Public school teacher threatens student with arrest for criticizing Obama

From Breitbart. (Note the Youtube video is about 9 minutes long, so I don’t recommend sitting through the whole thing)

Excerpt:

A YouTube video uploaded on Monday afternoon apparently shows a schoolteacher from the Rowan-Salisbury school district in North Carolina informing a student that failing to be respectful of President Obama is a criminal offense. Breitbart News has uncovered that the student is a high school junior, and that the teacher is apparently one Tanya Dixon-Neely.

The video shows a classroom discussion about the Washington Post hit piece about Mitt Romney bullying a kid some five decades ago. One student says, “Didn’t Obama bully someone though?” The teacher says: “Not to my knowledge.” The student then cites the fact that Obama, in Dreams from My Father, admits to shoving a little girl. “Stop, no, because there is no comparison,” screams the teacher. Romney is “running for president. Obama is the president.”

The student responds that both are “just men.”

The teacher yells — literally yells — that Obama is “due the respect that every other president is due … Listen,” she continues, “let me tell you something, you will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.” She yells over the student repeatedly, and yells at him that it’s disrespect for him to even debate about Romney and Obama.

The student says that he can say what he wants.

“Not about him, you won’t,” says the teacher.

The teacher then tells the student – wrongly – that it is a criminal offense to say bad things about a president. “Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush? Do you realize you are not supposed to slander the president?”

The student says that it would violate First Amendment rights to jail someone for such sentiments. “You would have to say some pretty f’d up crap about him to be arrested,” says the student. “They cannot take away your right to have your opinion … They can’t take that away unless you threaten the president.”

Clearly, the student should be teaching the class, and the teacher should be reading the Constitution more often.

This is why taxpayers need to support school choice. There are some teachers in public schools, especially in the STEM areas, who are qualified. But there are others who are not. Education degrees are universally regarded as very easy, and very useless. We really should not be forced to fund a public school system that does not work for parents and children. Abolishing the federal Department of Education would be an excellent first step to improving the quality of education in state-run schools. We need to get the politics out of the classroom and focus on basic useful skills and career training.

UPDATE: This post has some more of the transcript, for those who can’t see the video.

A comprehensive guide to the European debt crisis

Stuart Schneiderman linked to this article on his blog “Had Enough Therapy?” and I found it worth the read. The article starts by noting that France and Greece both voted against austerity, which means they want someone else to keep paying for their benefits, and they aren’t willing to grow up and recognize that no one wants to. But there’s an additional problem – the problem of bank runs. People who have money on deposit in banks in countries that have a lot of debt are movie it out, which may cause some really bad problems going forward.

Here’s an excerpt on the problem of bank runs:

Bank runs, even virtual ones, are the method by which public fear can blow up the eurozone. A bank run, as hundreds of thousands of depositors decide to pull their money out of a bank or a banking system at the same time, is the financial equivalent of a dam break. Banks, even very well run ones, never have all the money that their customers have deposited in their vaults. They lend that money out to other people, and because they charge borrowers a higher rate on their loans than they pay savers on their deposits, they make money.

[…]When borrowers can’t repay their loans, the bank sooner or later has to “write down” the value of those loans. In bad economic times, when borrowers are going bankrupt and the collateral on their loans loses value, banks can make huge losses. This is how Ireland lost its shirt; the banking system collapsed as the Irish real estate bubble burst, making building contractors and home owners bankrupt all over Ireland, and making the real estate that served as collateral for their loans almost worthless at the same time. The government — to prevent a panic and bank runs — guaranteed the deposits held by Irish banks, and ended up assuming such a massive debt that the Republic of Ireland needed a bailout from Europe.

Since then, European bailouts have been the safety net for all the countries in the eurozone. When investors worry that countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy will have a Greek style financial meltdown and the interest rates on their bonds rise to reflect that risk, the ECB steps in to buy their bonds and the panic goes away — for a while. More, when individual banks are having trouble, the ECB has made huge amounts of money at extremely low interest rates available to them. Spanish banks, for example, can borrow cheap money from the ECB in order to buy Spanish government bonds at high interest rates. They pay one percent interest to the ECB and collect four percent interest from the Spanish government, and use the profit of three percent to offset their losses on their loans to private companies and consumers who are going belly up in Spain’s savage recession.

The success of this little merry-go-round is why Europe calmed down last December. The ECB in effect prints money which it gives to busted banks. The busted banks lend the money to insolvent governments at artificially low rates (but at rates that still allow the banks to make a profit). It was a neat little trick that kept the crisis quiet without forcing the Germans to admit openly that the ECB was in effect using German resources to bail out the rest of the zone.

Bank runs, even virtual bank runs, would blow this fragile arrangements to bits. As the prospect of Greece leaving the euro becomes more likely, savers in Portugal, Spain and Italy have to start wondering if their countries, too, will have to jump ship. Sophisticated investors have been moving their money out of those countries for some time; things may soon reach a pass in which ordinary, unsophisticated investors start to do the same thing. Again, why have your money in some gut-shot Spanish bank when you can transfer it to a German, Austrian or Dutch bank with a mouse click? And if you are worried about the whole eurozone, or that devious financial trolls will find a way to convert all deposits held by Spanish citizens in European banks to pesos when and if the change comes, put the money in Switzerland, the UK or even the US.

If a few thousands or a few tens of thousands do this in Portugal, Italy and Spain, no problem. But if hundreds of thousands or millions of people shift their money out of their home banking systems, then you have a new and very grave bank crisis that blows the December fix out of the water. Either the ECB would start creating trillions of euros to bail out the Club Med banks (and Club Med under some circumstances could stretch as far north as France), or banking systems start exploding like firecrackers across the southern tier. At the same time you would have a new panic on the bond markets; nobody is going to want to own Spanish or Italian debt under those circumstances.

This is something that we all need to be monitoring closely because the profligacy of socialist Europe is going to affect us all. What we have been doing here at home for the last four years, a flight from capitalism into Peter Pan economics, has not exactly prepared us for the coming storm.

N.A.A.C.P. follows Barack Obama and endorses gay marriage

From the liberal New York Times. (H/T Bad Blue)

Excerpt:

The board of the N.A.A.C.P. voted to endorse same-sex marriage on Saturday, putting the weight of the country’s most prominent civil rights group behind a cause that has long divided some quarters of the black community.

The largely symbolic move, made at the group’s quarterly board meeting in Miami, puts the N.A.A.C.P. in line with President Obama, who endorsed gay marriage a little over a week ago. Given the timing, it is likely to be viewed as both a statement of principle as well as support for the president’s position in the middle of a closely contested presidential campaign.

All but two of the organization’s 64 board members, who include many religious leaders, backed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage, according to people told of the decision.

Borrowing a term used by gay right’s advocates, the resolution stated: “We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

[…]The group’s endorsement could potentially bolster support for President Obama with a key constituency: black Democratic voters who remain skeptical of same-sex marriage.

Black and white Americans are divided on same-sex marriage in similar numbers, according to the results of four aggregated polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News over the past year.

Yet there is greater opposition among black Democrats than white Democrats. Sixty-one percent of white Democrats supported legalizing marriage for gay couples, compared with 36 percent of black Democrats, while 35 percent of black Democrats opposed any legal recognition, compared with 18 percent of white Democrats.

When I interviewed some of my black co-workers before the 2008 election, they all thought that Obama was more pro-life than McCain, more pro-marriage than McCain, tougher on crime than McCain, more of a hawk on national security than McCain and more fiscally conservative than McCain. This is in spite of the fact that Obama’s record up until that time was staunchly in favor of abortion, gay marriage, leniency for criminals, unilateral disarmament and weakening counter-terrorism, higher taxes, more anti-business regulations and more spending. My black co-workers were able to tell me the rosters of our local sports teams and recite entire conversations from popular movies, but their beliefs about the Presidential candidates were entirely counter-factual.

About 95% of black voters support Democrats. I think it will be interesting to see how whether Obama’s policies and voting record play a role in their voting this time.

By the way, if anyone is tempted to accuse me of racism for telling the truth, I’m darker-skinned than Obama.