Bob Herbert: America Putting our Brains on Hold?

New York Times columnist, Bob Herbert writes this week about America's dismal lack of education and our fascination with waywards like Lindsay Lohan. He laments our lack of industrial might, the fewer students applying for college, decries our joblessness, the economy - and the overall leadership of the world that we have let slip through our fingers. Herbert says America has put our brains on hold, and "everyone" is to blame for this miserable state of our nation. That begs a response, don't you think? Don't miss the video below.

Bob Herbert

What would a conservative have to say to Bob Herbert when he asks "where is the serious and widespread engagement" on these issues? We would tell him he isn't paying attention to the Right sources. If he took a peek to the Right he would see that we are hemorrhaging information and angst.

Among Herbert's concerns are: teachers are not teaching a curricula that is "interesting and inspiring." Grade school sex-ed must not be self-fulfilling for our youngsters. Cleanse the schools of Marxist/Communist teachers and teach real history - the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights - all stimulating and inspiring unless you are that Marxist/Communist teacher.

The struggle to strengthen the economy. Democrats wrecked it. They cheated responsible homeowners and rewarded irresponsible buyers. The plethora of easy money created swells of buyers, and the demand sent home prices soaring. When the adjustable rates kicked in, the irresponsible simply walked away. After all they had no home equity because they received a zero-down government loan. Banks sold the abandoned properties for far less than their customers paid for them, and the responsible homeowners in the neighborhood saw their home values plummet as well. It WAS the Democrats who deserve the blame. Blame Barney Franks, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd.  Here are the facts.

We have to mention the reprehensible spending habits of Republicans during the Bush years, right? Bush took office in January 2001 and served until January 2009. Barack Obama came to the U.S. Senate in January 2005 and served until mid-November 2008. Despite his whiny claims that the deficit belongs to G.W., the truth is, long before Obama descended to the White House he voted for each and every Bush budget. This from Rush Limbaugh:

He [Obama]  never opposed anything about what Bush was doing.  He was always of the mind it wasn't enough.  Now, if the Democrats "inherited" any deficit, it was the fiscal year 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit in fiscal year 2007 was the lowest deficit in five years, the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.  After that, the Democrats in Congress took control of spending. They took control in 2007, and that includes Obama who voted for all of the budgets that Bush put forth.  He voted for every budget that busted whatever. 

He cannot say he opposed it.  He cannot say he differed from it.  He cannot say he warned everybody.  He was right in there! He voted for every one of those budgets, so if he "inherited" anything, he inherited from himself because he was right there.  His only complaint during the Bush administration was that they weren't spending enough. 

 In fact, Bush expanded the budget by $700 billion through 2008. Obama didn't fool with the small stuff. He added another $1 trillion. Here's a little tid-bit that you should know: "...Obama's budget" according to The Heritage Foundation, would add twice as much debt as G.W. Bush. 


About the loss of our "industrial might:" Blame the unions. There is no need to lay out the facts here. We all know them much too well. The terrible truth has been revealed. Union contracts give companies good reason to go overseas and be "industrial" at a much lower cost, which in turn may lead to higher stockholder benefits back in the states. Americans don't build factories overseas for the fun of it - it 's a business decision. Get the unions in line with wages and benefits and remove the heavy green regulations on energy and we become "industrial" again.

About fewer students applying for a college education: White and middle class students are often turned down at the college of their choice. Excellent grades aren't enough to gain admittance. Parents willing to pay for their child's degree - to pay retail for it - doesn't do a thing to enhance their White child's chances. Why? Because affirmative action is still alive and well at University. If your child wants to go to a state school outside of your home state, very few slots are available for Caucasians. Should your White child aspire to an Ivy League school - good luck. The stats are literally stacked against him/her. In general, those spots are only open to Hispanics and Blacks entering with scholarships and grants. Their SAT's are handicapped and they jump to the front of the line. Whites and Asians with impressive grades are often not considered at all.

"Being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white ... equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1,600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310-point SAT advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points."

"To have the same chance of gaining admission as a black student with a SAT score of 1100, a Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550."

When you tell your child all his/her life, that if he works hard, and gets good grades, he can go to almost any school he wants - then you find you have lied to him for years, it is beyond discouraging.

But long before university, school vouchers could change elementary education for the better. Republicans want vouchers. Democrats hate them. but vouchers are the bane of Democrats. Legislation often doesn't make it out of committee - even knowing public schools are a recipe for failure. It is all about the money. The government gives public schools a stipend for each student in a classroom. Democrats must live with choosing the money and unions over the children. 

Remember that one of the first things Obama did after taking office was to cut-off low-income blacks from scholarships to his daughter's school, the Sidwell Friends. Republicans fought for vouchers. Obama said he was open to them, he lied. Democrats had all the power but sided with the unions over the children. I dare you to watch the video below and tell me how exactly Democrats want better education.

Herbert said:

 According to a new report from the College Board, the U.S. is 12th among developed nations in the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with college degrees. The report said, “As America’s aging and highly educated work force moves into retirement, the nation will rely on young Americans to increase our standing in the world.”

The problem is that today’s young Americans are not coming close to acquiring the education and training needed to carry out that mission. They’re not even in the ballpark. In that key group, 25- to 34-year-olds with a college degree, the U.S. ranks behind Canada, South Korea, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Israel, France, Belgium and Australia. That is beyond pathetic.  

I agree - it is beyond pathetic, so maybe Bob Herbert will use his bi-weekly column to shame Democrats and their head-butting quest to put union interests ahead of education.


Herbert ends his article saying that after many years, and much accomplishment we led education worldwide, but we "foolishly applied the brakes." I agree. We wore out the brakes as we jammed them to the floor, desperately trying to stop the world and grab onto political correctness. In doing so, we dumbed down our schools, added worthless classes - even letting some students opt out of math and science because it was "hard." Now our brake pads are disintegrating and on fire, and there's no one in the "ruling" Democrat party committed to repairing them. Not everyone put their brains on hold, Mr. Herbert. I suggest those who did, get out of the way and let us handle it. Another suggestion from my hubby: "Bob, read Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams or Herman Cain please.


Glen Beck and a Washington D.C. Family on School Vouchers (video) 

 

Linked by:
 The Lonely Conservative who says There is Something Happening Here (and it's good news).

Doug Ross and Larwyn's Lynx - Thank you!

Nancy Pelosi CIA Accusations: Pelosi Hypocrisy (Video)

Nancy Pelosi is considered the most powerful woman in America (no apology to Hillary), and she is in it deep, and up against the CIA. It all goes back to the old canard that Congress was lied to about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. See a video below. UPDATE: Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich has spoken more precisely about Nancy Pelosi and her accusations than I have ever heard one politician speak about another. His comments are important, because as he says, this is about national security and she is playing a very dangerous game and placing America and our military at great risk. Here's what Newt said.

Nancy Pelosi: Photoshop credit: David Johnson Borrowed from Michelle Malkin

It doesn't matter who we are talking about at the highest levels of government, everyone with any power in the Senate and House believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That information came from the Clinton administration and from intelligence. If that information was incorrect, and I'm not persuaded that it was incorrect...it was not because the intelligence was simply a lie intended to mislead our leaders. It was because it was "incorrect." Why was the information incorrect? Probably because Jamie Gorelick and the Clinton administration so castrated the CIA and the FBI that agents were impotent to truly do a good work of "spying." Jean Pearce, writing for FrontPageMag.com and referring to Gorelick's infamous memo:

...she began acting as the point woman for a large-scale bureaucratic reorganization of intelligence agencies that ultimately placed the gathering of intelligence, and decisions about what – if anything – would be done with it under near-direct control of the White House.

After Gorelick was sworn-in as the Justice Department's Deputy Attorney General for the Clinton administration:

Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 24. PDD 24 put intelligence gathering under the direct control of the president’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to govern (that is, stifle) intelligence sharing and cooperation between intelligence agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, intelligence sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare that required negotiating a befuddling bureaucracy that stopped directly at the President’s office [emphasis Maggie's].

So, right here in America, according to Pearce:

...the only place left to go with intelligence information...was straight up Clinton and Gorelick’s multi-tiered chain of command. Instead, information lethal to the Democratic Party languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind Gorelick’s walls.

Now, all these years later, Nancy Pelosi has been trying to disconnect from that intelligence and her belief in it, and really, there is no way for her to do so with any credibility. Of course, few Democrats are concerned with cred, but now Pelosi is up against the CIA and I hope they skewer her. Today, she drowning in her own smug abuse of America's military. She denies knowing that "enhanced interrogation techniques" included waterboarding. She can't keep her story straight, and that is a real liability when the world is watching. Here's a snippet from Michelle Malkin:

Pelosi had a particularly frozen look on her face throughout her presser as she repeated the “Bush lied about Iraq” mantra to justify her own inaction:

“They mislead us all the time,” she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree.

She also suggested that the current Republican criticism marked an attempt to divert attention from the Bush administration’s actions.

“They misrepresented every step of the way, and they don’t want that focus on them, so they try to turn the focus on us,” she said.

If Pelosi were so incensed about how the CIA misled her, why wasn’t this her response to news of the 2002 briefing a week ago?

Blink, blink.

Pelosi issued a renewed call for a “truth commission.”

Boehner’s response: “Let’s put it all on the table.”

Other Dems (including Harry Reid, who opposes the “truth commission” as, um, a distraction) aren’t happy about where this dangerous blame game might take them.

Malkin linked to William Jacobson who characterizes the Dems battle ahead with the CIA "a political death match...." Follow the link from Michelle Malkin to Jacobson whose profile says he is an Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY." Along with today's video of Pelosi's press conference saying the CIA misled Congress, two more videos are some old history...a review of the support of taking down Saddam Hussein, which is what this is all about. Terrorism came to American soil, again, and had we not agreed that terrorism must be stopped, we would have no need of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and waterboarding would have never have been on the table. For all the posturing, let just one of these doves have their own family threatened, and be fortunate enough to have the resources to waterboard that "threat," you can be certain they would beg for it...beg for anything that might save the life of their loved one...and I'm not talking about friends that may have been lost in the World Trade Center, as horrible as that was and is, but what happens when your child's life might be snatched away, as extremist Islam seeks to do. By the way, if one of Pelosi's "loved ones" were being threatened, the CIA would not put her in the position of "deciding" to waterboard or not. The CIA would do the right thing (no apology to John McCain) make the decision, get the information and perhaps save a deserving life. Pelosi CIA Accusation: Says CIA Misled Congress (Video) Pelosi hypocrisy: No doubts that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (Video) Democrat hypocrisy: proclaim the existance of weapons of mass destruction (Video)