This is fabulous! I decided to post over at jbdb's blog, regarding her "classroom" OMG! moment. Since she didn't post my posts without editing them (or at all) and refused to address my questions, I thought I would provide them for your enjoyment:
Hi Jbjd,Jbdb edits my post in moderation:
This is my first post, and if I may I would like to ask several questions about your post. I find it to be quite interesting, and appreciate the writing quality of you posts. I apologize before hand for the length of this post; I find it helpful to quote particular parts of another's post when asking questions.
To my questions.
*You state: "so the rules called for the difference to be made up at the floor roll call at the Convention held in Denver, CO, in August 2008, by votes cast by party ‘elders’ called Superdelegates, who could vote for anyone they wanted. But for some reason, the Corporation backed Barack Obama well in advance of the Convention, even foregoing the traditional floor vote at the Convention in order to make his nomination a fait accompli. I repeated several times, the DNC Services Corporation is not a government agency but more like a private club, which means, they can make or break their own rules with impunity."
*I am curious. Did you also explain to students that then Senator Clinton had, before the DNC convention, publicly gone on stage with Obama and SUPPORTED (not screaming, just stressing; I don't know how to bold or underline text on wordpress) Obama as the Democratic nominee before the Convention began? Did you mention that this was televised? And did you mention that she announced her state's support for Obama as the DNC candidate on the floor of the DNC Convention? Regardless of why you felt Senator Clinton did this, did you mention that she did so days before the DNC Convention (I don't remember the exact date)?
Did you also explain that there had been some controversy about McCain's NBCship, which of course, was settled? When you mentioned that, did you also talk about the RNC being a "private club"?
*Then you state: "And all of the D Electors who voted in December 2008 cast their votes for Barack Obama, the nominee for President of the D party. But this was hardly surprising. Because the only way they got to be Electors for the party in the first place was by promising the party, if Appointed, they would cast their votes for the party nominee. However, I emphasized that nothing in the Constitution requires Electors to vote for the nominee of the political party, which only made sense since, as I said, the Drafters never mentioned political parties in the Constitution."
*Certainly you discussed that 26 states REQUIRE that their ECVs vote in accordance with their state's popular vote?
Certainly you mentioned that it is very rare for an ECV to vote against the popular vote of the people in their state and/or district (depending on whether or not the state is an all-or-none ECV or allows state ECV to split ECVs)? Certainly you mentioned that each state's Congressional members are allowed to object to the ECV according to the laws defined in and by the Constitution?
*You state: "Now, I taught the class, no provision found in any law, state or federal; or in the Constitution requires any state official to determine whether the candidate for President is Constitutionally eligible for the job. None. The Constitution says, the Electors have to elect the President but remains silent as to vetting for Constitutional qualifications. The Constitution requires Congress to ratify the Electors’ vote for President but says nothing about verifying beforehand that the the person they elect is Constitutionally qualified for the job. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swears the President into office, under no Constitutional obligation to determine beforehand whether s/he was qualified for office.
And that led me to the states that require in order to get the candidate’s name printed on the ballot; s/he must be eligible for the job."
*Certainly you were more explicit about the contradictions you made in the above 2 paragraphs? It is my sense that you like to ignore state laws when they counteract your own personal opinions/beliefs/thoughts. It is my sense that you are purposefully obscuring the distinction between Constitutional and State laws when doing so supports your opinions/beliefs/thoughts and I will go so far at this point to say, agenda?
*You then state: "I described that some states enacted election laws that only allow the names of eligible candidates to be printed on state election ballots. And some of these states, like HI and SC, enacted laws saying the party must swear, in writing, their nominee for President meets all Constitutional qualifications for the job. (I point out; requiring this statement from the party is kind of superfluous because, according to the operating rules of the DNC Services Corporation, the Presidential nominee of the party must be Constitutionally qualified for the job. Then again, given their exhibited propensity to break their own rules…) I also reiterated, while the law says the candidate has to be eligible for the job to appear on the ballot, no corresponding law requires any government official to check.
*Certainly you discuss the RNC as a "Service Corporation"? Because when I read your description of the "DNC Service Corporation" and then see you state "their exhibited propensity to break their own rules", I sense that you are being purposely partisan in your explanation of electoral processes. But I ask the question in an effort to not jump to conclusions about the intellectual integrity of your lecture.
*You then state: "He advised people to direct their questions about the qualifications of candidates whose names appear on the ballot, to their state election officials. And he still didn’t answer the question. Now, a loud gasp rose up around the room. ‘What do you think that means?’ Without missing a beat, they blurted out, ‘That means they did check whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen; and he’s not!’"
*That seems to be a tremendous leap of logic that I would hope ANY teacher would correct. You give no indication in the above account that you discussed Obama's NBCship status, in whatever way you believe NBCship is legally defined (I don't feel it necessary to go into the NBCship argument since we won't agree nor will we change the other's mind.)
For your class to go from "He wasn't vetted and his citizenship wasn't confirmed" to saying that lack of confirmation means Obama isn't a NBC requires a leap of logic that I would hope you corrected. If I am reading you correctly, you said that you and some others that you know asked some officials if they confirmed Obama's citizenship (although that doesn't mean other officials did not, which could be implied by you students based on your explanation about the response you and a few others were given when you asked a handful of officials about the vetting process; but I digress).
I am a little lost as to how you dealt with the NBCship issue since it isn't discussed in your post; perhaps you didn't delve into the specifics of the NBCship controversy with your students based on lack of time. But I am stumped. How did your students come to the conclusion that Obama isn't qualified to be POTUS if you didn't discuss NBCship? Did you discuss NBCship? If so, did you just discuss you thoughts/beliefs/opinions or did you also discuss the controversy that exists about the issue? In other words, did you state a definition of NBCship (based on your t/b/o), or did you discuss the controversy in defining NBCship, if you discussed the issue at all?
I am sure that as you read my questions, I seem combative. That is really not my intent. My intent is to get to the issue of intellectual honesty and the professional political/religious objectivity that we as teachers all strive for.
While I disagree with you on this issue (and I have spent the past 17 months on this issue, as I suspect you have as well), my discomfort comes from my perceived interpretation that you were less than intellectually honest in your approach regarding this issue. The leap of logic you quote at the end of your post is one that I would hope any educator would correct or at the very least, explore.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with those who respectfully disagree with you regarding the big picture of this issue. I think it is incredibly sad that some of those who disagree with you have found it necessary to be rude and disrespectful to you on your own blog. As I have read your comment section, I am left with the belief that you don't moderate your blog based on disagreements. I appreciate and respect that. Many blogs that deal with this issue moderate unnecessarily (blogs from both sides of the issue).
Thank you for your willingness to have respectful discourse with those who are not like-minded. I wish that more of us who differ on this issue could do the same (with respectful posters ;o) ).
Hi Jbjd,Surprise, surprise, surprise, this post is not longer in moderation and is not posted!
This is my first post, and if I may I would like to ask several questions about your post. I find it to be quite interesting, and appreciate the writing quality of you posts. I apologize before hand for the length of this post; I find it helpful to quote particular parts of another’s post when asking questions.
To my questions.
(remainder of comment deleted in total by jbjd; see explanation below)
Elizabeth: You appear to have misunderstood the purpose of my post. By publishing this anecdote about my personal experience teaching a 45-minute unscripted impromptu lesson in American History to a class of 9th graders, I did not intend to invite a critique of the caliber of my instruction. Rather, I wanted to express to my readers that the simplicity of the fraud perpetrated by the DNC Services Corporation in the 2008 election cycle renders their misconduct apparent even to 9th graders.
Winnowing down the essential aspects of the tomes posted on my blog on the subject of the 2008 election cycle, to accommodate this high school arena necessarily required that, I leave some things out. Chronicling the event, I probably left out even more. But the answers to all of the questions you pose about general content are contained in these posts, on this blog uh, no, they are not! I wasn't asking about the eligibility issue, and explicitly said so!, both in the text and, in the podcasts linked to Revolution Radio, on the sidebar. (For example, read “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON” 1 & 2 to learn about faithless Electors, and the fact that none has ever been prosecuted for not voting for the party. And yes, personally, I differentiate between laws governing the internal operation of the party and, laws mandating standards for my general election ballot.) (You used the term Electoral College but, the Constitution does not use the term “College.”)
Finally, let me point out, I noticed, both your ‘take’ on this post; and that of ksdb, are strikingly similar in both content and style. (And you use the same internet provider.)
Thank you for your response.
First let me say that I only post under this username and would never use 2 usernames on a blog because, quite frankly, that is trolling. I may disagree with you, but I am not a troll, and my service provider, Qwest, is a major, multi-state service provider. In addition, I seriously doubt that ksdb, whom I do not know personally or online (this is the first time I have encountered ksdb’s username anywhere), lives remotely near me, which is easily located by IP#. Not knowing ksdb, I can’t say for certain that she/he doesn’t live near me, but I don’t live in a big state or a big city. As I look at ksdb’s comments, I do see that I have asked completely different questions. I do not feel like my post “strikingly similar” to ksdb’s. Since Jbdb edited my first post, there is no way for her readers to know that this isn't true.
I asked serious questions in an honest and forthright manner, never hiding my personal beliefs regarding the eligibility issue and never once was I rude or disrespectful. I had several questions about your lecture, and, as an educator myself, I can certainly understand time constraints in the classroom and the unpleasant necessity of impromptu lectures. Such is the life of a teacher. By the end of each term, I am glad if I get through 3/4ths of everything I want to cover!!
I don’t believe that I was trying to critique your teaching style. Rather, I was trying to get answers to questions in an effort to NOT judge your teaching style and get more info from you. As I said before, I am not interested in arguing over who is right regarding the eligibility issue; I simply had questions regarding your post.
I find it a bit disheartening that you are unwilling to discuss something you are so obviously proud of. Teaching is incredibly hard work. Why share such an experience but be closed to serious questions regarding that experience? Why go into so much detail if you don’t want to discuss the details?
The short version of my previous post:
1) Were you as critical about the RNC as you were the DNC?
2) Why do you use laws from the Constitution when convenient and then state laws when convenient? Isn’t such behavior a bit misleading to students?
3) How did your students make the leap of logic from “They didn’t check his qualifications” to “He isn’t a NBC” if you didn’t discuss the NBCship question?
4) Did you or would you have corrected such a leap in logic?
As a teacher, and a liberal, I and other teachers get unfairly stereotyped for “indoctrinating” or “misleading” students in regards to our political/religious beliefs. I am truly trying to not make a snap judgment about something you are proud of. My questions serve 2 purposes: to refrain from making judgments without more info, and to bring up the issue of intellectual honesty in the classroom. I am perplexed as to why such questions wouldn’t be worth discussing as an teacher to a teacher?
Your blog requests comments. Were my questions unfair; were they disrespectful; were the rude and inappropriate? As I stated before, it was not my intent to be disrespectful, rude or inappropriate.
I had hoped to have found someone who had different beliefs than mine that would have an interest in discussing the educational issues surrounding your lecture. That is still my sincere hope.
Jbdb. I am saddened by your lack of openness and the fact that you would moderate a post to such an extent. I am disappointed that I must interpret such editing of my post as admitting that you were intellectually unethical and pushed an agenda in your classroom. Such behavior reeks of desperation and dishonesty.
Your post, and my exchange with you will now become my primary example of intellectual dishonesty and unethical teaching in today's classrooms. My students would eat you for breakfast. They don't suffer hypocrites lightly. Nor should they. And nor should your 9th graders or your school district.
How utterly disappointing. I sincerely hoped for an interesting exchange with someone who doesn't think like I do.
And by the way, I really am not ksdb. Nor do I know ksdb, to my knowledge.