And guilds predated the Constitution.

I think you're getting mired in the specifics (like the idiot lefties that are suddenly railing against corporations being considered legal entities with attendant rights, which requires a willful misunderstanding about the history, not just recent, of the country) and losing sight of the abstract concept of free speech is free speech. If I were better versed in the back and forths of the debates at the Constitutional convention I could probably cite it being debated, probably pretty passionately.

[anduril]

Maybe not a *lot* of corporations, but they certainly existed; in fact the country became the land of opportunity by expanding the ability to incorporate to the "little guy" that the left claims to represent yet somehow fails to do anything that directly benefits him/her. And guilds predated the Constitution.

...If I were better versed in the back and forths of the debates at the Constitutional convention I could probably cite it being debated, probably pretty passionately.

Cap'n, try reading up on corporations in Wikipedia. Corporations were very different animals back then, and if you were better versed on the debates at the Constitutional Convention you'd probably be amazed at the lack of discussion on business entities entirely. The revolution in business practice--and theory--you rightly describe came later.

Try this out:

In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was very restrictive and very closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and the corporation's activities were tightly restricted to its express purposes. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust).

Eventually, state governments began to realize the economic value of providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state. Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country; even today, most major public corporations are set up under Delaware law.

So, I maintain these developments and the issues for democracy that they raise simply were never envisioned and have been dealt with on a relatively ad hoc basis.

[anduril]

Cap'n, the tone was not intended as snippy, if it seems that way.

[anduril]

Here are two articles from liberal publications that aim for a more thoughtful, balanced assessment of the resurgence of libertarianism in public life--or whatever it is we're seeing:

Rand Paul and the Perils of Textbook Libertarianism

The Tea Party Jacobins

I have always maintained that the default public philosophy of America is what I call a kind of "fuzzy libertarianism" that has leftist and rightist variations or flavors, but which share some common elements.

When you read these articles see whether you don't agree.

[Clarice]

Sarah Palin's tweet of the day
Mr. Gibbs, Obama is the top recipient of British Petrolium PAC & individual money over the past 20 years. Dispute these facts.

[anduril]

It might help to try to compare those two articles I just linked with this one from the President of the AEI:

America's new culture war: Free enterprise vs. government control

[Captain Hate]

Cap'n, the tone was not intended as snippy, if it seems that way.

No, it struck me as a fairly measured response and I took no offense; just somewhat confused that you're treating me more politely than you do others here....

While stipulating your claim of the lack of debate on business entities during the formation of the Constitution, surely the "no taxation without representation" meme flowing through the colonies would be manifested in taxed corporations having rights indistinguishable from individuals.

[bunkerbuster]

Count me as one liberal not worried about Texas politicizing its textbooks. I know my children will NOT be hoodwinked by any public school textbooks. If you're a good enough parent, and a wise enough human, it is no problem to make sure your children understand that the history books they hand out in school offer just one view on a very big story that looks different depending on where you stand. And I think there are a great many American parents like me in that respect.
What kind of parent doesn't explain that much to their children anyway? The identity conservatives who push for this crap to be printed in textbooks would be cramming it down their kids throats anyway. The only difference now is they've robbed themselves of whatever shreds of credibility the fake intellectual bravado pose had (in which they teach drill into their kids that education is a conspiracy to make them liberal.)
Meanwhile, liberal parents are making are still going to make sure their kids read the Autobiography of Malcolm X, All Quiet on the Western Front, Slaughterhouse Five and so on and so forth -- real threads of truth in the tapestry of history that, if read by anyone with basic comprehension, puts the lie to the neocon propaganda like a blowtorch on a twig.
Here's what conservatives are biting themselves on the ass with this one. Children rebel. They just do. Universities are factories for liberal thinking in no small part because high schools so often teach a too simplistic superficially pro-conservative history. So when kids arrive in college and start reading more widely, they discover that the simplistic idea that America is the "good" guy don't wash. But instead of putting that into the broader context of America's uniqueness, they rebel and grab onto the idea that the "establishment" lies and that smart people figure out that America is often not the "good" guy.
The Texas conservatives help guarantee this will happen to more HS graduates who go on to college.

[anduril]

What you have to bear in mind that America at the time of the founding was part of a very mercantilist world. As a result, corporations were very much creatures of government, not at all like real persons in their rights. In fact, if they violated their charters they were automatically dissolved. Jackson's refusal to renew the Second Bank of the US is an example of the way corporations were constituted and treated. In fact, resentment of British corporations such as the East India Company (as much an empire as a business entity) was a major factor in the American Revolution, which may have been a factor in the suspicion with which corporations were regarded in the earlier history of the US.

Sorry, gotta run.

[bunky]

Clarice: she was awesome on Fox. Really on message.

[Jim Miller]

The word "tac" isn't in my dictionary, so I am going to guess that a "tac" is the right half of a
tic tac.

I'm not sure why taking one would change one's political thinking or actions, but I must admit that I have tried one lately -- and can't recall ever eating just the right half.

[Rick Ballard]

That would be the starboard half, Jim. Not to tic you off, of course.

[Gmax]

Autobiography of Malcolm X Is truth in the tapestry.

Got it.

No wait, did you mean tapioca?

Cuz I got news for ya bud, that aint tapioca you are up to yer hip waders in!

[Thomas Collins]

Bunkerbuster, my kids are 26, 23 and 20, so, although all are out of high school, they are not that far removed from high school. From conversations I have had with their friends from other high schools, I have concluded that the high school experience of my kids is not unique. The high school education my kids and their friends received was not conservative. It was decidedly skewed toward the conciliatory internationalist slant in foreign policy teaching in American government studies, and statist and multiculturalist in domestic policy teachings.

My second favorite Dem, Daniel Patrick Moynihan (my favorite Dem being Barbara Jordan), is reported to have stated that one is entitled to one's opinions, but not one's facts. I think you might be more persuasive in your arguments if you kept in mind Mr. Moynihan's thought.