Clearly Nebulous

Prez: Done Apologizing to Afghanis? Write a Letter to Iran

It was the lead story on MSNBC's website today: Pres Obama sent a letter to the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, apologizing for the inadvertent burning of Qurans at a NATO base in that country.

In the third day of rioting over an act the Afghani faithful consider highly blasphemous, two U.S. soldiers were killed, bringing the total dead to at least seven. 

MSNBC reports that Obama wrote: "The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible."

But the killings of the Americans is anything but inadvertent, as the Taliban has called for the deaths of Westerners in retaliation. No word on exactly how many deaths are called for...

What are the odds that Karzai will apologize for the overreaction of these radicals and hold them responsible? Not bloody likely. Once again it will be about us turning the other cheek while they slaughter our citizens over the slightest offense. *sigh*

 

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has refused to renounce his Christian faith and is sentenced to be executed in Iran.

As long as PBO is in a letter-writing mood, why not pen a note to the Irani government about Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani who has been sentenced to die for converting to Christianity? Fox News is all over the story, too, and reported on their morning show how a final verdict came down yesterday.

While CNN reported on Nadarkhani's case in January, there was no mention of this latest development. (That was one story more than MSNBC, ABC and CBS who apparently find no interest in this tale of Christian persecution.)

If you want to remain apprised of this man's fate, you can sign up for alerts from "Tweet for Youcef" on Twitter.

 

Teachers are asking the Wrong Questions

...of the wrong people.

A former classmate I've mine posted a link to a blog post in which a Kansas teacher was expressing his discontent over what he felt was the overreach and unreasonable expectations of the federal government in regards to school systems and teachers.

I don't mean to invalidate all of his queries. He raises some very good points. It is very difficult to make assessments when it comes to teachers -- one can't know exactly what each and every teacher faces every day with each individual child and their specific needs.

Sincerely -- no offense to the 90% of good teachers who are working so hard and for whom I am extremely grateful, but I think he is asking the wrong questions to the wrong target audience. The main question, which should be asked of the teachers' unions, is: In what other profession do you not have to pay consequences for poor results?

 

This commentary by Bill and Melinda Gates -- champions of effective education -- is a worthy read regarding this topic...

Yes, teachers all are dealing with so much, and can only do so much -- the fact remains: If school districts were able to fire the worst 10% of instructors, we wouldn't be posing these questions -- because our students' performance would be back at globally competitive levels.  That is, good teachers would have easier jobs -- would be able to achieve their goals more easily -- without having to first "fix" the damage/neglect done by the bad teachers.

Now, of course, this is not an easy task, evaluating which teachers need to go. Teaching is a noble profession, but it is not for everyone. We all need to stand up to the unions' refusal to accept any kind of standards in order to remain employed. Don't allow good teachers (who happened to be hired after the bad teachers) to lose their jobs -- let go of the "lemons" first, not the ones with the shortest employment. 

It's a win-win for the students -- and the good teachers that are so essential to their success!

Oh, So *Now* BO's Interested in Fair Campaign Funding

 

Isn't it interesting that the President -- who I'm sure everyone believes is in favor of campaign finance reform (you know, because those poor Democrats have to figure out a way to fight those mean ol' Republicans and their pocket-lining fat cats) -- is now throwing up his hands and saying that he'll just have to (ow, ow, twist his arm) take super pac money in order for things to be "fair"? 

Obama supporters received an email from his re-election staff saying:

"[W]e can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm. Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC....

It's my hope that by making this decision and doing what we can to neutralize the onslaught of special-interest money, we can ensure that the decisive factor in this election won’t be an unprecedented flood of special-interest spending, and the outcome will be back in the hands of ordinary Americans."

As if.

Obama 2008 wasn't the least bit interested in fairness. In 2007 he vowed to accept public financing and to cooperate with his opponent to make sure that they both ran campaigns within those limits. John McCain took that promise to heart and accepted the public funds -- and then Obama broke his pledge. In that way, Obama was able to raise as much money as he pleased (at least $700 million, some of it under shady circumstances) and outspent McCain by at least 5 to 1.

Most sources are saying that Obama could raise over $1 billion -- with a "b" -- for this campaign. I dare say he'll easily surpass that now with this super pac money and once again employing the sketchy tactics that were used last time without consequence.

And who said there should be two sets of rules? Why hasn't the Great Obama Brain Trust figured out a way to off-set super pac spending? One of the left's biggest targets -- who I'm sure they scoff at in the smarts department -- was able to figure out a way to deal with attack ads by outside groups.

 

Senator Scott Brown put his thinking cap on and came up with a way to deal with outside attack ads -- why hasn't President Obama come up with a solution to super pac money in the presidential election?

Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts knew that super-rich outside sources would be trying to influence his re-election race. So he and his people came up with a brilliant solution which (after some tweaks) was eventually agreed to by his opponent. The deal reached has each campaign agreeing to donate half the cost of any third-party ads to charity if an ad either supports their candidacy or attacks their opponent by name.

Though there have been complaints of "loophpoles," they are really only about on-line websites. The bulk of attack ads are on television, radio, and by mail/email, which are all covered in the agreement.

So why can't the GOBT figure out something similar with regard to super pacs? Because Team Obama is not interested in fairness. Once again it will be no holds barred, take no prisoners, win at all costs. No "change" just "more of same."

 

 

Campaign 2012: Blatant Media Bias Moment #1

Actually it was probably "Moment #2" but I didn't write about the first one when it happened: The out-of-context blast over Romney saying "I like to be able to fire people" -- made even worse, when often misquoted as "I like to fire people."

But how many people know the full statement:

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say, 'You know, I'm going to get someone else to provide this service to me.' "

Don't we all agree with that? But of course, with the msm spin, it became more fodder for the "Romney-is-so-out-of-touch" meme.

Yesterday the Washington Post and other media had front page headlines "Romney : I'm not concerned about the very poor."

AOL featured The Huffington Post's unfair headline -- it was everywhere! 

 

Again, unfairly out of context. In case you didn't see the exchange with Soledad O'Brien, it was: 

Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

O'Brien: "There are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, 'That sounds odd.' "

Romney: "We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor.... You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus.... The middle income Americans, they're the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them."

Soledad O'Brien is sticking to her beliefs about Romney's disconnect, even after he explained further.

So basically this is how I look at it: If I was at a girls' night out and I told everybody that one of my middle children was going through a troubling time -- that I wasn't worried about my oldest and I wasn't concerned about my youngest -- that my focus was currently on that middle child...

If one of those women turned around and gossiped to others that "Colette says she isn't concerned about her little boy."

Would that be fair?

Sure, charitable moms would hear it as "Colette feels that her little boy is doing ok right now." But what if that gossip framed me as being an out-of-touch mother who has a disconnect with her youngest child? Wouldn't even fair-minded folks potentially think ill of me?

And that's the current bias that the media is showing toward Mitt Romney. Sure, they try to make the argument that the poor are not ok. Romney -- and everyone else -- knows they have their challenges too, and he even declared he would make any necessary repairs to their safety net.

But they have no interest in being fair. Romney may not be the nominee yet, but the mainstream outlets are already circling the wagons to protect the POTUS. One can only hope the electorate will be smart enough to see through these tactics of mischaracterization.

 

 

Now it Truly is SGK *for the Cure*

Pro-lifers were rejoicing yesterday that the Susan G. Komen Foundation finally decided to stop giving funds to Planned Parenthood, joining other groups that have awakened to the shady business practices of the abortion provider and also made the move to cease giving revenue. Count me in as one of those who just wasn't comfortable supporting the foundation because of their relationship with PP.

It seemed ridiculous that a charity would be giving more than $650,000 last year to a group that makes a multi-million dollar profit. The reasoning was that the donation to PP was used for breast cancer screenings. However, this did not mean performing mammograms -- as one might easily think -- but more often simply being handed a pamphlet and discussing breast cancer risk factors and how to perform a self-exam. PP would then refer clients to a clinic where they could get a mammogram.

Planned Parenthood could easily hand out pamphlets without the funds from Komen. PP should be giving money to SGK, for crying out loud!

 

So I could see where abortion advocates would not be pleased with SGK for eliminating .07% (eye roll!) of PP's budget, but you would not believe some of the comments left on the Foundation's Facebook page yesterday. Claims that they would no longer support Komen -- or patronize any of its big donors -- because it was "caving in to conservatives" and "abandoning women over politics."

Seems to me it's those abortion advocates who are abandoning the cause of the fight against breast cancer, all because of their devotion to their sacred cow of abortion. But hey, if they are truly concerned about PP not having the money to provide those screenings, they can simply take 7 cents of every $100 they are going to give to Obama's re-election campaign to make up the difference.

Or an even more radical idea -- put an end to all abortions at Planned Parenthood, stop the sleazy practice of overlooking child abuse and statutory rape, and make it all about providing necessary services to women.