Huge Week for Government and Gridiron

As Americans wake up to go to work on this Monday morning, many of them may not realize that this is a crucial week for our country. This Friday, March 4th, represents a deadline that could bring about the shutdown of two major institutions. One is something we love dearly, and the other is something we loathe, yet remains a necessary evil.

What Americans love dearly is the National Football League. Over the years, it has eclipsed baseball as the national pasttime, and now brings in approximately $9 billion in gross revenue per year. Unfortunately, how to divide that $9 billion between players and owners has become a major point of contention that threatens to postpone or even outright cancel the 2011 season.

Despite hours and hours of negotiating in front of a federal mediator over the past week, all sources are indicating that the two sides remain far apart. They will meet one last time today in what has to be considered the calm before the storm. If no agreement is reached, and I don't see how it possibly will, then NFL owners will decide tomorrow whether to lock players out for the 2011 season. On Thursday, the players will decertify as a union and look to seek an injunction against owners to prevent a lockout. Get ready, because this is going to get real messy rather quickly.

I said in previous blog posts that no agreement will be reached unless the players gave in. The owners are united in their stance, thanks to Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson, Robert Kraft, and Pat Bowlen, all of whom are driving the bus on the owners' labor relations committee. When Richardson stands up in front of his fellow owners and says, "It's time to take back our !$#@ing league," then it can't be a good sign of things to come.

I still firmly believe that the owners have the upper hand. They have been storing items in their war chest for some time in preparation for this moment, and are guaranteed television revenue in 2011, whether or not the games are actually played. Can we say the same for the players? Have all of them been putting money away so that they're in a position to hold out until their demands are met? I doubt it. Besides, the Antonio Cromarties of the NFL who desperately need money and health insurance to support their seven kids will be making a stink sooner or later.

Allow me to repeat my earlier prediction regarding the outcome of this debacle. Only two things can happen. Either the owners get what they want and save the 2011 season, or the players refuse to give in and there is no 2011 season. Those who claim that both sides will come together to work this out peacefully are in dreamland. They say, "There's too much money at stake." Yes, there is a lot of money at stake. And that is all the more reason to prolong the dispute.

The owners aren't worried about the short term. They have enough resources to hold out until 2012, so they're focused solely on working out a collective bargaining agreement that benefits them in the long term. They believe that they can outlast the players and are willing to play the waiting game. When all is said and done, they know that the fans will return next year. For them, cancelling the 2011 season is a small price to pay for getting what they want in the end.

Do you think they really care about the millions of people who rely on NFL games for seasonal jobs? Please. Will they have pity for the sports bars, sporting goods stores, and anyone else for whom the NFL is a major portion of their revenue? No way. What about fantasy football owners? Don't make me laugh. Expect union decertification by Thursday, followed by an injunction, followed by an ugly war of words leading to the possible cancellation of the 2011 season. I'll say it again. If players don't give in at some point, then start making other plans for Sundays in the fall.

So why else is March 4th so important? The institution we all love to hate, our wondrous federal government, will also be shutting down by this Friday if no deal is reached on the budget. Republicans and Democrats have been in a stalemate for some time, as the GOP keeps its pledge to make drastic spending cuts. Dems have railed against the cuts as irresponsible, and House Republicans are refusing to budge.

But unlike the NFL, this Friday will not bring doom and gloom for the nation's government. Just before the congressional recess last week, Senator John Kyl and Representative Paul Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee, made it clear that there will not be a shutdown. Sure enough, House Speaker Boehner just announced that he would extend an olive branch to the Democrats, allowing a two-week extension of the deadline. Although the extension would consist of cuts that are far less than the ones proposed for the remainder of the year, the Speaker made it clear that he was committed to the original budget proposal in the long run. The extension will be brought to the House floor for a vote some time tomorrow, and I'd say it's a foregone conclusion that it will pass overwhelmingly.

So the way I see it, the government will continue operating past this week, while the NFL will be shut down. I think I speak for millions of Americans when I say, "Too bad it isn't the other way around." Maybe at some point the roles will get reversed, but until then, the only punting, passing, and kicking we'll see will be in Washington.

Anti-Union Sentiment Has Democrats Running For Their Lives

Last year, the American people sent a strong message on Election Day that reverberated throughout our entire nation. Traditional blue states elected Republican governors. They also removed several Democrats from state legislatures, in some cases leaving the Republicans with a majority. The GOP picked up a number of seats in the U.S. Senate. And finally, the most telling sign of the people's sentiment was seen in the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republicans picked up 60 seats to give them an overwhelming majority. This even prompted President Obama to hold a somber press conference in which he said, "It feels bad," and referred to the results of the election as a "shellacking."

So what happened? What happened was that the economic crisis woke a sleeping giant. The majority of the American people, who seemingly always had a complacent attitude toward public employee unions and entitlement programs, finally realized what it was doing to our country. They were ignorant of what was going on while they earned comfortable salaries that easily covered the mortgage payments for their dream homes. But when the housing market crashed and millions of Americans lost their jobs, the political landscape of our country changed forever.

This isn't at all out of the ordinary. Often times, people tend to ignore problems until those problems begin to affect them. Who cares if the unions are using my recycled tax dollars to affect the outcome of elections? Who cares if Democratic politicians are aligning themselves with unions and catering to their every whim in exchange for votes? Who cares if millions of citizens and illegal immigrants are living off government entitlement programs, again supported by my tax dollars? None of it matters as long as I'm doing OK.

But then all of a sudden, the vast majority of Americans were no longer doing OK. In fact, they were doing far less than OK. They were losing their jobs, not able to pay the bills, and lost their homes in the process. The overwhelming pressure caused many a man to kill his wife and children and then commit suicide, giving rise to a new term: familycide.

And so, voters began to sit down and take a long hard look at what was going on all these years. They began to notice how Democratic politicians and the unions had been playing them like a fiddle. The public employees had all kinds of sweet deals going, and the Dems made those deals even sweeter whenever they needed votes. We had reached a point in history where public employees, when you factor in their benefit packages, were doing far better than the average worker in the private sector. Their jobs were also far more secure, while private companies were laying people off left and right. Finally, the people had come to the realization that it was all extremely unfair.

It is this realization that led to the revolution we are now witnessing. Governor Christie got the ball rolling here in New Jersey and quickly rose to national prominence as a result. His fiercest battle thus far has been with the teachers' union, and the latest poll numbers show that he is winning this battle decisively. While fifty-two percent of voters view him favorably and approve of the job he is doing, only twenty-seven percent have a favorable view of the NJEA. By a margin of almost two to one, the people of New Jersey are behind the governor's agenda.

Republican Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin was elected in the bluest of blue states despite promising to take up the flag against unions throughout his entire campaign. His approval numbers continue to hold at fifty-two percent as well, while an unprecedented number of protesters camp out at the Capitol. The Democrats in the state legislature have fled to Illinois to deny the quorum needed to pass his anti-union legislation. While I find this move disgusting, revolting, lower than low, and a cowardly breach of democracy, I will concede one point: they had no choice.

Democrats all around the country are in a very precarious position. They have been in bed with the unions for what seems like forever, and are too firmly entrenched with them to escape. As anti-union sentiment grows, the fiscally conservative Republicans get more and more opportunities to capitalize on. But the only recourse for the Dems is to flee. They can't bite the hand that has been feeding them for decades, and they can't win the battle against public opinion. All they can do is run and hide.

While they have prolonged the fight as long as possible by resorting to their last option, I just don't see how it can end well for them. Sooner or later, something has to happen. There has been talk within the Tea Party of mounting a recall effort against Democratic legislators who fly the coop to prevent a quorum. Governors can play hardball by issuing layoff notices to thousands of public employees. They can simply state that the Democrats, by fleeing the state and neglecting their duties as public servants, forced their hand and left them with no choice. The Dems who are in hiding will then have to decide between holding out and watching their beloved union members lose their jobs, or returning and allowing the anti-union legislation to be passed. To me, that sounds like a lose-lose situation.

Now empowered by the people, Republicans throughout the country clearly have the upper hand. I don't see that changing any time soon, because despite what many want to believe, the economy is not bouncing back all that quickly. Oil prices are skyrocketing, and this past week saw a global sell-off of stocks that caused the Dow Jones to take a beating. Unemployment is still way too high, and orders for manufactured goods recently fell by the largest amount in two years. Let's face the reality, folks: this economy is not going to fully recover for quite some time.

And that, my friends, bodes very well for Republicans. Until the economy bounces back and unemployed Americans return to work, voters will continue to lash out at public employee unions. Should this issue continue into late 2012, and I happen to think it will, the GOP is primed for a complete takeover of the U.S. government. They'll hold their majority in the House, take back the Senate, and drive Obama out of the White House to seize the much-coveted triple crown. All they need to do is stand their ground and do what the people elected them to do. That's a much easier task than that which the Democrats have ahead of them. To them I say, "Good luck." They're going to need it.

Raising Arizona

Late last night, an Arizona Senate panel passed sweeping reforms that would target illegal immigrants in public housing, benefits, and the workplace. In response to this measure, I have only one thing to say: it's about time.

Earlier in the day, the same panel had already approved a bill to deny automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. That one is sure to be challenged and head all the way to the Supreme Court at some point. The rest of the legislation exerts more pressure on employers to check the eligibility of new hires, requires schools to collect information on the legal status of their students and report those who are in the country illegally, makes it illegal for illegal immigrants to drive in the state, and requires public agencies to verify the status of renters.

As usual, the left is up in arms over the proposed legislation, labeling it racist and discriminatory. But I applaud the Arizona State Senate for refusing to fold under that type of liberal moral elitism. To the left, if you're against gay marriage, then you're "homophobic." If you're pro-life, then you're a sexist infringing on women's rights. If you're against affirmative action, then you're a racist. If you're against illegal immigration, then you're also a racist. They've resorted to these tactics for years, and have often been very successful with them.

But when are people around the country, and the federal government for that matter, going to understand the plight of Arizona's citizens? They deal with tens of thousands of illegal immigrants flooding their state each year. Ciudad Juarez has become a war zone, with entire police departments resigning their jobs in fear for their lives. Violence has spilled over to our side of the border, with our agents being attacked and even killed. Yet Janet Napolitano continues to blow sunshine up the butts of Arizonans, and the federal government still neglects their responsibility to secure the border.

What choice then do they have? Many of Arizona's citizens have been the victims of crime at the hands of illegal immigrants. Some have even been murdered by them, though you won't hear much about that from the liberal media. The state pays $2.7 billion per year to provide illegals with education, healthcare, and other entitlement programs, and to provide for those who are incarcerated. It is a travesty of justice if ever there was one.

How can a state be expected to bear such a burden? Even in better economic times, spending $2.7 billion on illegals was a huge strain on the taxpayers. But now that we're enduring a global financial crisis, it is a colossal stone around their necks that will surely cause Arizona to sink all the way to the bottom.

I will never be able to understand the logic of those who are in favor of amnesty for illegals, especially given the current state of our economy. Americans are struggling to put food on the table. They have dealt with salary cuts and loss of benefits. Many millions, myself included, have lost their jobs. Yet we are still expected to support illegal immigrants, people who have broken our laws to enter our country, with our tax dollars? Can someone please explain how that makes sense???

The federal government has dropped the ball big time, leaving Arizona with no choice but to act on their own. They have shown great moral courage in approving this legislation, and I hope that it passes and becomes law very soon. Sure, they'll be vilified by the liberal press and hypocrites everywhere who don't have to face the issues Arizonans are facing. But it's a very small price to pay for saving your state.

Arizona will provide the litmus test for whether this legislation will hold up in court. If it does, then there are sure to be other states that will follow Arizona's example. Just as New Jersey is blazing the trail for the battle against unions, so Arizona can set the path for saving America from the scourge of illegal immigrants. They've been riding the gravy train long enough. It's time for that train to come to a complete stop and let everybody off.

Kean University Stands up to Teachers' Union

There is absolutely no question that Governor Chris Christie has started a trend. By standing up to unions over the past year and garnering excellent approval ratings for doing so, other politicians have boldly followed suit, especially the GOP governors who were elected back in November. Now, Christiemania (my newly coined word) is spreading to public universities as well.

Let me start by presenting you with a hypothetical situation. Imagine you're looking for a job, and I have an opening. You ask me to describe the job to see if you'd be interested and I begin by telling you that you're not required to report at a certain time, nor are you required to stay in the office until a certain time. You don't even have to come in every day. There's no official dress code, and you get a lot of time off.  There's a one-month break at Christmastime, a week-long break in the spring, and you don't have to work for the entire summer if you don't want to. From mid-May to September, you can do what you wish. You'll even get all your paid holidays as well.

Wait, there's more. Want to take a free trip? If you see an interesting conference in San Diego, Miami, or Las Vegas, just let your boss know. Fill out the required paperwork, get the approval, and soon you're on a plane flying toward your destination, all at the company's expense.

Not sold yet? Well, wait until you hear this. If you can hang in there and do a good job for six years, then the job is yours for life. Unless of course you do something drastic like murder one of your co-workers. Then we may not be able to keep you on board.

Are you thinking this is a part-time job? It's not. This is a full-time position with a full-time salary and excellent benefits. Kick in 5% of your salary toward your 401(k) and we'll throw in 8%. You'll pay only 2.5% of your health insurance premiums, and for an excellent health plan at that.

So now, only one question remains. Are you interested in becoming a professor at a public university in New Jersey?

Granted, not just anyone can qualify for the job. You'll need a Ph.D., at least if you're applying to a four-year college or university. That's no small feat, as it costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time, effort, and sacrifice. Take it from someone who has done it.

But if you are able to persevere and finish the degree, then you can qualify for this sweet deal. It's easily one of the top ten jobs on the planet, especially if you attain tenure.

Now that the table is set, let's get to the meal. President Dawood Farahi of Kean University recently announced that all faculty will have to sign weekly timesheets. The reason? He wants to make sure that all of them are working the required 35 hours per week to qualify for full benefits. This is a state requirement, and apparently Dr. Farahi (pronounced fuh-rye) has some suspicions as to whether all members of the faculty are fulfilling it.

Needless to say, the Kean Federation of Teachers is up in arms. How dare they be forced to sign timesheets. How belittling it is to treat scholars like "19th century factory workers," as the union president put it. Please. You've got to be joking.

There's no question that many professors work very, very hard. They teach overloads (i.e., courses beyond their required teaching load), make themselves available to students beyond their normal office hours, never turn down the chance to serve on a committee, and strive to publish scholarly articles to elevate the university's reputation. They are to be commended.

But then we also have the tenured faculty who do not work very hard. They teach the bare minimum, don't extend themselves to students, travel as much as they can, are renowned for scheduling guest lecturers or even cancelling classes outright, shun committee work, and focus on outside activities like consulting to maximize their income. Drawing on over a decade of experience in higher education, I can assure you that there are plenty of professors who do not work 35 hours a week.

Like other teachers' unions across the country, the Kean Federation of Teachers needs to get with the program. The days of public employees receiving special privileges are over. Gone forever. It's time for them to get more in line with employees in every other profession. Don't even give me that nonsense about accepting a lower salary, because salaries in the private sector are no longer significantly greater than those in the public sector. We are in a financial crisis, and everyone across the board needs to pony up. If a public employee doesn't like that concept, then they can always quit and make room for someone else who is desperately seeking a job.

I applaud President Farahi for holding Kean faculty accountable for their actions and making sure that taxpayer money is being spent responsibly. They're complaining about signing timesheets when millions of other Americans are out of work, losing their homes, and barely able to support their families? Give me a break. As one of those millions, I wish I had the opportunity to sign that weekly timesheet.

I hope that President Farahi stands his ground, and that other university presidents follow suit. The days of caving to unions are quickly coming to an end, as the pendulum is swinging further in the direction of the taxpayers. Governor Christie is the one who started rolling this stone downhill, and it continues to gain speed and momentum. Look out, unions. Christiemania is running wild!

Chaos in the Streets

If you have viewed the website for any news organization over the past few weeks, then chances are you have seen or read a story about civil unrest. Even today when I visited the website for Fox News, the main headline was all about chaos in the capital, protestors storming government buildings, and politicians fleeing the area. Only this story wasn't about Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Jordan, Libya, or Tunisia. It was about the great state of Wisconsin, right here in the midwestern United States.

Yes, you read that right. The same political protests that we thought were only happening in the Middle East have begun to occur right here in America. Even having their beloved Green Bay Packers win this year's Super Bowl hasn't stopped the people of Wisconsin from venting their anger.

So why is it happening? Wisconsin is actually the birthplace of collective bargaining, making it one of the most unionized states in the country. For the last century, unions have held the upper hand in negotiations, just as they have in other states that are now in fiscal trouble. But tough times call for drastic measures, and Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker, is looking to cut his state's deficit through pension reform and forcing public workers to contribute more to their health premiums. Sound familiar?

Only Walker is looking to take things a step further, even further than the intrepid Chris Christie. He is aiming to eliminate collective bargaining altogether, and that has sparked a furor that has resulted in his placing National Guard troops on standby. It has even garnered the attention of President Obama, who has publicly stated his support for the unions. But kudos to Walker for standing up to him, advising the anointed one that he needs to focus on balancing his own budget, which he is a long ways away from accomplishing.

The photos online are daunting. Take a look if you haven't already. Protesters standing shoulder to shoulder on every level of the Capitol, seemingly ready to explode if they don't get what they want. State troopers everywhere, standing tall with their arms crossed, ready to spring into action if needed. It has all the makings of a disaster waiting to happen.

A couple of months ago, I expressed my concerns that this would happen in my post titled "The New Europe?" After the riots that occurred last year in the streets of Greece, Italy, France, and Great Britain, I put forth the idea that Europe may only be one step ahead of us. Those riots were rooted in the government taking back entitlements, and as state governments here faced mountains of debt and massive budget deficits, you knew it was only a matter of time before they started taking entitlements back as well.

Christ Christie led the way, and now Walker, several other new Republican governors, and even Democrat Andrew Cuomo of New York are following his lead. What choice do they have? It's either keep spending the way they're spending and run out of money, or endure painful cuts to help stave it off.

As I write this post, Governor Walker has been asked by Republicans in the State Senate to send state troopers to force their Democratic colleagues back to the Capitol. They have fled the area and are in hiding, all in an effort to boycott the proposed legislation. According to Fox News, the troopers are actually en route.

Could this be just the beginning? Will there be more protests like this nationwide as states do everything they can to cut spending? I would answer that question with a resounding "yes." Just as the unrest in Egypt gave rise to revolts in neighboring countries, there is no reason to think that protests in the land where collective bargaining began will not spread to other states where unions perceive their rights as being trampled on.

Believe me when I tell you, there are people throughout our country who are loving this. Van Jones and his cronies have been calling for a socialist revolt for some time, and would rejoice in seeing a major uprising unfold. Proponents of wealth distribution who despise the rich want to see millions of people march and clamor for their supposed rightful share. To me, the scariest part is that I cannot say with any fair amount of certainty that it won't happen.

So what will the outcome be in Wisconsin? I'm sure it's safe to say that if the legislation doesn't pass, there will be a raucous cheer emanating from the walls of the Capitol. Protesters will leave peacefully, mission having been accomplished. But what if the legislation doesn't pass? Will they merely leave angry, chanting nasty things about the governor? Or will they riot, creating an ugly scene that's sure to be televised throughout the entire world? Let's face it. As Americans, we like to consider ourselves more civilized and cut from a different cloth than those who have led political revolts in other parts of the world. But are we?

Even if we get through the Wisconsin crisis unscathed, what happens when food prices begin to sharply increase? What happens when the price of gasoline skyrockets in the next few months, as several analysts have predicted? What happens when the people who have had their entitlements taken away really begin to feel the pinch?

How I wish I had the answers to those questions. Of course I want to believe that things will remain civil. I'd like to think that people will not be beaten or even killed in our streets. I'd like to think that news reporters will not be brutally attacked and sexually assaulted. I'd like to think that our military will not have to be dispatched in order to keep the peace.  But the fact is that no one can say for sure what will happen. And that is what has to be the most unsettling part for all of us.

Here's to hoping that sanity prevails, that unions everywhere begin to understand the gravity of the situation and do their part to save our states from economic armageddon. If they don't, then batten down the hatches and prepare for the worst. America is on the verge of becoming the next frontier in the war of economic uncertainty.

Christie Tackles Tenure

Yesterday, in a speech at Princeton University in front of several educational leaders throughout the state, the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, Christopher Cerf, unveiled Governor Christie's new plan to reform the tenure system in public education. It will set up a new rating scale whereby teachers will be evaluated by their superiors as "highly effective," "effective," "partially effective," or "ineffective."  Instead of teachers being automatically granted tenure by surviving three years and a day in their positions, they will have to earn it by achieving a rating of "highly effective" or "effective" for three straight years.

The plan has evoked strong reactions from both those who support the governor's position and those who are diametrically opposed to it. Needless to say, the NJEA is accusing the governor of launching an all-out assault on teachers. But having attended one of the governor's town hall meetings, I know exactly where he is coming from and why he is doing what he's doing.

At his town hall meeting in Paramus, Governor Christie picked two people from the audience. He said to them, "Imagine that I'm your principal and you're both teachers in my school." Then he went on to praise one of them as being a highly effective teacher who deserves all the credit in the world for the job she's doing. "For that," he said, "you get a pat on the back and a 4% raise."

Then he looked at the other and said, "You, on the other hand, have been highly ineffective in the classroom." He emphasized to the audience that this person had tenure in the school district. After laying out his concerns and criticisms, he said to her, "For this, you get a pat on the back and a 4% raise."

His point was crystal clear. Tenure rewards bad teachers and treats the good ones unfairly. The governor went on to say that he is more concerned about the good ones than the lousy ones. Why? Because if they see that the lousy ones are getting the same raises and the same rewards as they are for doing inferior work, then they might become discouraged. They might say, "Why am I busting my butt when so-and-so does nothing and gets the same raises I do?" It's understandable why anyone in that position would stop going that extra mile for the kids and start doing the bare minimum to get by. They may even leave the teaching profession altogether.

Let me state very clearly that there are many tenured teachers who never stop working hard and never fail to bend over backwards for their students. But unfortunately, there are many who don't, and these are the ones who give tenured teachers a bad name.

When I went through the doctoral program in educational leadership at Seton Hall University, I made it a point to do research on the subject of tenure. I was curious about what the findings were, and whether studies had been done to examine whether or not tenure had an impact on the quality of education. The answer to that question was a resounding "yes," though there was some disagreement on what that impact was. Let's take a brief look at the two heavy hitters who went head to head on this subject.

In one corner, you have Dr. Walter Metzger, a renowned professor emeritus at Columbia University. His findings indicated that tenure had a positive impact on the quality of education. He concluded that the job security associated with tenure enabled educators to teach freely on subjects they might otherwise be afraid to introduce to their students. Throughout his career, he was widely considered the most ardent defender of tenure in the United States.

In the other corner, you have Dr. James O'Toole, who for many years served as the Chairman of the Department of Business Management at the University of Southern California. He concluded that tenure rewarded instructors who were ineffective, and also forced non-tenured teachers to submit to their tenured colleagues and be deathly afraid of making waves.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but I take O'Toole's side for one major reason. Metzger was a devout liberal who decried McCarthyism and loyally served in both the ACLU and AAUP for many, many years. He was a huge proponent of unions, and there is no question that if he were alive today, he would be firmly entrenched in the camp of Barbara Keshishian and her cronies at NJEA.

If there's one thing you learn while completing a Ph.D., it's that researchers can easily manipulate their findings according to their ideology. Don't get me wrong. I am not accusing Metzger of unethical practices, but no one can tell me that he didn't tailor his research to help support his own liberal views.

Now put yourself in O'Toole's position. He was a tenured professor who reaped all the benefits of the system. Yet he critcized it as unfair and ineffective. Does that sound like bias to you? Again, draw your own conclusions.

Throughout my many years in education, I have come to form strong views on tenure based on a) my research and b) my experience. During my stints in both K-12 and higher education, I witnessed teachers, administrators, and professors who slacked off once they attained tenure. It was as if a whole new person emerged, one that could never have been sensed before. And they had every reason for slacking I suppose, simply because tenure made it all but impossible to remove them from their positions.

As taxpayers who pay the highest property tax rate in the entire country, New Jerseyans should be appalled that their hard-earned money goes toward supporting subpar educators who put themselves on cruise control once they get tenured. I've seen many educators who were adept at fooling their superiors for three years before showing their true colors. Once the cat was out of the bag, they became a chronic headache for which there was no cure. I can name several boards of education that have assigned ineffective administrators to performing mundane tasks with vague titles such as "Manager of Special Projects." For this, they often receive salaries well in excess of $100,000 per year.

I am pro-education and pro-teacher. Always have been and always will be. But the teaching profession needs to get in line with the rest of the world, where there is no tenure, no sweet pension deals, and workers contribute a good amount of money toward their health insurance premiums. The teachers who are crying about Governor Christie's agenda always have a choice. They can leave and do something else with their lives if they're no longer going to be happy.

One thing I know for certain is that we have thousands of people across the state who are looking to get into teaching. The NJEA is full of it when they say that Christie's reforms will drive people away from the profession. I can't even begin to tell you how many people in New Jersey have completed the first phase of alternate route teacher certification only to have to drop out of the program. Why? Because you need a job to go on and complete the rest of the phases. And so they are waiting patiently in the wings for something to open up, as are several college graduates from both 2009 and 2010 who still don't have a full-time teaching position.

The time has come for the tenure system to be reformed and put in line with the way that other jobs in society are evaluated. It certainly won't drive away the highly effective educators. In fact, it will give them all the more reason to stay. The dinosaurs who refuse to change their lesson plans from one year to the next and keep holding on to earn their high salaries and pad their pensions will be forced to retire. This will open up jobs for younger, more energetic aspiring teachers who are eager to bring their idealism into the classroom and make a difference in kids' lives. The bad teachers who are not yet of retirement age will be forced to shape up or get shipped out. Either of those results will only improve the overall quality of education. It's a win-win situation all around. Once again, the governor is to be applauded for taking a stand and initiating a bold reform that is much needed and long overdue. Time to teach those tenured slackers a lesson.

Governor Christie Versus the Unions: Round Two

Here we go again, folks. Are you ready? If so, then ring the bell. Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding. Let's get ready to rumble!

After spending his entire first year in office battling the New Jersey Education Association, the governor is putting the gloves on again for his next round. This time though, he'll be squaring off with the unions that represent 49,000 other state employees whose contracts will be expiring in June. Among them are the Communications Workers of America, which represents the vast majority of these employees.

It's hard not to think that negotiations are going to get pretty ugly. When you look at what the governor is planning to do, there's no way we can possibly expect for the unions to just roll over and play dead. Christie has already made a commitment set in stone that there will be no pay increases for state workers. On top of that, he wants to increase pension contributions for all employees to 8.5% of their salary, require them to pay 30% of their healthcare premiums, raise the retirement age to 65, and eliminate cost-of-living adjustments for pension recipients.

Let there be no doubt that the unions are well aware that negotiations this time around will be in stark contrast to those of the past. Generally speaking, negotiations usually begin the year before a contract expires. But union leaders have yet to have any discussions with the governor's office, having been told that they'll have to wait until Christie's budget presentation next week. Thus they're already nervous about having a deal in place by June, and they are afraid to say anything that might rile a bold leader who fearlessly went toe to toe with the NJEA.

The governor has all of the momentum going into the negotiations. Having served his first full year in office, his approval rating just soared to 52%. He has become a national celebrity for the conservative movement, with videos of his town hall meetings garnering thousands of hits on YouTube. He has even received consideration as a presidential candidate, finishing with 6% of the vote in the recent CPAC straw poll. This happened even though Christie didn't attend the conference and has said time and time again that he has no interest in the presidency at this point.

In the meantime, New Jersey voters continue to hold an unfavorable view of state workers' unions. The poll numbers are staggering. Fifty-six percent of voters want to see state workers laid off to balance the budget. Sixty-five percent are in favor of furloughs. Sixty-six percent want pensions reduced, while an overwhelming seventy-seven percent support salary freezes. Sixty-eight percent back the governor's cap on salaries for school superintendents.

While the voters clearly support teachers by a margin of 62-17 percent, they have a highly unfavorable view of the NJEA (44-27 percent). By an even wider margin, (52-36 percent), the poll respondents said that the union plays a negative role in improving education.

So when are the unions going to get it? They cry about their situations and plead for public sympathy. They say that increasing contributions toward pensions and health benefits while freezing salaries basically amounts to a pay cut. They claim it's all a major miscarriage of justice. Poor things. Want sympathy? You'll get none from the majority of voters, and even less from me.

These people, especially tenured teachers whose jobs are secure, should get down on their knees and thank God every day that they're not in the unemployment line. They're worried about salary freezes? Contributing 8.5% to pensions? Paying 30% of their healthcare premiums? OK, then. Take a look at my situation and let's see how much right they have to complain.

Up until last year, I had a prestigious state job as a director in academic affairs at a public university. Life was good. I made just under six figures, and had an extremely generous benefits package. Then, it all changed at the drop of a hat. The governor handed down $174 million in cuts to funding for higher education. My university leaders sat down and took a long, hard look at the budget to see what they could cut to offset the loss in funding. In the end, my position was one of the casualties. Come July 1, 2010, I was officially out of work.

My income level was cut by two-thirds. I was deemed eligible to collect $600 per week in unemployment benefits, which amounts to $31,200 over the course of one year. Come to think of it, that is actually less than one-third of what I was making. Healthcare premiums? I had been contributing 2.5% of my salary toward my health insurance, which amounted to almost $2,500 per year. To simplify it, let's just say it was costing me $200 per month. Now, I am paying $647.92 per month for my health insurance. And that is just for one single person. I'd hate to even think of what it would cost me if I had a family.

So to put this into perspective, my income level decreased by more than two-thirds and the cost of my health insurance more than tripled. How's that for a wonderful combination? Oh, and it gets better. Let's talk about pensions. The unions are crying about having to contribute 8.5% of their salaries. I was contributing 10%, while the state was putting in another 8%. Thus 18% of my annual salary was going toward my retirement savings. Now that's gone too. I have lost nearly a full year of employment, and may even lose more if I can't find a job by July. That's at least one more year that I'll have to work in order to make up for the lost wages. The unions are upset about raising the retirement age to 65? I'll be lucky if I retire by 70 at the rate things are going.

Now that I've given you insight into my current living situation, I'm sure you understand why I am supporting Governor Christie one-hundred percent in this tug of war. Heck, if I could, I would volunteer myself to be his anchor. Every time another union leader opens his mouth, it makes my blood boil.

So what will the final result be? I think it's safe for me to predict that there is absolutely no chance of the governor backing down. He sees that the majority of New Jerseyans back him in his fight with the unions, so he has no reason to worry. For him, it's another test, another chance to show voters that he has the stomach to stand up to the bullies and do what is right. If he compromises in any way, he'll look weak and hurt his image. Thus I believe that he'll tell the unions, "This is it, take it or leave it." If they leave it, then he can always take the legislative route. There is no reason why he can't implement reforms to state pensions and health benefits through legislation. If the unions want to play hardball, then he'll have no problem delivering a little chin music with a 100 mph heater.

I am rooting hard for the governor in these negotiations, and I have the utmost confidence that he'll come out on top. Having been out of work for eight months now, I honestly do not want to see state workers laid off. I now know firsthand how difficult it can be to lose one's job. Sometimes it can be discouraging to know that you're not making an active contribution to society, and it can make you question your self-worth. But state workers have to get real and understand that we're in a dire economic situation. Accepting pay freezes, increasing pension contributions, and putting out one-third of the cost of your healthcare premiums is not too much to ask. They have to consider all of the New Jerseyans who, like me, are in a far worse situation. They have to begin to grasp that we're headed straight off a cliff if we don't get our fiscal house in order. Or they could simply choose to remain stubborn and maintain their public image as the state's first and foremost villain. Union leaders, the choice is yours. Do the right thing, or the governor is going to do it for you.

Another Town Hall, Another Emotional Exchange

In case you missed it, Governor Christie's town hall meeting in Union City last week produced yet another emotional exchange. This one wasn't combative, not in the least. Instead, it was very moving and tugged at the heartstrings. If you haven't seen it, then I highly recommend that you go to my wall on Facebook. Just scroll down a little bit and you'll see the link. Trust me, it's well worth seven minutes of your time.

During the question and answer session, a young single mother from Newark took the microphone and practically begged the governor to help her. Her sixth-grade son, Isaac, was struggling in school. She was raising him all alone in Newark's tough Central Ward, working to support them both. One day, Isaac's teacher called to inform her that her son was not doing well with his grades. The mother, whose name was Yvonne, assured the teacher that she would spend extra time working with Isaac on his homework. According to her, she spent 3-4 hours every night working with her son to get him up to speed.

But in the end, it got him nowhere. Yvonne was just spinning her wheels, for Isaac's academic performance did not improve one iota. She even pulled him out of public school and placed him in a private school. But that didn't help either. It was at this point that Yvonne was informed by Isaac's teacher that they now believed he was suffering from dyslexia. Since the private school did not have the resources to help him, the teacher suggested that Yvonne place Isaac back in public school and access the resources needed to assist her son.

So she did, but Yvonne received a rude awakening when she contacted the Newark Public Schools' Office of Special Education. Upon inquiring about resources for children with dyslexia, she was supposedly told, "We don't have anything like that." Now left with nowhere to turn, Yvonne decided to attend the governor's town hall meeting to see if she could solicit the governor's assistance.

Apparently she had done her homework, for she cited that the Newark Public Schools were receiving approximately $85 million from both the state and federal governments to help children with special needs. Her sincere emotional plea that followed is enough to bring tears to anyone's eyes. Yvonne begged for help, telling the governor that Isaac was her only son, that raising him in the inner city and keeping him on the straight and narrow was a difficult task, and that she did not want to lose him.

Then it was Governor Christie's turn to speak. You can imagine what he said, so I'll just leave the rest for you to hear in the last five minutes of the video clip. Let's just say that I would not have wanted to be anywhere near Newark's Office of Special Education last week.

Amazing. How is this even possible? Granted, we're assuming that everything this woman said was true. There's always a chance that she's lying, or at least stretching the truth. But if you listen to her voice on the tape, you can't help but believe the sincerity of her tone during her emotional plea. Unless she has a background in acting, I buy every word she said.

Through my many years of working in education, I have extensive experience dealing with the Newark Public Schools. In the program I ran at Saint Peter's College, we had more teachers from Newark than from any other school district. The stories I heard would knock your socks off, and all of them came straight from the horse's mouth. I also collaborated with Newark on a professional development program for their teachers when I worked at New Jersey City University.

There's no question that Newark, as well as other large urban districts in the state, faces unique challenges in educating its students. I am well aware of those challenges. I know that there are plenty of children attending these schools who return home to a horrific situation. Gang violence and drug dealers in their neighborhoods. Parents who don't care, or may even be drug addicts themselves. Parents who are incarcerated. It's like starting out in life with two strikes against you, and I can't even imagine what life is like for these children.

But you have to give the governor credit for refusing to accept excuses. He stated in the video that the folks in Newark continuously tell him that the parents just don't care, and that the schools can't do it all themselves. But then he pointed to Yvonne and said that she is living proof that not all parents in Newark are indifferent to their children's education. There's no question that he's right. Even in the roughest neighborhoods of the inner city, you will find parents who care and are trying their best to give their kids a chance in life.

These are the kids that the governor does not want to lose. He believes that they can be saved, that they can have the same opportunities to pursue their dreams that suburban students have. At the town hall meeting that I attended last month, he used the example of Robert Treat Academy. Robert Treat Academy is a charter school in Newark where children have demonstrated levels of achievement comparable to kids in the wealthiest school districts. Their scores on standardized tests are nothing short of stellar. When the governor sees what is happening at Robert Treat, he sees hope for all inner city kids.

Governor Christie provided a brief explanation of how they're doing it, with longer school days and a longer school year. Teachers at Robert Treat do not get tenure, which in his mind motivates them to work harder. It all makes for a heartwarming story, but sadly the governor knows that this same story can't play out at the rest of Newark's public schools. Why? Because the teachers' union will not go for any of the policies in place at Robert Treat.

And so the government continues to throw money at the district in the hope that it will solve the problem. But the practice of "flooding," as it was once called, has never worked effectively. The more money you throw at a district, the more it gets wasted. Funds intended to help children with dyslexia, like Isaac, now get applied to other areas. In some cases, it may even go toward buying the administrators bigger desks and more comfortable chairs. Sadly, there have been plenty of instances around the state where funds have been misallocated or even stolen. How terrible is that, for taxpayer money intended to help educate children to go toward lining the pockets of the educators themselves?

It's just a sad fact that the more money there is, the more abuse that takes place. One need look no further than our federal government for evidence of that. The waste that has built up over the years has resulted in a $14 trillion deficit. $14 trillion. And now we're on the brink of hitting our debt ceiling and possibly headed for another government shutdown. Unbelievable.

In the end, the governor assured Yvonne that Isaac would get the help he needs. They took her contact information and Gov. Christie promised to call the Commissioner of Education the minute he got back in Trenton. I would love to know the final result, because I can all but assure you that some heads rolled over this one. When the state government is handing the Newark Public Schools $800 million in total aid per year, situations like Yvonne's are completely inexcusable.

But as the governor pointed out, he can't fix these problems one at a time. As gratifying as it might be to see Isaac get the help he needs, there are thousands of Yvonnes and Isaacs throughout the state who are in a similar predicament. How can we reach them? How can we give them the assistance they so desperately need?

It really irks me when liberals try to paint Gov. Christie as a man who doesn't care about kids. If you could have been at the town hall that I attended in Paramus, or even if you just view this seven-minute video clip, you will have seen a man who cares very deeply about the children of New Jersey. But he is facing two enormous challenges in improving education. The first one is our state's huge deficit. Failure to cut spending will lead to our state going bankrupt some time in the next decade, so there's no way to turn the tide without biting the bullet. The second one has to do with the teachers' union. Whereas the NJEA puts teachers first, the governor is putting kids first. He is fighting the good fight, but it remains to be seen if he can emerge victorious from this epic tug of war.

In the meantime, we have to do something. If I were in Gov. Christie's place, I'd immediately appoint a task force to sit down with Newark's Office of Special Education. The task force should consist of people with a strong background in school finance (preferably well-respected, retired school business administrators) and several others who have the requisite expertise in special education. I'd want to know exactly what is happening with the $85 million that the state is sending to Newark exclusively for children with special needs. Why isn't there a program for students with dyslexia, especially if it affects approximately one in five kids? The state government and we, the taxpayers, have the right to know.

I've said many times that I am proud of the fact that I voted for Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey. I become even more proud by the day when I witness exchanges like the one that occurred at his last town hall meeting. Those who disparage him do so with ignorance, for if they took the time to hear him speak, they'd know his true intentions. Instead, the unions prefer to lambaste him, ridiculing him for being overweight, depicting him as being anti-education, and wishing for his death. It's sad, really.

Because of my background, I have many, many friends in education. Needless to say, not all of them see eye to eye with me when it comes to Governor Christie's agenda. But a couple of them actually attended the town hall last week. Later, they contacted me to admit that they now had a much better understanding of who this man really is and what he stands for. Though they didn't change their convictions after listening to him speak, they realized why he was doing what he was doing. They left Union City with a different view of the governor, and respected him far more than they did before. If only the rest of New Jersey's educators would give him the same opportunity. If they did, then maybe they too would learn something.

Catholic Schools Dying a Slow and Painful Death

Just this past week, it was announced that two more Catholic schools in my hometown of Jersey City would be shutting their doors for good. Despite merging a few years ago, St. Patrick's and Assumption-All Saints School can no longer sustain their finances. Two legends of Jersey City, Father Francis Schiller and Sister Maeve McDermott, have managed to keep the school open all this time through skillful, innovative fund-raising. But both will be retiring this year, and that is what ultimately sealed the fate of the K-8 school that has stood at the intersection of Bramhall Ave. and Grand St. for exactly 100 years.

Also closing their doors will be St. Mary's High School, located in Jersey City's downtown section. The school was already on life support, barely getting by with enough students to justify its existence. But when a recent open house brought only 15 registrants, it was clear that there was no way St. Mary's could remain open.

And so the trend continues. With each passing year, more and more Catholic schools have to either a) merge with another school or schools in order to remain open, or b) close up shop altogether. It's not something that just happened overnight. The decline in enrollment has been evolving slowly but surely for the past several decades.

I come from three generations of relatives who attended Catholic school in Jersey City. My grandfather was a proud graduate of St. Paul's grammar school in the Greenville section, class of 1926. My mother and her two brothers also attended Saint Paul's, and I actually enrolled there for first grade in 1976. Only when my family moved to the west side of Kennedy Boulevard did the tradition end, as we now resided in another parish with its own school. Thus my parents enrolled me in Our Lady of Mercy grammar school in 1977, and I would be there from second through eighth grade, making all my sacraments before finally graduating in 1984.

The stories my grandfather and mother would share with me frightened me to death. They'd tell of priests and nuns who would smack you in the head if you so much as stepped out of line in the hallway. If you got caught chewing gum, then you'd have to wear it on your nose for the rest of the school day. The nuns teaching in the classroom would march up and down the aisles with a yardstick in hand, ready to whack the first student who misbehaved.

But there was no denying the results. Kids learned, and they behaved. My mother's classes were filled to the brim with fifty students. Fifty. Today, that would be considered an outrage. Over the years, educational research has shown that smaller classes mean higher levels of student achievement and better classroom behavior. But for whatever reason, that wasn't the case all those years ago. Maybe those nuns were on to something.

When my mother attended Catholic school, every classroom was occupied by a nun. But she graduated during the 1960s, and it was around this time that things really began to change. There was a lot of upheaval both in the Catholic Church and in our country. Across the United States, young people organized all sorts of protests in an all-out social revolution. They railed against sexism, racism, and the Vietnam War. They rebelled against the notion that sex was merely for procreation. The 60's gave birth to the feminism movement and the civil rights movement. The music of this era reflected the mood of the protesters, as did films and television. There were also several assassinations that took place: JFK, RFK, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King all met their untimely demise during this chaotic decade.

But it wasn't just American culture that was rapidly changing. Inside the Roman Catholic Church, Pope John XXIII began his own revolution. He felt that massive reforms were needed in order for the Church to adapt to the present day. Thus he convened the Second Vatican Council in 1962, and Church leaders spent the next three years formulating ways to renew Catholicism and initiate a dialogue with the contemporary world.

The Second Vatican Council would forever change Catholicism as people knew it. The traditional Latin mass was discontinued in favor of a liturgy that would employ the vernacular (i.e., the language of the community where the mass takes place). Lay people were given a much bigger role in the Church. The college of Bishops were assigned a more prominent place in the Church's leadership.

In the end, the massive changes that took place both inside the Church and across the United States had a devastating effect on religious vocations and the role that religion played in society. Vocations sharply declined and religous faith and morals became less and less relevant. It was at this time that two trends began to emerge in Catholic education: less nuns in the classroom and less students enrolled in the schools.

When I attended Our Lady of Mercy, nuns were still a presence, but not nearly to the degree that they were when my mother attended Saint Paul's. There were three homerooms in every grade, and generally speaking, each grade had one nun and two lay people teaching. Classes of fifty students were a thing of the past. Most classes had anywhere from 25 to 30, though overall enrollment in the school was still very healthy. For the most part, there were families in the parish who valued Catholic education and wanted their children to have religion incorporated into their everyday lives.

But how things have gone downhill since. Just as vocations and Catholic school enrollment declined from my parents' era to my era, it has fallen even more steeply over the past 25 years. Forget about having a nun teaching in every grade. Now you'd be hard-pressed to find a Sister of Charity or Sister of St. Joseph teaching anywhere in Catholic schools. Grades of three homerooms? Gone forever. Now you're lucky that you even have one. When I attended OLM, it enrolled approximately 750 students. But when I was contacted last year and asked to join the school board, all in an effort to salvage the school's existence, I discovered that enrollment had dwindled to just over 220.

Let me be clear in stating that the growing financial burden placed on families is also a major factor in making Catholic schools a dying breed. I don't want anyone to think I believe that the erosion of faith and moral values is the sole culprit. But I truly feel that the growing rift between religion and society is the underlying cause. Yes, school tuitions have skyrocketed over the years. Yes, property taxes have also skyrocketed, especially in the great state of New Jersey, where we pay higher property taxes than anywhere else in the country. This makes it increasingly more difficult to justify paying both property taxes to support the local public schools and tuition to send one's children to Catholic school. I totally understand. That is why I fully support a school voucher system, but I'll save that issue for a later blog post.

Nonetheless, I would put forth this argument. There are still enough Catholic families who would have enough money to send their children to Catholic school if they were willing to make sacrifices. This is where the diminishing value of religion comes into play. If they could go without a vacation, a new car, or the latest technological gadgets, then I'm sure the money would be there to cover the cost of tuition. My parents never owned a new car while I was growing up. Never. Our annual vacation was a weeklong excursion to Seaside Heights. We didn't fly overseas to Europe or to the Caribbean. We didn't go to Disney World. There were no extravagant trips, and no luxury items found in our home. My parents sacrificed because they placed a value on the Catholic education that my brother and I received. This is why it's hard for me to fathom how parishes with well over 2,000 families only have 200 students enrolled in the parish school.

But as they say, it is what it is. The bottom line is that Catholic schools are hurting, and we're running out of options in our bid to save them. In Bayonne, all five Catholic elementary schools were merged into one. Now, the Archdiocese of Newark is planning to implement a similar strategy in Jersey City. Currently, representatives from the Archdiocesan Vicariate for Education are making the rounds, visiting all the schools to assess which ones to close and which sites would be the most viable for hosting mergers. The proposed plan is to merge the eight remaining elementary schools into three, but of course that can always change depending on what the Archdiocesan task force recommends.

I don't know what the final result will be, but obviously I am holding out hope that my alma mater will be spared. It's a helpless feeling, because I accepted the invitation to serve on the school board with a great deal of enthusiasm. At the first meeting, I submitted four pages worth of ideas and suggestions for building enrollment and raising revenue. Now, all we can do is watch from the sidelines and wait to see what happens.

As always, I remain optimistic that Catholic education will manage to survive in one form or another. Being a proud graduate of St. Peter's Prep, I am one-thousand percent sure that I will not see the school close during my lifetime, if indeed it ever closes. Its long history of successful graduates has resulted in major gifts, in some cases millions of dollars, that will sustain the school for many years to come. But let there be no doubt that institutions like St. Peter's are the exception, not the rule. I still believe that society will one day recognize its errors in falling away from religious practice, and that we will once again value faith and morals over material goods. Will I see it in my lifetime? Probably not. But with God, there is always hope, and it is that hope I will forever cling to as I strive to do my part in keeping Catholic education alive.

O'Reilly and Obama: One on One

If you watched the pre-game coverage for the Super Bowl, then you saw a parade of celebrities marching through, one almost comparable to the Oscars. Fox even had Michael Strahan situated on a "red carpet" of sorts, interviewing everyone from Harrison Ford to Jamie Foxx to Adam Sandler to Jennifer Aniston, all of whom were there to promote their upcoming film releases. Strahan even went out for a pass from Aniston, and seemingly underestimated her throwing arm as she hurled it well over his head and down a corridor separating two large groups of spectators.

But amongst all the hoopla, Fox reserved a 15-minute block of time for something altogether different and far more significant. From 4:45pm to 5:00pm, they switched over to the Fox News Channel and aired Bill O'Reilly's one-on-one interview with President Barack Obama. Given the current political and economic landscape of our country, I felt it was more than appropriate to do so. Granted, I am far more interested in world politics than the average person. But I'd much rather hear our president speak candidly on current issues that have far-reaching implications for our future than watch Jennifer Aniston show off her throwing arm. Especially when the interviewer is a tough, no-nonsense journalist who you knew would cut right through the mumbo jumbo and waste no time getting to the crux of the matter.

Leading up to the interview, there was a lot of talk about who would ultimately "win." Even when the interview concluded, pundits and bloggers sounded off on who got the best of who, as if this were some kind of raucous debate. I find that unfortunate, because it wasn't a debate, and was never intended to be a debate. But it just goes to show how divisive and combative we have become as a nation. Many on the left wanted Obama to shut O'Reilly up and make him look foolish. Those on the right wanted O'Reilly to embarrass Obama by pointing out several instances where he had contradicted himself.

But kudos to O'Reilly for rising above it all. He conducted himself very professionally, and no one can possibly say that he wasn't fair to the president. O'Reilly's tone was never confrontational, and his questions were very straightforward. I applaud him for refusing to play the "gotcha game" that so many liberal journalists engage in when they interview conservative politicians. The one that immediately comes to mind is Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign. She asked the vice presidential candidate an obscure question about John McCain's long history as a U.S. Senator. It forced Ms. Palin to respond by saying, "Well, I'm just going to have to get back to you on that one." As a result, she became the butt of jokes across the country and was made out to look like a bubblehead. But in reality, it was an unfair question. You'd think Couric would be far more concerned about delving into Ms. Palin's platform than seeing if she memorized McCain's Senate record.

O'Reilly started the interview in a classy way, by thanking the president for his role in freeing two Fox News journalists who had been beaten badly and detained during the riots in Egypt. He noted that both men could have died if not for the intervention of the State Department. Then, as a perfect segue, he asked Obama about what was going to happen in Egypt, if Mubarak was going to stay or go, and whether the president had any concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood.

From there, the interview shifted to topics such as healthcare, wealth distribution, whether the president is moving more to the center, the worst part of his job, whether Obama believes the presidency has changed him as a person, and if it bothers him that so many people hate him. All of these were fair questions. Throughout the interview, O'Reilly was very respectful, and sometimes downright deferential, toward the president. Yes, he interrupted him on several occasions, but you have to do that when you're limited to just fifteen minutes. If he hadn't interrupted, then they may have never even gotten past the first question. Someone needs to tell that to the folks at aol.com.

After the interview, opinions on O'Reilly's performance ranged from too soft to too harsh. There are those who wanted him to call Obama out on the exemptions for unions in the healthcare bill, or the discord among the members of his deficit commission. But O'Reilly promptly dismissed them on his program, "The O'Reilly Factor," by noting that he only had fifteen minutes for the interview. Clearly this is not enough time to get into those types of details, so he stuck with focusing on the broader issues. Overall, I would say that O'Reilly did an excellent job. He never came across as attacking the president, but he did manage to get his point across several times.

For example, though he couldn't get the president to outright reject the Muslim Brotherhood, O'Reilly referred to them as "tough boys" and told Obama that he wouldn't want them anywhere near the Egyptian government. On the healthcare law, the president stood his ground and refused to entertain the possibility that it would be declared unconstitutional. O'Reilly asked him twice if he was prepared to go back to the drawing board, and when Obama reiterated that he wasn't going to fight the same battles again, O'Reilly said, "But you're going to have to." Even when he asked the president whether he'd changed as a person since taking office, O'Reilly showed us that he had done his homework. As Obama talked about asking those who know him best, O'Reilly hinted that he already had done so. Apparently, the consensus was that the president had become much more guarded and seemingly more preoccupied since moving into the White House. This forced Obama to respond to those opinions, making this portion of the interview much deeper than it otherwise might have been.

So how did the president do? It's no secret that I am not one of his fans, but I have to give him this much. Barack Hussein Obama is a very, very skilled politician. He knows how to come across as an extremely likable guy on camera. He is adept at disarming his ideological opponents by conveying such an image, and ably defuses any situation before it escalates. When O'Reilly interviewed him during the presidential campaign, the veteran journalist was much more spirited and came close on several occasions to adopting his usual "don't give me that nonsense" tone. But each time it happened, Obama extended his hand and said, "Bill, Bill..." in a very calm, collected manner. The methodology was effective, as O'Reilly immediately backed off and reverted to a more subtle demeanor.

Obama did not allow himself to be pinned down, refusing to concede that he was moving closer to the center. Such an admission would have made him look weak, as if he needed to change in order to accommodate the new majority of Republicans in the House. Very smart move on his part. Basically, he wanted us to believe that he is still the same guy, with the same goals of making our country a better place for all Americans. Overall, I have to grade his performance as an "A." He did everything he needed to do from a political standpoint.

That being said, it is hard for me to trust the president. O'Reilly believes that Obama was sincere in his statement that he is not a leftist. He refuses to categorize himself that way, and O'Reilly accepted it at face value. I, for one, do not. I can't possibly comprehend that the president is not cognizant of his own ideology. He is extremely well educated as a graduate of Harvard Law School. Certainly he has studied philosophical and ideological systems of thought, and adopted several of those precepts as part of his own world view. Anyone can plainly see that there are strands of Marxist thought in his policies on healthcare and economics. And you mean to tell me that he himself doesn't see it? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

The president has to be well aware of who he is and where his ideology lies. But again, being a skilled politician, he'd rather not allow himself to be boxed in and labeled as a leftist. This is probably my only criticism of O'Reilly, that he let Obama remain as slippery as an eel in this portion of the interview. He should have pressed him a little more on this one.

After Fox reverted to its normal coverage of the Super Bowl, O'Reilly interviewed the president for another full ten minutes. Though it wasn't shown on Fox, the footage did air on Monday night's episode of "The O'Reilly Factor." It was here that the Factor's "humble correspondent" scored a major, major triumph.

It's no secret that there is a rocky history between Fox News Channel and the Obama administration. Originally, Obama refused O'Reilly's invitation for an interview during the 2008 presidential campaign. After repeated attempts, the folks at FNC finally gave up and decided to go ahead with their own depiction of the Democratic presidential candidate. Bill O'Reilly announced that they would soon be showing a multi-part series documenting Obama's history, both personally and professionally. Upon hearing this, Obama's campaign strategists panicked and were forced to alter their course of action.

Love him or hate him, no one can deny the fact that Bill O'Reilly dominates the cable news ratings. He consistently drew millions more viewers than Keith Olbermann did during his tenure at MSNBC, and continues to crush his competitors at CNN and CNBC as well. Contrary to popular thought, his audience does not consist solely of conservatives. There are many independent voters that tune in at 8pm every night for the Factor, and these are the ones who Obama's advisers were most concerned about. Now they were painted into a corner. If Obama refused O'Reilly's requests for an interview, they would now have to sit back and watch helplessly as the Factor ran their own series, depicting their candidate any way they chose, all while millions and millions of voters tuned in to watch.

And so, they were left with no choice but to reach out to Fox News and grant O'Reilly's request. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they weren't happy about it. Even since his election, many people in the president's administration have lashed out at Fox as the main culprit for the contentious culture of partisan politics in our country. They've called for commentators such as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to tone down the rhetoric. But Hannity and Beck, among others, have dismissed such calls as attempts to limit freedom of speech, and rightly so. In the end, the Obama administration said that FNC was not a legitimate news network, but rather a mouthpiece for the Republican party.

Thus O'Reilly had a golden opportunity last Sunday, and he took full advantage of it. As the ten-minute segment that was not being aired live wrapped up, he asked Obama one final question. Was Fox a legitimate news network? The president answered yes, even acknowledging that other news networks had their own points of view and that this is OK. To elicit such a statement from President Obama is huge, because it can be used to silence the critics who continue to bash Fox News Channel. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the Huffington Post, New York Times...they've all been handcuffed now by the president's statement. How can they contradict the words of their leader, the anointed one whom they've sworn their allegiance to? Big win for O'Reilly, and big win for Fox News.

In the end, both O'Reilly and Obama came out of this interview smelling like a rose. In front of the largest TV audience ever, O'Reilly showed the world that Fox News Channel is indeed fair and balanced. He was respectful toward the president and refused to play the "gotcha game." Obama scored plenty of political points, executing his strategy perfectly. Those who watched could only walk away thinking that he's a very likable and sincere guy. For all the talk of who "won" in this "battle," the results are clear. Both sides emerged victorious.

School Superintendent Salary Caps are Needed in New Jersey

Yesterday was the official date that Governor Christie's pay caps for New Jersey school superintendents took effect. The caps are based on district enrollment, and range from $125,000 per year to $175,000 per year. Basically, school districts that enroll no more than 250 students cannot pay their superintendent more than $125,000 per year. School districts that have as many as 10,000 students can pay their superintendent as much as $175,000. The only districts not affected by the cap are those that enroll more than 10,000 students. These tend to be urban districts such as Newark and Jersey City, and here the salaries can be negotiated on an individual basis.

Like so many other of Governor Christie's reforms, this one has been hotly debated from the moment it was announced. On one side, you have the taxpayers who are burdened with the highest property taxes in the entire country. The majority of those tax dollars go toward supporting local public schools, thus funding the superintendents' salaries. On the other side, you have the local boards of education and the superintendents themselves. Like teachers, police officers, and firefighters, the school administrators feel they are being singled out unfairly and do not want to accept pay cuts. Local boards of education believe that they alone should have the final say over who they hire to be their superintendent and how much they pay the candidate they select.

As someone who worked in the field of education for fourteen years and earned his doctoral degree in the discipline, I have examined arguments on both sides. I have also drawn from my own experiences, and after forming my own opinion, I find myself firmly entrenched in Governor Christie's camp.

Let there be no doubt that being a superintendent of schools is a tough job. If you're going to do the job right, then you need to put in long hours and find a way to please several stakeholders. You must have skin thick enough to deal with public criticism, and get accustomed to being sued. Even amongst all the chaos, you have to keep your focus on being the educational leader of the school district, the one who is ultimately held accountable for student achievement. You are also responsible for the safety of the students, at least during school hours, as well as the safety of all school personnel. It's stressful. Very stressful.

But as Governor Christie has accurately pointed out, the job is no more stressful or difficult than his job. The governor earns an annual salary of $175,000, so his point is that a superintendent of schools should make no more than that. It's a difficult argument to refute, especially when he's responsible for everything in the entire state (not just education), while a superintendent is responsible for the education of students in just one town.

Yet the superintendents are fighting tooth and nail to block the reform. They have called the salary caps "illegal and unconstitutional," and are suing the State of New Jersey through their organization, the New Jersey Association of School Administrators (NJASA). To me, this isn't about seeking justice. It's about greed. The superintendents have done a masterful job of manipulating the market over the years. They often stay in one district for a short period of time, not nearly long enough to implement any real reforms or demonstrate significant progress. Why? Because when a larger district (or simply one that pays more) opens up, they pounce on the opportunity to make more money. Having experience as a superintendent is like having experience as a manager of a professional baseball team. In many cases, it doesn't matter how many years you were in the job or what your record was. The fact that you have any experience at all in the position stands out, and will more often than not lead to a lucrative contract.

And so they hop around like bunny rabbits from district to district, creating competition amongst themselves to drive up the market price. One look at the numbers shows you that it has worked like a charm. In the 100 school districts that make up Bergen and Passaic Counties, the average salary for superintendents is over $185,000 per year. Several of them are making over $200,000. What really stands out is the fact that many of the districts in Bergen County are smaller in size, and often have no more than one or two schools. Does this really justify such an exorbitant salary? In the district where I used to work (a district with one school and less than 250 students), the superintendent is earning over $220,000 per year in base salary. That does not include benefits and other perks that increase the value of the total package to over a quarter of a million dollars. It's ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

Granted, Bergen and Passaic Counties represent the high end of the spectrum. But there are still plenty of superintendents in other parts of the state making more than the governor, and often times the salary is unwarranted. There are superintendents who don't put in the hours needed to do the job right, either ignoring certain responsibilities altogether or placing the bulk of the workload on the backs of their assistants. There are those who are mired in corruption, whether it's handing out no-bid contracts, misallocating funds, or flat out stealing. Do the names Robert Paladino or Michael Ritacco mean anything to you? If not, then research them on the internet and see what you find.

Still others look out only for themselves, not for the students or the teachers. They cover their own rear ends by showing the BOE what wonderful programs they're initiating, only to not follow through on those programs once they've secured another 5-year contract. It's not uncommon for schools to accumulate tons of materials that were purchased on new educational initiatives over the years, all with taxpayer dollars. And for what? To sit in a storage room, never to be utilized again?

I firmly believe that the governor is going to win this battle. One legal challenge has already been fended off, that one coming from the Hoboken Board of Education. After awarding Dr. Michael Toback a contract to be their new superintendent, one that paid him well in excess of the caps imposed by the governor, the Hoboken BOE was stunned when the NJDOE refused to sign off on the contract. They filed suit in December, only to have the case dismissed. In the end, Toback accepted the position at a much lower salary, one that complied with the limits set by Governor Christie.

This example supports an ideological position that the governor and I both share. Many superintendents and BOE members throughout New Jersey have sounded the alarm, claiming that top-tier talent will leave the state and that districts will have a very difficult time recruiting qualified candidates to lead their school districts. But like so many other groups of people that cry, "The sky is falling!" when something is taken from them, their claims are absolutely false.

There are plenty of well-qualified candidates out there, people who have doctoral degrees, experience in education, and the certification to do the job, that would be more than willing to work for anywhere from $125,000 to $175,000 per year. I happen to be one of them. The idea that superintendents will decline offers and start flocking to other states is absurd. Dr. Mark Toback certainly didn't, even though his original salary had to be lowered by almost $50,000 per year. In the end, he realized that overseeing a district with just four elementary schools and one high school for $165,000 per year was still a very fair deal.

As always, I have to commend Governor Christie for taking a stand for the taxpayers of New Jersey. It's funny how the left criticizes him for being too friendly toward the rich. Here is a case where he has basically told six-hundred people who are earning six figures that their salaries will have to be capped in order to help ease the burdens placed on local taxpayers. Why are the liberals not praising him for that?

Here's to hoping that the lawsuit filed by NJASA is dismissed just as quickly as the one brought by the BOE in Hoboken. You don't need money to attract good, highly-qualified people who are genuinely interested in improving the quality of education. If they were interested in money, then they would not have gone into education in the first place. Those motivated by the almighty dollar belong in the corporate world. Education is strictly for those who are driven by civil service and the desire to make a difference in people's lives. How ironic is it that those responsible for improving student achievement in our state can't grasp such a simple concept? I guess they'll never learn.

Is the Caliphate Coming?

Caliphate. Go ahead, say it: kal-uh-feyt. Google it, and you'll learn that it's a system of government, established under sharia law, whereby all Muslims are united. It is run by a head of state called a "Caliph," who exercises authority over all Muslim citizens. I bring this up because, as I look at all the civil unrest occurring in the Middle East, I can't help but think that we are witnessing the earliest stages of the first caliphate since the Ottoman Empire.

Let's start at the beginning. Over the past few weeks, political uprisings have caused chaos in Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, and most of all, Egypt. Even Lebanon suffered a casualty as Hezbollah was able to strongarm the country's president out of office, dealing a blow to American interests in the Middle East.

The catalyst for the unrest is undoubtedly the dire economic situation around the world. Unemployment has reached astronomical levels, with 45% of Egyptians currently out of work. That's five times the national unemployment rate in the United States. Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries are also facing shortages of food, water, and electricity. It's one thing when you're being oppressed by a dictator and still able to work, eat, drink, and consume electricity. It's a whole other story though when you're out of a job, with not enough food and water to survive over the long run, all while having your freedoms taken away. That's a game changer.

As a result, the bell tolled rather quickly for the Middle East regimes. Protesters took to the streets. Riots ensued. People were injured, even killed. Now America has a mess on its hands, and we have to do our best to clean it up in a way that will safeguard the future of our interests and our security.

One of the actors organizing the political unrest is the Muslim Brotherhood. All we need to know about this group is that they are a terrorist organization, allied with Hamas and Hezbollah in the common goal of exterminating the Jews. They are taking full advantage of the people's anger and jockeying for power. If they are able to accomplish what they're setting out to do, then the ramifications for the United States will be nothing short of catastrophic.

If you were to look at a map of the Middle East and Africa and highlight those countries where radical Muslims are gaining ground, then the results may surprise you. You can start with Iran, the largest state sponsor of terror in the entire world. Their leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for Israel to be literally wiped off the map. From there, you can make your way into Syria, which is closely aligned with Iran and overrun by radical Islam. Then you have Lebanon, where Hezbollah flexes its muscle, and the Palestinians, who overwhelmingly support Hamas. In Jordan, King Abdullah was recently forced to remove the president under public pressure, and protests in Yemen are heating up as well.

Moving into Africa, you have Somalia and Sudan as countries that are safe havens for terrorists. Radical Muslims are also a major presence in northern Africa, in countries such as Morocco, Algeria, and Libya. If they are able to gain power in Tunisia and Egypt, then they will basically cover all of northern Africa from coast to coast. They will even control the Suez Canal, and that could have a devastating impact on the price of oil and other goods.

Until you highlight all of these on a map, you may not realize just how significant this territory is. Should all of these countries become ruled by terrorist regimes, then Israel will be totally surrounded by cold-blooded killers looking to free the earth of all Jewish people. Therefore, is it not legitimate to be concerned about the forming of a caliphate in a bid to attack Israel?

Liberals tend to dismiss these concerns, citing the fact that Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims are constantly at each other's throats. I concede that much, but let's be honest about this. Sunnis and Shiites hate the Jews far more than they hate each other. They'll do everything they can to kill the infidels first, and only then will they shift their focus to the internal struggle for power.

Liberals are also asking why conservatives aren't as thrilled as they are about the political uprisings in the Middle East. I've heard them call us hypocrites, because while we supported President Bush in his bid to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the war against Iraq, now we're lashing out at those who are organizing the protests in Egypt and elsewhere.

First of all, we can flip that around to ask another question. If the liberals are so happy that Middle East citizens are now standing up to the dictators that suppress them, then why did they not support President Bush when he deposed the worst dictator of all? Hussein killed tens of thousands of his own people, something that Mubarak never did. Then why didn't the left give credit to Bush for liberating the Iraqi people? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Reverse arguments aside, the liberals are also wrong in this respect. When we went into Iraq and overthrew Hussein, the United States was overseeing the transition to a democratic government. We were there to help fight the terrorists who supported the former dictator. Yes, it cost many of our bravest men and women their very lives. But they did not die in vain, for in the end, the United States will ensure that democracy prevails in Iraq, protecting our interests and security for years to come.

Egypt, however, is different. Their situation does not call for a U.S. military presence. We are helpless to do anything but stand by and idly watch to see where the chips fall. All we can really do is cajole Mubarak into moving slowly, as former Vice President Dick Cheney recently suggested. We have to make sure that he allows a smooth transition to take place, one that will prevent the radical Muslim Brotherhood from instantly seizing power. In his interview with Bill O'Reilly during yesterday's Super Bowl, President Obama claimed that there are many other factions in Egypt looking to take part in the reform process. I hope and pray that he's right, and that the more moderate groups are the ones who come out on top.

To some, it may sound like a conspiracy theory. But think about it. Radical Muslims are united in their bid to do away with Israel. They already own Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Somalia. Hezbollah is constantly firing rockets from Lebanon into Israel, and Palestinians routinely carry out homicide bombings on Israeli citizens. Muslim terrorists are a major presence throughout northern Africa. With the futures of Yemen, Tunisia, and Egypt hanging in the balance, is it really that far-fetched to be concerned about the forming of a caliphate? Again, highlight these countries on a map and tell me what you see. Should Israel just ignore what is going on and cast caution to the wind? Should Americans not be paying attention, worrying instead about whether there is going to be an NFL season in 2011?

I hate to even think about this, but if those countries with uncertain political futures (especially Egypt) fall into the wrong hands, then we will be witnessing the emergence of World War III. Mark my words. If the Muslim Brotherhood gains the power it needs to unleash a major attack on Israel, it will. The rest of the Muslim extremists will follow. The United States will have no choice other than to unite with Israel in its bid to fight off the terrorist regimes, and will most likely be joined by our European allies and some of the other countries that supported our interests in Iraq and Afghanistan (e.g., Australia, Canada, and Japan). What will Russia and China do? Who knows? Most likely they'll stand on the sidelines and watch as the casualties mount on both sides. Will North Korea then see an opening and start rattling the cage on the Korean peninsula? Sure, why not. With America pre-occupied in the Middle East, this will be the perfect time for that rogue nation to start stirring up trouble again.

It's all very scary, and I really don't believe that the majority of Americans are aware of how grave the situation is. Ignorance is bliss, so they say. But I think they'll start taking notice very soon if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power and starts closing off the Suez Canal. What do you think that will do to the prices of oil and other goods that will now have to be shipped around the horn of Africa instead? One need not be a professor of economics to figure that one out.

Granted, there's no reason to panic just yet. The waiting game continues, and we have to see how things shake out before we issue any response. But in the meantime, the U.S. must formulate plans to prepare for whatever the final result will be. President Obama needs to clearly communicate to the American people who in Egypt we will support. Who are these other factions vying for political power? What are their goals for the Egyptian people? Will they support American interests? We have the right to know that much. If we are going to have peace of mind, then we also need to know that our president is prepared for the worst-case scenario. As I already stated, I believe that such an outcome will lead to World War III. Let's hope and pray that it never reaches that point, and that the bid to form a caliphate ends before it ever really begins.

Could Super Bowl XLV Be the Last NFL Game of 2011?

I have a message for those of you watching Super Bowl XLV tomorrow. Enjoy it. Relish it. Revel in it. Party hard. Because it could quite possibly be the last NFL game we see for quite a while. By now, we all know that the NFL's current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expires on March 3, 2011. That's less than a month away, and the two sides are no closer to an agreement now than they were last year. The clock is ticking, and Commissioner Roger Goodell is beginning to feel a sense of urgency.

I always try to be as optimistic as I can, especially when I blog about things such as the current economic crisis, society's sharp decline in morals, and the sad state of education. But this time around, I'm not so optimistic. Now I know that many people keep saying that there's too much money at stake, and that owners and players will never risk damaging a sport that is at its height in popularity. But don't be so sure. Look at what's going on behind the scenes and you too may begin to question whether this deal will get done in time to save the 2011 season.

League owners want to extend the regular season from 16 to 18 games, while at the same time taking a larger slice of the revenue pie: $1 billion to be exact. Granted, technically they are not really extending the season, since they are eliminating two pre-season games and replacing them with regular season games. But in reality, they are asking starters to suit up and go to war two more times than they normally would. In the NFL, two more games is not insignificant, as it might be in baseball or basketball. The physical toll that the game of football takes on one's body is much greater than that of any other sport. To illustrate this point, one need only look at the countless concussions and astronomical numbers of players placed on injured reserve this past season. And yet the owners want to add two more regular season games to the schedule???

From the players' standpoint, this is the basic equivalent of taking a pay cut in exchange for an increase in workload. Seem fair to you? What person in their right mind would accept such conditions if their boss presented it to them in their next contract? Now you understand why the players are so upset.

Unfortunately though, the labor issue is not just about players versus owners. It's also about owners versus owners. The NFL has a revenue-sharing agreement in place, whereby the top 15 earners share profits with the bottom 17 teams. Those organizations that consistently finish at or near the top and have major expenses (take for instance, the mortgage Jerry Jones is now paying on his brandy new Cowboy Stadium) are not at all happy with the current CBA. They see teams that don't draw nearly as many fans and may not win nearly as many games doing just as well financially. Why? Because the bottom 17 usually don't have the same expenses and they get a share of the breadwinners' revenue. As a result, the Jerry Joneses and Robert Krafts of the NFL have drawn a line in the sand. If you ask me, they are going to hold out until they get a CBA in place that favors the haves over the have nots. That's going to be a problem. A major problem.

All of the owners are firmly entrenched in their battle with the union, and they've been building their war chest for some time in preparation for a lockout. Even their television revenues have been guaranteed for the upcoming season, whether games take place or not. Do you think they're going to give in to the players when they have such a sweetheart deal in place? I don't.

Thus I can't help but think that the NFL players' union may be fighting a losing battle. They don't have the same resources to endure a lockout as the owners do. The NFL union, unlike the MLB players' union, has never been willing to sacrifice short-term benefits for long-term gains. Believe me, I understand why. NFL players have much shorter careers, and thus a smaller window to make their millions before retiring. Losing an entire season to a labor dispute has a far more severe impact on a football player's career earnings than on those of a professional baseball player. That's why the owners have always had the leverage during the negotiation process. It's no different now than it was then.

Some NFL team union reps have spoken out and said all the right things, but to me they're just blowing smoke. They want it to appear as if there is solidarity among NFL players, but I don't believe there is. Just look at the battle on Twitter that occurred when Antonio Cromartie vented his frustration about a deal not being in place yet. Sure, there were NFL players who came to the defense of the union. But I don't care what anyone might say, the fact is that for every player who may want to dig in for the long haul, there are several others who are more concerned about missing a year's salary and losing their health benefits. The players are not as unified as union reps want to believe.

My theory is that two things will have to happen in order to achieve a new CBA in time to save the 2011 season. First, the Mike Browns of the NFL will have to give in to the Jerry Joneses. The small-market teams that have practically lived on welfare all these years will be forced to accept a smaller payout from the heavy hitters, or a deal will never get done. Second, the players are going to have to give in on some level. Maybe the owners won't get two extra regular season games and another $1 billion in revenue. But they'll get at least one more regular season game, and will definitely receive a larger revenue share, possibly a few hundred million. There's no doubt in my mind about that. The owners have the resources to hold out until they get what they want, and they will. The only question left is whether the players' union has the stomach to stand firm and sacrifice themselves for the futures of all NFL athletes. I'm not sure they do, but if they somehow develop the intestinal fortitude to fight the good fight, then there will be no 2011 season.

Before concluding this post, I guess I'm obligated to give my Super Bowl prediction. It's no secret that I'm pulling for the Pack, so I have to believe that Green Bay is going to pull it out. Final score: Packers 32, Steelers 26. I know, that's an odd score, right? But a certain person got stuck with the numbers 2 for Green Bay and 6 for Pittsburgh in his Super Bowl pool, so you can just call it wishful thinking on my part. Enjoy the game, and go Pack!