Politicians: The Things They Say & How They Say Them

Here is a troubling story:

...Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia...has over the past two years repeatedly accused the Bush administration of deliberately deceiving the American public to take the nation to war. It's hard to imagine a more serious charge. And Rockefeller makes it perhaps more credibly than most Iraq War critics--as the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It's no surprise then that reporters sought out Rockefeller for his reaction to George W. Bush's address to the nation Tuesday night. The junior senator from West Virginia minced no words. Iraq, he said, "had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al-Qaida, it had nothing to do with September 11, which he managed to mention three or four times and infer three or four more times."

This, Rockefeller seems to find outrageous. "It's sort of amazing that a president could stand up before hundreds of millions of Americans and say that and come back to 9/11--somehow figuring that it clicks a button, that everybody grows more patriotic and more patient. Well, maybe that's good p.r. work, which it isn't, but it's not the way that a commander in chief executes a war. And that's his responsibility in this case."

It is an attack on President Bush that echoes those we've heard from Democrats--both those on the fringe left and those at the top of the party--for the past 27 months. And it is nonsense...

Odd then that Senator Rockefeller would have spoken of a "substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda" just one month before the Iraq War began. In some interviews Rockefeller did say that he hadn't seen evidence of close ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. But asked about an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on February 5, 2003, Rockefeller agreed with Republican Senator Pat Roberts that Abu Musab al Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war and his links to a poison camp in northern Iraq were troubling. Rockefeller continued: "The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."...

...other aspects of Rockefeller's 2002 speech. It's worth noting, however, that the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told his colleagues that "there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years." And: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now." And: "We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability."

Unmistakable evidence. Existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities. We do know Saddam has the capability. Remember these things the next time you hear Rockefeller and his colleagues accuse the Bush Administration of exaggerating or fabricating the threat from Iraq.

Rockefeller ended his 2002 floor speech with yet another direct reference to September 11--his fifth.

"September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans' lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it."

Do you find it troubling when politicians radically change their tune - and the only reason for it seems to be politics? Do you find it troubling when those changes relate directly to the national security of America - at a time when we are at war?

And then, on top of it, they are so full of themselves:

...can you imagine George Washington referring in public, or in private for that matter, to his many virtues? In normal America if you have a high character you don't wrestle people to the ground until they acknowledge it. You certainly don't announce it. If you are compassionate, you are compassionate; if others see it, fine. If you hold to principle it will become clear. You don't proclaim these things. You can't, for the same reason that to brag about your modesty is to undercut the truth of the claim...

How exactly does it work? How does legitimate self-confidence become wildly inflated self-regard? How does self respect become unblinking conceit? How exactly does one's character become destabilized in Washington?...

What is wrong with them? This is not a rhetorical question. I think it is unspoken question No. 1 as Americans look at so many of the individuals in our government. What is wrong with them?

Normal people just don't act this way.

Yet more arguments for term limits. Yet another argument for limited government.

And another reason why a diligent citizenry is so essential to ensuring our freedoms are protected.

Sadly, it is an uphill battle, isn't it?

FEC Hearings on Blogging Regulations

FEC hearings on blogging have begun. A previously mentioned posting entitled Will FEC Draft Regulations Lead to Greater Regulatory Control Over Blogging Community? provides background information.

A subsequent posting is entitled More on Potential FEC Restrictions on Blogging Community.

Michael Krempasky testified today before the FEC on potential issues arising from placing regulations on blogging:

Today you consider rules that will affect millions of people. Not just the eleven million blogs currently indexed by the search engine Technorati, but the millions of people who currently have the freedom to take a few minutes, join the blogosphere and add their voice to our political conversation.

I’ll focus my testimony this morning on the media exemption. My hope is that the Commission will take specific and discrete steps to ensure that no blogger, no amateur activist, and no self-published pundit ever need consult with legal counsel in fear of the regulatory might of the federal government.

Our current campaign finance regulations touch nearly every area of political participation by associations, corporations, candidates, political parties and individuals. But one group is notably and, for practical purposes, completely exempt – the news media. The Commission is now considering the proper scope of that exemption. As it has asked, "Should the exemption be limited to entities who are media entities and who are covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial?"

With respect, the question properly formed should have been, "can the exemption be limited?" The answer must be an emphatic no. There is no doubt that bloggers are media entities. Nor is there any doubt that the tradition of citizen journalists is a long accepted part of our national culture. From before very founding of our country, individuals and relative unknowns have contributed to this great conversation...

Time and time again, it is the new media – these bloggers – that fill the information gap. The vast resources of the blogosphere as a whole, its expertise, creativity and motivation – dwarf any newsroom in the country. Indeed, free of the constraints of bureaucratic hierarchies and concerns of column inches, blogs can provide news coverage that is both faster and more in depth than anything the mainstream media can hope to provide...

This very rulemaking is an even better case in point. What newspaper or television station could afford to devote time and space every day to covering the actions or potential actions of a relatively small government agency? None did, and none could. Meanwhile, bloggers wrote thousands of words about the Commission’s rulemaking, educating their readers and encouraging them to participate in the process.

There is no doubt that the Commission recognizes the difficulty in extending the media exemption to these citizen journalists. It is imperative that it does so. What goal would be served by protecting Rush Limbaugh’s multimillion dollar talk radio program – but not a self-published blogger with a fraction of the audience? How is the public benefited by allowing CNN to evade regulation while spending corporate dollars to put campaign employees on the airwaves as pundits, while forcing bloggers to scour the Record and read Commission advisory opinions?

Worse yet, if the Commission were to adopt a policy of examining individual blogs on a case-by-case basis, how is that to be distinguished from a government license to publish free of jeopardy – only granted (or denied) after the fact? Unlike previous Commission investigations in the offline world, these cases would affect not large corporations or interest groups with the ability to hire the best firms in Washington, but instead unsophisticated and unfounded individuals poorly suited to navigate the Commissions regulatory process...

The Commission should extend the media exemption to bloggers and other online publishers with the broadest possible terms. The American people, when given the chance tend to make choices that best serve them. The more voices, the more outlets, the more "media entities" – the more informed our public – and our voters will be.

Here is some further information posted on the same blog site and this links to all their FEC postings.

Here is a news article on the day's testimony.

Reporting False Performance Data Under No Child Left Behind: Why Are We Surprised At Dishonest Behavior By The Educational Bureaucracy?

The New York Times published an editorial yesterday entitled False Data on Student Performance:

Americans often can't find reliable information about how the schools in their state compare with schools elsewhere. The No Child Left Behind Act ["NCLB"] was supposed to change that by requiring states to file clear and accurate statistical information with the Education Department. The news so far is less than encouraging. Many states have chosen to manipulate data to provide overly optimistic appraisals of their schools' performance.

A distressing example emerged last week in a study of graduation rates by the Education Trust, a nonpartisan foundation in Washington. For the second year in a row, the Education Trust has found that many states are cooking the books on graduation rates - using unorthodox calculation methods or ignoring students who drop out. Some states submitted no graduation data at all...

The secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, says she is concerned about accuracy. But Congress itself needs to take up this issue and force the states to use accurate methods of calculation when it reauthorizes No Child Left Behind in 2007. Until changes are made at the federal level, student performance data in the United States won't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Several thoughts:

Corporations caught filing false information to the public get publicly attacked and sued? Where is the comparable outrage for this behavior which has a much broader societal impact as it is about how well we are educating our children?

Why does the NY Times think more federal involvement in state-level educational issues is going to change behaviors? The only logical extension of the NY Times' argument is to reach for total federal micro-management and control. But, the Soviet Union showed that model of government just plain doesn't work. Think further about the silliness of their argument: Within the state of Rhode Island alone, there are nearly 40 school districts, some with multiple high schools. As a further example, how is Congress going to ensure my town - with its roughly 150 graduating seniors every year - files proper data? And how will the Congress define and enforce penalities if my town were not to do it properly? Sheer folly.

No, the false performance data reporting occurs because there is a fundamental structural problem in public education. NCLB may highlight problems like this false reporting but it cannot fix the real problems because school bureaucracies and teachers' unions receive no tangible rewards from excellent performance and suffer no adverse consequences for non-performance.

The only thing that will change that dynamic in public education - which unfortunately hurts our vulnerable children the most - is the power of competition implemented via educational choice. This Milton Friedman posting explains both the structural problems of the public education monopoly and the power of education choice.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EDUCATIONAL ISSUES:

EAST GREENWICH NEA TEACHERS' UNION CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
In a nutshell, here is what I think the negotiating position of the East Greenwich School Committee should be on some of the key financial terms of the contract.

Other postings include:
Background Information on the East Greenwich NEA Labor Dispute
The NEA's Disinformation Campaign
East Greenwich Salary & Benefits Data
More Bad Faith Behavior by the NEA
The Debate About Retroactive Pay
Would You Hurt Our Children Just To Win Better Contract Terms?
The Question Remains Open & Unanswered: Are We/They Doing Right By Our Children?
Will The East Greenwich Teachers' Union Stop Their Attempts to Legally Extort Residents?
You Have To Read This Posting To Believe It! The Delusional World of the NEA Teachers' Union
So What Else is New? Teachers' Union Continues Non-Productive Behaviors in East Greenwich Labor Talks
"Bargaining Rights are Civil Rights"
The NEA-Rhode Island's Pathetic Attempts to Manipulate East Greenwich Residents

OTHER RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION/UNION ISSUES
In addition to financial issues, management rights are the other big teachers' union contract issue. "Work-to-rule" or "contract compliance" only can become an issue because of how management rights are defined in union contracts. The best reading on this subject is the recent report by The Education Partnership. It is must reading.

Other editorials and postings include:
ProJo editorial: Derailing the R.I. gravy train
ProJo editorial: RI public unions work to reduce your family's quality of life
ProJo editorial: Breaking the taxpayer: How R.I. teachers get 12% pay hikes
Selfish Focus of Teachers Unions: Everything But What Is Good For Our Kids
Tom Coyne - RI Schools: Big Bucks Have Not Brought Good Results
The NEA: There They Go, Again!
A Response: Why Teachers' Unions (Not Teachers!) Are Bad For Education
"A Girl From The Projects" Gets an Opportunity to Live the American Dream
Doing Right By Our Children in Public Education Requires Thinking Outside The Box
Debating Rhode Island Public Education Issues
The Cocoon in which Entitled State Employees Live
Are Teachers Fairly Compensated?
Warwick Teachers' Union Throws Public Tantrum
Blocking More Charter Schools Means Hurting Our Children
RI Educational Establishment: Your Days of No Vigorous Public Oversight & No Accountability Are Ending

BROADER PUBLIC EDUCATION ISSUES
The Deep Performance Problems with American Public Education
Freedom, Hard Work & Quality Education: Making The American Dream Possible For ALL Americans
Parents or Government/Unions: Who Should Control Our Children's Educational Decisions?
Now Here is a Good Idea
Milton Friedman on School Choice
Issuing a Call for a Higher Quality Public Debate About Education
Is Merit Pay for Teachers a 'Crazy Idea'?

Pigs at the Public Trough, Revisited

Time Magazine has an unflattering story about lobbyist Jack Abramoff which builds on some of the points highlighted in this earlier posting:

...The spreading scandal is a particular concern to Republicans in light of next year's midterm elections. Abramoff's name has become associated in Washington with more than just typical lobbying excess. He is an intimate of the self-described revolutionaries who took power on the Hill in 1994 on promises of cleaning house after decades of Democratic control and, as such, is seen as the personification of the Republican revolution gone awry. It doesn't help that the Indian tribal money that made Abramoff so influential around town came mostly from profits from gambling, which many conservatives view as immoral. Some Republicans are even arguing that the party should distance itself from those tied too closely to Abramoff. "If someone within your family is doing something that's certainly wrong, if not illegal, you have a duty to say, That's not us," says David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "That's what people are saying."

Last week's e-mail dump was the first detailed look the public has got into how Abramoff combined his top-tier connections with vast sums of money from his tribal clients to advance his interests. It shows how easy it is for seasoned operators to violate the spirit of the law--possibly while staying within the letter of it--as they peddle influence...Most of all, it shines a bright light into the dark places of Washington where money, politics and lobbyists meet.

Norquist, Abramoff and Reed first worked together in 1981 as members of the college Republicans organizing protests against communism in Poland. From there, the three rose steadily to the tops of their fields. Reed, as leader of the Christian Coalition, built a national grass-roots following of religious activists. Abramoff tapped into massive casino profits by representing newly rich tribes. And Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), established himself as the high priest of tax cuts...

Abramoff's spokesman released a statement last week saying that with an investigation ongoing, "Mr. Abramoff is put into the impossible position of not being able to defend himself in the public arena until the proper authorities have had a chance to review all accusations." Norquist says he believes the direction of the Indian Affairs Committee's probe is being driven by an old rivalry between him and the committee chairman, Republican Senator John McCain. "This is completely political," Norquist says. McCain said last week's hearings sought to uncover fraud against the Choctaws, not investigate Norquist or Reed...

What of the friendship among the three men? In 2002 Abramoff came to see Reed as competition and cut him off the Choctaw gravy train. "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him," Abramoff wrote Scanlon. Norquist was still standing by Abramoff last week, in a way. "I've known Jack for a long time," he said. "He's never approached me for anything improper. But we have led very different lives over the last 20 years."

The WSJ also published a story on the issue, available here for a fee.

When politicians of both parties compete for power and money in the political arena, they cause all sorts of unfortunate outcomes, none of which benefits working families and retirees across our land. Consider these examples:

First, here is a related story about Ralph Reed.

Second, here is an example of government waste within the pork-laden highway bill.

Third, here is a story about the FEC blogging regulation debate which shows that, even within the Republican Party, John McCain's proclivity for political machinations could end up reducing freedom of speech for average Americans.

Fourth, here is a story about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his political opponents which shows how the drive for political power affects the behaviors of both DeLay and his political opponents.

Fifth, here is a story about how the Supreme Court now says government can take our homes away when there is money to be made.

So what is the average American supposed to deduce from all this? Here are some thoughts that I wrote in this posting:

I remember well that election night in November 1994 when it seemed real change might occur. Unfortunately, we have - yet again - relearned the lesson from the words of Lord Acton who taught us how power corrupts, regardless of party affiliation.

Big government means there are plenty of spoils to divide among the many powerful pigs at the public trough.

The next time your Senator or Congressman tries to impress you with the spoils he or she is bringing home to your district, take a step back and remember that the true price you are paying for any suggested benefit must also include the pro-rata cost of feeding every other pig across America who eats from the public trough.

Most importantly, what is often forgotten is that the spoils they are so eager to divide up represent a meaningful portion of the incomes of American working families and retirees - who are usually unrepresented at the table when these spoils are given away.

We must never forget that all families pay quite a price for these giveaways: It means less of their own hard-earned incomes is available to be spent on their own tangible needs, on things such as food, clothing, medical care, education, etc.

And that is why big government means less freedom for American working families and retirees.

In summary and to expand on the initial comments, here are some other conclusions taken from the DeLay posting:

Two takeaway thoughts that can help us regain perspective:

First, the intensity of the partisan fighting is directly correlated to what is at stake and big government means there is more to fight over. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers encouraged limited government was their deep understanding of human nature.

Second, since politicians and bureaucrats have no incentive to behave well, a diligent citizenry is crucially important to the ongoing success of our American experiment in ordered liberty.

Read this posting for more on the misguided incentives that drive public sector taxation.

Others have said it more eloquently. Here is a public policy viewpoint offered by Lawrence Reed in a speech entitled "Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy," which includes these words:

The "Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy" that I want to share with you today are pillars of a free economy. We can differ on exactly how any one of them may apply to a given issue of the day, but the principles themselves, I believe, are settled truths...They are not the only pillars of a free economy or the only settled truths, but they do comprise a pretty powerful package. In my belief, if every cornerstone of every state and federal building were emblazoned with these principles-and more importantly, if every legislator understood and attempted to be faithful to them-we'd be a much stronger, much freer, more prosperous, and far better governed people...

Public policy that dismisses liberty or doesn't preserve or strengthen it should be immediately suspect in the minds of a vigilant people...Ben Franklin went so far as to advise us that "He who gives up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."

Too often today, policy makers give no thought whatsoever to the general state of liberty when they craft new policies. It if feels good or sounds good or gets them elected, they just do it...

I would encourage you to read the entire Reed speech to get a more detailed view of the seven principles.

And here is a political philosphy viewpoint:

Roger Pilon wrote the following in a 2002 Cato Institute booklet containing the Declaration of Independence and Constitution:

Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration’s seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." Grounded in reason, "self-evident" truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a "higher law" of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system.

But if reason is the foundation of the Founders' vision – the method by which we justify our political order – liberty is its aim. Thus, cardinal moral truths are these:

…that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government – indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from "the Consent of the Governed." And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish – to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights – provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract – its principles rooted in "right reason" – the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.

Dr. Pilon concluded his essay by writing:

In the end, however, no constitution can be self-enforcing. Government officials must respect their oaths to uphold the Constitution; and we the people must be vigilant in seeing that they do. The Founders drafted an extraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, but it is up to us, to each generation, to preserve and protect it for ourselves and for future generations. For the Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the American people. That, perhaps, is the most enduring lesson of our experiment in ordered liberty.

...may all of us live up to that vision authored by our Founders as we strive to be engaged citizens who are vigilant stewards of freedom and opportunity for all Americans.

The Kelo Decision Revisited: An Ironic Twist

The Kelo decision by the Supreme Court has stirred a lot of controversy, as noted in an earlier posting.

The following twist comes from Justice Souter's home state of New Hampshire:

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court...might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land...

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."...

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."...

The Just Desserts Cafe in the Lost Liberty Hotel, proposed to be built on what would have been called - one week ago - Justice Souter's private property, free from theft by the government.

How ironic.

But, then again, maybe all of us are approaching this with the wrong thought process. Since government itself neither creates economic value nor generates tax revenue, why don't we we interpret the Kelo decision in a more creative way:

Any time a government agency decides to take away our families' private property, let's make that agency's physical location the replacement target to convert from a government building to a private sector entity that generates lots of tax revenue.

This approach would have several benefits: First, it would save our homes. Second, it would shrink the size of government. Third, it would accelerate the further reduction of our taxes.

Sounds about as logical as the Kelo decision, no? And in doing so, we would simply be abiding by the laws of our land. Any takers?

President Bush, Polls and Iraq

On the eve of the President's press conference to buck up America with regards to Iraq, the pollsters are busy trying to set the table for their spin. First, we have this from CNN/USA Today:

As Bush prepares to address the nation Tuesday to defend his Iraq policy, just 40 percent of those responding to the poll said they approved of his handling of the war; 58 percent said they disapproved. . .

The lone bright spot for the president in the poll was his handling of terrorism, which scored a 55 percent approval rating, compared to just 41 percent who disapproved.

Then, we have this from ABC/Washington Post:

As President Bush prepares to address the nation about Iraq tonight, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that most Americans do not believe the administration's claims that impressive gains are being made against the insurgency, but a clear majority is willing to keep U.S. forces there for an extended time to stabilize the country.

The survey found that only one in eight Americans currently favors an immediate pullout of U.S. forces, while a solid majority continues to agree with Bush that the United States must remain in Iraq until civil order is restored -- a goal that most of those surveyed acknowledge is, at best, several years away.

Further, ABC/WaPo continues that

So far, continuing spasms of violence in Iraq are competing with regular declarations of progress in Washington. Few people agree with Vice President Cheney's recent claim that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The survey found that 22 percent of Americans -- barely one in five -- say they believe that the insurgency is getting weaker, while 24 percent believe it is strengthening. More than half -- 53 percent -- say resistance to U.S. and Iraqi government forces has not changed, a view that matches the assessment offered last week in congressional testimony by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. John P. Abizaid.

But Chrenkoff, the erstwhile updater of the "hidden" news going on in Iraq, makes the point that

Putting aside the discussion whether the insurgency in Iraq is getting worse, or better, or has stayed pretty much the same, the problem with those sorts of questions is that they contrast the opinion of Administration officials who have access to a broad range of detailed, and sometimes classified information, with the opinion of the average Joe and Joanne, formed from reading newspapers and watching TV. And if just about the only news coming out of Iraq in the mainstream media are suicide bombings and more American bodybags - as opposed to security successes - it will be very difficult for the majority to ever have a positive feeling about the situation in Iraq.

For contrast, he points to Col. Brad MacNealy, whose actually been to Iraq, in the rubble, on the streets, not holed up in some hotel in Baghdad.

There are a lot of good and positive things going on there that the national news media just won't tell you about, so I'm here to tell you what's really going on over there and not what you hear on the television or read in the newspapers. They're not putting the true picture out there, so don't believe everything you see on TV.

So, setting the reality vs. the media portrayal aside (you know, perception is reality...), what explains the seeming difference in the two aforementioned polls? Here's a theoretical comment from a theoretical person on the street: "Well, in an ideal world in which ideal wars are fought, in which it is possible to make no or few mistakes, President Bush has fallen short and I disapprove (CNN/USA Today) of his handling of things and don't have a lot of confidence in his plans because he hasn't told me of any (or at least, I haven't heard them much). Nonetheless, we are now in Iraq and we have to see it through. Again, I'm not as optimistic as the Administration seems to be--after all, our men and women are dying every day--but we can't cut and run and give our enemies a victory." In short, yes it's tough, but we're Americans, we don't quit. If only our politicians would be so unbending.

[Cross-posted at Ocean State Blogger.]

State House Passes Budget

The State House passed the budget last night:

By an overwhelming majority, the House last night passed a new $6.35-billion state budget which cuts pension benefits, lowers the car tax and drastically increases the fee developers pay to receive historic tax credits.

In stark contrast to last year, the debate in the House was generally orderly and civil, leading to a 71-to-2 vote in support of a new budget for the year starting Friday.

With Republican Governor Carcieri backing the budget for the first time in his three years in office -- and calling it a "great win for our citizens" -- all 15 House Republicans voted yea.

"Obviously I think it was a good night," Carcieri said shortly after the 8:22 p.m. vote. "I mean, everybody came together."

While he said the 6.5-percent increase in spending "is still too high," Carcieri applauded the pension changes, tax-relief efforts and aid package for cities and towns.

House Speaker William J. Murphy, D-West Warwick, said "all parties involved realized that we were working for the best interests of the people of Rhode Island," even those who didn't support him as speaker and tried to kill last year's budget...

The Senate Finance Committee expects to consider, and approve, the budget at a 3 p.m. hearing today, with the goal of a floor vote by the full Senate tomorrow. Murphy says he hopes to finish this session by Thursday...

One of the most important budget items was the changes in state pension rules:

After close to two hours of debate, the House approved a "pension reform" package aimed at shaving $44 million off the spiralling cost of public employee pensions. The final vote was 60 to 12.

For those hired after July 1 and those not yet vested, the new pension rules will establish a minimum retirement age for the first time since 1984; place new curbs on the 3-percent, compounded cost-of-living increases state retirees get now; and reduce the pension-dollar value of each year of work in such a way that the maximum benefit goes from 80 percent after 35 years, to 75 percent after 38.

While today's state employees and public school teachers can retire at any age, and begin collecting a pension immediately, after 28 years of work, new and non-vested workers will have to wait until age 59 to get a pension, after at least 29 years of work, or age 65 after 10 years of work....

You will never guess who was whining about these changes:

Angry union leaders papered the State House earlier in the day with fliers decrying the moves and questioning both their legality and fairness.

Rhode Island Federation of Teachers President Marcia Reback went another step to try to dispel the notion that she and other unions leaders did not attempt to negotiate or offer a counterproposal until it was too late.

Reback said union leaders thought they were still in negotiations -- up until the final hours -- of how to eke out enough savings elsewhere in the budget to blunt the blow of the proposed changes. She said they came up with $3 million and asked if that would do -- but never got a response.

"The leadership let us down," she said.

But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Stephen Alves, D-West Warwick, said at an afternoon budget briefing for colleagues that House and Senate leaders had wanted to extend the COLA changes to all employees, regardless of service.

But, Alves said, "the unions rejected that proposal," and union leaders said they would have gone to court.

Union leaders watched, from the House gallery, as the lawmakers beat back one effort after another by Representatives Peter Wasylyk, D-Providence, and Arthur Handy, D-Cranston, to loosen the new age-and-work requirements, leave the retiree COLAs untouched, reduce employee contributions and insulate pension benefits from future tinkering by making them a "contractual right."

Opponents of the pension cuts said they would unfairly penalize today's workers for "sins of the past," and make them pay first-class employee-contribution rates for second-class benefits.

But Rep. Joseph Trillo, R-Warwick, argued: "This is still the greatest deal. . . . You and I should have such a deal, but we don't."

After the final vote, the union leaders said they would try again next year. "It's unfair, inequitable," said Larry Purtill, president of the NEA-RI. "Seven thousandteachers and 4,000 state employees are going to be paying for past sins."...

They just don't quit complaining, do they?

There were additional issues in the area of education funding:

...The House approved what some lawmakers -- including the president of the Providence teachers' union, Rep. Steven Smith -- decried as an inadequate $19.3-million increase in school aid.

Smith, D-Providence, demanded to know why school districts were being forced to lay off staff while the state Department of Education was getting more money for new jobs for "political friends and relatives." Whatever message House budget writers meant to send about "fiscal responsibility," he said, the message he heard was: "We don't care about the conditions in your building[s]."

Republicans also objected to a change in the formula of what cities and towns qualify as a "distressed community." Under the new formula, North Providence will again become eligible for aid in the coming year.

Rep. Nicholas Gorham, R-Coventry, said he hadn't heard "one scintilla of data" as to why the qualifying line should be moved...

Rhode Island Politics & Taxation, Part XXII: Will Financial Disclosure Requirements Be Dropped?

H. Philip West, Jr., Executive Director of Common Cause in Rhode Island, has written an important editorial:

If you think that citizens have a right to know about campaign contributions and lobbyist payments to public officials, here's some scary news from the Rhode Island House of Representatives. In the final hours of the 2005 legislative session, two dangerous bills are being rushed toward passage. Each would sabotage the public's ability to follow the money that sometimes drives government decision making.

On June 7, the House Finance Committee, with Democrats and Republicans unanimously voting together, approved legislation that would gut new lobbyist-disclosure requirements enacted only last year, in the wake of the scandals that brought down two state Senate leaders...

Common Cause drafted and lobbied for the legislation that now forces such payments into the open. The 2004 Lobbyist Disclosure Law required lobbyists and those who employ them to file public reports of "all money and anything of value" worth more than $250 that they pay to "any major state decision maker" in a calendar year.

The underlying goal was simple disclosure: Those who lobby for legislation or other government decisions must report payments to major state decision makers in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of state government. Whether or not payments are technically for lobbying, lobbyists and those who hire them must file annual public reports.

Nothing in the new law limits or bans such payments. It simply requires disclosure...

Common Cause offered simple, straightforward language to address [concerns highlighted in the full editorial], but nothing satisfied the House Finance Committee...

With negotiations stalled, this year's amended bill (05-H 5477SubA, filed by House Majority Leader Gordon Fox [D.-Providence]) may yet surface on the House floor in the final hours of the legislative session. Its passage would nullify the lobbyist-disclosure requirements, which Mr. Fox sponsored only last year.

More ominously, last Thursday the state Senate rammed through a campaign-finance amendment that would dismantle a 2001 law -- also enacted in the wake of scandal -- that requires electronic filing and disclosure of campaign-finance reports.

The goal of that 2001 law was to let journalists and ordinary citizens analyze pertinent information via computer about who contributes to political candidates' coffers. Its passage put Rhode Island in the good company of 13 other states that now mandate electronic filing for campaigns that raise or spend specified threshold amounts.

Under the Rhode Island law, any campaign that raises or spends more than $5,000 in a year must file electronically. Thousands of Rhode Island campaign contributions are thus already available for public review...

As approved by the full Senate on Thursday, the legislation (05-S 1123SubA, filed by Sen. Roger Badeau [D.-Woonsocket]) guts the requirement that candidates, political parties, and political-action committees "commence filing campaign-finance reports electronically." Instead, it says that they "may commence" filing electronically. Beyond making electronic data merely optional, it also entirely deletes a back-up filing requirement for campaigns that raise or spend more than $5,000 a year.

If enacted, this change would carry Rhode Island back to the bad old days when campaigns printed out thousands of pages of campaign documents from their computers and submitted them to the Board of Elections. Journalists and other citizens who sought to analyze those data were forced to spend hundreds of hours keypunching the numbers into their computers before they could start to connect the dots...

Both 5477SubA and 1123SubA appear to offer only minor amendments, yet each would scuttle open-government requirements born of scandal. Each bill would slam the door on public access to vital information about money that flows from deep pockets to powerful public officials.

Only forceful calls to every member of Rhode Island's General Assembly will persuade lawmakers to protect tools that allow voters to follow the money. Amid the haste and heat of these final legislative days, only vocal constituents will persuade lawmakers to kill these bad bills.

What will it take for these people in the State House to wake up and realize the citizens of Rhode Island want a government that is responsible to its citizens?

These bills deserve to be defeated. If they are not, then we will add some new names to the Hall of Shame. It should be quite a list by the time we reach the 2006 elections.

This posting continues a periodic series on Rhode Island politics and taxation, building on twenty-one previous postings:

I - Guiding Principles for Sound Public Policy
II - The Outrageous Tax Burden in Rhode Island
III - 2004: The Year in Review
IV - The NEA's Disinformation Campaign
V - Governor Carcieri's State of the State Address
VI - "Citizens for Representative Government's" Deceitful Manipulation of the Constitutional Convention Vote
VII - The Extreme Tax Burden in the City of Providence
VIII - Rhode Island Gets a C+ on its Report Card
IX - How Speaker Murphy's Changing of the Rules of the House Reduces Your Freedom
X - East Greenwich Teachers' Salary and Benefits Data
XI - What Was Rep. Fox Doing in Portsmouth?
XII - Why Do RI Citizens Passively Consent to Governmental Control by Powerful Interests?
XIII - RI House Leaders Show No Respect for Rule of Law by Undermining Separations of Powers, Part I
XIV - More Bad Faith Behavior by the NEA
XV - RI House Leaders Show No Respect for Rule of Law by Undermining Separations of Powers, Part II
XVI - Tom Coyne - RI Schools: Big Bucks Have Not Brought Good Results
XVII - RI Public Pension Problems
XVIII - Union Doublespeak, Again
XIX - Another Stab at Killing Off Future Economic Growth
XX - Defining a Core Problem in Rhode Island
XXI - Blocking More Charter Schools Means Hurting Our Children

Thoughts on Staying Married

I rarely agree with Froma Harrop's politics but she has a very perceptive editorial on what makes long-term marriages happen:

You know the quip: A wife is asked on her silver anniversary whether she has ever contemplated divorce. "Divorce, never," she replies. "Murder, frequently."

That sums up the truth about long-term marriages. Their success doesn't rely on everybody's being compatible or happy or a champ in the sack. The people who stay married are the people who won't consider divorce.

This sounds circular, I know, but it's the case...For the moment that divorce becomes a card on the table, there will be a temptation to play it...

...when a spouse blows up with rage -- and the best of us do -- true commitment is the only glue that can hold things together...

Several states have passed laws letting couples opt for a stricter kind of union, called a covenant marriage...

But what can withstand the modern love of freedom? An unhappy partner can get out of covenant marriage quicker than Houdini could pick the lock on a piggy bank...

Marriage counseling, meanwhile, can do only so much. By the time the angry couple decides to hire a therapist, it's usually too late...

And in going through the reasons for discontent, therapists often unwittingly add fuel to the fire...Therapy can take lots of little stuff and roll it into one big unhappy ending...

But for the person truly dedicated to staying married, the answer is somewhat different. It is "I don't want to spend the next 30 years living like this, but I'm going to do it anyway."

People marry for different reasons now than they did two generations ago, which helps account for today's higher divorce rates. Marriage used to be about economics and child rearing, according to David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project, at Rutgers University. Now it's a love-based decision....

Finding money for new wallpaper is not impossible. But re-creating That Old Black Magic month after month is. After a while, the flame of passion dims into an occasional spark, if the couple is lucky. And restoring it is beyond the powers of Shakespeare, Dr. Phil or Barry White.

...according to Popenoe...[h]is studies show that marriages today are, if anything, a bit less happy than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Work stress is a big reason.

But this is not necessarily bad news for couples struggling to stay together. Sometimes it helps knowing that one is not supposed to be happy all the time.

Two dear friends recently marked their 55th anniversary. I asked the husband whether they ever wanted to strangle one another. He said, "Yes, like last night." But they're married for life, and that's it.

The couple that stays together is the couple that stays together.

Food for thought, isn't it?

Is Merit Pay for Teachers a 'Crazy Idea'?

Stan Greer comments on the debate about merit pay for K-12 teachers:

...Needless to say, assessing the performance of [higher education] faculty members is not an exact science...Yet, somehow, universities make overall assessments and reward faculty accordingly, because the various players in higher education understand that the alternative of rewarding faculty solely on the basis of seniority and/or paper credentials is far worse.

The fact that merit pay is already the norm in higher education is somehow overlooked in most media reports concerning current efforts to implement merit pay in K-12 education. How can it be that most private and public colleges and universities, bastions of socialist ideology that they are, are positively Randian in their compensation philosophy by comparison with public schools? The primary reason is the extensive monopoly power to speak for K-12 teachers wielded by union officials. Were it not for this factor, the practical difficulties of rewarding public school teachers according to their performance wouldn’t be greatly different from the routinely overcome difficulties of pay-for-performance in higher education.

Most university faculty are union-free...But K-12 teacher unions are both pervasive and radical. Under state policies that either explicitly authorize or tacitly sanction union monopolies, roughly two-thirds of K-12 public school teachers nationwide, including union members and nonmembers alike, are forced to accept an "exclusive" union agent as their sole spokesman in contract negotiations. Effectively, that means teacher union officials dictate what the compensation policy is.

And for decades, teacher union officials have manifested a marked hostility toward outstanding teachers. The example of world-famous math teacher Jaime Escalante, while especially outrageous, is instructive. According to Escalante (the subject of the 1988 Hollywood movie Stand and Deliver), who over the course of many years of hard work developed the most successful inner-city math program in America, teacher union officials chastised him for attracting "too many" students to his calculus classes. When Escalante finally resigned from the high school he and his students had made famous, local teacher union officials circulated a celebratory note that read: "We got him out!"

Delegates to the summer 2000 convention of the National Education Association (NEA), which now has 2.7 million members, made their union’s contempt for "uppity" teachers explicit policy. They declared their categorical opposition to "any . . . system of compensation based on an evaluation of an education employee’s performance." Up to now, the bosses of the NEA union and the likeminded men and women who run the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers (AFT/AFL-CIO) have had their way when it comes to teacher compensation, with only a handful of exceptions.

But now change seems to be in the air. A number of elected officials are saying publicly that teachers should be rewarded when they do a superior job, just like university faculty. For example, GOP Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Calif.) and Don Carcieri (R.I.) are advocating merit pay for teachers...

...to propose that teachers be rewarded based on merit, as Schwarzenegger did in his January 5 State of the State speech, is simply insane, according to teacher union officials.

"It’s a crazy idea," sneered San Diego Education Association union President Terry Pesta. "That’s la-la land," chortled United Teachers Los Angeles union President John Perez...

...Experience with merit pay in K-12 education and federal employment is extremely limited because union officials have opposed it tooth and nail, and worked to sabotage it when they couldn’t stop it flat out. But in the occasional cases where teacher union bosses have been unable to block or undermine merit pay, teachers appear to appreciate being treated as individuals...

..."Just rewarding people for having put in a lot of years, that’s one of the things the public gets upset about – and justly so," said high school English teacher Kris Sandy. It’s "perfectly reasonable" to tie raises to fulfilling performance goals, as long as teachers are given a clear presentation of what they need to do, Sandy continued. Former California public school teacher Arana Shapiro was more blunt in recently explaining to journal editor Naomi Riley why she switched to a private, nonunion school in New York City: "[I]n public schools there are teachers who have been there for ten years but haven’t changed one thing they’ve done . . . and they’re making a high amount of money. Yet teachers who have been there five years but are constantly improving on their practice are stuck" at a low pay level.

The real obstacle to the successful implementation of merit pay isn’t teachers or federal employees, it is the monopoly-bargaining system imposed on public education and federal employment by politicians acting at the behest of union officials. Discussions about teacher merit pay in California, Rhode Island, Minnesota and the 31 other states that have laws authorizing and promoting monopoly bargaining in public schools will be fruitless unless their basic labor-relations policies change. To have a chance of succeeding, merit-pay proposals must abolish monopoly bargaining or, at the very least, sharply restrict its scope...

For a perspective on how some Rhode Island teachers view merit pay as well as more on the dynamic that arises out of union monopolies, go here. With attitudes and restrictions on excellence like those described in that posting and the article featured above, is it now clear why we have a performance problem with public education in Rhode Island and across America?

Another part of the problem is here.

It is a structural problem with only one viable solution: The monopoly bargaining rights held by teachers' unions must go away. Our children deserve so much better and the unions stand between today's status quo of mediocrity and tomorrow's possible shot at a globally-competitive excellence.

Why do we tolerate what amounts to a form of child abuse?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EDUCATIONAL ISSUES:

EAST GREENWICH NEA TEACHERS' UNION CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
In a nutshell, here is what I think the negotiating position of the East Greenwich School Committee should be on some of the key financial terms of the contract.

Other postings include:
Background Information on the East Greenwich NEA Labor Dispute
The NEA's Disinformation Campaign
East Greenwich Salary & Benefits Data
More Bad Faith Behavior by the NEA
The Debate About Retroactive Pay
Would You Hurt Our Children Just To Win Better Contract Terms?
The Question Remains Open & Unanswered: Are We/They Doing Right By Our Children?
Will The East Greenwich Teachers' Union Stop Their Attempts to Legally Extort Residents?
You Have To Read This Posting To Believe It! The Delusional World of the NEA Teachers' Union
So What Else is New? Teachers' Union Continues Non-Productive Behaviors in East Greenwich Labor Talks
"Bargaining Rights are Civil Rights"
The NEA-Rhode Island's Pathetic Attempts to Manipulate East Greenwich Residents

OTHER RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION/UNION ISSUES
In addition to financial issues, management rights are the other big teachers' union contract issue. "Work-to-rule" or "contract compliance" only can become an issue because of how management rights are defined in union contracts. The best reading on this subject is the recent report by The Education Partnership. It is must reading.

Other editorials and postings include:
ProJo editorial: Derailing the R.I. gravy train
ProJo editorial: RI public unions work to reduce your family's quality of life
ProJo editorial: Breaking the taxpayer: How R.I. teachers get 12% pay hikes
Selfish Focus of Teachers Unions: Everything But What Is Good For Our Kids
Tom Coyne - RI Schools: Big Bucks Have Not Brought Good Results
The NEA: There They Go, Again!
A Response: Why Teachers' Unions (Not Teachers!) Are Bad For Education
"A Girl From The Projects" Gets an Opportunity to Live the American Dream
Doing Right By Our Children in Public Education Requires Thinking Outside The Box
Debating Rhode Island Public Education Issues
The Cocoon in which Entitled State Employees Live
Are Teachers Fairly Compensated?
Warwick Teachers' Union Throws Public Tantrum
Blocking More Charter Schools Means Hurting Our Children
RI Educational Establishment: Your Days of No Vigorous Public Oversight & No Accountability Are Ending

BROADER PUBLIC EDUCATION ISSUES
The Deep Performance Problems with American Public Education
Freedom, Hard Work & Quality Education: Making The American Dream Possible For ALL Americans
Parents or Government/Unions: Who Should Control Our Children's Educational Decisions?
Now Here is a Good Idea
Milton Friedman on School Choice
Issuing a Call for a Higher Quality Public Debate About Education

Issuing a Call for a Higher Quality Public Debate About Education

Robert Gordon, a former education policy advisor to John Kerry, has written a provocative article in The New Republic magazine about the Democratic Party's actions on educational matters.

Ed Achorn has recently commented on the article here, noting:

...Mr. Gordon contends that Democrats should stop letting Republicans eat their lunch on education. Democrats, given their traditional support of a vigorous government and their historic allegiance to the belief that America should be a country "where birth doesn't dictate destiny," should be strong advocates of education reform. They should be carrying the flag especially for minority children in poor school districts.

Instead, Mr. Gordon notes, they too often march in lockstep with the teachers' unions, chanting their mantra of "money, money, money" while mounting "unprincipled attacks" against reform. Even if Democratic politicians (including Mr. Kerry) support reform in theory, Mr. Gordon observes, their principles "wither in the heat of Democratic politics."

As a result, Republicans have been leading the charge on education reform -- and voters are noticing...

There seems to be a lesson here for many Rhode Island Democrats, too, who may be turning off parents and taxpayers with their apparent lack of compassion for children in public schools, and their slavish devotion to the state's very powerful and often arrogant teachers' unions.

The state has among the nation's highest per-pupil costs, fueling skyrocketing property taxes -- and the absolute highest per-pupil costs devoted to teacher compensation -- but its students, on average, perform poorly on tests. Rhode Island's young are being poorly prepared to compete in a world where brainpower will be essential.

...Experience confirms what common sense would argue: Accountability, high standards and excellent teachers are the key. Mr. Gordon cites a study by the Education Trust that had found that "good teachers are the single most important factor in good schools -- affecting student achievement more than race, poverty, or parental education."

Unfortunately, teachers' unions have become an impediment to such achievement, because they fiercely defend a culture of mediocrity over merit. "Onerous hiring procedures discourage able candidates, while the lockstep pay scale rewards seniority and accumulated degrees, not success," Mr. Gordon writes. Tenure makes it almost impossible to fire bad teachers...

Mr. Gordon offers rational reforms for Democrats to embrace:

Change the pay system to stop rewarding mediocrity and start rewarding effort and merit. The "usual liberal solution -- across-the-board pay hikes -- perpetuates the maldistribution of good teachers and reinforces the irrelevance of achievement."

Use bonuses to attract good teachers to poor schools.

Attract better people to the profession with promises of higher pay for better results.

Develop methods for evaluating teachers fairly, so that they are not punished arbitrarily or for political reasons -- then reward the best performers and weed out the worst. With peer and principals' involvement, teacher evaluations could be at least as fair as those "in other professions where performance pay is the norm."

Why should Democrats tackle this problem? Because their traditional values argue for helping children -- especially the poor -- get a better education, and have a fairer shot at the American dream...

Voters -- and one hears this constantly in Rhode Island, certainly -- are coming to the conclusion that throwing more money at the schools is useless if the money simply goes for lavish adult entitlements, mediocre performance and a tax-them-into-the-stone-age political machine.

To make changes, Democratic politicians will have to put the interests of children ahead of the demands of one of the most important and powerful elements of the Democrats' political base. "But there has to be a distinction between supporting the rights of unions and supporting their every demand," Mr. Gordon notes...

...If [progressives] give up on that philosophy to serve the greed of a powerful interest group, they will continue to lose their once-dominant edge as the party of education...

I would encourage you to read the entire Gordon article.

For further information on the magnitude of the performance problems in American education, go here.

Let's focus on the one thing that matters most: Providing a quality education to all children in America so each of them gets a fair shot at living the American Dream.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EDUCATIONAL ISSUES:

EAST GREENWICH NEA TEACHERS' UNION CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
In a nutshell, here is what I think the negotiating position of the East Greenwich School Committee should be on some of the key financial terms of the contract.

Other postings include:
Background Information on the East Greenwich NEA Labor Dispute
The NEA's Disinformation Campaign
East Greenwich Salary & Benefits Data
More Bad Faith Behavior by the NEA
The Debate About Retroactive Pay
Would You Hurt Our Children Just To Win Better Contract Terms?
The Question Remains Open & Unanswered: Are We/They Doing Right By Our Children?
Will The East Greenwich Teachers' Union Stop Their Attempts to Legally Extort Residents?
You Have To Read This Posting To Believe It! The Delusional World of the NEA Teachers' Union
So What Else is New? Teachers' Union Continues Non-Productive Behaviors in East Greenwich Labor Talks
"Bargaining Rights are Civil Rights"
The NEA-Rhode Island's Pathetic Attempts to Manipulate East Greenwich Residents

OTHER RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION/UNION ISSUES
In addition to financial issues, management rights are the other big teachers' union contract issue. "Work-to-rule" or "contract compliance" only can become an issue because of how management rights are defined in union contracts. The best reading on this subject is the recent report by The Education Partnership. It is must reading.

Other editorials and postings include:
ProJo editorial: Derailing the R.I. gravy train
ProJo editorial: RI public unions work to reduce your family's quality of life
ProJo editorial: Breaking the taxpayer: How R.I. teachers get 12% pay hikes
Selfish Focus of Teachers Unions: Everything But What Is Good For Our Kids
Tom Coyne - RI Schools: Big Bucks Have Not Brought Good Results
The NEA: There They Go, Again!
A Response: Why Teachers' Unions (Not Teachers!) Are Bad For Education
"A Girl From The Projects" Gets an Opportunity to Live the American Dream
Doing Right By Our Children in Public Education Requires Thinking Outside The Box
Debating Rhode Island Public Education Issues
The Cocoon in which Entitled State Employees Live
Are Teachers Fairly Compensated?
Warwick Teachers' Union Throws Public Tantrum
Blocking More Charter Schools Means Hurting Our Children
RI Educational Establishment: Your Days of No Vigorous Public Oversight & No Accountability Are Ending

BROADER PUBLIC EDUCATION ISSUES
The Deep Performance Problems with American Public Education
Freedom, Hard Work & Quality Education: Making The American Dream Possible For ALL Americans
Parents or Government/Unions: Who Should Control Our Children's Educational Decisions?
Now Here is a Good Idea
Milton Friedman on School Choice

More on Potential FEC Restrictions on Blogging Community

A previous posting provided a substantive introduction to ongoing FEC regulation risks facing the blogging community.

Win Myers at the Democracy Project continues his good work on this subject with these two recent postings here and here.

It is in the blogging community's self-interest as lovers of freedom to stay informed about FEC developments and all the surrounding politics - and ensure the debate is visible to the American people. Read closely and stay alert.

After all, if the government can take away our private property with ease, why should we assume they wouldn't take away our free speech with similar ease?

Why is it even necessary to have these concerns in America? Sad and worrisome, isn't it?

China: A Lurking Threat

Respected defense analyst and journalist Bill Gertz writes:

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.

U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

China's military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan...

China's economy has been growing at a rate of at least 10 percent for each of the past 10 years, providing the country's military with the needed funds for modernization.

The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many defense officials view as a fascist state.

"We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," a senior defense official said...

The release of an official Chinese government report in December called the situation on the Taiwan Strait "grim" and said the country's military could "crush" Taiwan.

Earlier this year, Beijing passed an anti-secession law, a unilateral measure that upset the fragile political status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The law gives Chinese leaders a legal basis they previously did not have to conduct a military attack on Taiwan, U.S. officials said...

The advances give the Chinese military "the ability ... to reach out and touch parts of the United States -- Guam, Hawaii and the mainland of the United States," he said...

China's rulers have adopted what is known as the "two-island chain" strategy of extending control over large areas of the Pacific, covering inner and outer chains of islands stretching from Japan to Indonesia...

The official said China's buildup goes beyond what would be needed to fight a war against Taiwan.

The conclusion of this official is that China wants a "blue-water" navy capable of projecting power far beyond the two island chains.

"If you look at the technical capabilities of the weapons platforms that they're fielding, the sea-keeping capabilities, the size, sensors and weapons fit, this capability transcends the baseline that is required to deal with a Taiwan situation militarily," the intelligence official said...

...A recent Japanese government defense report called China a strategic national security concern. It was the first time China was named specifically in a Japanese defense report.

For China, Taiwan is not the only issue behind the buildup of military forces. Beijing also is facing a major energy shortage that, according to one Pentagon study, could lead it to use military force to seize territory with oil and gas resources.

The report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, which conducts assessments of future threats, was made public in January and warned that China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources is driving the country toward becoming an expansionist power...

The report also highlighted the vulnerability of China's oil and gas infrastructure to a crippling U.S. attack.

"The U.S. military could severely cripple Chinese resistance [during a conflict over Taiwan] by blocking its energy supply, whereas the [People's Liberation Army navy] poses little threat to United States' energy security," it said...

The report stated that China will resort "to extreme, offensive and mercantilist measures when other strategies fail, to mitigate its vulnerabilities, such as seizing control of energy resources in neighboring states."

U.S. officials have said two likely targets for China are the Russian Far East, which has vast oil and gas deposits, and Southeast Asia, which also has oil and gas resources...

Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 10 years, the Chinese army has shifted from a defensive force to an advanced military soon capable of operations ranging from space warfare to global non-nuclear cruise-missile strikes.

"Let's all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over," Mr. Fisher said. "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."

Here is Gertz' second article entitled Thefts of U.S. technology boost China's weaponry.

Here is an additional article by Gertz entitled Beijing devoted to weakening 'enemy' U.S., defector says.

Related topics can be found in previous postings entitled Sobering Possibilities and The Geopoliticization of World's Oil & Gas Industry.

The NEA-Rhode Island's Pathetic Attempts to Manipulate East Greenwich Residents

Sometimes there are simply not words in the English language which can communicate sufficient disdain.

Welcome to a posting which reviews various pathetic attempts by the NEA teachers' union to manipulate public opinion in East Greenwich. The NEA's false comments, stupid comments, and errors over the months would almost be humorous if their efforts weren't focused on trying to legally extort the taxpayers of East Greenwich while simultaneously hurting our children.

So what happened most recently? Well, the NEA sent out a glossy flyer to all town residents. Calling itself a 2004-2005 report card on the School Committee, it gave them all F's.

Two of the comments on the flyer said:

• Failing our children as the School Committee members fumbled their way through the school year.
• Failing homeowners as the School Committee dismantles a once proud school system - and starts your property values on a downward slide.

These words have the sophistication of a 2nd grader trying to mimic George Orwell. Just to point out the obvious:

• Who refused to provide academic assistance to our children? The teachers, not the School Committee. So who was failing our children?
• Who refused to even discuss a 6%-10% health insurance premium co-payment proposal? The NEA union representatives, not the School Committee who offered those terms. So who was looking after the interests of homeowners?

The so-called report card has stirred one of two reactions in town: Laughter at the juvenile nature of the mailing or outrage at the union's attempt to mislead and manipulate residents.

Nice try NEA, but your pathetic actions backfired on you - again.

Oh, I didn't tell you the funniest part about the mailer: One side has a list of all 7 School Committee members with phone numbers to call in an attempt to have residents put pressure on the members. Only one problem: 2 of the 7 phone numbers were wrong!

But their pathetic behavior is nothing new. Consider what they were saying in January:

Comments by National Education Association (NEA) teachers’ union officials remind me of words spoken years ago by Soviet officials, whose views of the world were subsequently shown to have no connection to any form of reality.

As the union cranks up its disinformation campaign to intimidate East Greenwich residents, let’s contrast their Orwellian comments in recent newspaper articles with the facts:

Comment #1: The School Committee needs to get serious…Taxes in East Greenwich aren’t that high compared to other communities. FALSE...

Comment #2: The School Committee offer was completely unacceptable…It must make a financially reasonable offer. IT DID...

Comment #3: We do not deserve a pay cut in any fashion...Teachers would ultimately be getting the raw end of the deal. FALSE...

Comment #4: Teacher pay is lower than what other districts offer. FALSE...

Comment #5: The union takes exception to comments that teachers were hurting students by working under [minimal] contract compliance...TOO BAD THE TRUTH BOTHERS YOU...

Comment #6: Teachers are still accomplishing what is expected of them legally…If we are not working the hours that we are supposed to work, then they should take us to court...BAD NON-PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE...

Comment #7: For the last twelve years there haven’t been any previous problems during negotiations...SORRY, THE PILLAGING GIG IS OVER

Comment #8: Upset that the School Committee publicly releases specific details of the negotiations instead of working with the union to finalize a deal...IT'S HARD TO LEGALLY EXTORT RESIDENTS IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW, ISN'T IT?

Welcome to the surreal world of the NEA, completely disconnected from the economic reality of working families and retirees of East Greenwich - who pay for the teachers' salaries and benefits out of their hard-earned monies.

More recently, the NEA officials made a series of over-the-top, delusional public comment blunders that had residents shaking their heads in bewilderment at the utter stupidity of the words:

1. "The teachers had to do [contract compliance] to show parents how much extra teachers really do." NONSENSICAL BLABBER.

2. "[Work-to-rule] simply means we won't do anything extra." TELLINGLY TRUE.

3. [Tutoring (i.e., any form of academic assistance) before or after school] is not part of their job description." FALSE.

4. "Teachers have been doing more than what's required for no money in the past." FALSE.

5. "...a majority of East Greenwich residents can afford to hire tutors for their children but have been receiving these services free from public school teachers for years." FALSE.

6. "More than 50% of East Greenwich residents have a very high income, $500,000 or over." FALSE.

7. "In the private sector no one works overtime without getting paid. And if they're off the clock at 5 p.m., you can bet they're out the door at 5." FALSE.

8. "...contract compliance is not hurting the children. Not going on a field trip isn't hurting a child." FALSE.

It is hard to shake down a community after you insult residents so directly.

What is most pathetic is that the NEA did all of this to themselves.

Welcome to the world of the NEA-RI, where having any connection to a fact-based reality is not a requirement for employment. And they want to tell us how to run our schools! Scary thought, isn't it?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EDUCATIONAL ISSUES:

EAST GREENWICH NEA TEACHERS' UNION CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
In a nutshell, here is what I think the negotiating position of the East Greenwich School Committee should be on some of the key financial terms of the contract.

Other postings include:
Background Information on the East Greenwich NEA Labor Dispute
The NEA's Disinformation Campaign
East Greenwich Salary & Benefits Data
More Bad Faith Behavior by the NEA
The Debate About Retroactive Pay
Would You Hurt Our Children Just To Win Better Contract Terms?
The Question Remains Open & Unanswered: Are We/They Doing Right By Our Children?
Will The East Greenwich Teachers' Union Stop Their Attempts to Legally Extort Residents?
You Have To Read This Posting To Believe It! The Delusional World of the NEA Teachers' Union
So What Else is New? Teachers' Union Continues Non-Productive Behaviors in East Greenwich Labor Talks
"Bargaining Rights are Civil Rights"

OTHER RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION/UNION ISSUES
In addition to financial issues, management rights are the other big teachers' union contract issue. "Work-to-rule" or "contract compliance" only can become an issue because of how management rights are defined in union contracts. The best reading on this subject is the recent report by The Education Partnership. It is must reading.

Other editorials and postings include:
ProJo editorial: Derailing the R.I. gravy train
ProJo editorial: RI public unions work to reduce your family's quality of life
ProJo editorial: Breaking the taxpayer: How R.I. teachers get 12% pay hikes
Selfish Focus of Teachers Unions: Everything But What Is Good For Our Kids
Tom Coyne - RI Schools: Big Bucks Have Not Brought Good Results
The NEA: There They Go, Again!
A Response: Why Teachers' Unions (Not Teachers!) Are Bad For Education
"A Girl From The Projects" Gets an Opportunity to Live the American Dream
Doing Right By Our Children in Public Education Requires Thinking Outside The Box
Debating Rhode Island Public Education Issues
The Cocoon in which Entitled State Employees Live
Are Teachers Fairly Compensated?
Warwick Teachers' Union Throws Public Tantrum
Blocking More Charter Schools Means Hurting Our Children
RI Educational Establishment: Your Days of No Vigorous Public Oversight & No Accountability Are Ending

BROADER PUBLIC EDUCATION ISSUES
The Deep Performance Problems with American Public Education
Freedom, Hard Work & Quality Education: Making The American Dream Possible For ALL Americans
Parents or Government/Unions: Who Should Control Our Children's Educational Decisions?
Now Here is a Good Idea
Milton Friedman on School Choice

RI Educational Establishment: Your Days of No Vigorous Public Oversight & No Accountability Are Ending

Five years ago, fighting the Rhode Island educational establishment of bureaucrats and teachers' unions reminded me of Sisyphus, who mythology says was condemned to constantly pushing the rock up the hill - only to have it slide back down so he would have to repeat the senseless effort again and again.

But the winds of change are blowing...

For example, consider the union response to pension reform. After years of actively resisting any change, they weighed in last week with a late-to-the-game attempt to modify the pension reform train that had already left the station. It came across as an act of desperation.

Now there is another example of how the winds of change are blowing. A recent ProJo article carries an interesting message to the educational establishment in Rhode Island:

The powerful House Finance Committee stuck with Governor Carcieri's proposal to boost school financing by just 2.2 percent, allocating $666 million to education in next year's budget being hammered out in the General Assembly.

For the second year in a row, it mirrored the governor's spending plan for schools. In previous years, the General Assembly has broken with the governor to give cities and towns more school aid than he sought.

"The message we are trying to send to school districts is no more business as usual," said Rep. Paul W. Crowley, D-Newport, who is deputy chairman of the finance committee.

Lawmakers have become frustrated, according to Crowley. They feel that the state's investment in schools has been so broad that lawmakers have been unable to see tangible results, Crowley says.

"There's a concern about where the money is going," he said. "Is it just going into health-care and retirement benefits for teachers, or is it going to services for students?"

Crowley says Rhode Island needs to negotiate a single state contract with teachers or set some standards for benefit packages.

"We aren't going to keep investing in a system we have no control over," he said.

This perspective angers school superintendents such as Catherine M. Ciarlo, who runs the Cranston school system and says she has been counting on additional state aid for next year...

The problem with public education in Rhode Island can be summarized easily: We over-pay for under-performance.

We spend roughly 25% more than the national average on a per-pupil basis. Depending on the survey, we have the 7th-to-9th highest highest paid teachers.

And what do we get for that investment: Based on various NAEP test results, RI schools rank between 34th-to-38th among the 50 states. And don't forget that the average student performance in the United States is average-to-below-average among students in the industrialized world.

How could this be? There are two major reasons: Outrageously generous financial terms and extraordinarily restrictive management rights terms in the teachers' union contracts.

With respect to financial terms: Handing out 8-14% annual salary increases to all but the top job step. Providing for little or no health insurance premium co-payment. Offering cash buybacks when health insurance is not used. Longevity bonuses. Rich pension benefits. And the list goes on.

With respect to management rights: The Education Partnership's report is an effective way to learn how the union contract decimates effective decision making in our schools.

There is indeed concern about where the education money is going. As Warwick and East Greenwich negotiations have shown, the unions are relentlessly pushing their non-stop attempts to legally extort the residents of each town with no focus on how their demands impact programs and resources that are needed by our children.

But, the word is out about the games played by the educational establishment at the expense of our children. There is no turning back. And, in time, the educational establishment will either change radically to become a high performance operation or become extinct.

This is a moral crusade. Access to a quality education is the great equalizer in enabling all children to have a fair shot at living the American Dream. We cannot and will not continue to deny the most needy of our children what is their birthright as citizens of this great land.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EDUCATIONAL ISSUES:

EAST GREENWICH NEA TEACHERS' UNION CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
In a nutshell, here is what I think the negotiating position of the East Greenwich School Committee should be on some of the key financial terms of the contract.

Other postings include:
Background Information on the East Greenwich NEA Labor Dispute
The NEA's Disinformation Campaign
East Greenwich Salary & Benefits Data
More Bad Faith Behavior by the NEA
The Debate About Retroactive Pay
Would You Hurt Our Children Just To Win Better Contract Terms?
The Question Remains Open & Unanswered: Are We/They Doing Right By Our Children?
Will The East Greenwich Teachers' Union Stop Their Attempts to Legally Extort Residents?
You Have To Read This Posting To Believe It! The Delusional World of the NEA Teachers' Union
So What Else is New? Teachers' Union Continues Non-Productive Behaviors in East Greenwich Labor Talks
"Bargaining Rights are Civil Rights"

OTHER RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION/UNION ISSUES
In addition to financial issues, management rights are the other big teachers' union contract issue. "Work-to-rule" or "contract compliance" only can become an issue because of how management rights are defined in union contracts. The best reading on this subject is the recent report by The Education Partnership. It is must reading.

Other editorials and postings include:
ProJo editorial: Derailing the R.I. gravy train
ProJo editorial: RI public unions work to reduce your family's quality of life
ProJo editorial: Breaking the taxpayer: How R.I. teachers get 12% pay hikes
Selfish Focus of Teachers Unions: Everything But What Is Good For Our Kids
Tom Coyne - RI Schools: Big Bucks Have Not Brought Good Results
The NEA: There They Go, Again!
A Response: Why Teachers' Unions (Not Teachers!) Are Bad For Education
"A Girl From The Projects" Gets an Opportunity to Live the American Dream
Doing Right By Our Children in Public Education Requires Thinking Outside The Box
Debating Rhode Island Public Education Issues
The Cocoon in which Entitled State Employees Live
Are Teachers Fairly Compensated?
Warwick Teachers' Union Throws Public Tantrum
Blocking More Charter Schools Means Hurting Our Children

BROADER PUBLIC EDUCATION ISSUES
The Deep Performance Problems with American Public Education
Freedom, Hard Work & Quality Education: Making The American Dream Possible For ALL Americans
Parents or Government/Unions: Who Should Control Our Children's Educational Decisions?
Now Here is a Good Idea
Milton Friedman on School Choice

Rhode Island Politics & Taxation, Part XXI: Blocking More Charter Schools Means Hurting Our Children

The latest news on charter schools in Rhode Island is bad news for our children, especially those who need our help the most:

The House Finance Committee's decision to impose a two-year moratorium on new charter schools has derailed plans to open such a school in East Providence this fall.

Dennis Langley, chief executive officer of the Urban League of Rhode Island, said his organization had planned to open a school with 140 students in grades 8 through 11, but the moratorium, approved Tuesday, has put plans on hold.

"We're very disappointed," he said yesterday. "When you see so many youngsters wanting a choice and wanting to reach the unreachable, it's very sad."

The Academy of Science, Art and Technology would place a heavy emphasis on math and science instruction and would enroll students from Providence and East Providence, Langley said. The school would eventually grow to 300 students in grades 8 through 12.

If the General Assembly concurs with the House Finance Committee, it appears that Rhode Island would be the only state in the country whose legislature has imposed a moratorium on charter schools, according to the Center for Education Reform, a national reform organization.

(The education bill goes to the full House on Monday.)...

Charter schools are public schools paid for with public money. They tend to be small, innovative schools that are free of the bureaucracy that controls traditional schools. Rhode Island has 11 charter schools, four of them in Providence.

Yesterday, charter school leaders in Providence speculated about the fate of a movement that they say offers parents and children a valuable alternative to the traditional system.

Richard Landau, the outgoing CEO of the Textron Chamber of Commerce Academy, said, "It's obvious that the battlelines have been drawn and that a tremendous number of people who are entrenched" are trying to stall the momentum of charter schools. Textron was the first charter school in Rhode Island.

"Education is a huge industry," Landau said. "It's their livelihood and these people are threatened by change. Well, we better wake up. While we're feeling comfortable, all of these other countries are licking their chops. They're going right by us."...

Thompson thinks that charter schools are encountering resistance partly because of their success.

"Charters are a force to be reckoned with," he said. "They are demonstrating that within their scope, kids can master skills that they haven't been able to do in schools that are large and overcrowded."...

The bill is here.

As one educational activist wrote me:

...I would love it if people would scream about this moratorium. The paper talked about thousands of dollars flowing out of the public schools, but charters ARE public schools and not one of them is low-performing. And I believe strongly in choice and with the unions having a stanglehold on schools, choice is one of the few ways to get some of these kids educated.

We should scream loudly. The resistance to educational reforms led by unions and the educational bureaucracy is hurting our children. That is indefensible and morally repugnant behavior.

This posting continues a periodic series on Rhode Island politics and taxation, building on twenty previous postings:

I - Guiding Principles for Sound Public Policy
II - The Outrageous Tax Burden in Rhode Island
III - 2004: The Year in Review
IV - The NEA's Disinformation Campaign
V - Governor Carcieri's State of the State Address
VI - "Citizens for Representative Government's" Deceitful Manipulation of the Constitutional Convention Vote
VII - The Extreme Tax Burden in the City of Providence
VIII - Rhode Island Gets a C+ on its Report Card
IX - How Speaker Murphy's Changing of the Rules of the House Reduces Your Freedom
X - East Greenwich Teachers' Salary and Benefits Data
XI - What Was Rep. Fox Doing in Portsmouth?
XII - Why Do RI Citizens Passively Consent to Governmental Control by Powerful Interests?
XIII - RI House Leaders Show No Respect for Rule of Law by Undermining Separations of Powers, Part I
XIV - More Bad Faith Behavior by the NEA
XV - RI House Leaders Show No Respect for Rule of Law by Undermining Separations of Powers, Part II
XVI - Tom Coyne - RI Schools: Big Bucks Have Not Brought Good Results
XVII - RI Public Pension Problems
XVIII - Union Doublespeak, Again
XIX - Another Stab at Killing Off Future Economic Growth
XX - Defining a Core Problem in Rhode Island

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EDUCATIONAL ISSUES:

EAST GREENWICH NEA TEACHERS' UNION CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
In a nutshell, here is what I think the negotiating position of the East Greenwich School Committee should be on some of the key financial terms of the contract.

Other postings include:
Background Information on the East Greenwich NEA Labor Dispute
The NEA's Disinformation Campaign
East Greenwich Salary & Benefits Data
More Bad Faith Behavior by the NEA
The Debate About Retroactive Pay
Would You Hurt Our Children Just To Win Better Contract Terms?
The Question Remains Open & Unanswered: Are We/They Doing Right By Our Children?
Will The East Greenwich Teachers' Union Stop Their Attempts to Legally Extort Residents?
You Have To Read This Posting To Believe It! The Delusional World of the NEA Teachers' Union
So What Else is New? Teachers' Union Continues Non-Productive Behaviors in East Greenwich Labor Talks
"Bargaining Rights are Civil Rights"

OTHER RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION/UNION ISSUES
In addition to financial issues, management rights are the other big teachers' union contract issue. "Work-to-rule" or "contract compliance" only can become an issue because of how management rights are defined in union contracts. The best reading on this subject is the recent report by The Education Partnership. It is must reading.

Other editorials and postings include:
ProJo editorial: Derailing the R.I. gravy train
ProJo editorial: RI public unions work to reduce your family's quality of life
ProJo editorial: Breaking the taxpayer: How R.I. teachers get 12% pay hikes
Selfish Focus of Teachers Unions: Everything But What Is Good For Our Kids
Tom Coyne - RI Schools: Big Bucks Have Not Brought Good Results
The NEA: There They Go, Again!
A Response: Why Teachers' Unions (Not Teachers!) Are Bad For Education
"A Girl From The Projects" Gets an Opportunity to Live the American Dream
Doing Right By Our Children in Public Education Requires Thinking Outside The Box
Debating Rhode Island Public Education Issues
The Cocoon in which Entitled State Employees Live
Are Teachers Fairly Compensated?
Warwick Teachers' Union Throws Public Tantrum

BROADER PUBLIC EDUCATION ISSUES
The Deep Performance Problems with American Public Education
Freedom, Hard Work & Quality Education: Making The American Dream Possible For ALL Americans
Parents or Government/Unions: Who Should Control Our Children's Educational Decisions?
Milton Friedman on School Choice
Now Here is a Good Idea

Countering the Intolerance of Left-Wing Secular Fundamentalists

Hugh Hewitt has written an important article entitled Real Religious Intolerance. In the article, he provides a speech by American Roman Catholic Archbishop Chaput that is worthy of reading in full:

The Los Angeles Weekly's "The New Blacklist" is author Douglas Ireland's attempt to equate consumer boycotts of gay-themed entertainment sponsors with McCarthyism.

That's a stretch to begin with...

Ireland's piece is full of over-the-top rhetoric, including repeated use of the term "Christers," which many view as nakedly bigoted.

But Ireland is a proud radical atheist, as blogger-theologian Mark D. Roberts discovered as he began a lengthy assessment of Ireland's piece...the harshest language in his article didn't come from him, but from the associate dean of the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communication, Martin Kaplan. Kaplan, a long-time Democratic activist turned professor, called the trend among Christians refusing to buy products advertised on shows such as Will & Grace, ""theocratic oligopoly." Dean Kaplan continued: "The drumbeat of religious fascism has never been as troubling as it is now in this country."

Kaplan's absurdity would have lacked the context to make it other than the silly excess of a tenured Trojan had the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe not just held a conference in Cordoba Spain on the rise of anti-Semitism and other forms of religious intolerance in Europe...an American delegation attended...Among the delegation was Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput. Archbishop Chaput's remarks deserve widespread distribution...

Because Dean Kaplan's bigotry and historical amnesia is not unique, we reprint the entire text of Bishop Chaput's remarks here:

For a few weeks two months ago, the City of Rome doubled in size. People from around Europe and the world came to the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Some 600,000 people viewed his coffin on the first day. More than 1.4 million paid their respects before his burial. That should remind us of two things.

First, Europe remains obviously religious--not simply in its nominal and active believers, but also in its culture and assumptions about the dignity of the human pers