Blog Posts

Good Bye Dept of Ed

3/24/2025

This opinion may surprise some of my readers.

In the past I have criticized the Trump administration on almost everything it has done. My belief is that the administration has not acted within the constitutional procedures available to the administration to accomplish what it wishes.  What causes me great concern is Trump is ruling (governing) by Executive Order, when the Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House.  Trump should not have to issue Executive Orders to get what he wants.

Early on in this administration, Trump impounded appropriated money to stop payment to organizations, (mainly USAID) which Musk and he deemed unnecessary.  Trump tried to do this by Executive Order (EO).  The Judiciary blocked Trump from impounding the funds.  And here is why.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 created the procedural means by which the Congress considers and reviews executive branch withholdings of budget authority. It requires the President to report promptly to the Congress all withholdings of budget authority and to abide by the outcome of the congressional impoundment review process.(1). Essentially, all Trump had to do was to ask Congress not to make the payment of appropriated funds and all would be good.

In another issuance of an EO, the President Trump is dismantling the Department of Education (ED).  The ED was created for the first time in 1867 by Congress and President Andrew Johnson.  In time, the ED was restructured as The Office of Education and placed into many different cabinet departments.  In 1979, Congress once again established the Department of Education at the Cabinet level.

Trump’s EO to dismantle the Department of Education is procedurally incorrect. Because Congress created the Department of Education, it is the entity that can “legally” dismantle it.  Trump is circumnavigating the procedure of going to Congress and asking for the dismantling of the Department.  Trump’s move could be judged as “unconstitutional” by the court, just as his impounding of appropriated funds were.  Now why would one not use the correct and appropriate measures to get what he wants?  I’ll leave you to arrive at your own conclusion.

Now for the surprising part…I agree with the President on dismantling the ED.  I have always thought there should not be a Department of Education.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly enumerates the powers given to the Congress as a lawmaking body.  If one were to read this portion of the Constitution, one would never see the word education. (Surprisingly, one would see the word “naturalization” which gives the power of immigration to the Congress, not the President).

I believe when politicians started making decisions about educational policy, we, as a country ran aground.  What do the members of the House and Senate know about education, or Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, Bloom’s Taxonomy, how poverty and hunger, and curriculum all affect learning?
Here is a bit to consider:  Most all teachers have a Bachelor’s degree (some charter school teachers do not) and many more have a Master’s degree.  Teachers, like doctors or lawyers are highly educated, and should be considered professionals, although society doesn’t view teaching as a true profession.
Doctors make life and death decisions based on their education and experience, lawyers prosecute or defend clients using their education and experience. And yet we allow politicians to make educational policy when there is a work force that is quite capable of doing so.

I will agree the ED provided services for higher education, namely in the form of student loans.  I, myself, went to college under the old FISL program which was before the creation of the ED in 1979.  The FISL program guaranteed school loans to loaning institutions who participated in the program.  The program worked except for one small problem:  Not too many people paid their loans back to the lenders.  The federal government reimbursed the lender, but did not try to recover money from the student(s) who defaulted.  The federal government did not think to use income tax returns or garnish wages to recoup the defaulted amount.  And yes, I repaid my loan…every cent.

The ED also provided a “National Certification” process for classroom teachers to acquire.  To me, it was meaningless because a National Certificate was not recognized by states.  The individual states set their own standards for teacher certification.  As it stands today, Arizona has reciprocity for teacher certification with most all states, if the teacher is in good standing with the state in which he holds a certificate. The federal government is not involved with certification, or reciprocity at all.

The final blow to the Department of Education is just this:  Since 1979, the nation’s educational statistics have declined to a level that is ALARMING!  When was the Department of Education instituted?  Let me remind you, 1979.  That is when national politicians started making educational policy.  That is when the national government began handing out large sums of money to school districts and states, but only if said districts and states succumbed to the desires of the national government.

However, there are consequences to the elimination of the Department of Education.

What happens to Arizona, and other states’ educational systems, when federal funding goes away?  In 2021-2022 the federal government provided about 2.8 billion dollars to Arizona schools.  That represents about $2500 a student.(2). Arizona will now have to come up with that type of money just to stay current in educational expenditures.  One of two things will have to happen:  Higher taxes for schools, or the consolidation of schools, which would mean large class sizes, and I mean large.  Unfortunately, research indicates students have a greater chance of learning in small classes.

Along with larger class size, the free and reduced breakfast and lunch programs may go away as well.  The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) provides low-cost or free lunches to children in public and nonprofit private schools and residential childcare institutions, ensuring students receive nutritious meals each school day.(2). This is administered by the USDA, but it is educational funding to schools, so your guess is as good as mine.

I’m glad the ED is gone, but because it has been in operation for so long, the fall out from the dismantling of the ED is going to have severe consequences.  Buckle up!  Oh, and there is more to come regarding education…

0 Comments

How Big?

3/21/2025

0 Comments

mandate | ˈmanˌdāt | noun
1 an official order or commission to do something:  • Law a commission by which a party is entrusted to perform a service, especially without payment and with indemnity against loss by that party. • US English Law an order from an appellate court to a lower court to take a specific action.
2 the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election:

In recent months since the Presidential election in November of 2024, we have heard President Trump claim he has a huge mandate to carry out his policies or course of action.  In reality, Trump did win the election, and did receive a mandate to commit to carry out his policies as promised.

However, the “huge” mandate isn’t what he has led the public to believe.   These elections would prove that to be true.

1964 Presidential Election Results:

Johnson                     Democrat                   Popular Vote             Electoral Vote
                                                                        42,825,463                486

Goldwater                  Republican                27,146,969                 52

1972 Presidential Election Results:

Nixon                         Republican                Popular Vote             Electoral Vote
                                                                        47,168,710                 520

McGovern                 Democrat                   29,173,222                 17

Nixon won 49 states and had almost 61 per cent of the popular vote.

1984 Presidential Election Results:
Reagan                       Republican                Popular Vote             Electoral Vote
                                                                        54,455,075                525

Mondale                    Democrat                   37,577,185                 13

Reagan carried 49 states, Mondale winning only his home state of Minnesota.

Now compare those results to the “huge” mandate and victory Trump claims:

2024 Presidential Election Results:

Trump                        Republican                Popular Vote             Electoral Vote
                                                                        77,019,230                312

Harris                         Democrat                   75,019,230                226

Trump received 49.81 per cent of the popular vote, indicating that he is not a “majority” President.

While it is clear President Trump won the 2024 Presidential Election and received a mandate, that mandate cannot be called a “huge” mandate from the voters. In terms of the popular vote, more people voted for someone not named Trump for president than voted for Trump in 2024, and his margin of victory over Harris was 1.5 percentage points. That is the fifth smallest margin of victory in the thirty-two presidential races held since 1900.

Embellishment?  Arrogance?  Narcissism?  I can’t answer that.  I have my own opinion, as do you.  You be the judge.

0 Comments

Truth or Consequences

3/16/2025

0 Comments

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
                Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
From “Ode on a Grecian Urn” by John Keats

By no means am I a professional journalist.  I do not pretend to be, but I have been encouraged to continue expressing my thoughts on the current political climate in which we live.  And in doing so, I find that to produce what I would call a “clean” article, if I use any information to support my writings, I need to verify that information.  I do not want to pass on information that may very well be wrong.

There are but two types of “truth” if know.  One is Probable Truth, the other is Absolute Truth

Probable Truth is scientific in nature.  It takes a situation and analyzes it and then develops a percentage of probable truth.  For example, an old Ivory soap ad said the soap was 99.44 pure soap.  The reason?   A chemist's analysis of Ivory soap indicated that 56/10000th of the ingredients did not fall into the category of pure soap. Procter subtracted from 100, and wrote the slogan "99-44/100% Pure" which first appeared in Ivory's advertising in 1882.

The same can be said with the prediction of precipitation in a weather forecast.  Meteorologists study weather patterns, take into consideration wind, humidity and dew point, and can make no more than a prediction of probability of the chance of rain or snow.

Our legal system presents information to a jury that is factual and a decision is made to determine innocence or guilt.  Even though the jury hears these arguments, and the legal system demands a juror must be thoroughly convinced the defendant is guilty, it is still probable truth.  As with Probable Truth, it must be realized there is an acceptance the truth could be right or wrong.

Absolute Truth is just that.  This truth is accepted by faith alone.  The classic example of Absolute Truth is a belief in a Supreme Being, God, Allah, Budda, or other entities.  There is no room for questioning…one either accepts this truth or rejects it.

So, I ask, what is the importance of truth and knowing the facts?  The answer to that question is fairly simple:  How does one know what one knows to be true, if one does not know the truth?

There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation in the world; it is spoken by officials for various reasons, some good, some bad.  The media slants the news to fit its viewers or readers.  We all know or can identify government officials who have not been forthright with information, just as we can identify newspapers, magazines, tv stations, and internet sources that slant the news for the readers sake.

I am of the opinion, one should not regurgitate something that is said or written in a discussion without knowing how true the information happens to be.  And so, it is incumbent upon us to know how to verify information to insure the information is correct.  I would like to offer some methods on how to do so.

1. Evaluate the Source:
Credibility:  Who said it or wrote it?  Are they an expert or very knowledgeable about what they say or write?  What are the qualifications of the person who spoke or has written.  If one has read the information, is the publication a credible publication?
Purpose and Bias:  What is the purpose of the information?  Is it to inform, convince, or entertain the audience?  Is the speaker/author/publication biased in any particular manner?
Objectivity:  Try to find the point of the information.  Avoid information that is sensationalized or emotional.
Timeliness:  Ensure the information is up-to-date and relevant to the current topic.

2. Consider the Context:
Background Information:  Understand the historical, social, and political context surrounding the information.
Evidence:  Look for evidence to support claims, such as citations, data, or expert opinions.
Common Sense:  Apply critical thinking and common sense to assess the plausibility of the information. Is it logical? And be careful of logic...

He said, she said, they said…just does not fly anymore in this age of information and disinformation.  It just does not fly.  Is it a challenge to verify information?  Yes, but isn’t the truth worth it?

0 Comments

For What It's Worth

3/12/2025

0 Comments

traitor/noun: a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc;

As reported by ABC News on March 10, Elon Musk has called Senator Mark Kelly a "traitor" because Kelly took a trip o the Ukraine over the previous weekend to see for himself the ravages of war extracted on the Ukraine. What fascinates me is the power and influence the richest man in the world has in our national government, and not it includes the "national name caller".

Now, is it within Musk's reach to call a Naval Fighter pilot with 39 combat missions under his belt, an astronaut, and US Senator a "traitor" because he visited the Ukraine?Senator Kelly serves on the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence among others. How has Senator Kelly betrayed his country or friends? By visiting the Ukraine, which is well within his purview because of the committees on which he serves? Really?

So, what does Musk get out of trolling a US Senator? That is the million dollar question.

Only the Shadow knows!

Maybe it is because Senator Kelly is becoming the statesman this country so desperately needs. One may not agree with his political stance on issues, but make no mistake, Kelly brings integrity and leadership to a nation as well as Arizona. He is one of the few Democratic Party should look to for leadership of the party in the not-to-distant future.

More to read....but still Musk!

In an emergency Cabinet meeting of Thursday, March 6th, it was reported Elon Musk and Secretary of the State, Mark Rubio, had a difference of opinion regarding the goings on in government. Other Cabinet members were involved in the spirited discussion, and out of it, President Trump told the Cabinet secretaries they would do the firing of personnel in the department in which they were in charge, seemingly taking away the power to fire indiscriminately as Musk has appeared to do...but the President added, if you (the Cabinet Secretaries) do not fire people, Elon will.

The question that arises, was Musk firing people without telling the Cabinet Secretaries? Does that make a lot of sense? If that is the case, then that is on the President for giving Musk that authority.

And one last comment about Musk:

One must realize anytime a person invests 270+ million into a venture or political campaign, there must be a dividend had somewhere; otherwise, why make the investment?

Could that dividend be the rare earth minerals of the Ukraine?

Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion for electric vehicles, cell phones, missile systems, and other electronics. There are no viable substitutes. Please take special note of the two phrases "electric vehicles" and "missile systems". Now how would rare earth minerals benefit the man who owns Tesla or SpaceX, Starship, and the developer of Super Heavy?

0 Comments

To Be or Not To Be

3/8/2025

1 Comment

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

        An excerpt from Hamlet

I have included this excerpt because I find it incredibly pertinent to what happened at the White House between Trump, Vance and Zelensky. This, in my opinion is what Zelensky faced: Sign “the deal” and suffer at the hands of Trump and Vance or continue to take up arms to try and save his country.

I am of the opinion when Vance said to Zelensky you need to say “Thank you”, it was akin to asking Zelensky to kiss the ring of the Dom, or enter into subservience as a serf to the feudal lord.

Providing war materials to an ally for the purpose of defending itself against an aggressor is not a new program to the United States.  During the outset of WWII, the Lend/Lease program allowed the United States the ability to aid the Allies without the United States entering the war.  A talking head at that time indicated it really was not Lend/Lease, we were ensuring our freedom by supplying the Allies.  Zelensky is trying to defend his country in the best possible way he can, against an aggressor who seemingly has convinced the United States, China, and North Korea that Russia is the victim. (Our President did say Ukraine started the war with Russia).

What is missing here and goes unnoticed is the term that has been used many times by Trump himself: Patriot. I have a difference of opinion in regards to how Trump believes this word definition is correct.

patriot | ˈpātrēət | noun 1 a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors

By definition then, Zelensky is a patriot of Ukraine and it is unbelievable the administration of the United States does not understand that. Instead, our President, has called those who attacked our Capitol on January 6th, those who were insurrectionists, were the ones called “patriot”.

I, as an American, am embarrassed by the behavior of the current administration in regards to the Oval Office meeting with Zelensky. Our elected officials are expected to be better than that. They are to be held to a higher standard than the electorate.

And so…should Zelensky suffer the slings and arrows of the outrageous fortune of the Trump administration, or take arms against a sea of troubles from Russia, North Korea, and possibly China? We know Zelensky did not sign “the deal”, and now he, the patriot, and Ukraine faces an almost insurmountable task of winning the war.

Being a registered Republican, I stand with Ukraine.

1 Comment

Forward>>

One Man's Opinion

Good Bye Dept of Ed

How Big?

Truth or Consequences

For What It's Worth

To Be or Not To Be

Archives