Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Monthly Archives: November 2002

WHY MOST TEACHERS ARE LEFTISTS

Posted on by Posted in Politics

After reading about the trials of Santa Monica (California) High School student Steve Miller, to say nothing of how many young minds are being poisoned every day, this seemed like an educational topic.

THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES VICTIMS

According to the National Education Association (NEA), the average salary of a U.S. public school teacher for the 2001-02 school year was $44,499. No doubt, this is much lower than other professions such as law and medicine, but one can’t enter those with a 2.0 undergrad average from, say, Chico State, nor are there many emergency provisions to obtain employment in those fields without proper certification.

Unlike the other professions, teaching has the security of civil service, and there are almost unlimited opportunities to make considerably more money by simply hanging in, running extracurricular programs, and by becoming an administrator. It is not uncommon for a school administrator, in larger districts, to make well over $100,000.

The “victim” persona comes from them comparing their worthy occupation of instructing America’s youth, and being involved in intellectual pursuits, to highly paid entertainers and athletes. To be fair, they also take way too much criticism for being the sole cause of our country getting continuously more stupid with every passing year. They are more aware than most that this failure is primarily the result of the destruction of the American family–especially amongst the Black population–but being toe-tag liberals, cannot say this. This makes them feel even more victimized.

If you’re a victim, you’re a leftie.

THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE INTELLECTUALS

Teachers work with books all day, and, at least, on the surface, are engaging in activities of the mind. They can take some comfort in this, when they compare themselves to athletes and others who seem to get a lot of money for merely physical attributes. Most intellectuals believe that they are superior to all other people, who, even if they must use their minds in their work, have sold out in some manner to achieve their economic success. What could be a more pure use of the intellect than instructing children, after all?

As intellectuals, they are only too ready to tell everyone else how to live, and to put that into practice requires an all-powerful government. Like most intellectuals, they seem to care little for the original functions of government, such as defense, police, and promoting commerce. And like most intellectuals, they enjoy embracing the most perverse ideas, just for the attention.

If you’re an intellectual, as this term applies today, you’re a leftie.

THEY BELONG TO A HUGE AND POWERFUL UNION

Stripped to its essentials, the NEA is about more money for the school districts, always and without limits of any kind, less accountability, and nearly every single left-wing cause you could possibly imagine. Oh yes, they talk about accountability, but inevitably refer to it as a complex issue that will require more study, so nothing ever seems to actually get done about it.

The NEA sends more voting delegates to the Democratic National Convention than does the State of California, yet the NEA enjoys tax-exempt status, claiming not to engage in political activities of any kind.

Perhaps the teachers would consider themselves less of a victim class if they made significantly more money, but the NEA–like most unions–does its best to determine that will never happen, by protecting bad performers, and fighting against the competition that would occur if vouchers were widely used. The NEA’s animus against vouchers stems, of course, from its atheism, since a goodly portion of vouchers would be used to support parochial schools. I guess it’s important to be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy, but not to choose where your kid goes to school.

If you’re still a true believer in trade unions, you’re a leftie.

THEY HAVE NO SELF-ESTEEM

I know teachers talk about self-esteem all the time, but think of the frat boy who always talked about his sexual conquests, and then was unmasked to have none. For many of them, it’s all they can do to lord it over a bunch of kids, and it is just in this kind of environment that Leftist politics flourishes. Why? Since none of the cockamamy ideas would ever stand up to debate, and can only be promulgated unchallenged. That’s also why most teachers tend to hang out with other teachers. Despite all the air of superiority, they really do feel inferior. They can take comfort only with their own, and other downtrodden folks.

If you have no self-esteem, you’re a leftie.

One or two of these factors would push many people over to the Left, but since most teachers have all four going full-blast, their present condition is easy to understand.

APPRECIATING THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY

Posted on by Posted in History

It was 381 years ago, in the autumn of 1621, when Plymouth Colony governor William Bradford invited certain neighboring Wampanoag Indians to join them in a three-day festival of feasting and fun (at least as much fun as Puritans could muster) in gratitude for the bounty of the recent harvest. These were high times, compared to the horrible winter of 1620-21, in which half the colonists died. Indeed, by befriending the Pilgrims in their time of need, you might say that the Wampanoags–specifically Squanto, Samoset, and Massasoit–were the founders of the feast.

Previously, in 1605, Squanto traveled to England with explorer John Weymouth, becoming fluent in English. He returned to New England, only to be captured by a British slaver, and was sent down to the Caribbean. There, he was rescued by a Spanish Franciscan priest, who helped him flee to Spain, and he eventually got back to England. When in England, he met another Indian, Samoset. At this point, Squanto was reunited with Weymouth, who paid his passage back to his homeland, and the two Indians returned together to the New World in 1620.

It was in the spring of 1621 that Squanto and Samoset encountered the Pilgrims, and they were in bad shape. What a sight it must have been for the beleaguered settlers to behold two helpful Indians who spoke English! Squanto brought them deer meat and beaver skins, and showed them how to cultivate the native vegetables. He instructed them on the medicinal and the poisonous plants, and taught them how to get sap from maple trees, among dozens of other survival skills imparted to them during the months he stayed with the colonists.

Massasoit was the grand sachem (intertribal chief) of all the Wampanoags, and was introduced to the Pilgrims by Samoset that same spring. Massasoit instituted the peaceful accord and trade between the two vastly different peoples, which lasted until he died. So revered was he by the colonists that when Plymouth Colony founder Edward Winslow discovered that Masssoit was quite ill in the winter of 1623, he himself trudged several miles through the snow to deliver a nourishing broth to the chief.

As to the original 1621 Thanksgiving feast, Bradford had no idea that his invitation to Squanto, Samoset, Massasoit and their immediate families would produce 90 party-goers. Seeing that this was well beyond what the Pilgrims could handle, Massasoit sent men back to his village to get more food, and they returned with five deer, scores of wild turkeys, fish of all descriptions, beans, squash, corn soup, corn bread, and berries. This occasion marked the first time that the Wampanoag people sat at a table to eat, instead of on mats or furs spread on the ground.

Of course, the goodwill between the Pilgrims and Indians would deteriorate, following the death of Massasoit, culminating in 1675 with the brutal King Philip’s War.

What lessons can we draw from that first Thanksgiving?

It is interesting to note that for the Indians, this would mark the fifth of their six thanksgiving feasts celebrated each year, while the colonists were repeating a European religious tradition that occurred every November. Thus, coming from backgrounds that could not have been more different, both groups demonstrated strong religious faith–and that is the only basis of the holiday.

That the symbiotic existence of these two peoples could not endure says much about the human condition. Take some later settlers who cared nothing of the early cooperation, blend in a few Indian hotheads, officious English bureaucrats, and some Frenchies who loved to stir things up, especially after the Plains of Abraham, and you’ve created the path to where we are today.

The American national holiday was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, when we were deep into the Civil War, and was officially set as the fourth Thursday in November in 1941, during the worst war in modern world history. Ironically, it was with the inaptly named “Greatest Generation,” that emerged from WWII, that the virtually fascist secularization of our country was to occur, and this included all of our holidays. After all, when you’re prosperous and victorious, who needs to worry about God and His blessings?

Then came our wake up call from Hell on September 11, 2001, when we realized that we were little better off than the Pilgrims, starving in the winter of 1620-21. At least, they had faith. What is to become of us?

OF ROSES AND ROSSUMS

Posted on by Posted in True Crime

These days, the forensics-tinged true crime shows are all the rage, often out-performing the fictional network crime series. But what happens when the PERPS of a senseless homicide are employees of the local forensics lab? Add to this a love triangle, drugs, feuding families, and a perverse fascination with a perverse flick, and you have the so-called American Beauty case of San Diego, CA.

In February, 1995, 21-year-old Gregory de Villers meets 18-year-old hazel-eyed blonde, Kristin Rossum in the border town of Tijuana, Mexico. Kristin, already deep into a serious methamphetamine habit, needs a friend, and from that moment, they are rarely apart. By all accounts, Greg is madly in love with her–some say obsessed–and they get married in June, 1999.

At the wedding reception, Greg gushes, “Kristin is the most wonderful person I’ve ever met, incredible in so many ways … so intelligent, kind and caring … I can’t wait to spend the rest of my life with her.” As noted by San Diego TV reporter Kevin Cox, de Villers does spend the rest of his life with her–all 17 months of it.

On November 6, 2000, Greg is found dead in their suburban La Jolla apartment, and the case is initially treated as a suicide. But when an autopsy indicates that the cause of death is an overdose of the uncommon but extremely potent (80 times stronger than morphine) chronic pain drug Fentanyl, and that Kristin works in the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s office, where she has the keys to the drug locker, and at least 15 skin patch doses of Fentanyl are missing, the case becomes a homicide, and she is the only suspect.

As far as motive, Kristin is having a nice sleazy affair with her married boss, Michael Robertson, manager of the forensic toxicology lab, and not only has Greg discovered this, he intends to rat them out on the drug angle. You might ask why Robertson would hire a known druggie to work for the ME’s office, and then give her the keys to the candy store. So does the County, which fires them both.

The answer, of course, is that Robertson is unable to resist the, uh, charms of a drug addled user, who is not above resorting to horizontal favors to get her way, nor lying and stealing to support her habit, for that matter. It makes one wonder about the validity of her summa cum laude graduation from San Diego State University, albeit not one of California’s most eminent institutions of higher learning.

The suicide scenario, sad to say, favored by the authorities until objections are raised by de Villers’ family, presents itself as a lifeless Greg, lying next to a wedding photo, and surrounded with rose petals, à la the dreck movie American Beauty (1999), a favorite of Kristin’s. It is difficult to understand how a young woman could like anything about this film, that not only is sickeningly exploitative of youth, especially women, but is unrelentingly negative in its view of all aspects of American life, except homosexuality. Furthermore, the rose petal scene represents an adult male’s fantasy about a nude teen-age girl, covered only by the flowers. Then again, this could all have some deep meaning to a meth freak, but maybe she forgot that she was staging someone ELSE’S death.

Fentanyl is chosen as the instrument of murder since it is such a regulated substance and rare enough, that the ME does not test for it in autopsies. This, of course, is well known to Rossum and Robertson, but their little plan is foiled when a third party lab performs the autopsy. Robertson flees to his native Australia a few months after the killing. The official reason is that without a job, his visa would expire, but the timing of his exit looks pretty coincidental. Although the prosecution theorizes that both Kristin and her lover conspire to kill Greg, they don’t indict him.

On November 12, 2002, Kristin is found guilty of murder one in the death of Gregory de Villers, with sentencing set for December 12th. She faces life with no parole.

A few thoughts…

The amount of denial on the Rossum side is prodigious, and not just because her parents didn’t seem to notice or react to the fact that their daughter was a major drug addict. Their version of events is that a despondent Greg killed himself after learning that Kristin was leaving him. This they maintained despite considerable testimony that Greg de Villers did not seem suicidal or despondent to anyone else. Then again, they also said that Greg may have felt that if he couldn’t have her, no one will. That this theory would imply that Greg should kill Kristin was somehow beside the point.

It doesn’t take much analysis to realize that Kristin, talented though she may have been, was overindulged as a child, developing into a garden variety blonde chick with a ‘tude, finding out a bit late that she got in way over her head. An American beauty? Only to some impaired members of the media.

ELECTION 2002–NOT EXACTLY A SURPRISE

Posted on by Posted in Uncategorized

The lesson of the 2000 presidential election was not that George W. barely won. Rather, it was that a two-term incumbent vice president, in a good economy, did not absolutely crush his opponent. After all, Bush was the made-to-order straw man for the Dems. Rich and privileged, somewhat inarticulate, labeled as “dumb,” not as cool as Bill Clinton, boring, and just plain folks. Add to that, the overwhelming number of media outlets (except the Internet and talk radio) supported Al Gore.

Somehow, though, Gore could never develop a significant lead. The party, to its credit, and not Gore himself, was able to mobilize the traditional mindless core groups–minorities, seniors, teachers’ unions, and self-hating intellectualoids–along with a smattering of illegal aliens and assorted vagrants, and they almost pulled it off. They lost because their candidate was extremely unattractive, and he had no message. Thus, if a voter of an independent mind actually wanted to evaluate Gore on his merits, he would most often come up empty.

There was no shortage of rhetoric, of course, but how many times can the New Deal be re-introduced as the Great Society, and how many more oppressed people needing more rights can possibly be discovered? Give some props to FDR. His playbook worked for Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter. Then again, by the time Clinton used the outdated playbook, he probably should have lost, but was carried to victory on the back of Perot’s third party challenge, and then a weak opponent in Dole. Truth be told, Carter barely won. How in the world did the Dems expect FDR’s strategy to work for Al Gore?

So, in 2002, they changed the game plan just a little. They deflected any talk of terrorism, uncontrolled immigration, public education, and war with Iraq, to concentrate on the “real issues” like prescription drugs. Add to the mix ridiculous sensationalistic scenarios about throwing Grandma out into the street with no Social Security, and the big bad GOP (far too many of whom are pro-choice anyway) removing abortion rights, or “turning back” civil rights gains, as if they could if they even wanted to, and you have about 80 percent of the shtick. That left 20 percent to be taken up with punishing George W. Bush. Imagine, the so-called party of the little guy was spending huge dollars only for revenge.

Florida was to be the ultimate battleground, and defeating kid brother Jeb was priority one. Their media-spun reputation for political acumen notwithstanding, the Dems were clueless this time. Janet Reno eventually lost in the Democratic primary despite a gigantic initial lead because her only issue was revenge. Admittedly, the image of an ugly Parkinson-suffering woman driving her pickup truck around the state getting into accidents did not help her cause, but her cause was bankrupt from the get go. Bill McBride, being a decorated Vietnam veteran, was a more attractive candidate, but pandered to the usual groups, championed big government and lost big. So much for revenge.

The campaign of the late Marxist-Dem Paul Wellstone was important, since he had always been elected by the slimmest of margins. As cynical as I am, I would have not predicted that the Dems would have resurrected the quintessential loser, Walter Mondale. In the 1984 presidential election, Mondale lost the popular vote to Ronald Reagan by more than 18 points, and the electoral vote by an incredible 525 to 13, carrying only his home state of Minnesota by a razor thin 0.2%. Yet, he was chosen the standard bearer, and he lost.

Bereft of new ideas for decades, while calling themselves “progressive,” the Dems will talk about new leadership, and then bring in a faction even more left-wing than the cadre in power now. And, unless they can create many more victim groups, that will go to the polls in record numbers, they will keep on losing.

Works for me.