Republicans are against the stimulus bill. Why? Because it is “wasteful government spending.” Anyone see the utter irony in that? During the last eight years they have presided over the most prolific spending spree and largest increase in the national debt in our nations history. Tax cuts for big business and the rich, tax rebates for people who buy HUMMERS(!), etc… Now we need to spend money to save jobs. Not the fat cat executive jobs, but middle class jobs. And what does the Grand old Party say? “Nope. That is wasteful spending, and we are the party of fiscal responsibility. Give some more tax breaks to big business and they will make the jobs for us.” One problem (well there is a whole host of them, but here is an obvious one), tax breaks don’t really do much for a business (or peaople) when there isn’t much money coming in.

Contrary to what the right wants you to think, we are probably not going to spend enough on the stimulus. In an attempt to woo republican congressmen it has been stacked nearly half way with tax cuts. Most economists say tax cuts get you approximately ZERO bang for your buck. But we still put the tax cuts in there to appease the irrational elephant. And surprise surprise, they are still against it. They say screw the infrastructure spending we need more tax cuts. They complain about lack of bipartisanship, when nearly half the bill follows what they want. And every time they claim to worry about saddling our children with the bill I’d like to ask:  Who is picking up the bill for the last eight years and two wars?

They must have missed the last two elections. We voted against their failed policies. And I for one believe that they have gotten much more then they deserve in this stimulus bill.

So the same institutions that are teaching our children that they have the right to free speech are punishing them for exercising that right.  And what is this? Judges are supporting the SCHOOLS. What a beautiful country we live in.

I am amazed that this is an issue. Such a  well thought out argument for banning free speech of students online: “Off-campus speech can become on-campus speech with the click of a mouse.” But then, under that rationalization, anything can easily become on campus speech if you wrote it down and someone else brought it onto the campus. Might as well stop pretending that Constitution applies to students.

It’s particularly interesting that the speech she was punished for was criticism of the administrators. Granted, it was a little strongly worded, but isn’t this the exact type of thing the first amendment is supposed to protect?