Kucinich-Paul, or Paul-Kucinich

The bomb has been dropped folks...Dennis Kucinich has hinted that he is considering asking Republican candidate Ron Paul as his running mate. Paul's campaign in turn said that while they "are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect", Mr. Paul is too committed to reducing the size of the Federal government to join his ticket. Immediately the National Jewish Democratic Council issued a statement indicating their outrage over such a possible pairing, namely because of Paul's positions regarding the middle east.

What an interesting proposal. For months I have been saying that the two are one and the same, at least in how they represent the farther reaches of their respective parties wings. If only I had blogged about it, for the record at least. This does bring up an interesting possibility, a third party run for the two...

With all the talk in the press about media magnate Michael Bloomberg's potential as a spoiler in the Presidential race, it's clear that this pairing has much more potential as a spoiler, but for which candidate. I think it's fair to say that both candidates represent voters who feel disenfranchised by their respective parties. According to open secrets.org Dennis Kucinich has raised $2,130,200, compared to Ron Paul's $8,229,811. While this is a relatively small sum compared to the frontrunner's war chests, and Mitt Romney's personal fortune, it definitely shows strong support for the two candidates.

Could the two candidates combine their efforts and actually contend and maybe even win the Presidency as independents. Although unlikely, it is possible, especially when you consider how many people feel so disenfranchised by the entire political process. Although it is obviously a different scenario, Jesse Ventura when my home state's Governor's race, in part by reaching out to those who usually don't vote, as well as utilizing the then underused tool known as the Internet. Both Kucinich and Paul fit into both of those categories.

I will continue to follow this pairing, however unlikely it would be, but I think the most important issue is who would be President. Soft power and influence aside, America is not a Parliamentary system, so whoever would be VP would have virtually no authority to do anything on their agenda and would have to rely solely on any "agreement" made between the two before they began campaigning.

Vouchers for all, bad schools for none

A recent report by the Center for the American Experiment regarding the state of school choice in Minnesota is as eye opening as it is yawn worthy। Considering the obvious and indisputable advantages of school choice, backed up by analytical and thorough studies, the author Mitch Perlstein sums it up best by writing "For the life of me, I can‘t understand how any educator, politician, editorial writer, or anyone else can read such a summary and not conclude that vouchers are worth a try।"

Perlstein's account contains nothing new or groundbreaking, it simply lists what followers of education reform have known for decades। Scratch that, it simply lists what believers of the advantages of choice and free markets have known since the dawn of time. In fact, in his foreword to the report, Minneapolis councilman Don Samuels sums up the knee jerk reactions that the left of center party has toward free markets; "As a Democrat and a politician, I consider it a hazard to attach my name and contribution to this fine essay. The majority of my voting base will probably frown on this association." To take a page from Friedman, food stamps may be a great way to help the poor get the food they need, but no one, save maybe Dennis Kucinich, would advocate that the government monopolize and run all the supermarkets in America.

I suggest anyone who reads this blog also read the report, I will not bore you with a glorified book report. Instead I would simply like to bring up the one point that Perlstein neglects to mention in his piece, which is the Minnesota Constitution, and the Supreme Court which holds a monopoly on the power to decide if state law is in lock step with our founding document. A cursory glance at the constitution shows the two sections which govern education in our State.

Section 1. UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.
Sec। 2. PROHIBITION AS TO AIDING SECTARIAN SCHOOL. In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught.

Although a search of the Star Tribune's website does not show the specific editorial I know I have read that paper opine on vouchers, saying that ultimately we can't do it because our constitution prohibits it and the current Supreme Court will not allow it. Although I disagree with their ideology, that does not change the fact that our chief lawyers see it as such and nothing we as citizens can do, short of a constitutional amendment, will change that. We all know that unjust laws and policies have been shrouded by the black robes using constitutional precepts since the founding of our nation, see Dred Scott. But it took decades to undue the injustices perpetrated by a Supreme Court corrupted by Southern Slave Power. The same is probably true of our current academic-legal complex.

The closest Perlstein comes to acknowledging the role of the courts in this process is, in fact, to make the opposite point. "But not talking about religious schools leaves the impression that the U.S. Supreme Court didn‘t rule in the 2002 Cleveland case that a properly designed and run voucher program is perfectly congruent with the First Amendment." Yes, it is clearly true that the US Constitution does not prohibit public money being spent for student's education at religious schools. But our constitution can be, and is, interpreted that way.

So what is the point, or rather, what can be done about this predicament। I think that the only two options are both large mountains to be climbed; a constitutional amendment authorizing such expenditures, or waiting until our current crop of black robes retire and replacing them with more progressive, forward thinking lawyers। Both of these options are undesirable and simply leave hundreds of thousands of inner city minorities stuck in the squalor that is the public school system. I think Drs. Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom summed it up best when they wrote "The racial gap in academic achievement is an educational crisis, but it is also the main source of ongoing racial inequality. And racial inequality is America‘s great unfinished business". Racial inequality in education is a fact in our state and the most obvious way to give poor minority children a ticket out of the ghetto is consistently blocked by those that big media has crowned as the champions of their cause. Below is a link to the report, I urge you to read it।

http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/achievement_gaps__vouchers_012507.pdf

Michelle Bachmann and the MOA

For my inagural blog I think I will touch upon something that I have read on five seperate blogs on blogspot. Rep Michelle Bachmann R-MN recently returned from a trip from Iraq and, being from Minnesota, described one of Saddam's palaces as being like the Mall of America. her exact quote was...

"It’s absolutely huge,” she said. “I turned to my colleagues and said there’s a commonality with the Mall of America, in that it’s on that proportion. There’s marble everywhere. The other thing I remarked about was there is water everywhere. He had man-made lakes all around his personal palace — one for fishing, one for boating.”

Ok, having been to the Mall of America many times I can get a feel for the magnitude of the place. Sounds like a good analogy to me.

But not so fast, according to the blogging left, Ms. Bachmann was talking about Iraq.

Thinkprogress.org's first statement about her comments is "In reality, Iraq is nothing like the Mall of America"

CapeClod posted on wonkette.com "So Bachmann says Iraq is like the Mall of America"

And our friend Blueman at buildourparty.blogspot.com listed in his things to be thankful for "We’re thankful that visiting the Mall of America isn’t really like visiting Iraq."

I suppose I can understand the vitriolic hatred of Ms. Bachmann, but please., can you not come up with some other quote that you can twist completely out of context. Weak guys, weak