Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Bad Teachers

The unforgettable moment of parental bonding in the delivery room deceives many parents. After all, in today’s society, mothers and fathers are encouraged to be there for their children from first breath, cutting the umbilical cord, cheering at soccer matches, and helping in the doctor’s office, where many a queasy parent is asked to assist with something that can make a grown man go weak in the knees.
Most parents diligently work to raise up a generation of strong, confident, intelligent people, who know how to use the potty.
Which leaves many of us incredulous when it comes to the 1950s flashback – like expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room from an episode of “Mad Men” – that occurs when we start to engage in our children’s education, as “experts” in our modern day school system block us at the door to keep our parental cooties outside.
Why is it that when we start to engage in our children’s education, “experts” in our modern day school system block us at the door to keep our parental cooties outside?
Suddenly, parents should be seen and not heard, while we keep the checks coming.
My four children attend public schools in one of US News & World Reports top 50 tiers, after living in the Washington, D.C. area with some of the best of private and public school in the nation.  We’ve been exposed to what is said to be the best in the land in terms of schools.
Therefore it astounds me, and many parents I know, that in most conversations about how my own children's schools could improve, the overall response from those in charge is a patronizing pat on the head and assurances that “we’re from the government and we’re here to help you … now go away.”
With a “mine is better than yours” tone, educators too often flash their degrees (forgetting that many of us have a resume of our own).
Consider standardized testing today, which has been deified as the center of our educational system, no matter if children may need counseling later.
In my own childrens’ schools, huge signs are posted warning kids to "BE POSITIVE," "TAKE YOUR TIME," "REVIEW YOUR WORK"... as your future depends on it.
In response to complaints that too much class time was spent preparing for a test that only earns teacher bonuses and school dollars, our superintendent decided to incorporate this moment of time into kids’ overall grades.
So, now children in our school district, beginning in third grade can sit for the bar, as it were, to pass this colossal test to earn money for the nervous adults in the room.
God help them if they suffer from test anxiety.
This ignores the reality that a good teacher might help failing kids reach “C” level work, or that a bad teacher can browbeat kids or perhaps cheat to raise kids’ test scores for the cash. A better system would be to let parents vote on who deserves a bonus.
The new Common Core educational standards seem meager at best, perhaps because so much educational class time is dust in the wind as my children watch movies, presentations and create "discussion trees" while contemplating the evils of bullying, only to be sent home with hours of homework.
But to call and ask about the time management of the classroom is to put your children in danger of retaliation by a blustering teacher who has essentially transferred the work of educating your child back to you.
In my children's school it seems crafts supersede contemplation. Book reports are rare, while my children create presentations of items collected that reminded them of books in a can or a box, through a costume, a poster or in a power point.
I’m afraid that this generation may not know that it is possible to write more words than can fit into a text.

Modern educators also seem held hostage to national standard of disputable value, ignoring real complexities – like differing opinions on WHY wars began or ended – to teach THE answer to life’s toughest questions for the test.
Some classes, like world history, require gray areas.
And then there is math, where my children have learned that if you get the right answer using your own methods you are wrong.
Really?
If you look at Facebook you can understand the battle so many parents find themselves in when it comes to teachers who need a different profession. A friend of mine excitedly posted that she had avoided all the dud teachers this year. Immediately a world of parents sent out a sympathetic “LIKE.”
Why is it that being bad at your job is not enough to get you fired as a teacher? While the rest of us must produce value for our employers – or else – being bad at your job with questionable moral judgment isn’t even a speed bump. But it’s the children who get run over.
It would be one thing if all this “expert” control meant better test scores and higher academic achievement.
It doesn’t.
To truly reform schools, empower parents who both pick up the tab for their local schools and pick up the pieces in their children’s lives when schools fail.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Al Qaeda

Problems with the Electoral College

Many observers believe the Electoral College introduces complications and potential problems into our political system. These concerns include some of the following
Grossly unequal distribution of campaign resources

Unequal voting power depending on where you live
The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.
For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.

The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians from only focusing on issues which affect the larger states. The fear was that without this power, politicians would completely ignore small states and only focus on big population centers.

Ironically, there is a study that concludes that larger states are actually at an advantage in the Electoral College. Because almost all states give all of its electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes within that state, candidates must win whole states in order to win the presidency. Naturally, candidates tend to concentrate resources on the largest payoffs, the states which can provide the greatest number of electoral votes.
For a history of the development of the Electoral College, see William C. Kimberling's essay, A Brief History of the Electoral College. Kimberling was the Deputy Director of the FEC's Office of Election Administration.

Looking at the Numbers: Minority Rules
Just how many people elect the president of the United States? The answer may surprise you.
Consider the 2000 presidential elections. Even though more than 100 million people voted in the election, only a small portion of those votes in fact were decisive. Indeed, the results would have been exactly the same even if nearly 80 million of those voters would have stayed home.
Here's what we mean:
  • Total number of votes cast nationwide in Presidential elections:
    • 105,396,641 in 2000
    • 131, 338,626 in 2008
  • Total number of votes cast for the winner in their states won:
    • 26,353,058 in 30 states for George W. Bush
    • 39,908,351 in 29 states (including DC) for Barack Obama
  • Total number of votes that did not factor in determining the winner of the president in their respective years:
    • To win the Electoral College in 2000, Bush needed only 21,835,615 votes out of a total of 105,396,641 votes.
    • To win the Electoral College in 2008, Obama needed only 39,908,351 votes out of a total of 131,338,626 votes.
  • Percentage of votes that did not factor in determining the winner in their respective years:
    • 79.28% in 2000
    • 70.39% in 2008
The winner-take-all method of distributing electoral votes
The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.
Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.
Some states are still excluded from the campaign; these are not necessarily the small states, but rather they are states that are not viewed as competitive.
Since all but two states allocate their votes via a winner-take-all method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that clearly favors one candidate. As an example, Democratic candidates have little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican states, like Texas, even if many Democrats live there. Conversely, Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states, like Massachusetts, especially when they know that states like Florida and Michigan are toss-ups.
The winner-take-all rule also leads to lower voter turnout in states where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the winner takes all the electoral votes.

Unbound electors
There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. Even in the states that do have control, often the punishment or repercussion is slim or nothing (some states issue only minimal fines as punishment), although some states instigate criminal charges ranging from a simple misdemeanor to a fourth degree felony. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:
  • Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
  • Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
  • California (Election Code §6906)
  • Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
  • Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
  • Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
  • District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
  • Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
  • Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
  • Maine (21-A MRS §805)
  • Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
  • Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
  • Michigan (MCL §168.47)
  • Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
  • Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
  • Nebraska (§32-714)
  • Nevada (NRS §298.050)
  • New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
  • North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
  • Ohio (ORC §248.355)
  • South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
  • Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
  • Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
  • Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
  • Virginia (§24.2-203)
  • Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
  • Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
  • Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)
Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state's popular vote or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector.
Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state's law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District's unfair voting rights.
Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they prersonally prefer, despite the general public's desire.
This inconsistency allows for discrepancies in our electoral system. The electors from nearly half of the states can vote however they wish, regardless of the popular will of the state.
In the founding of our nation, the Electoral College was established to prevent the people from making "uneducated" decisions. The founders feared uneducated public opinion and designed the Electoral College as a layer of insulation from the direct voice of the masses.
There is no reason, in this modern day, to assign this responsibility to a set of individual electors. Hundreds of thousands of votes can and have been violated by an individual elector, choosing to act on his or her own behalf instead of the behalf of the people.
As of the 2008 election, since the founding of the Electoral College, 157 electors have not cast their votes for the candidates who they were designated to represent.

House of Representatives can choose the president
If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the presidential vote is deferred to the House of Representatives and the vice presidential vote is deferred to the Senate. This could easily lead to a purely partisan battle, instead of an attempt to discover which candidate the citizens really prefer.
If the Senate and the House of Representatives reflect different majorities, meaning that they select members of opposing parties, the offices of president and vice president could be greatly damaged. This potential opposition in the presidential office would not be good for the stability of the country or the government.

Enforcement of a two-party system
Because of our two-party system, voters often find themselves voting for the "lesser of two evils," rather than a candidate they really feel would do the best job. The Electoral College inadvertently reinforces this two party system, where third parties cannot enter the race without being tagged as "spoilers."
Since most states distribute their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, the smaller party has no chance to gain support without seeming to take this support from one of the major parties. Few people will support a party that never wins, especially when they are supporting that party at the possible expense of their least favorite candidate taking power (as happened to Nader/Gore supporters in 2000 and Perot/Bush supporters in 1992).

Presidency can be won without a majority of the popular vote
As the 2000 election demonstrated, it is possible for a president to be elected without winning the popular vote. Nor was the Bush/Gore election the first time a presidential candidate has won the presidency while someone else claimed a plurality of the votes cast. Andrew Jackson and Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1824 and 1876 respectively, only to see someone else walk into the White House.
As an even more common occurrence is for a presidential candidate to win both the presidency and the popular vote without actually winning a majority of all ballots cast. This has happened 16 times since the founding of the Electoral College, most recently in 2000. In every one of the elections, more than half of the voters voted against the candidate who was elected.
With such a winner-take-all system, it is impossible to tell which candidate the people really prefer, especially in a close race.

Monday, September 2, 2013

These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed.

Bailey Comment: This is a old chain email that has been going around forever. It maybe true or not. But if the government keeps on keeping on like their doing now this will probably happen!
These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed.
 Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support.

What’s the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day. 
 To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $20.00 an hour.  


Sunday, September 1, 2013

Assad's 11-Year-Old Son May Be Taunting Obama on Facebook

A Facebook post reportedly written by the 11-year-old son of Syrian President Bashar Assad challenges America to attack Syria and calls U.S. soldiers "cowards."

"No one has soldiers like the ones we do in Syria," the post, appearing on an account under the name Hafez Assad, read. "America doesn't have soldiers, what it has is some cowards with new technology who claim themselves liberators.

"I can expect that some people may comment that America is more powerful than us, my response is that first you don't know what we have, second maybe they are stronger, maybe they will destroy the army, but they will never destroy these remnants and little bits of resistance, it's who we are."

The declaration drew several "likes" and comments from people who appear to be the children or grandchildren of other members of Assad's government, and many of them had changed their profile pictures to photos of Assad or his father, the former leader also named Hafez who ruled for three decades before his death in 2000.

Among the commenters are accounts that apparently belong to two children of Deputy Vice President Mohammed Nassif Khierbek, Ali and Sally, and to three children of a former deputy defense minister, Assef Shawkat, who was killed in a bombing in July 2012, according to The New York Times.

"Like father like son! Well said future President!" one comment read.

The Facebook account has not been confirmed to be that of Assad's son, but there are some elements of the page that make it a plausible possibility. For example, the account lists the owner as a graduate of a Montessori school in Damascus, a detail revealed in a February 2011 Vogue profile of Asma Assad, the child's mother. The piece has since been removed from the magazine's website, but was reposted by blogger Joshua Landis, a well-known scholar of Syrian politics.

However, other details listed on the Facebook page seem suspicious. It also claims that the owner is a graduate of Oxford University and a player for a Barcelona soccer team, neither of which 11-year-old Hafez Assad is likely to have on his resume, the Times reported.

But if the Facebook page is, in fact, a hoax, it's a highly elaborate one built with the help of many other fake accounts purporting to be Assad's cousins and friends.

The author signed off by comparing a potential American missile attack to the 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, a close Syrian ally.

"I just want them to attack sooo much, because I want them to make this huge mistake of beginning something that they don't know the end of it," he wrote.

"What did Hezbollah have back then? Some street fighters and some small rockets and a pile of guns, but they had belief, In theirselves [sic] and in their country and that’s exactly what’s gonna happen to America if it chooses invasion because they don’t know our land like we do, no one does, victory is ours in the end no matter how much time it takes."




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Problem Children

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Fukushima

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Obama leaving door open to Syria strike, even if Congress votes no

President Obama apparently is leaving the door open to moving ahead with a military strike on Syria even if Congress votes against it, adding to the confusion over the president’s evolving position.
The president, in a surprise decision Saturday, announced he would seek a vote in Congress on launching a military attack against the Assad regime.
One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force.
Other senior administration officials said Obama is merely leaving the door open to that possibility. They say he would prefer that Congress approve a military attack on the Assad regime, in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons, and will wait to see what Congress does before making any final decisions on authorizing military force.
Yet the possibility that Obama would move ahead without the support of Congress is sure to stir confusion among lawmakers, who had – for the most part – applauded his decision to seek their input first, though others claimed he was “abdicating his responsibility” by punting to Congress. It would raise questions about why he decided to seek congressional input at all, after having moved military assets into position immediately, and then waited days and possibly weeks for a debate in Washington.
The senior State Department official told Fox News that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord Friday night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them.
However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.
“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told Fox News, adding that that was why the president, in his Rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.
Other senior administration officials, outside of the Department of State, would not confirm as much, telling reporters only that the door had been left open for the president to proceed without congressional authorization.
This was confided by way of seeking to refute suggestions that Secretary of State John Kerry “lost” to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey in the interagency process. “Absolutely untrue,” the Kerry aide said, adding that everything Kerry said in his dramatic remarks on Friday was after “fully consulting with the White House.”
The State Department official emphasized that all of the president’s national security advisers were in agreement as of Friday night on the need to proceed with strikes – and that the president ultimately will.
At the least, Obama’s remarks do appear to leave him wiggle room. In the Rose Garden, Obama stressed that he believes he does “have the authority” to carry out an attack without the support of Congress. He said, though, that “the country will be stronger” if Congress weighs in.
A White House statement released on Saturday, following a phone call between Obama and French President Francois Hollande, gave another indication as to the president’s intentions. The statement said the two leaders agree “that the international community must deliver a resolute message to the Assad regime” and that “those who violate this international norm will be held accountable by the world.”
Fox News’ James Rosen and Ed Henry contributed to this report.

CartoonsDemsRinos