Public Education and Change Aversion

A good friend of mine, Dr. Thomas Ho, in Florida is asking for more input and dialogue in one arena most averted by politicians these days.  Many local and state politicians will say publicly that we need to focus on education, but of course the details are few and far between.   Where is the legitimate debate, one that garners specific change?  Why is the teaching establishment change adverse, or are they, is it really that some of the changes are for show? 

Should we promote full school choice?
Charter Schools?
Allow students to use their own ipads/laptops at school?
Hold teachers accountable for test results?
How do we grade teachers?

Is it even good education to "teach to the test?"
Should sports be publicly funded, or pay as you play?
Redistricting and consolidation for efficiency
Appointed or elected school boards

I'm sure there are more, was just trying to promote civil dialogue ... check out Dr. Ho's blog and original article to join the conversation.  

Northwest Indiana Political Thoughts

Four years ago I was posting furiously on this very space, with the thought in mind that I could write some assistance for then-candidate John McCain.   My wife noted just yesterday that I just don't seem to be all that engaged in the election this year.   So, by way of explanation first and perhaps some catharsis second, my open thoughts on the next 50 days.

I am personally going to vote for Mitt Romney, I have no interest whatsoever in another four years of President Obama.  His fiscal policies are foolish and remind me often of the stuff that college kids cook up when they have no basis in reality, but lots of starry eyed theory.   This week he has dropped the ball multiple times in foreign policy, and frankly he's been lucky that in three years this is the first time he had to deal with problems overseas.  If Israel decides to deal with Iran themselves in the next month, Obama will once again embarrass us by falling all over himself to apologize to our enemies.

That's it ... no more vitriol or active campaigning for me.   I won't be putting out a sign or connecting to bloggers all over the country.   Romney is a bit boring I agree, and I don't love the fact that he's Mormon.  I would personally prefer a man or woman who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  But he's more conservative fiscally, he's a successful businessman, and he's much more apt to defend the United States.  

In Indiana, I will continue to support my long time friend Mike Pence in his race for Governor.   I am excited to have the chance to actually vote for someone in the 1st Congressional race in Joel Phelps.   I'm practical, it may take a couple election cycles to rid ourselves of Pete.   I was vocal in support of Richard Mourdock over Richard Lugar in the primary, and of course will vote for Mourdock over Donnelly for the US Senate seat.   Donnelly was so weak in his own South Bend Congressional district, he was hoping to win an easy race for Senate since he couldn't hold his own seat. 

I will take the time next week to write about the local races, the ones that frankly have meant a whole lot more to my business and my family recently.   This page does not endorse candidates, we made that decision a few years back when we were threatened by a Republican candidate with a lawsuit ... wow!  But I am quite happy for any of our editors to take the time to tell us who they are personally voting for and why. 


Steve
Editor Northwest Indiana Politics

Should the military get to vote? Should Barack Obama be accountable?

Two big stories - the military being disenfranchised and the Obama interactive online painting.   Painting first...click on the link to see and interact with the painting, which is introduced by the youtube video...




The most amazing painting I have ever seen is found HERE!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama Lawsuit Could have Disastrous Effects on Military Voting Rights

Why are 15, non-partisan, veterans groups opposing President Obama’s lawsuit against an Ohio law that allows military personnel three extra days to vote before Election Day? The President’s campaign claims he is merely trying to extend voting rights. The reason these military groups - representing hundreds of thousands of veterans - oppose the President is because his claim is just plain false.

Despite what the Obama re-election campaign says in press releases about wanting everyone to have the chance to vote, what they are stating in court – where it counts – could have disastrous consequences for the voting rights of the men and women of our Armed Forces.

It is important to lay out the facts. There are two statutes regarding early voting, both of which were amended recently by the Ohio legislature. The first statute sets the deadline for early voting as the Friday before Election Day, giving most voters 32 days within which to vote early, in-person. The second statute extends in-person absentee voting through Election Day for military personnel, an additional three days of in-person voting.

President Obama’s re-election campaign argues in federal court that giving military personnel these three extra days to cast their in-person absentee ballot is “entirely arbitrary” and has “no legitimate justification" in the law because doing so “treats similarly situated Ohio voters differently.”

If a federal court were to buy into the Obama campaign’s basic argument, that military voters do not deserve any special treatment in voting laws, then it could have disastrous effects on military voting rights, not just in Ohio but everywhere in the country.

If successful, Obama’s legal argument against special voting privileges for members of the military could eviscerate longstanding precedent for military voting rights. And it is why 15 military and veterans organizations have intervened in court seeking to uphold this law. As their brief notes, “The Obama campaign’s and Democratic National Committee’s argument that it is arbitrary and unconstitutional to afford special consideration, flexibility, and accommodations to military voters to make it easier for them to vote in person is not only offensive, but flatly wrong as a matter of law.”

These military groups are exactly right. The Supreme Court has long held that the military is unique, “a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian,” in part because “‘it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should that occasion arise.’”

For years, federal law has recognized the unique challenges of the military and enacted legislation giving the men and women of our armed services special rules and privileges to ensure that they have every opportunity to cast their ballot. Ohio has simply applied these same constitutional principles to early in-person absentee voting to give military members three extra days to vote before Election Day.

As one federal court put it, “How and where [members of the military] conduct their lives is dictated by the government. The vote is their last vestige of expression and should be provided no matter what their location.”

Not only is the Obama re-election campaign legally wrong, they are factually wrong as well. Obama’s team actually argues in its brief that the recent changes made by the duly elected legislature of Ohio “create two classes of Ohio voters.” First of all, that’s just not true.

Even in 2008, “Ohio law provide[d] separate application processes for different classifications of absentee voters,” i.e. one for a military absentee voter and one for “a ‘regular’ absentee voter.” Of course, no one, including the Obama campaign, had an issue in 2008 with treating military and “regular” voters differently. The only change Ohio enacted was to the deadline for in-person voting. The assertion that Ohio created a new class of voters is just plain false.

Finally, while the Obama re-election campaign is claiming to the media that he wants to extend voting to everyone for the three-day period preceding the election, this lawsuit is unlikely to accomplish that. If the court were to accept his legal argument that military voters deserve no special treatment under the law, the court would be faced with two options: rewrite the statute that cuts off early absentee voting at the Friday before Election Day or strike down the statute that providers three extra days for military personnel.

If the court believes Obama’s argument that military personnel deserve no special treatment, the court is far more likely to strike down the statute granting that right than it is to rewrite an entirely separate statute. Courts do not write statutes; the legislature does.

It is critical that we not allow President Obama’s statements to the media to cloud what exactly he is arguing in court (remember he promised the American people that ObamaCare wasn’t a tax and then had his lawyers argue that it was a tax to the Supreme Court). What Obama’s lawyers are arguing in court is far more important than the spin that his campaign is trying to place on it to the public, and if it goes uncheck, it could severely limit the voting rights of our brave men and women in uniform.