The DC teacher assigning homework to compare George Bush and Hitler is a symptom

Last week in Washington, DC, a public school teacher gave her 6th grade class an assignment to “compare and contrast” George W. Bush with Adolph Hitler, a ludicrously slanted question to even ask let along assign to 6th-graders. The Fox News story puts it like this:

A public school teacher in Washington who instructed sixth-graders to compare former President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler has learned her own lesson, according to district officials, but critics wonder why she still has a job.

D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson responded to the controversy late Wednesday on Twitter, saying no curriculum intended to make the comparison “in any way” and that the district and unidentified teacher are “deeply apologetic” about the matter. Henderson said the teacher has been ordered to apologize to the class.

“No DCPS curriculum says 2 make these comparisons in any way,” Henderson wrote. “Teacher used poor judgment & will apologize.”

First up, I have to wonder how “deeply apologetic” this teacher is if they needed to be ordered to apologize. Sounds to me like they are quite clearly not apologetic in any way. The story goes on to describe the assignment as being a basic compare and contrast worksheet centered around a Venn diagram and that it “was left to the students to determine how Bush, the 43rd U.S. president who was elected to two terms, stacked up against Hitler, whose Nazi Germany perpetrated a Holocaust that killed more than 6 million Jews.” But that’s not what the assignment actually said. Let’s have a look, shall we?

Bush Hitler Comparison Assign

The text of the assignment reads, in it’s entirety:

Now that we have read about two men of power who abused their power in various ways, we will compare and contrast them and their actions. Please refer to your texts, “Fighting Hitler – A Holocaust Story” and “Bush: Iraq War Justified Despite No WMD” to compare and contrast former President George W. Bush and Hitler. We will use this in class tomorrow for an activity.

The entire assignment rests completely upon a premise, stated as a graven-in-stone fact, that President Bush “abused [his] power in various ways.” This, ladies and gentlemen, is pure political bias and rhetoric being served up to elementary school students as Authoritatively Confirmed Truth™. It is completely unsupported leftist/Democratic crap and it’s being foisted off on kids by people who allege to be teachers – and to be far better at it than the rest of us, thank you. Where, outside of Bush-bashing propaganda is the proof of President Bush abusing his power. Hitler abused his power, no question, and there’s a national psychological scar and about 6 million graves to prove it.

Typical leftist logic – what they disagree with is “an abuse” and all that required for “proof” is their repeating it over and over like a chant.

Had the teacher really wanted to compare and contrast 2 leaders who have abused their power, they should have substituted President Obama in for President Bush. The Supreme Court is on record more than once during this President’s term in office thus far ruling that the President exceeded his Constitutional limitations and that, folks, is the definition of abuse of power. And we haven’t even gotten to the bottom of matters like Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and the myriad of DoJ investigations that should have been pursued and weren’t. To say nothing of the deliberate decisions, time and again, to simply set aside the enforcement of laws that he doesn’t like or unilaterally rewrite them to his liking. That’s more than enough material to teach a class with.

Of course, this teacher, good little DC leftist that they clearly are, wouldn’t even dream of doing that. What does it say about the overall environment of DC’s schools – and academia in general, I might add – that this teacher felt perfectly comfortable setting this as an assignment and using a text whose title sounds suspiciously like a newspaper article as source material even though it wasn’t on the approved curriculum? It says they felt completely secure doing it. It says they felt like this was completely proper and expected behavior of an elementary school teacher in DC.

It’s a symptom of a greater problem in DC. There’s no way this person should still be teaching kids and the school district doesn’t owe a teacher with this level of poor judgment any protections. They should be named and they should be gone.

Prep for battle

In 1867, John Stuart Mill said, “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” That’s true in a number of different contexts, physical and otherwise. It’s also been said before and by a great many people that “we live in troubled times.” This is, I firmly believe, true today and is especially pertinent. Over the past year I have watched events unfold and said very little. I’ve had the normal rigors of handling life’s issues take up a great deal of my time but, in truth, there’s been something else going on; something that I’m come to the conclusion that those proverbial “bad men” are counting on.

I grew tired and discouraged.

Blogger burnout is a real condition and it’s certainly taken its toll.  One of the truths of blogging – of speaking one’s mind, in general, and in whatever medium – is that if you’re not telling your side of the story, then the only side people hear is the other side, not yours. It’s important to speak up, to speak the truth, but it’s also the reality that watching people simply ignore the truth and act in accordance with ignorance and malice will, over time, give one the attitude of “screw it, then.” It gives one the impetus to simply shrug off the good of one’s community, one’s nation, and just concentrate on the day-to-day of one’s own life. To Hell with the idiots that want to run themselves into the ground, one says. Of course, that’s only smart when the idiots aren’t running you into the ground along with them. Or, even, instead of them.

The fact of the matter, I see now, is that we are at war. There are those who seek not to convince me, not to compromise with me and work with me to bring a better future for both of us, which would include me, by the way, but who seek to simply destroy me. They don’t care if I agree with them and they have no desire to have me join them equally. They want only that I shut up, follow their orders without question, and deliver the products of my efforts into their hands to do with as they see fit. Assuming they don’t want me actually dead.

As tiring as it has become to try to talk sense to people who will cheerfully vote into office men and women who clearly lie to us all – and I mean actually lie, as in “deliberately not tell the truth they know to be,” as opposed to the Bush-era, Democrat definition of lie, being “he said something I don’t like” – the fact is that if no one points out the lies to these people they’re never going to wake up. So be it. Time to get back into the battle and press ahead. It’s time to stop simply gritting my teeth in silence and start telling it like it is. No one has given me any credit at all for being tactful, or courteous, or any such thing. In fact, no matter how much I have tried to be professional and civil, most of the people who support the worst of the bad actors in today’s world treat me with contempt. They screech on about tolerance and understanding and demand that they be shown both while offering neither.

Well, I’m done being civil to people who don’t know the meaning of the word. And I’m done being silent regarding those who spew out lies about me and mine. Today was about prepping for battle and I’m going in…

Tales from the Usher File: Reminders about the etiquette of attending Mass

Long-time readers and those who know me offline know that I’m a Catholic. As a member of the very active Knights of Columbus council at our parish, I’ve been blessed to become involved in a number of our church functions, one of the primary being that I’m a team captain of our parish Ushers. You know: the guys who direct folks to open seating (when needed), who pass around the collection baskets, regulate the line-up for people going up for Communion (or other special observances, such as ashes on Ash Wednesday or the blessings of throats on St. Blaze’s feast day), and generally respond to the parish’s overall needs during the Mass. I’ve been doing this for several years, now, and there’s something that’s been on my mind to write about: some of the generally unwritten and unspoken rules regard the etiquette of attending Mass.

There is no doubt we want people to come to Mass. It’s an obligation for we Catholics and, honestly, if the Mass is understood as it’s intended to be, it’s something Catholics will want to attend. They don’t need to be forced to come or threated in order to make them show up. That goes for the whole family, by the way, all the way from aged grandparents to newborns. Over the years, however, there’s been a gradual degradation of peoples’ behavior as they attend the Mass. I’m sure that’s not a surprise for Catholics who attend regularly but today I’m feeling the need to both call that out and to suggest what the proper behavior should be. This is just me talking, not an Encyclical, so take it for what it’s worth.

  1. Show up a few minutes early. Seriously, God is not impressed with the fashionably late. Neither is anyone else. And you’re not making a grand entrance when you’re walking in 10 minutes after the priest opened the Mass. At best, you’re being a distraction. But enough of that; get there early for you not for anyone else. Our lives have become far more hectic than our parents’ and it’s important to remember why you are there. You have come to participate in the sacrament of the Mass, to worship our Lord and God. Come a few minutes early and allow your mind to calm, allow yourself to set aside the concerns of the moment and reach to hear His voice. Let yourself live in the moment of the Mass and feel His presence with you.
  2. Stay until the recessional hymn is done. The people who rush to the door as soon as the priest passes their seat – or, worse, who take Communion and walk straight out even before  the closing prayer – are robbing themselves of the experience and the Grace that flows from Mass and our collective worship. It’s indicative of their state of mind during the Mass and that state is one where they’re looking ahead to the end rather than listening with all of their senses. Catholic Mass tends to last about 1 hour. That’s 1 hour out of 168 in the week. Surely God is worth that? I’ll extend this one to say that saying good morning to the priest as you leave Mass and to greeting some of your fellow parishioners are both parts of being members of the parish community that pay wonderful dividends outside of the Mass. Being a part of that community is a very rewarding experience and rushing out only steals that away from you.
  3. Show some effort at dressing for respect. Would you attend a wedding or a funeral wearing gym shorts and a beer t-shirt? Dressing up isn’t something you do just to look good when you attend an event, it shows a level of respect for the event and those attending. If your boss were hosting a dinner for visiting dignitary or corporate office, you might not ear a tux but you’d likely spruce up to at least business casual. That’s to show that you respect the boss or his guests; that you’re taking the event seriously and that you find it important. Well, you’re coming to join in the praise and worship of God. Surely, He is worthy of that extra care. No, no one is going to judge you poorly because you can’t afford nice clothing and, yes, being there is far better than skipping it because you don’t have your suit pressed. It’s the effort that counts and doing what you can is all anyone can ask.
  4. Save the chit-chat until after Mass. The priest is reading from the Word of God and imparting his educated and professional analysis of that word. He’s also commenting on current events. During the Mass, you are part of the prayer and one with the communion of hosts. Paying attention is not just a matter of respect, it’s what’s needed to get out of the Mass all that you should. We all know it is sometimes necessary to communicate with a family member during the Mass, and we expect that, but it should be extremely brief and definitely held to a volume low enough that only the intended recipient can heard it.
  5. Cell phones: Keep them silent! Either silence the cell phone every single time you come to Mass or simply turn them off. I’m a firm believer in being able to make use of advanced communications technology and with the new phones being effectively small computers with the attendant boot-up times lasting into 20-40 seconds before calls can be made, I understand completely the desire to leave the phone on during Mass. I do it myself, most particularly when I’m ushering. It is unacceptable for the thing to make noises during Mass. Period.
  6. Parents, your children’s behavior is your responsibility. Have mercy on your fellow parishioners. It goes without saying that young children lack the control of adults. They do not grasp the concept that there are places where they need to keep still and quiet, to say nothing at all of actually paying attention to the Mass. All of those things come in time and all of us in the parish understand that especially young children won’t have gotten to that point. All of that says nothing at all regarding the obligation parents have in setting the right tone and expectation for those young children and in delivering correction swiftly when needed. Those children won’t understand that when they come to church the rules about when they talk, how loud, and what they get to play with change unless they are told so, repeatedly, by their parents. The speed with which they pick up that understanding is directly connected to the speed at which they are corrected when they do something they’re not supposed to and how consistently they see that correction come. As I said, my fellow ushers and I are well aware that a child under 3 is going to blurt out comments or noises in Mass and they generally do so at a volume well above what people are supposed to use. That happens and it’s fine. The problem comes when the parents do nothing to let the child know that such behavior isn’t accepted in church. We also know that there are times when the child just simply isn’t going to stop. They’ve bumped their heads and start crying, they’re teething and cranky, or they’re just in the willful “assert my independence” mode, are examples. It’s up to you, parents, to pay close attention to this and to stand up with them and walk them into the Narthex or lobby or cry room or whatever space exists at your specific church. Your fellow parishioners are relying on you to help them in their worship by keeping the loud distractions to a minimum.
  7. Addendum to Point 6 for Parents: stepping out of church shouldn’t be stepping out of Mass. Or, more specifically, when your child has crossed the line where simple correction hasn’t been enough and you need to walk out of the main body of the church and into the Lobby, that shouldn’t be considered by your child as a license to engage in playtime. I think we can all see very easily how quickly a child can learn that keeping up the loud talk will get them a free ticket to Romper Room as opposed to having to sit still and quiet in church. Stepping out into the lobby should be an escalation of correction, not a release. I suggest that once you’ve escorted your child out there to the Narthex or the lobby you should take the opportunity to more precisely explain that they’re not to do x, y, or z in church and that you won’t tolerate it. Then, you make them remain roughly still and quiet while you’re out there and tell them you’ll be going back in once they’ve gotten themselves back in order. What you should not be doing is letting them run around the lobby and just plain old have a good time. That’s not the point and it will only make it a longer process to get them to the point where such trips aren’t needed.
  8. Parents, children’s toys should be seen and not heard. Young children should most certainly be allowed to have the occasional toy with them in church. We all know they’re not going to have the attention span to listen to Father’s homily and they don’t know the Mass well enough to participate. Keeping them engaged on something that will hold their attention while also avoiding loud outbursts is perfectly fine and toys and such are the trick. Allow me, please, to pass along the Ushers’ Suitability Test for toys in church.
    • First: NO electronics. Nothing battery operated need be considered. If it’s battery-operated, it’s out.
    • Second: only those art supplies that don’t spill are allowed, and what I really mean, here, are colored pencils and a very small number of crayons. Addendum to this rule is that your vigilance in the use of art supplies so that drawing is done only on paper you bring with you and take with you when you go is an absolute requirement. No drawing or scratching on the seats, in the hymnals, or any other printed material in the pews.
    • Third: “The Audible Drop Test.” When considering a toy for your child in Mass, take the toy into a room with a hard floor. Hold the toy out at your shoulder length and let it go. If someone in the next room heard it when it hit, you need to select another toy. Stuffed animals are superb for this kind of thing!
  9. Be a part of Mass. Participation in Mass is intended be just that: participation. When we speak of the communion of hosts and of the Church, we’re talking about you. We are glad you’re at Mass and we want to join with you in worship of our Lord. Speak the prayers with us and join our voices together in praise. Sing with us. Believe me: I have a singing voice that can crack pavement and kill small animals. Do your best; we all do! You don’t need to sing like an Italian Tenor to raise your voice with us in prayer.

Etiquette isn’t a dirty word and exercising a little of it will only make your attendance at Mass more meaningful and joyous. I look forward to joining you there.

World Cup’s interesting, but America just doesn’t embrace pro soccer. Here’s my take on why.

I first watched the FIFA World Cup soccer matches in 2002 when the network operations center I was working in decided to dedicate 4 of the 12 large screens that made up our network overview monitor to show the matches. (We had a number of foreign-born employees there and it was a very big deal to them.) I’d never so much as watched a soccer game previous to that so, while enjoyable, I wasn’t that invested in it. The 1 thing I remember thinking as we watched several of the matches was how the players on most of the teams – and we watched mostly European and South American teams playing, such was the luck of the draw – would dramatically fall to the ground and flail around as if they’d been hacked with an axe at the slightest touch from another player. I remember seeing them shamelessly mugging it up in an effort to draw the referee into laying a foul on the opposing team and thinking that it was extremely poor sportsmanship.

Years later and several World Cups more under my belt, I believe I’m not revealing any secrets when I say that the practice has done nothing but get worse. I’ve listened to all manner of explanations over the years as to why professional soccer hasn’t really caught on in America. Some have said it’s because there’s no real action in the game. (Oh, please. These people have never watched baseball? The games last, like, 4 hours and there’s a grand total of 7 minutes and 12 seconds of actual action involved.) I think what they mean is that there’s no scoring, with a high-scoring soccer match being considered a game where 1 team scores 4 times. I don’t equate score to a level of action in the game, but I get the point. Some have said it’s because there’s not enough contact. If that’s all there was to it, rugby would be the national sport. No, I honestly believe that Americans look at the drama-queen tactics of these players, rolling around on the field clutching their knee as if they’ve had it hacked off by William Wallace when another player casually brushed against the opposite elbow, and they just innately get the same sense I do: these players are trying to cheat.

As much as cheating happens in America, in all kinds of places and endeavors, the American people do not approve of cheating. And trying to leverage the referee to penalize the opposing team in order to gain a field advantage by falsely hyping up the lightest contact rather than getting the ball down the field and into the goal through superior gameplay is cheating. That’s why the sport doesn’t draw Americans to watch it, at least not at the professional level. My daughter plays soccer and she loves it. I love watching the games they play but when one of them goes down on the field, it’s because they’ve been hit – hard – not because they want to make the ref pull out a yellow card in sympathy. They don’t roll around, faces in dire agony, and then pop back up and be running at full speed 30 seconds later.

My advice to the world of professional soccer – and yes, I’m gonna use a sexist-based comment because it’s appropriate, here – is: Man up. Take the hit but shake it off and get back in there. Don’t give us an Oscar-level performance trying to get a penalty kick, give us a world-class performance threading around the opposing team members and let loose a cannon shot that smacks the goalie into the net along with the ball. Do that, and then you’ll have Americans support your sport like no other.

Bolling is a busted clock: Advocates party registration but gets the reasons in Virginia wrong

Feel free to perform a search here at HoodaThunk? to determine my stance on whether Virginia should be registering voters’ party affiliations. You’ll find that I support the idea and I always have. As I’ve written recently, I firmly believe that candidates put forward for election to public office by any group – political parties, in particular – should be nominated to that position by members of the group in question and not by people who do not hold membership, either intentionally or not. The problem, here in Virginia, is that party affiliation isn’t recorded and that information is explicitly and specifically denied to the State Board of Elections. If there’s no master list of party affiliations to go along with voter roles to be used in determining whether someone is allowed to vote at all, then there’s no way for a poll worker to determine whether the given voter in front of them is a member of the party that’s holding the primary election. This, in fact, is one of the strongest arguments in favor of nominating candidates by convention rather than primary.

Former Lt. Governor Bill Bolling has written a guest column, published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, wherein he advocates for changes in the law so as to implement party registration in Virginia. Reading the article, I am reminded of the old adage that even a busted clock is right twice a day. Bolling is advocating an idea I can support, but his information offered in support of that idea are, frankly, dead wrong. Setting up the question, Bolling asks the readers to consider for a moment what Republicans in Virginia and Mississippi have in common:

Both states recently had high-visibility Republican primaries, but the outcome was not determined by Republicans. Instead, the outcome was determined by independents and Democrats, and these elections vividly demonstrate why we need party registration in Virginia, and why primary elections should be limited to self-identified Republicans and Democrats.

In Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, tea-party backed challenger Dave Brat defeated Rep. Eric Cantor in the Republican primary on June 10. Brat’s victory caught almost everyone by surprise. The question was: How could this have happened? A post-election survey of primary voters conducted by the national polling firm of McLaughlin and Associates may have answered this question.

McLaughlin found that Cantor easily won the vote among prior Republican primary voters. However, Brat won the vote among first-time Republican primary voters, who were likely independents drawn to the polls by the tea party and an understandable frustration with Washington. Brat also won among Democrats, who according to McLaughlin’s analysis accounted for 8,452 of the 65,017 votes cast on Election Day.

In fact, McLaughlin’s post-election survey found that almost half of the voters in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District Republican primary were not Republicans: 33 percent were independents (or refused to be identified) and 13 percent were self-identified Democrats.

Bottom line: Had only Republicans voted in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District primary, Eric Cantor would have won the election by a comfortable margin.

Ridiculous. Bolling, it should be noted, is still miffed that the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) didn’t nominate him to run for Governor in 2013 by acclamation. His festering sense of offense is what caused him to sideline himself during that campaign and – clearly – advocate to others to do the same. The general sense out here in the GOP trenches is that Bolling’s actions are a large part of what cost Cuccinelli the election, particularly since that election was far, far closer than what anyone was saying it would be at the time.

Speaking of “anyone,” please also note that Bolling is depending on post-election polling for his data. The outfit he’s relying upon is the same crew that had Cantor winning that election by something like 30%. Set aside the idea that it would certainly behoove McLaughlin to find out that there was significant non-GOP action in that election. (If that’s true, then it would mitigate their getting blindsided in their predictions.) But others who have looked at the data are finding that the evidence doesn’t support Bolling’s claim. The Washington Post:

While Republican primary turnout spiked by 28 percent over 2012, according to the State Board of Elections, Cantor received nearly 8,500 fewer votes this year than he did in the 2012 Republican primary, a drop that was larger than Brat’s 7,200-vote margin of victory. Regardless of how many Democrats turned out to oppose Cantor, he still would have prevailed had he maintained the same level of support as in his 2012 landslide.

If Democrats showed up in large numbers to vote against Cantor, turnout should have spiked highest from 2012 in Democratic-leaning areas, with Cantor seeing an especially large drop-off in support. In fact, turnout rose slightly more in counties that voted more heavily for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.

The data shows Republican turnout in support of Dave Brat is what drove Brat’s victory. Likewise, the New York Times:

Mr. Cantor lost by an 11-point margin, and he lost just about everywhere in his district. Mr. Brat fared best in heavily Republican Hanover County, while Mr. Cantor kept the race closer in the more competitive Richmond inner suburbs.

So, in spite of Mr. Bolling’s efforts to paint the primary in VA-7 as a poster-child case of Democrat interference in Republican party functions, the facts and the data show otherwise.

While I’m perfectly fine with dismissing Mr. Bolling’s article as just another attempt to explain away his lack of support among the GOP voters in Virginia (at least to a level of support he’d like to see), I do think that we should press forward with enacting a party registration system. Several years ago a bill was proposed to do that, and I understand that there’s been attempts even as recently as last year. Now, I could support either a public registration, such as is done in other states, or a change in the law that says party-specific functions – such as primaries – are the responsibility of the party in question and won’t be run or administered by the State Board of Elections (SBE). In that latter case, however, it should be understood that the days of people voting in a primary when they’re not active members of a party are over. The GOP could run firehouse primaries like they did earlier this year in nominating Barbara Comstock to run for VA-10’s Congressional seat. But the lunacy that such a primary would have to be open to any registered voter needs to be set aside. Republicans will decide who they want to nominate to the election ballot, Democrats will decide their nominee, and people who chose to remain unaffiliated can take their pick at the general election. If they don’t like that, then they can make a decision as to what party most closely adheres to their values and get involved. Might do us all some good, too.

Lessig’s Mayday PAC just a left-wing, “progressive” cover to limit speech they don’t like.

So, back on May 1, Larry Lessig made a bit of a splash with the launch of the Mayday PAC, billed as the “Super PAC built to destroy Super PACs.” Lessig is being extremely careful to talk about the visions of the PAC in the most abstract terms, saying only that their goal is to “change the way elections are funded” because, as he says, “90% of Americans agree that our government is broke.” (By that I assume he means that it’s “broken” as opposed to “out of money.” Because, at $17 trillion in debt, it’s way, way past being “out of money.”) The PAC, supposedly, is going to target 5 races in the 2014 elections and donate money to the candidate who is willing to say that they are going to put the issue of how elections are funded as their #1 priority. Their goal is to elect a majority to Congress that will pass the laws necessary to… well, that’s where it gets fuzzy.

Lessig and his team don’t like the current situation where members of Congress spend the bulk of their non-legislative time sucking up to large – read that: corporate – donors rather than paying that attention to the people, their constituents. As far as that goes, I’m in agreement. It’s what Lessig and the rest of his PAC think is the corrective fix for that that has me more worried about him than about anything Congress is doing. Giving a video interview to the techie site SlashDot, Lessig answered some questions about the PAC. I think some of those answers are quite telling. This exchange was near the beginning of the interview. (“Tim” is the SlashDot interviewer, “Larry” is Lessig himself.):

Tim: Okay. So another critical and this one is a slightly different type of critical questions that a lot of our readers have, and I think this is also widespread, is they object to the idea of regulating the money that can be given to a political campaign, and they say that that is equivalent to speech; one reader asks, and I am going to say that this is somewhat facetiously, that aren’t you in that way, also calling for a prohibition of documentaries of the political bench, or books written by politicians who are in favor of a particular candidate? Distinguish the way money per se as a campaign contribution in that form is different from other forms of material support, and why it is that it is okay to limit contributions to a certain dollar amount for a person or group as opposed to other ways that people influence political campaigns themselves.

Larry: Great question. So the Mayday PAC is aiming at changing the way elections are funded. And the proposals that we pointed to don’t necessarily do anything directly about limiting people’s capacity to spend their money to speak.

Tim: But then we already have such restrictions anyhow with campaign contribution limits.

Larry: Right. But we are not focused on restrictions—we are focused on increasing the range of people who participate in the funding of elections. So there are two basic models that we’ve got: One is the voucher program—you can see it at reform.to—a voucher proposal, where every voter is given a voucher that they use to fund small dollar elections. The other is matching grant where you give a small contribution—it’s matched up to 9:1—that’s John Sarbanes’ proposal. Those two proposals don’t restrict anybody’s ability to contribute anything. Or don’t restrict people’s ability to spend their money speaking at all. All this is doing is making it, so candidates don’t spend all of their time literally 30% to 70% of their time, focused on the tiniest fraction of the 1%. So there are lots of people out there who are talking about much more radical changes—limiting the ability of people to contribute at all, stopping corporations from their ability to speak. We are not talking about that as the first steps of reform. We say, let’s change the way elections are funded. That is the first step. And that is the step that Mayday PAC will push into Congress.

Emphasis in that last answer is mine. So, Lessig recognizes that there are “lots of people out there” saying that citizens should be “limited” in contributing to campaigns at all and that corporations should be prohibited from speaking out on this. Does this bother him? No, not at all. It’s just that those actions wouldn’t be his “first step.” Which means, fellow Americans, that Mr. Lessig thinks you should be banned from contributing. I know all about what he said in the first part of that answer, but you’ll note he’s not suggesting those are the preferred directions. His implication as regards those last two – that citizen contributions should be limited and corporations shouldn’t be allowed to at all – is clear. He approves of those, but he knows he won’t get there on day 1.

Lessig won’t say who his PAC is targeting for the 2014 race. Maybe he doesn’t know. Or, maybe, his choice of language in dealing with the question might give you a clue:

Larry: Yeah. We have to first figure what the resources are before we pick. We can’t pick in advance. Because you don’t announce troop movements before the troops are ready to move. Like if we said, these are the five races and we want that to be engaged, then those five races will find a million reasons a million ways to attack what we are trying to do. So I get that that creates a little bit of anxiety and uncertainty. This is the only thing I can offer in response to that anxiety and uncertainty: We are in this for a long-term objective. We don’t care about winning. Five races won’t make it so that we get the legislation we want—it is not going to change anything really in Congress. Except break the four-minute mile barrier. Break the idea that this is impossible. So we want to do this in a way that it builds a movement that, in 2016, will be back with us so that we can win many many more races. So if we screw it up this year, if we pick the wrong kind of candidates, if we pick candidates that are only Liberal Democrats, or we kick out a bunch of Democrats in the name of crazy nonresponsive Republicans, we won’t be able to rally these people back with us when we get to 2016.

Yeah, because Republicans are so generically crazy and nonresponsive. You never see Democrats like that. So, sure, I’d really trust that I’m going to donate money to a PAC organized by this man and really trust that he’s going to give any Republican that actually espouses Republican values any real consideration.

Fat chance. Lessig and his team are barking up the right tree; we do need reform in a number of the areas of campaign finance. But, in my view, the reforms have been made more necessary by the ham-handed previous attempts that have been so obviously little more than incumbent-protection rackets (I’m looking at you, McCain!) than by any other activity. The problem here is that Lessig and the rest of his PAC are largely left-wing, so-called “progressives” looking to exploit a legitimate concern regarding our government to cover their goal of cutting people out of the process entirely beyond what little amount these leftists chose to allow. They don’t value freedom of speech except where they get to speak their minds. And I don’t approve of that stance, I don’t care how bipartisan they claim their group may be.

Happy Independence Day

eagle1

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

With these words our Founding Fathers began a letter to the King of England in which they stood a separate and equal people on their feet to look into the eye of their former sovereign and assert that they were as much the masters of their fate as any on Earth, including the King. The letter was adopted 238 years ago today. Many who signed this document did so knowing full well their fate if they should fail or come back under the control of the king. Several met that fate and would not live to see the nation they envisioned, free of Britain’s rule, come to fruition. Their sacrifice enables us to live in the freedom they dreamed of without so much as a casual thought.

Today, we should be mindful of that and work to bring the enormity of what their actions and this Declaration meant to our full attention. In the years since then many have given their all – literally and figuratively – to ensure this nation’s liberty and to bring to reality the vision of those Founders long ago. Whether it’s a soldier standing fast in the face of overwhelming odds and near-certain death or a student nervously refusing to sit quietly while this nation’s greatness is mocked by a teacher or an average citizen who doesn’t let the rain deter him from casting a vote or a woman who refuses to take a seat in the back of a bus, Americans throughout these past 2¼ centuries have braved trials big and small to see the promise of this Declaration brought to us all.

On this day, as we enjoy parades, grill up a wonderful meal, and hoist a cold brew in celebration let us recall our fellow patriots and Americans who have brought us this day and take a quiet vow to measure up to their example.

Happy Independence Day, America.

(This updated post was first published in 2009, but it rings true today.)