They are passing another one of those "We will Know what's in it, when we get it passed" bills

This is what the headline says:
Financial overhaul details are hammered out by House and Senate leaders

This is what Chris Dodd is quoted as saying:

"It's a great moment. I'm proud to have been here," said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

Gee thanks, Mr. Dodd. I didn't think my respect for you could go any lower, but you managed to do it.  It's disgusting. Here is where you can read the whole thing.

What Happened to Education? Here is one of the answers

From American Thinker:

Obama, Freud, and the American Progressives' Guilt Trip
By Chuck Rogér
At the turn of the twentieth century, an early "progressive" Vermonter named John Dewey kick-started a makeover of America's education system. At the conclusion of the second of his seminal works, The School and Society and The Child and the Curriculum, Dewey offered these bits of wisdom.

But save as the teacher knows, knows wisely and thoroughly, the race-expression which is embodied in that thing we call the Curriculum, the teacher knows neither what the present power, capacity, or attitude is, nor yet how it is to be asserted, exercised, and realized....

.....And so from The Child and the Curriculum emerged a construct that Dewey called the "psychologizing"[1] of education, and progressives would use his unsupported contentions to pervert the process by which education would be conducted over the next hundred years....

....Dewey-indoctrinated educators have helped to sicken American culture. On the website, Minding the Campus, former State University of New York Board of Trustees member Candace de Russy lists questions found on a completed exam discovered by a colleague in an eastern American college classroom.

Question: How does the United States "steal" the resources of other (third world) [sic] countries?

Answer: We steal through exploitation. Our multinationals are aware that indigenous people in developing nations have been coaxed off their plots and forced into slums. Because it is lucrative, our multinationals offer them extremely low wage labor (sic) that cannot be turned down.

Question: Why is the U.S. on shaky moral ground when it comes to preventing illegal immigration?

Answer: Some say that it is wrong of the United States to prevent illegal immigration because the same people we are denying entry to, (sic) we have exploited for the purpose of keeping the American wheel spinning.

Question: Please briefly explain the matrix of domination.

Answer: the (sic) belief that domination has more than one dimension. For example, Males (sic) are dominant over females, whites over blacks, and affluent over impoverished.

These questions and the answers supplied by a student and accepted by the instructor provide a taste of the professorial moralizing that churns out mush-minded "critical thinkers." Dr. de Russy observes, "A student who matriculates in [sociology] will have nothing in the way of useful skills, but will be convinced that his country is rotten to the core, and that whites and males are evil." Which is exactly what too many social studies academics want students to believe, for these academics cling to the first guiding principle of the impassioned ideologue: Agenda trumps reality.

Read the rest here. We already knew what happened but this explains it in  detail.

Rasmussen Reports

Voters Turn Negative On All Political Labels Except Reagan

Progressive” is becoming more of a dirty word, but all political labels – except “being like Ronald Reagan” - are falling into disfavor with many U.S. voters, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

“Liberal” is still the worst and remains the only political description that is viewed more negatively than positively. Being like Reagan is still the most positive thing you can say about a candidate.

Just 15% of voters say they view the description of a candidate as politically liberal as positive, down four points from last November. Forty-one percent (41%) see it as a negative description, up five points form the earlier survey, while 42% say it’s somewhere in between.

Read it all at Rasmussen Reports.