A lot of ink has been spilled in the past several days over Sunday's 40th anniversary of the famous break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. For nearly a year the major media appeared to accept then-Attorney General and future prison inmate John Mitchell's description of the event as a "third-rate burglary" by some pro-Nixon knight-errants in a vain effort to get some "dirt" on the opposition. Little more was heard of the break-in for the rest of 1972, and it surely did no harm to Nixon's political fortunes as the President that November carried 49 states, 10 years to the day after losing an election for Governor in California and his announcement to reporters that they would not "have Nixon to kick around anymore." It was the completion of one of the greatest comebacks in American political history.
In a very real sense, however, the Watergate scandal that drove Richard Nixon from the White House, did not start — or end — with Nixon.
The question is, should the computer be used to replace the teacher in educating students, or should the student merely learn how to use a computer? Has the computer become merely another edu-fad that neither teachers nor students know quite what to do with? Many believe that, with or without computers, the teacher is still the most important person in the classroom.
His brooding countenance stares out at us from a prominent place on the newsstand. Chances are you will not recognize the face. At first glance you might think it's the return of Alan Greenspan, the man who's sober stewardship of the Federal Reserve System included a memorable description of the stock market's "irrational exuberance." The large print on the cover of Time magazine calls him "THE DECIDER." Well, that could be Mr. Greenspan, who decided interest rates and money supply for many years. But no, the cover tells us that title goes to Justice Anthony Kennedy, most often the "swing vote" in an evenly and ideologically divided court that resolves many disputes in 5-4 decisions. Since the four liberals and four conservatives vote in generally predictable patterns, Kennedy's unpredictable vote is the lever of power, potentially deciding everything, as the cover tells us with anxious anticipation, "from gay marriage to ObamaCare."
Not content with dividing classes and races, the Obama campaign is now seeking to divide the sexes by declaring that women are being paid less than men, as part of a "war on women" conducted by villains, from whom Obama and company will protect the women — and, not incidentally, expect to receive their votes this November.
Change you can't believe in: This past Tuesday North Dakotans decided that property taxes were in but a traditional school nickname was out. It's yet another case of maintaining all the wrong parts of the status quo.
A new book, Forgotten Conservatives in American History, is dedicated to the task of ensuring such conservatives are forgotten no longer. Its authors — noted historian Clyde N. Wilson and one of his former students, Brion McClanahan — have masterfully gathered brief accounts of nearly two dozen men who made their own significant contributions to the American Republic.
The debate incited by Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to outlaw supersized sodas in New York misses an important point. In the mayor’s words, “We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things. We’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.” (Emphasis added.)
There it is. He wants to forcibly interfere with other people in order to achieve his objective.
While this writer's reading program, Alpha-Phonics, has been used by thousands of homeschoolers to produce highly literate children, when it comes to writing, I have to explain to a very skeptical audience why cursive writing should be taught first and print later.
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
One community organizer who unsuccessfully protested against the construction of a new, $30 million mansion claimed that "no one needs a house that big." But who will be the judge of who needs what? Which agency or bureaucrat will decide if anyone needs a $1 million Ferrari Enzo or a $10 million yacht? Who will decide that the workers building the new mansions, yachts, and Ferraris should be out of work?