Playing games with military absentee voting…

Tallahassee, FL - The 2000 Presidential election debacle left us with many gifts. The nationally televised statements and actions on everyone's part showed us adults behaving like too many kids in a sandbox. Florida was comedic fodder for years afterwards. We learned the importance of a clear statewide standard, codified in law for what does and does not constitute a vote on punch card or black marker style ballots.

The most disturbing thing to come to light as a result of the 2000 voting mess was how overseas absentee military votes were being handled. After some pushing by veteran's groups, active service support organizations and some of the news media we confirmed that many counties and some states never count the overseas military votes.

Election officials excused this situation saying those ballots were "always late" because they could not be produced and mailed to the voters in time. One idiot stated that those uncounted votes rarely amounted to enough to swing the outcome of an election. He apparently forgot he was addressing a room full of reporters. When pressed by reporters for some proof, he literally said "no more questions" and disappeared never to answer media questions again.

Other elections officials across the country simply refused to confirm or deny that statement saying they didn't keep those kind of statistics. Some were able (brave enough?) to count rejected ballots from overseas addresses and came up with some disturbing results. They found that had those ballots been postmarked and arrived on time roughly a third of local elections and a few national contests would have come out differently .

The media storm surrounding that revelation was incredible. Even Vice President Al Gore's running mate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, went against the advice of legal teams fighting for Gore in court. Lieberman appeared on national TV and stated without reservation the military votes must be counted. (I always did like him.) Even after the 2000 election, the matter still simmered, unforgotten by military support organizations.

That brought us to the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act)(pdf). This act was crafted over the last few years and signed into law by President Obama. It guarantees that US Service Personnel get a reasonable chance to cast their votes. Part of that law requires state election officials to prepare and mail absentee ballots 45 days prior to the election. That should be more then enough time to get the ballot to the serviceman, fill it out and get it back.

Sounds good, right? Wrong.

State and local officials can request waivers through a loop hole in the law. Right now the exact number of states requesting waivers is unknown. It seems the Administration isn't all that anxious to talk about it.

M. Eric Eversole, the executive director of the Military Voter Protection (MVP) Project and former litigation attorney in the Justice Department's Voting Section, wants to know why military voters are being involuntarily disenfranchised. He and J. Christian Adams accused the Justice Department of encouraging states to use waivers to bypass the MOVE Act.

The accusations prompted Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) to write a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, demanding answers and requesting specific information about how the agency was going to enforce the MOVE Act provision.

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded: "The Department of Justice is firmly committed to ensuring that our men and women serving in the uniformed services and living overseas have the opportunity to vote and to have their votes counted. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue."

Yet the Obama administration refuses to release the waiver requests filed by a dozen states and territories claiming an inability to meet the legal deadline. Eversole and 17 members of Congress led by Rep. Robert E. Latta (R-Ohio), sought this information through formal requests. By Eversole's count, nearly one-third of the states have failed to implement one or more of the key provisions of the MOVE Act, with at least 11 states having not yet implemented the 45-day deadline for mailing absentee ballots, and at least five states having not implemented the electronic-delivery requirement under the MOVE Act.
Fox News: Military Voting Rights at Risk

You have to wonder why these bureaucrats are making it so difficult for service personnel to exercise the most fundamental of rights. If anyone should be granted dispensation to get their votes in and counted, it has to be the men and women that chose to join, maybe fight and possibly die to protect the rest of us.

There is no excuse. If the timing and method of your state and local elections doesn't allow enough time for overseas military voting, then they are doing it wrong and need to fix it.

-30-

Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against.
- W. C. Fields

Socialist Health Care: It's Done.

Clearwater, FL - Everyone reading this blog knows my feelings on Obama-care. There is no point wasting bandwidth with them now. The good side fought the good fight. But the dark side headed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and President Barak Obama managed to pull it off in spite of opposition from the overwhelming majority of people in this country.

So today I'll leave you with someone else's thoughts from 200+ years ago.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

–author unknown (often mis-attributed to 18th century Scottish writer/lawyer, Alexander Tylter)

I guess 234 years wasn't a bad run.

-30-

The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.
- Michelle Obama

More liberal scoffing at analyzing the health care bill before voting on it

Today I caught a sound bite from one by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (Twit-RI), comparing reading the 2000+ page health care bill to a 13 year old girl blowing through a Harry Potter novel. That's an interesting take on it.

For the sake of argument, let's have a look at the difference.

A Harry Potter book runs in sequence, is cohesive and makes sense. Everything you need is right there in the same book and given to you in a logical sequence. That means that by the time you get to page 341, you have everything you need to make sense of what you are reading on that page.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Twit-NV) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not quite so simple. For example, have a look at the first page of proposed legislation after the index.

1 TITLE I—QUALITY, AFFORDABLE
2 HEALTH CARE FOR ALL
3 AMERICANS
4 Subtitle A—Immediate Improve
5 ments in Health Care Coverage
6 for All Americans
7 SEC. 1001. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
8 ACT.
9 Part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service
10 Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq.) is amended—
11 (1) by striking the part heading and inserting
12 the following:
13 ‘‘PART A—INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MARKET
14 REFORMS’’;
15 (2) by redesignating sections 2704 through
16 2707 as sections 2725 through 2728, respectively;
17 (3) by redesignating sections 2711 through
18 2713 as sections 2731 through 2733, respectively;
19 (4) by redesignating sections 2721 through
20 2723 as sections 2735 through 2737, respectively;
21 and
22 (5) by inserting after section 2702, the fol
23 lowing:

You got all that, right? And that is just the fist page. The entire bill reads just like that. Don't believe me? Click the link and look for yourself.

There is a reason that legislators need time to not just read, but interpret anything they are going to vote on. In this case the proposed health care legislation will make changes made in almost every section of federal law from the Tax Code to Education to Social Security.  Properly interpreting the bill requires constant reference to vastly divergent parts of the United States Code to see what effect each and every one of those changes has on the existing law

Never forget that the only thing worse then a bad law is a badly written law.

The senator's suggestion that reading the healthcare bill compares favorably to a Harry Potter reading binge is complete bullshit. That leads us to one of two possibilities:

1. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (Twit-RI) really believes what he said. If that is the case he demonstrated in a highly public manner that he never personally read a bill in which case he has no place in U.S. Senate passing laws over the rest of us.
2. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (Twit-RI) intentionally set out to deceive the public. If this is the case, he has no place in U.S. Senate passing laws over the rest of us.

It is sometimes insulting to see just how stupid some of our congress critters think we are. But then again, we do keep electing them.

-30-

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
- Otto von Bismarck

Yet one more act of democracy to be held against me…

I attended the town hall meeting in Monticello, FL where Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL). listened to comments and concerns about H.R.3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. The doors opened at 4:00 p.m. and by 4:30 the doors were closed when the court room reached a capacity crowd. My count was roughly 165 people. I'm told that another hundred or so people were left outside. I do know those left outside were a rowdy bunch.

The crowd ran 12 to 1 against H.R. 3200. Some comments were very concise and well spoken. I think what struck me the most was the vast amount of misinformation on both sides of the debate. One man wanted to know if the congressman would be giving up his fully paid, no deductible health insurance. Rep. Boyd corrected him on that misconception. Another lady extolled the virtues of a single payer system and how it wouldn't really cost any more then what we are paying now. A man complained loudly about the non-existent part of the bill that requires euthanasia of older patients.

Rep. Boyd handled the comments and questions fairly well. I was impressed with his ability to listen and respond. Respond he did, but answer he did not. It is hard to explain how he did it, but he did it well.

He did affirmatively state that he could not support the bill as it is written. He said that he would vote for what was best for the country.

I hope the bill does not change to something he can support. And lately the leadership in Washington seem to have lost sight of what's best for America. At least the America we know now.

-30-

"Americans haven't given up on the idea of a free press, but they don't think the press is unbiased. They see the press as valuable in tracking what government does and giving them information on some very basic and real issues like the war on terror. But large numbers of Americans wish they got a better news report. The public wants us to redouble our efforts to be fair and unbiased, or at least acknowledge bias."
- GENE POLICINSKI, acting director of the First Amendment Center.

National Health Care Lies: Part 3 - We can do it better if everyone has health insurance

How many reading this are old enough to remember when liability insurance on your car was optional? All of you old enough think back to that simpler time in your life. The rest of you follow along, there is an example here.

Remember the insurance companies testifying before your state legislators? They said if everyone is covered there won't be anymore more uninsured losses, law suits will drop dramatically and therefore premiums will drop by double digit percentages. The laws were passed, people were ticketed and some lost licenses for not having proper car insurance.

As the laws passed, auto insurance rates took off like sky rockets. As each state required insurance, rates in those states went up in double digit percentages. At the same time, insurance rates in states still holding out against mandatory car insurance saw no or very small increases during the same time periods.

Auto insurance companies blamed the evil trial lawyers for screwing up the plan. Funny as it may be, states that did not have mandatory insurance laws during the same time period must not have had the same trouble with the trial lawyers. The only thing we can deduce from that information is that trial lawyers are a direct result of mandatory insurance laws. 

Now fast forward from the 1970s and 80s to March of this year. Karen Ignagni testified on behalf of the health insurance companies before the US Senate. Then she gave an interview to USA Today.

"This is a major step, and it changes everything about how the market works," Ignagni told USA TODAY. Insurers, she said, are prepared to "offer coverage to everyone who applies."

In return, however, they want a system similar to the one that now exists only in Massachusetts, in which all residents are required to get insurance. Insurers want the federal government to help those who cannot afford private insurance with subsidies or tax breaks.

Insurers also want to prevent any new system from including a government insurance plan similar to Medicare. Ignagni said such a plan could attract 100 million people who now have private insurance, because the government can bargain for lower rates with providers.
USA Today: Insurers' proposal requires coverage for all

Last weekend Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) appeared on the Mike Huckabee show. She said that "we all have to be insured" for the federal health system to work and keep costs down.

Where have we heard that before? I'm not certain, but I might have seen this tap dance before.

You can be certain the insurance companies do not want to see a government run insurance option. That is a matter of simple survival. A government run plan will exterminate the private option for all but the very wealthy.

But it is almost a sure bet the private health insurance industry longs for a Massachusetts style law requiring health insurance on everyone. Once they have a captive market, the price of the policy is no a key concern.

So everyone will have insurance, but at what cost? Once health insurance is required by law the sky is the limit.

Been there, done that, got the ticket. (Dismissed, found the insurance card later.)

-30-

"You have awakened a sleeping giant."
- Katy Abram addressing Arlen Specter (D-PA) at a town hall meeting in Lebanon, PA

So much stupidity and no time to write…

Los Angeles, CA - Based on bits and pieces of various news items I've managed to catch over the couple weeks I've managed to figure out a few things.

We have some moron in Congress wanting to tax executive bonuses at 90%. There is another set of morons wanting to go after bonuses already paid out to people working for companies that accepted government money. Some combination of those congressional idiots wants to stop payouts of bonus money earned under the terms of employment contracts.

I'm not all that happy about CEOs getting multi-million dollar bonuses from a failing company. The problem is the terms of the contracts requires they be paid. The government bailed the company out and it did not fail. Therefore all those employment contracts are still valid enforceable by the courts if need be.

If we would have let the companies fail, we wouldn't be having this little tiff, would we?

Other members of Congress are hot to trot to limit executive compensation of corporations accepting government money to a grand total of $500,000 per year. Charley Wrangle, in his infinite capacity for complete ignorance, is proposing a bill that would extend the proposed executive salary cap to every corporation, not just the corporations accepting government money.

Yet another group of USDA Grade A Congressional idiots believes they can pass a law allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite the terms of home mortgages to make them more favorable to the home owner. 

What do all these things have in common? They've all been tried in the past. Mostly during the Great Depression. Those laws that actually passed into law were promptly turned over by the courts. The high taxes simply drove desperately needed capitol of shore.

Companies that took government money accepted their own special brand of Hell. They deserve what ever happens to them for getting into bed with the US Government. There is no such thing as a quid without a pro quo when businesses, states, cities and counties accept government handouts.

For the rest of US Business, those that remained free and clear of government money and the sticky strings that go with it, none of these proposed steps into totalitarianism will stand a constitutional test.

From unconstitutional takings to running afoul the equal treatment provisions, each and everyone of these asinine will be struck down almost as fast as Congress can pass them. I think there is a one of three chance that even the companies on the government bail out programs will find some relief from the courts.

Alas, I would love to spend an afternoon researching all these things, getting quotes and finding case law on the matter. But the current job simply has not allowed the time. In fact my current time sheet shows a total of 181.5 hours over the last ten days ending yesterday.

Maybe later…

- 30 -

"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

- Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Doing away with secret ballots

Tampa, FL - One of the most fundamental tenants of our election system is the secret ballot. This method of voting allows voters to cast their vote without fear of recrimination by either the winning party or sore losers. The voter may express their choice free of peer pressure, glaring looks from parents or spouses and even the raised eyebrows of children who think they know everything.

In the old days, and even some rare cases now days, the secret ballot prevented violence against voters. A sheriff's race this last November in the Florida Pan Handle that got so hot that people were actually being stopped by sheriff's deputies for have the wrong bumper sticker on their car. Imagine what it would have been like if the losing incumbent sheriff knew who voted against him. That little stretch of time before the new sheriff was sworn in could have been very nerve racking fro those that voted against the old sheriff.

Now lets take that to a whole different level. We are talking far more personal where the results of that vote could effect your employment, your standing in the community and even your future for some time to come.

Imagine your place of employment is undergoing a union vote. Things are getting very heated between union supporters and those that are happy with the way things are. The employer is putting the pressure on, the union organizers are pressuring you every chance they get, friends at work are pressuring you in both directions and the over all environment is getting very ugly. There have been shoving matches in the parking lot. Some vandalism of cars. Several people have been reassigned or had their hours or jobs cut because for purely business reasons, but they are also big union cheer leaders. People have had very aggressive visits at their homes by union organizers not prepared to accept "no" or "I prefer not to discuss it" as an answer.

So the big day comes. The vote is going to be taken. Thank all that is Holy and a number of things that aren't that no one but you will know how you voted. If the union gets in and you voted against it, no one will ever know. If the union does not get in and you voted for it, your employer will never know. The best part is that friends and colleagues will not be treating you as if you just crawled out of the outhouse pit.

But now that cherished portion of American tradition is in serious jeopardy.

President Barack Obama told AFL-CIO union leaders Tuesday in a videotaped address that the controversial Employee Free Choice Act will pass, signaling his full backing for legislation that makes union organizing easier.

"We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act," President Obama told more than 100 top labor officials in a closed-door meeting at the labor federation's winter gathering in Miami, according to people at the meeting.

The Wall Street Journal: President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass

Well now isn't that special. Sounds like the unions are calling in the note on the election and the President is stepping up to pay with interest.

The program the President is promising to sign into law is also known as the "Check Card" system. That would allow union organizers to unionize any place of employment by simply getting a majority of people to sign the cards. It would do away with currently required secret ballot election.

Effectively what this does is allow the unions to get signatures, maybe even in secret, while denying the employer a chance to state their case. Perhaps even robbing workers of vital knowledge. For example: Within a month after unionizing this job site, your job will move to Taiwan.

There are some heavily union regions, especially Chicago, Detroit and New York, where that change in the law will effectively force unions down the throats of  80% percent of business.  We're talking everyone from Arby's to Zoo Keepers.

Think about this for a minute. Two large men approach you, maybe even outside your home, and shove a card in your hands. One of them says, "We want you should sign 'dis card. Yo Rocko, help 'dis nice person find a pen."

The other one says, "You gots a nice house here. Pretty daughter too. I want she should stay pretty, don't you?"

What are you going to do at that point? Refuse to sign the card?

In a milder example, let's think about the situation outlined above. You could have close friends and colleagues pressing the card in your hands with words like, "Do the right thing for all of us" when you know in your heart it is not the right thing. But the peer pressure is incredible when people you like and work with are standing there looking you in the eye. We all want to please our friends and not all that many will stand up to friends under that kind of group pressure.

The last thing we need to do in this country is make it easier for a union to be forced on a company. We have shipped enough jobs to the Pacific Rim and Mexico.

If this passes, it will be the most devastating blow yet to our floundering economy. The number of businesses that would fold or flee the country rather then endure the headaches of dealing with a union is a damn site higher then anyone from the left will admit.

The more I listen to President Obama or read what he has to say, the worse and worse our future looks. The President's legacy is already shaping up to make President Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust" look conservative.

Author's Note: I have been in a total of seven unions over the course of my life. As close as I can tell checking tonight I am still considered an active member in four of them, inactive in one and there is no way to find out on the other two tonight. With one small exception, none of those unions did anything for me except take a percentage of my paycheck and then give some of that to people I wouldn't vote for in my worse nightmare. In two union jobs I would have earned a higher salary if I were non-union but was held at the union scale because of the contract.

It is my experience that working under or around a union job makes for a work environment where it is difficult to get the job done without jumping through an extraordinary number of hoops. I have little patience for bullshit rules (other then safety) when I am trying to get a job done. I find unions to be extremely expensive not only from inflated wages and benefits, but also in stupid things like having an entire crew sitting on their collective butts waiting for someone from the right union to be found so four boxes can be unloaded from a truck. Or wait for a union member to move a TV camera cable out of a shot. (Got a grievance over that one… got tired of waiting.) Or having to pay a four digit "honorarium" (a bribe by any other name…) to a union boss so my non-union people can do their jobs on his union turf.

- 30 -

Michael: My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
Kay Adams: What was that?
Michael: Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains or his signature would be on the contract.

- Al Pacino as Michael Corleone talking to Diane Keaton as Kay Adams in the movie "The Godfather"

One more stupid law we don't need...

Fayetteville, NC - I stumbled across this via Slashdot and it really got me to thinking.

Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks.

New rules being considered by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.

The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.

Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers.

Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police.

“These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,” said Christopher Dunn, the group’s associate legal director.
The New York Times: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography

That's just not right. There are already way to many police officers, security guards and just plain folk that think they can stop you from taking pictures from public streets, sidewalks and on public property.*

Now the City of New York wants to codify a permit law that "is not intended" to apply to your basic tourist, but we all know that it will. As vague as the rules are it will simply be used as an excuse to hassle and harass anyone with a camera.

What is it with government on every level always thinking they need another law to solve problems that do not exist?

*Before anyone starts taking this farther then intended, public property is just that: property owned by the public. Shopping malls, amusement parks, theaters, etc are private property that invites the public in. However while you are on their property, you have to obey their rules. So don't go taking pictures inside your local mall and start arguing public property law with a security troll unless you want to be banned from the mall and possibly arrested.

- 30 -

For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished freedom is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was still time.
- George Sutherland

No Child Left Behind

Ft. Myers, FL - An on-line forum I frequent has several vehement Bush hater members. Their latest cause for jubilation is that many Republican members of the House and Senate have banded together to overturn the no child left behind act.

Here's part of a Washington Post article on the subject:

More than 50 GOP members of the House and Senate -- including the House's second-ranking Republican -- will introduce legislation today that could severely undercut President Bush's signature domestic achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act, by allowing states to opt out of its testing mandates.

For a White House fighting off attacks on its war policy and dealing with a burgeoning scandal at the Justice Department, the GOP dissidents' move is a fresh blow on a new front. Among the co-sponsors of the legislation are House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a key supporter of the measure in 2001, and John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Bush's most reliable defender in the Senate. Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House GOP's chief deputy whip and a supporter in 2001, has also signed on.

Burson Snyder, a spokesman for Blunt, said that after several meetings with school administrators and teachers in southwest Missouri, the House Republican leader turned against the measure he helped pass. Blunt was convinced that the burdens and red tape of the No Child Left Behind Act are unacceptably onerous, Snyder said.
Washington Post - Dozens in GOP Turn Against Bush's Prized 'No Child' Act

Hmmm... School administrators told House Minority Whip Roy Blunt they do not like comparing their students with nationally set minimum standards. The article goes on to quote complaints that affluent school districts feel their districts are "being adversely affected" because "innovative" programs are being replaced by federal mandates.

What a crock!

Over the last few weeks I've had the privilege to work with Japanese crews covering Japanese baseball players in spring training. Japanese (along with many other nation) students of all grades have been routinely out performing students from the United States for several decades now. So I took the opportunity to ask them about the Japanese educational system.

Guess What...

Japanese Children are tested by the government...

EVERY TWO YEARS!

Want to know something else?

If the student doesn't pass the test, that student is held back!

Imagine that. A school system that actually requires a student to have a solid foundation in the current material before that student is promoted to the next level. No setting up the struggling students to fail.

But no. The NEA and their membership whined about standards and accountability from the beginning. Let's see if I can remember some of their most eloquent arguments against standardized testing to see if our children actually learned anything in school.

• Standardized testing stigmatizes the children that fail it.
  
• Testing is racist!
  
• Standardized testing does not give a true picture of a student's education.
  
• "One size fits all" testing does not work.
  
• Federal testing is an intrusion on local school board sovereignty.
  
• No Child Left Behind is under/not funded.
  
• Federal standards limit or eliminate touchy feely experiments like no grades, ignoring bad spelling, wasting classroom time on social engineering, self esteem over all else, etc. (Everyone one that wants to volunteer their child as a guinea pig raise their hand?)

Check out this paragraph from the NEA's own web page on the matter:

Rather than focusing on high stakes tests, NEA's comprehensive strategy calls for measuring student achievement over time through multiple indicators. NCLB takes a snapshot of student performance on two tests on one day rather than delivering a complete portrait of students' needs and achievements. NEA's plan would transform NCLB to assist states and schools in improving overall student achievement while closing achievement gaps.
NEA Website - Fifth Anniversary Presents Opportunity
To Revamp No Child Left Behind Act

Okay, I got it. No pressure, all is right with the world, don't worry about any deadlines or tests, you've got nothing to lose here... Unless all these students are going to grow up to be teachers where there is no accountability, that is no way to prepare a child for real world workplace expectations.

There are many more official arguments but I think you get the idea. They are all bullshit.

I believe all those arguments are nothing more then minor sidebars to the NEA's primary concern about nationwide standardized testing for all public school students. I believe the NEA and their individual state chapters simply do not want to be held to any standard of accountability for the education of students in the public school system.

Standardized testing has already made many school systems and many NEA members look pretty bad. The NEA could use the data from the standardized testing to go to the problem schools, identify the problems and fix them. After all, this is the National Education Association.

Instead, they choose to shoot the messenger. But the NEA doesn't toss that reason out as a problem. The teacher's union is not stupid enough to admit they simply do not want to be held to any standard of proof in job performance. And once again they are proving they will fight tooth and nail to protect their membership even at the expense of education standards.

So the legislative battle is engaged. If these legislative clowns bow to the pressure of the NEA lobbying and letter writing campaign, individual states may be able to opt out of No Child Left Behind.

The next time you are shocked to see public school students from the United States ranking in double digits on the latest and greatest global survey, think back to the war the NEA, the state educational associations, the individual school districts and all those teachers waged on No Child Left Behind.

-30-

"America's future will be determined by the home and the school. The child becomes largely what he is taught; hence we must watch what we teach, and how we live."
-Jane Addams