http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/catholic-leadership-does-not-represent-women_b_1276929.html
I think she sums this up very well. No need for me to comment, though I do agree. It is a matter of civil liberties and civil rights
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
And The Need To Be Hyper Critical Is?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73354.html
I have a real problem with this article for several reasons. Had this bill been pasted, it would have been tauted as government growing power and controlling roads. Speaker Boehner would have been raked over the coals for "back door dealing" or maybe even not doing the work but taking the credit. Have we come to the point that everything Congress does is going to be critiqued to the point of absurdity? Part of that is holding public office, but part of that is the sad state affairs in politics at this time. Are we going to undercut the American process and the people we sent to Washington? I think so, and it is a damn shame.
From what I have observed, Speaker Boehner is far from a hands-off leader, who is more apt to get right up in your face as he is to not. He backs the people that back him, he is not afraid to reach across the aisle, and he will knock your head if you cross him. He has pulled the rug out from Democrats and Republicans just the same. He also has backed them. His support of major education bills and tax plans have helped Democratic Representatives nearly as much as Republicans.
Besides, even if he is a hands off leader, is that a bad thing? Hands off style government is after all a hallmark of the Republican party. Regardless of philosophy, I feel as though this approach is exactly what we need in the House. Laws need to be good. They need to be well thought out. They need to not take time being passed. By allowing committees to flesh out bills, Boehner is allowing the process to stream line. Bills are being produced that should (at least we would hope) be of better quality and pass more easily. Boehner is simply practicing at the micro level what his party stands for at the macro level.
Boehner is acting as a consensus builder, much like his boss President Obama operates, which is to both of their benefits. Working with each other's strengths is the country's benefit and I think history will show that the Boehner/Obama relationship will be productive. Maybe my head is in the sand, maybe not. What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know. I'd be interested in what you have to say
I have a real problem with this article for several reasons. Had this bill been pasted, it would have been tauted as government growing power and controlling roads. Speaker Boehner would have been raked over the coals for "back door dealing" or maybe even not doing the work but taking the credit. Have we come to the point that everything Congress does is going to be critiqued to the point of absurdity? Part of that is holding public office, but part of that is the sad state affairs in politics at this time. Are we going to undercut the American process and the people we sent to Washington? I think so, and it is a damn shame.
From what I have observed, Speaker Boehner is far from a hands-off leader, who is more apt to get right up in your face as he is to not. He backs the people that back him, he is not afraid to reach across the aisle, and he will knock your head if you cross him. He has pulled the rug out from Democrats and Republicans just the same. He also has backed them. His support of major education bills and tax plans have helped Democratic Representatives nearly as much as Republicans.
Besides, even if he is a hands off leader, is that a bad thing? Hands off style government is after all a hallmark of the Republican party. Regardless of philosophy, I feel as though this approach is exactly what we need in the House. Laws need to be good. They need to be well thought out. They need to not take time being passed. By allowing committees to flesh out bills, Boehner is allowing the process to stream line. Bills are being produced that should (at least we would hope) be of better quality and pass more easily. Boehner is simply practicing at the micro level what his party stands for at the macro level.
Boehner is acting as a consensus builder, much like his boss President Obama operates, which is to both of their benefits. Working with each other's strengths is the country's benefit and I think history will show that the Boehner/Obama relationship will be productive. Maybe my head is in the sand, maybe not. What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know. I'd be interested in what you have to say
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Willie Knows How It Is Grown
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/willie-nelson/occupy-food_b_1299401.html
Yet again Willie Nelson has not let us down when it comes to our food, but he may have tapped the organic whiskey river that will push him to the forefront of our minds for good. And who better to marry the Farm Aid crowd to the OWS movement? As his fans can attest, he as long been on the outside of the establishment and a member of the 99% before it was the cool to be a member.
Nelson's reaching out is genius in an organizing sense because it puts two group together that compliment each other, plus it brings some creditability to the OWS movement that has been lacking. Farm Aid and the organic trend are well established in the organising community and have a good base of operation. They have celebrity that the OWS movement does not. It has the administration in place that other movements would kill for, plus it has years of experience. OWS can benefit from this in being able to latch on and ride the wave. The Organic movement benefits with new blood.
The real genius is in bringing the real 99% to the 99% table. The OWS was predominately a urban movement that was almost solely based on urban needs and problems. Even in today's world urban 99%ers do not face near the problems of non-urban 99%ers (I cannot pronounce rural well even when I am typing so I will use non-urban) in severity and scope. Non-urban poverty, joblessness, or any other problem the OWS highlighted is almost wholesale worse than the same problem faced by urbanites. This joining of the bottom of the 99% while provide an even louder collective voice to the table.
Finally, does it not just make simple sense to job the two movements together? It is almost like joining long lost siblings. Before the urban 99%ers lost their jobs or became marginalized, did they not go out of the way to by organic everything? If you go to a Whole Food Market or Eathfare it will mostly be full of those that make up the core of the OWS movement. Now, with a heighten awareness of the Occupy Your Food Movement the reality of growing organic foods even closer to the urban 99%ers. Having some experience being around the predominately urban, it is pretty obvious that while they go out of their way to buy organic, free range, fair trade goods, they have little clue to the growing/raising/trading process that goes into the products they are buying. That is after all the goal of any movement right? Make the connections between those doing to fighting and those they are fighting for.
Yet again Willie Nelson has not let us down when it comes to our food, but he may have tapped the organic whiskey river that will push him to the forefront of our minds for good. And who better to marry the Farm Aid crowd to the OWS movement? As his fans can attest, he as long been on the outside of the establishment and a member of the 99% before it was the cool to be a member.
Nelson's reaching out is genius in an organizing sense because it puts two group together that compliment each other, plus it brings some creditability to the OWS movement that has been lacking. Farm Aid and the organic trend are well established in the organising community and have a good base of operation. They have celebrity that the OWS movement does not. It has the administration in place that other movements would kill for, plus it has years of experience. OWS can benefit from this in being able to latch on and ride the wave. The Organic movement benefits with new blood.
 |
| Willie Knows How It Is Grown |
The real genius is in bringing the real 99% to the 99% table. The OWS was predominately a urban movement that was almost solely based on urban needs and problems. Even in today's world urban 99%ers do not face near the problems of non-urban 99%ers (I cannot pronounce rural well even when I am typing so I will use non-urban) in severity and scope. Non-urban poverty, joblessness, or any other problem the OWS highlighted is almost wholesale worse than the same problem faced by urbanites. This joining of the bottom of the 99% while provide an even louder collective voice to the table.
Finally, does it not just make simple sense to job the two movements together? It is almost like joining long lost siblings. Before the urban 99%ers lost their jobs or became marginalized, did they not go out of the way to by organic everything? If you go to a Whole Food Market or Eathfare it will mostly be full of those that make up the core of the OWS movement. Now, with a heighten awareness of the Occupy Your Food Movement the reality of growing organic foods even closer to the urban 99%ers. Having some experience being around the predominately urban, it is pretty obvious that while they go out of their way to buy organic, free range, fair trade goods, they have little clue to the growing/raising/trading process that goes into the products they are buying. That is after all the goal of any movement right? Make the connections between those doing to fighting and those they are fighting for.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Okay This Goes A Bit Too Far
http://www.americablog.com/2012/02/santorum-and-sadoerotic-pleasures-of.html
I caught this trolling for fuel to keep the fairtopartlymoderate engine running and was pretty disgusted. Here at fairtopartlymoderate, I try to be as moderate as I can in both my opinions and what I write about. With that in mind I found this to be way over the top. There is simply no need to add this type of argument (or pictures for that matter) to the political debate. I am by no means trying to involve myself in some inner-blog shouting match, that is not what this blog does, but I would like to point out what other blogs are talking about. A reasonable debate over why they felt compelled to publish such an article would be nice.
That being said, what would be the down side to having a President involved in a secret society? We have had Presidents be Freemasons, Elks, Lions, Skull and Bones (i have to admit they are alittle shady) and a whole host of other organizations. These Presidents are also those consistently ranked in the top ten Presidents. Being a member of society teaches one to get along with other people of various classes, opinions, races, and occupations. I recently wrote (http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-republicans-and-rest-of-country.html) about how uncivil Congress has become, and if more members of Congress were a part (and active in) of such organizations that incivility may decrease.
I see no problem with Rick Santorum being Opus Dei, if he is. What I have a problem with is people feeling the need to sensationalize political debate with lude pictures and innuendo that is not necessary to debate politics
I caught this trolling for fuel to keep the fairtopartlymoderate engine running and was pretty disgusted. Here at fairtopartlymoderate, I try to be as moderate as I can in both my opinions and what I write about. With that in mind I found this to be way over the top. There is simply no need to add this type of argument (or pictures for that matter) to the political debate. I am by no means trying to involve myself in some inner-blog shouting match, that is not what this blog does, but I would like to point out what other blogs are talking about. A reasonable debate over why they felt compelled to publish such an article would be nice.
That being said, what would be the down side to having a President involved in a secret society? We have had Presidents be Freemasons, Elks, Lions, Skull and Bones (i have to admit they are alittle shady) and a whole host of other organizations. These Presidents are also those consistently ranked in the top ten Presidents. Being a member of society teaches one to get along with other people of various classes, opinions, races, and occupations. I recently wrote (http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-republicans-and-rest-of-country.html) about how uncivil Congress has become, and if more members of Congress were a part (and active in) of such organizations that incivility may decrease.
I see no problem with Rick Santorum being Opus Dei, if he is. What I have a problem with is people feeling the need to sensationalize political debate with lude pictures and innuendo that is not necessary to debate politics
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Why Decent Americans Cannot Get A Break
http://www.masspoliticsprofs.com/2012/02/17/stop-culture-warriors-at-the-metaphor-stage/
As someone who tries to be as reasonable as possible, I too find comments like those listed in this article to be troublesome. There is no way to speek to someone who ties religion to politics without them simply dismissing you..no matter if you agree with them or not. It is a shame, but true. It is detrimental to politics, but is also extremely harmful to religion.
Here are two prime examples:
Here too is a good perspective of what is going on as veiwed from across the pond.http://conflictandnews.blogspot.com/2012/02/war-against-secularism-rises.html
As someone who tries to be as reasonable as possible, I too find comments like those listed in this article to be troublesome. There is no way to speek to someone who ties religion to politics without them simply dismissing you..no matter if you agree with them or not. It is a shame, but true. It is detrimental to politics, but is also extremely harmful to religion.
Here are two prime examples:
Here too is a good perspective of what is going on as veiwed from across the pond.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
2012: The Year Of The Third Party or The Death Rattle Of The Republicans
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/305074
I saw a brief snippet of this over the weekend, but I confirmed today that Virgil Goode is running for nomination under the Constitution Party banner. This is wonderful news if you are a third party nut like myself, however it signals an overarching problem for the Republicans that I think may have major implications at the national level.
Goode's running for the Constitution Party nomination could well be the end for the Republican Party as we know it. How can I make this jump? Look at the effectiveness of the Tea Party when coupled with the fact that a state Senator from Red State Virginia leaves the Republican Party for a third party like the Constitution Party. Understandably, a state Senator jumping parties (I'm sure it happens all the time) is not the death rattle of a national political party, but it is cause for question, and look at where he is going.
The Constitution Party is the closest thing to the Tea Party without being a member of the Tea Party caucus. The biggest shift in the Republican Party has been out to the fringe of the Conservative spectrum, towards what can be considered traditional Conservative Constitutional values. The Tea Party exploded on the scene spouting rhetoric that sounded eerily similar to old Republican talking points. Ron Paul continues to do well preaching a gospel that would make many die hard Republicans stand up and cheer. Republicans are having to move away from simply being Democrat Lites to be noticed, and are in turn changing the face of the party (much like Moser points out the Democrats need to do in the book Blue Dixie http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2011/05/book-review-blue-dixie.html) Many pundits would tell you that small government is the new big government just like orange is the new black...I guess that's right...
Virgil Goode is not the last nail in the Republican coffin, but when you look at some of the other nails in the pouch, it does look onimous for Republicans.
I saw a brief snippet of this over the weekend, but I confirmed today that Virgil Goode is running for nomination under the Constitution Party banner. This is wonderful news if you are a third party nut like myself, however it signals an overarching problem for the Republicans that I think may have major implications at the national level.
 |
| Goode,who was a Democrat turned Republican, is now running as a Constitution Party candidate |
Goode's running for the Constitution Party nomination could well be the end for the Republican Party as we know it. How can I make this jump? Look at the effectiveness of the Tea Party when coupled with the fact that a state Senator from Red State Virginia leaves the Republican Party for a third party like the Constitution Party. Understandably, a state Senator jumping parties (I'm sure it happens all the time) is not the death rattle of a national political party, but it is cause for question, and look at where he is going.
The Constitution Party is the closest thing to the Tea Party without being a member of the Tea Party caucus. The biggest shift in the Republican Party has been out to the fringe of the Conservative spectrum, towards what can be considered traditional Conservative Constitutional values. The Tea Party exploded on the scene spouting rhetoric that sounded eerily similar to old Republican talking points. Ron Paul continues to do well preaching a gospel that would make many die hard Republicans stand up and cheer. Republicans are having to move away from simply being Democrat Lites to be noticed, and are in turn changing the face of the party (much like Moser points out the Democrats need to do in the book Blue Dixie http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2011/05/book-review-blue-dixie.html) Many pundits would tell you that small government is the new big government just like orange is the new black...I guess that's right...
Virgil Goode is not the last nail in the Republican coffin, but when you look at some of the other nails in the pouch, it does look onimous for Republicans.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Why Republicans (And The Rest Of The Country) Might Do Well With Such A Ticket
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-ron-paul-friendly-amid-the-rivalry.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Grand Canyon , singing in cars..you get the point).
Political civility is not some mythical creature that has only been seen by a select few. In times past, Congress has been a friendly, even fraternal place where member and their families mixed freely regardless of party and opinions. Harry Truman was a regular at the poker table with Republicans. Lyndon Johnson lived with a Republican when he first came toWashington
Is the Paul-Romney friendship an usher to a new age of political civility? I hope so. We need that. We need Congress to quit complaining about the other and work. Frankly we need Congress to simply work.
Political civility is not some mythical creature that has only been seen by a select few. In times past, Congress has been a friendly, even fraternal place where member and their families mixed freely regardless of party and opinions. Harry Truman was a regular at the poker table with Republicans. Lyndon Johnson lived with a Republican when he first came to
Is the Paul-Romney friendship an usher to a new age of political civility? I hope so. We need that. We need Congress to quit complaining about the other and work. Frankly we need Congress to simply work.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Here We Go Teachers! or Too Little To Notice?
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/02/kiss-good-teaching-in-virginia-goodbye.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-motivates-us-and-why-getting-rid.html
Recently I have written about the troubles of education in Virginia and the paradigm changes that must occur in order for these troubles to subside. On Wendesday of this week, teacher throughout my system were notified that as a sign of protest, the Virginia Teacher's Assosiation was going to wear black. This was to protest the lack (percieved or otherwise) of regards to teacher welfare shown by Governor McDonald. Personally I will be wearing black, but the more I think about it the more I realize there frutililty of the situtation.
While I cannot agree with Governor McDonald, I cannot help but see the politics behind his recent purposal. Tenure has long been a sore spot for professions that do not have such an option. Those who do not teach love to build grand illiusions that tenured teachers do nothing. this perception fails to observe the countless hours tentured teachers spend in staff leadership roles, mentoring new teachers, carrying out sponserships,serving as department chairs or coaching..in addition to their regular teaching duties. With this perception prevailent in the public, Governor McDonald can do little but take advantage. It is good politics.
In stressing such measures, Governor McDonald might well remember the old adage "what makes good politics, doesn't always make good policy." Governor McDonald may well see these measures through, but he may do so at great peril to his political aspirations. Rumors are floating around Virginia that Governor McDonald is being considered by Mitt Romney as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate, but such measures may well tip the scale towards President Obama in a critical state like Virginia. Alienating a voting block as powerful as teachers in an election year, may well prove to be as effective as invading Russia in the spring.
So I ask: is wearing black on Friday to show support a good thing? I think so. It will show unity, which is always good. Will it effect the outcome? I doubt it, but that might not be a bad thing.
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-motivates-us-and-why-getting-rid.html
Recently I have written about the troubles of education in Virginia and the paradigm changes that must occur in order for these troubles to subside. On Wendesday of this week, teacher throughout my system were notified that as a sign of protest, the Virginia Teacher's Assosiation was going to wear black. This was to protest the lack (percieved or otherwise) of regards to teacher welfare shown by Governor McDonald. Personally I will be wearing black, but the more I think about it the more I realize there frutililty of the situtation.
While I cannot agree with Governor McDonald, I cannot help but see the politics behind his recent purposal. Tenure has long been a sore spot for professions that do not have such an option. Those who do not teach love to build grand illiusions that tenured teachers do nothing. this perception fails to observe the countless hours tentured teachers spend in staff leadership roles, mentoring new teachers, carrying out sponserships,serving as department chairs or coaching..in addition to their regular teaching duties. With this perception prevailent in the public, Governor McDonald can do little but take advantage. It is good politics.
In stressing such measures, Governor McDonald might well remember the old adage "what makes good politics, doesn't always make good policy." Governor McDonald may well see these measures through, but he may do so at great peril to his political aspirations. Rumors are floating around Virginia that Governor McDonald is being considered by Mitt Romney as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate, but such measures may well tip the scale towards President Obama in a critical state like Virginia. Alienating a voting block as powerful as teachers in an election year, may well prove to be as effective as invading Russia in the spring.
So I ask: is wearing black on Friday to show support a good thing? I think so. It will show unity, which is always good. Will it effect the outcome? I doubt it, but that might not be a bad thing.
Something Is Wrong With This Picture
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucas-kavner/who-is-paul-mccartney_b_1276287.html
I wanted to take a break from politics for just a second and comment on how disturbing this was. I read this article in the presence of a group of high schoolers and here are the responses I got.
"Who is Paul McCartney?"
"I don't know who that is, but that's music from your day so it's ok."
"I know I should know who he is but I don't"
"Is he a folk singer?"
"Isn't he in that band?"
Yes Virginia, he was in that band...THE BEATLES. The Beatles..only the most influential band of this or maybe even any other time in the history of man kind. As Steve Job put it "The Rolling Stone would have been done, but no one can do The Beatles."
I wanted to take a break from politics for just a second and comment on how disturbing this was. I read this article in the presence of a group of high schoolers and here are the responses I got.
"Who is Paul McCartney?"
"I don't know who that is, but that's music from your day so it's ok."
"I know I should know who he is but I don't"
"Is he a folk singer?"
"Isn't he in that band?"
Yes Virginia, he was in that band...THE BEATLES. The Beatles..only the most influential band of this or maybe even any other time in the history of man kind. As Steve Job put it "The Rolling Stone would have been done, but no one can do The Beatles."
What a role reversal? A one point in our nation's history, the teacher not the student would have been asking "Isn't he in that band?"
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Welcome!
I have been tracking the readership of the blog and I would like to welcome all the new readers. I would especially like to welcome the readers out on the west coast, and in Charlottesville. Feel free to look around and read all you can stand. Leaving comments is more than welcomed.
To my steady readers, welcome to you as well. Feel free to read around too, and leave comments. I am more than willing to hear what you have to say. I'm really trying to get this off the ground, and it is the steady readers that will help the most.
To my steady readers, welcome to you as well. Feel free to read around too, and leave comments. I am more than willing to hear what you have to say. I'm really trying to get this off the ground, and it is the steady readers that will help the most.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
What Motivates Us, And Why Getting Rid Of Tenure Will Hurt Education
I had attempted to explain this in yesterday in my op-ed about tenure in education
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/02/kiss-good-teaching-in-virginia-goodbye.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/02/kiss-good-teaching-in-virginia-goodbye.html
Monday, February 13, 2012
Kiss (good) Teaching In Virginia Goodbye
http://virginiapublicradio.org/2012/02/13/teacher-contract-legislation/
The legislation that has passed the Virginia House of Delegates is signaling the end of good teaching in Virginia, and paving the way towards the end in America as I see it. This blog is dedicated to being a moderate and attempting to see both sides to each argument, but not on this issue. I will however be as academic as I can be in my explanation of why I say the end is upon us.
I will explain the following reasons to base my argument
1) Taking away financial security is not the way to induce the kind of ingenuity needed in education or in the education of students that will one day compete in the global job market
2) This will lead to even more "teaching to the test" then before, even if measures to reduce the importance of test scores are taken
3) This will drive young teachers away from Virginia and into the waiting arms of the other states or out of teaching all together thus slowing economic growth rather than speeding it.
4) A major paradigm shift away from a individualistic education approach to a manufacturing one must take place in the upper (teacher education programs) and lower (students/parents) atmospheres of education.
Explanations
1) Research has shown that in order to create the most friendly of environment for creativity in the work place, money need not be the factor. In simple jobs such as manufacturing this rational works, but in the creative endeavors like teaching it has the inverse effect.
2) Even with measures put into place that will lessen the impact of test scores on renewal of contracts, teachers will modify their teaching styles away from the creative, problem solving based approaches (needed to compete in the 21st Century) and focus more on basic application of facts and knowledge. Need proof? How can a standardized test test the creative capacity of an 8th grader? There is no way to train students to think creativity and then test them (uniformly) on how creative they are. A similar test would be define art in one word, and getting the same word every time.
In addition teachers will be less apt to teach enriching lessons that offer students time to develop an interest in their subject for fear of missing opportunities to teach information that may be on the test. This will also leave behind the notion of well rounded educations that we have been operating under for so long and lead to specialization of student almost from the time the enter school.
3) Many young people will either leave Virginia, or teaching altogether at a time when neither Virginia or the country can afford to allow this. On a micro level Virginia will suffer because too many teachers, who enter into teaching for the stability, will leave to other states that offer tenure taking with them their spending power and tax base. State to state brain dumps will take place from states not offering tenure to those who do. Virginia honestly does not need to loose any more state to state battles. The second option for young people is even more bleak in outcome. Either leaving teaching or never entering for more lucrative/stable careers will be a growing trend. The country cannot stand to loose people to high paying careers in a time when our economic recovery is being tied to the middle class. If millionaires are not going to burden our economic recovery, what we need less are millionaires. If the middle class is being depleted of his lifeblood (teaching has traditionally been a middle class job) then what other means of economic recovery are left? So you tell me, more millionaires or economic recovery?
4) A major paradigm shift must take place in the upper education atmosphere away from an individualistic, "every child should learn as they learn best" to a manufacturing style. (to be brutally honest, it will happen whether the education world wants it to or not). No longer can children be looked upon as snowflake that learned different ways. Education programs that have trained teacher to teach is such a manner must leave such notions behind. Education will be boiled down to simple application of facts, that as I argue is ineffective and determinately to competition on the global scale. Teachers will stop experimenting with different educational strategies and focus on old fashion, simple styles that produce the best test scores. It is a cold hard fact that many of our "junior just doesn't learn that way" students will fall by the Darwinian wayside because they cannot adapt to the most effective modes of teaching that produce the best test scores. This style of education is prevalent in Europe and Asia, but is something that we as the rugged individualistic Americans have deplored as cruel and barbaric. I guess it is time for the snow fakes to melt or evaporate.
I leave this post with the simple question of why? Why do we feel our country is lagging behind other countries? We are after all doing something other countries do not do, which is educate every child (leaving none behind), and creating a well rounded child who is able to leave our (free) public school systems and enter a college system that is known the world over. Apparently, that is not something deemed worthy to many, so I ask again why?
The legislation that has passed the Virginia House of Delegates is signaling the end of good teaching in Virginia, and paving the way towards the end in America as I see it. This blog is dedicated to being a moderate and attempting to see both sides to each argument, but not on this issue. I will however be as academic as I can be in my explanation of why I say the end is upon us.
I will explain the following reasons to base my argument
1) Taking away financial security is not the way to induce the kind of ingenuity needed in education or in the education of students that will one day compete in the global job market
2) This will lead to even more "teaching to the test" then before, even if measures to reduce the importance of test scores are taken
3) This will drive young teachers away from Virginia and into the waiting arms of the other states or out of teaching all together thus slowing economic growth rather than speeding it.
4) A major paradigm shift away from a individualistic education approach to a manufacturing one must take place in the upper (teacher education programs) and lower (students/parents) atmospheres of education.
Explanations
1) Research has shown that in order to create the most friendly of environment for creativity in the work place, money need not be the factor. In simple jobs such as manufacturing this rational works, but in the creative endeavors like teaching it has the inverse effect.
2) Even with measures put into place that will lessen the impact of test scores on renewal of contracts, teachers will modify their teaching styles away from the creative, problem solving based approaches (needed to compete in the 21st Century) and focus more on basic application of facts and knowledge. Need proof? How can a standardized test test the creative capacity of an 8th grader? There is no way to train students to think creativity and then test them (uniformly) on how creative they are. A similar test would be define art in one word, and getting the same word every time.
In addition teachers will be less apt to teach enriching lessons that offer students time to develop an interest in their subject for fear of missing opportunities to teach information that may be on the test. This will also leave behind the notion of well rounded educations that we have been operating under for so long and lead to specialization of student almost from the time the enter school.
3) Many young people will either leave Virginia, or teaching altogether at a time when neither Virginia or the country can afford to allow this. On a micro level Virginia will suffer because too many teachers, who enter into teaching for the stability, will leave to other states that offer tenure taking with them their spending power and tax base. State to state brain dumps will take place from states not offering tenure to those who do. Virginia honestly does not need to loose any more state to state battles. The second option for young people is even more bleak in outcome. Either leaving teaching or never entering for more lucrative/stable careers will be a growing trend. The country cannot stand to loose people to high paying careers in a time when our economic recovery is being tied to the middle class. If millionaires are not going to burden our economic recovery, what we need less are millionaires. If the middle class is being depleted of his lifeblood (teaching has traditionally been a middle class job) then what other means of economic recovery are left? So you tell me, more millionaires or economic recovery?
4) A major paradigm shift must take place in the upper education atmosphere away from an individualistic, "every child should learn as they learn best" to a manufacturing style. (to be brutally honest, it will happen whether the education world wants it to or not). No longer can children be looked upon as snowflake that learned different ways. Education programs that have trained teacher to teach is such a manner must leave such notions behind. Education will be boiled down to simple application of facts, that as I argue is ineffective and determinately to competition on the global scale. Teachers will stop experimenting with different educational strategies and focus on old fashion, simple styles that produce the best test scores. It is a cold hard fact that many of our "junior just doesn't learn that way" students will fall by the Darwinian wayside because they cannot adapt to the most effective modes of teaching that produce the best test scores. This style of education is prevalent in Europe and Asia, but is something that we as the rugged individualistic Americans have deplored as cruel and barbaric. I guess it is time for the snow fakes to melt or evaporate.
I leave this post with the simple question of why? Why do we feel our country is lagging behind other countries? We are after all doing something other countries do not do, which is educate every child (leaving none behind), and creating a well rounded child who is able to leave our (free) public school systems and enter a college system that is known the world over. Apparently, that is not something deemed worthy to many, so I ask again why?
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Good Article On Slavery After The Civil War
://http://www.americablog.com/2012/02/slavery-by-another-name.htm
Friday, February 10, 2012
Yet ANOTHER Reason We Do Not Need This Guy
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/10/146685806/if-women-are-in-combat-men-may-try-to-protect-them-santorum-says?sc=fb&cc=fp
Isn't that the job of combat personel? To protect other combat personel? I bet his argument against gays in the military would be based on the fact that some would not want to protect them. How is it that a man how has never been within 1,000 miles of a shot fired in anger knows so much about combat?
 |
| Santorum Campaigning For Moron-In-Chief |
Isn't that the job of combat personel? To protect other combat personel? I bet his argument against gays in the military would be based on the fact that some would not want to protect them. How is it that a man how has never been within 1,000 miles of a shot fired in anger knows so much about combat?
Struggling With The Constitution
I have recently in a continuing conversation about gay marriage and the Constitution. In this discussion several issues have come up, but none bigger than the need for a Constitutional Amendment allowing gay couples to receive status in the eyes of the law.
I contend that we do not need an amendment, for fear of how it would be used in the future and with the understanding that the present amendments provide grounds for the allowance of gay marriage. Now would be an appropriate time to state that I am completely for allowing gay couples to marry and receive benefits as such. Marriage is a hard undertaking (coming from someone who has had one to fail) but denying the joys of such a challenge is ridiculous to say the least.
My fears of how the amendments may be used in the future are not the typical. I do not fear people wanting to marry animals or multiple people. I fear a marriage amendment being used by corporations (already sadly defined as people) to manipulate deals in their favor and hurt common people. Yes, an amendment would help those gay couples that want to be married, but it may well hurt them in the long run when we all go sliding headlong down this slippery slope already being tilted by the Supreme Court. It is a clear fact that companies and the wealthy will use the system in their favor to make even more money, and opening the door for them to "marry" and gain all the civil benefits is not something we need.
In addition I feel that our current Constitution, if interpreted correctly, can be used to justify gay marriage. Using the Fifth, Tenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment, the Supreme Court could allow for gay marriage laws to stay in the states. This idea does open the door to a perpetual battle much like the battle faught over abortion, but it allow us to prevent further harm. Marriage is after all a state mandate and the Tenth Amendment allows all power not listed in the Constitution to be reserved to the states. The Ninth Amendment states that any right not established by the Constitution at the time of its writing to be allowed in the future. If the right to marry is allowed by the states, then under the Tenth and Ninth Amendment gay couples should be allowed to marry. Even under the Fifth Amendment's statement for the rights of "life, liberty, and property," gay couples could argue it is unconstitutional for them to not be allowed marriage. If laws deny gay couples to share property such as homes, cars, or insurance policies, are they not in violation of the Constitution?
I am by no means a Constitution expert, and I may be coming at this from a wrong direction. What do you think? Are you for or against gay marriage? If so how did you form your opinion? Are you for an Amendment or not? I am curious what other people are thinking and talking about. Maybe I'm wrong. Write me a comment and tell me what you think. Leave it here or my facebook page.
I contend that we do not need an amendment, for fear of how it would be used in the future and with the understanding that the present amendments provide grounds for the allowance of gay marriage. Now would be an appropriate time to state that I am completely for allowing gay couples to marry and receive benefits as such. Marriage is a hard undertaking (coming from someone who has had one to fail) but denying the joys of such a challenge is ridiculous to say the least.
My fears of how the amendments may be used in the future are not the typical. I do not fear people wanting to marry animals or multiple people. I fear a marriage amendment being used by corporations (already sadly defined as people) to manipulate deals in their favor and hurt common people. Yes, an amendment would help those gay couples that want to be married, but it may well hurt them in the long run when we all go sliding headlong down this slippery slope already being tilted by the Supreme Court. It is a clear fact that companies and the wealthy will use the system in their favor to make even more money, and opening the door for them to "marry" and gain all the civil benefits is not something we need.
In addition I feel that our current Constitution, if interpreted correctly, can be used to justify gay marriage. Using the Fifth, Tenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment, the Supreme Court could allow for gay marriage laws to stay in the states. This idea does open the door to a perpetual battle much like the battle faught over abortion, but it allow us to prevent further harm. Marriage is after all a state mandate and the Tenth Amendment allows all power not listed in the Constitution to be reserved to the states. The Ninth Amendment states that any right not established by the Constitution at the time of its writing to be allowed in the future. If the right to marry is allowed by the states, then under the Tenth and Ninth Amendment gay couples should be allowed to marry. Even under the Fifth Amendment's statement for the rights of "life, liberty, and property," gay couples could argue it is unconstitutional for them to not be allowed marriage. If laws deny gay couples to share property such as homes, cars, or insurance policies, are they not in violation of the Constitution?
I am by no means a Constitution expert, and I may be coming at this from a wrong direction. What do you think? Are you for or against gay marriage? If so how did you form your opinion? Are you for an Amendment or not? I am curious what other people are thinking and talking about. Maybe I'm wrong. Write me a comment and tell me what you think. Leave it here or my facebook page.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Alittle Political Humor
http://developmentryangosling.tumblr.com/
For all you Ryan Gosling fans..and maybe a few econ nerds
Sorta what it is looking like
For all you Ryan Gosling fans..and maybe a few econ nerds
Does This Make Me A Radical?
I started reading Saul Alinksy's book "Rules For Radicals" two nights ago and I can already feel Newt Gingrich's doughboy death-rays turning in my direction. Once I get further into the book, my objections will be rationed out, but I have one already. Alinsky's main point is the idea of fighting the system from within, yet not seeming to just throw caution to the wind and change.
While I fundamentally agree with Alinsky on this point, I have the hardest time not wanting to just chunk the whole system out and start over. At least I feel this way on a micro level of say education. I feel like the education system is terribly damaged and needs to be canned post haste. Alinsky would say that I must fight it from within, maybe by becoming a vice- principle, then principle, then move to a central office position, then on and on.
I see this as a two fold problem. 1) I do not want to climb the ladder (it's not why I got into teaching) and 2) When you climb the ladder it puts you further from the ground, thus making you part of the problem and not part of the solution. Many teacher see the ladder climbers disjointed from the classroom and distant from the realities of day to day life in real education. Of course ladder climber will say they have a good knowledge of the classroom by their annual visits in for observation, but I disagree.
To compound the problem, those with the real power (state education sectaries, or federal leaders) have even less of a clue what takes to implement their policies. It is virtually impossible for these people to have taught in the classroom for very long, and achieve the political stature required to obtain these type of positions.Thus the true conundrum of education, and Alinsky's main point. How do you can from within, if within is the problem.
On a macro level I could not agree more with Alinsky. Our American Democracy has kinks that need fixing (the huge effect of money on election, the hidden corruption of lobbyists to name two) but over-all it is a far cry better than it could be. Those problems that need to be repaired can and should be done so from with in, and for the most part we are achieving those repairs. Yes, more qualified young people need to enter into the political scene, but with the rise of Tea Party and OWS type movements we are seeing that. More and more young people are voting, and participating in elections. If anything President Obama's election in 2008 shows that. The only foreseeable hindrance I can see is the Republican field for 2012 but we still thankfully have Obama to get behind.
Perhaps what little I have read of Alinksy is wearing off on me. We are changing the system from with in, or at least have the mechanisms in place. Young people need to continue their involvement, and activism and not get discouraged. Activism is what the establishment fears the most. It is pretty evident what Newt Gingrich fears the most is young people taking the power (held for a ever so brief time) away from those in power. This fear is compounded because those of Gingrich and Romney's age held or are holding power for so little time, which means they must cling to it even more tightly.
This being said, I am encouraged by what I see in the likes of fighting the system from within. If I am totally crazy, let me know by leaving a comment. I'd love to debate the finer points of fighting the system from within. Does it work on a micro and marco level? Leave a comment and we can debate.
While I fundamentally agree with Alinsky on this point, I have the hardest time not wanting to just chunk the whole system out and start over. At least I feel this way on a micro level of say education. I feel like the education system is terribly damaged and needs to be canned post haste. Alinsky would say that I must fight it from within, maybe by becoming a vice- principle, then principle, then move to a central office position, then on and on.
I see this as a two fold problem. 1) I do not want to climb the ladder (it's not why I got into teaching) and 2) When you climb the ladder it puts you further from the ground, thus making you part of the problem and not part of the solution. Many teacher see the ladder climbers disjointed from the classroom and distant from the realities of day to day life in real education. Of course ladder climber will say they have a good knowledge of the classroom by their annual visits in for observation, but I disagree.
To compound the problem, those with the real power (state education sectaries, or federal leaders) have even less of a clue what takes to implement their policies. It is virtually impossible for these people to have taught in the classroom for very long, and achieve the political stature required to obtain these type of positions.Thus the true conundrum of education, and Alinsky's main point. How do you can from within, if within is the problem.
On a macro level I could not agree more with Alinsky. Our American Democracy has kinks that need fixing (the huge effect of money on election, the hidden corruption of lobbyists to name two) but over-all it is a far cry better than it could be. Those problems that need to be repaired can and should be done so from with in, and for the most part we are achieving those repairs. Yes, more qualified young people need to enter into the political scene, but with the rise of Tea Party and OWS type movements we are seeing that. More and more young people are voting, and participating in elections. If anything President Obama's election in 2008 shows that. The only foreseeable hindrance I can see is the Republican field for 2012 but we still thankfully have Obama to get behind.
Perhaps what little I have read of Alinksy is wearing off on me. We are changing the system from with in, or at least have the mechanisms in place. Young people need to continue their involvement, and activism and not get discouraged. Activism is what the establishment fears the most. It is pretty evident what Newt Gingrich fears the most is young people taking the power (held for a ever so brief time) away from those in power. This fear is compounded because those of Gingrich and Romney's age held or are holding power for so little time, which means they must cling to it even more tightly.
This being said, I am encouraged by what I see in the likes of fighting the system from within. If I am totally crazy, let me know by leaving a comment. I'd love to debate the finer points of fighting the system from within. Does it work on a micro and marco level? Leave a comment and we can debate.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Bravado Of A Different Tone
http://themoderatevoice.com/137606/americas-young-people-turn-against-patriotic-bravado-gazeta-russia/
I disagree with the idea that America's youth are carry less bravado. I understand that I might be taking a slightly different definition of bravado and what the blogger is trying,but for the sake of argument I will. Today's youth in America are patriotic, and proud just in a different tone. While previous generation have bragged about America, and gone out to show it either in war or business. those options are less taken today. If you want to see patriotic actions today you must look at the local level, to those kids who are participating in things like the Occupy Movement, or serious mission trips. There are your examples of American patriotism spreading.
Let's look at the Occupy Movement first. Yes, a good bit of the Occupy swell was sprung from the upstarts in the Arab countries, but Occupy was the bounce back to the Arab spring. Like radar or sonar, we answered the Arab Spring with out our American version, that lacked the serious military aspects. The participant of any American Occupy encampment will tell you it is their right as an American to be out there picketing. To me, that is American vibrato. In fact, in what I have read about the movement there was an almost snobbish attitude about why more people were not involved. Is that not the very definition of bravado? "I'm right, you're wrong! Why can't you see I'm right and your wrong?"
The Occupy Movement was very visible to the rest of the world, and shown that attitude to the point that OWS rallies sprang up all over the world. It might not be capitalism, or bullets that are being flashed by the Occupy Camps, but it is pretty easy to see that their patriotism was in full force for all the world. Might I add, they wanted to the whole world to see that we in America were attuned to what was going on and did not want to be left behind. Yet another example of what I understand to be bravado.
The second group of kids that we can look at are very much unlike the Occupy Wall Streeter, but no less bold in how they think. If you ask any OWS member why they were in the streets, the First Amendment right to assembly is going to be their first answer. If you ask any student out on a mission field, their answer may well quote the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Now let me make a distinction, there are missionaries and there are kid who go on mission trips. The hard corp kids are going to be the group that you get this answer from,though the mission trip kids will give a more warm-fizzy answer. Are they not displaying their patriotism by going out and preaching the word of God to others? Ask them that question and you are going to get a religiously laced patriotic speech that would make Reagan and Pat Robertson go nuts. This will be more pronounced if you poll many members of a particular university located in a particular central Virginia town that starts with L and ends in ynchburg. They see their freedom as something the rest of the world lack, and because we in America have it, we have to share it with the rest of the world. I must too here admit that I am a serious mission tripper, and have on occasion seen the world this way. I'd like to think now, that when I go on trips today, it's for the sake of helping other people in need.
My point is this. In years past people have had bravado because we have beat other countries at ward, or in the world market, or sports, or whatever. Now we need to tune into how our young people are showing off their patriotism in different ways. Not to sound all hippieish, but we are very well beating the country in peace. Is that not what we want? To show that Democracy is peaceful, and while we might fight amongst ourselves, we do so as a model for our to fight amongst your neighbors. Oh my, that dangers on American exceptionalism right there. Hmm
Let me know what you think! Have I gone off my rocker or am I missing the point all together? Leave a comment here or on my Facebook page. I'd love to talk
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698
I disagree with the idea that America's youth are carry less bravado. I understand that I might be taking a slightly different definition of bravado and what the blogger is trying,but for the sake of argument I will. Today's youth in America are patriotic, and proud just in a different tone. While previous generation have bragged about America, and gone out to show it either in war or business. those options are less taken today. If you want to see patriotic actions today you must look at the local level, to those kids who are participating in things like the Occupy Movement, or serious mission trips. There are your examples of American patriotism spreading.
Let's look at the Occupy Movement first. Yes, a good bit of the Occupy swell was sprung from the upstarts in the Arab countries, but Occupy was the bounce back to the Arab spring. Like radar or sonar, we answered the Arab Spring with out our American version, that lacked the serious military aspects. The participant of any American Occupy encampment will tell you it is their right as an American to be out there picketing. To me, that is American vibrato. In fact, in what I have read about the movement there was an almost snobbish attitude about why more people were not involved. Is that not the very definition of bravado? "I'm right, you're wrong! Why can't you see I'm right and your wrong?"
The Occupy Movement was very visible to the rest of the world, and shown that attitude to the point that OWS rallies sprang up all over the world. It might not be capitalism, or bullets that are being flashed by the Occupy Camps, but it is pretty easy to see that their patriotism was in full force for all the world. Might I add, they wanted to the whole world to see that we in America were attuned to what was going on and did not want to be left behind. Yet another example of what I understand to be bravado.
The second group of kids that we can look at are very much unlike the Occupy Wall Streeter, but no less bold in how they think. If you ask any OWS member why they were in the streets, the First Amendment right to assembly is going to be their first answer. If you ask any student out on a mission field, their answer may well quote the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Now let me make a distinction, there are missionaries and there are kid who go on mission trips. The hard corp kids are going to be the group that you get this answer from,though the mission trip kids will give a more warm-fizzy answer. Are they not displaying their patriotism by going out and preaching the word of God to others? Ask them that question and you are going to get a religiously laced patriotic speech that would make Reagan and Pat Robertson go nuts. This will be more pronounced if you poll many members of a particular university located in a particular central Virginia town that starts with L and ends in ynchburg. They see their freedom as something the rest of the world lack, and because we in America have it, we have to share it with the rest of the world. I must too here admit that I am a serious mission tripper, and have on occasion seen the world this way. I'd like to think now, that when I go on trips today, it's for the sake of helping other people in need.
My point is this. In years past people have had bravado because we have beat other countries at ward, or in the world market, or sports, or whatever. Now we need to tune into how our young people are showing off their patriotism in different ways. Not to sound all hippieish, but we are very well beating the country in peace. Is that not what we want? To show that Democracy is peaceful, and while we might fight amongst ourselves, we do so as a model for our to fight amongst your neighbors. Oh my, that dangers on American exceptionalism right there. Hmm
Let me know what you think! Have I gone off my rocker or am I missing the point all together? Leave a comment here or on my Facebook page. I'd love to talk
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698
Friday, February 3, 2012
Interesting Territory
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2012/01/state-v-church-trib-style.html
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
Of all the First Amendment right, the freedom of religion is my favorite, well second favorite to debate. Speech is my favorite, simply because it is the root of all the others.
We are covering the First Amendment in class, so I have been doing some thinking about the freedom of/from/for religion in this country, and I have reached a conclusion that might be a bit radical. By even hearing cases about religion, is the Supreme Court stepping close to the establishment of religion? Some may say no, I contend that recognition is pretty close. I think, the framers of the Constitution wanted religion completely out of the equation. There very thought of the Supreme Court hearing a case about religion, may well have made the framers sick.
But back to reality, the Supreme Court is dealing with religion. What I feel is a bit tedious about this whole affair is the notion that we are debating whether churches can deny coverage of an abortion on their health care. If we are separating state from church, why is there a debate? Churches are independent agencies that govern themselves, are they not? Their health care plans are their matter.
If my understanding is correct, why is the case being argued under the 1st Amendment? Would it not be more effective for the plaintiff to sue under a different premise? Yes the 1st Amendment will receive the most notice, but there is bound to be a better way to approach this to reach the same outcome.
What do you think? Am I totally nut? Write me a comment and we can start a debate. We welcome any and all comments. Leave them here or at our facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
Of all the First Amendment right, the freedom of religion is my favorite, well second favorite to debate. Speech is my favorite, simply because it is the root of all the others.
We are covering the First Amendment in class, so I have been doing some thinking about the freedom of/from/for religion in this country, and I have reached a conclusion that might be a bit radical. By even hearing cases about religion, is the Supreme Court stepping close to the establishment of religion? Some may say no, I contend that recognition is pretty close. I think, the framers of the Constitution wanted religion completely out of the equation. There very thought of the Supreme Court hearing a case about religion, may well have made the framers sick.
But back to reality, the Supreme Court is dealing with religion. What I feel is a bit tedious about this whole affair is the notion that we are debating whether churches can deny coverage of an abortion on their health care. If we are separating state from church, why is there a debate? Churches are independent agencies that govern themselves, are they not? Their health care plans are their matter.
If my understanding is correct, why is the case being argued under the 1st Amendment? Would it not be more effective for the plaintiff to sue under a different premise? Yes the 1st Amendment will receive the most notice, but there is bound to be a better way to approach this to reach the same outcome.
What do you think? Am I totally nut? Write me a comment and we can start a debate. We welcome any and all comments. Leave them here or at our facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698)
Why We DO NOT Need These Guys
Usually I try not to be so negative, and the next post I have in mind is much more high brow but I thought I would take a few minutes to highlight some of the more stupid things the Republican Nominees have said. As usual though, I want to offer a few different points of view
Ok, lets go with the idea that it was a flub. He may very well care about poor people. What gets me was that he wonders if there is a safety net, and whether it needs fixing. How out of touch does a person need to be before they are not sure if the safety net in American needs to be fixed? Is it at the millionaire mark? The billionaire mark? Of course Mitt, the safety nets needs to be fixed. We absolutely need to social programs in this country, and we need to improve them tremendously. We need to make them more effective in order to help the most people, the best way possible. Yes Mitt, there is a Santa Claus, and there is a safety net too.
Poor Newt. My only hope is that Newt's ancestors came across the ocean speaking the "language of prosperity." My guess is they did not. Shall we look a Newts family history to see? What kind of name is Gingrich? For the sake of argument, let us assume German. Shall for the sake of argument harken back to say the early 1900's when speaking German was frowned upon. The 1900's when German families changed their names to avoid repercussion. In the 1900's, Newt, I would bet someone may well have looked at the German neighborhoods and said "They need to learn English, and stop living in those ghettos." Now how does it feel Newt? Stop for a change, and think about what you are going to say, and the historical implications. You are after all a history professor.
Ok, so he wants to preserve the rights of family, and happiness. Good! Finally some sense spoken from the mouth of one of these guys, but wait! What if you are gay? Are the second class citizens? Are they to be denied unalienable rights simply because who they go to bed with? What ever happened to the notion of American values that Republicans are supposed to be so proud of? The idea that all people are created equal? We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right? Guess that doesn't apply to homosexuals, immigrants, poor, or non-Christians. Sorry guys and gals. Better luck next time.
We'll make sure your the first one up there Newt!
Ok, lets go with the idea that it was a flub. He may very well care about poor people. What gets me was that he wonders if there is a safety net, and whether it needs fixing. How out of touch does a person need to be before they are not sure if the safety net in American needs to be fixed? Is it at the millionaire mark? The billionaire mark? Of course Mitt, the safety nets needs to be fixed. We absolutely need to social programs in this country, and we need to improve them tremendously. We need to make them more effective in order to help the most people, the best way possible. Yes Mitt, there is a Santa Claus, and there is a safety net too.
Poor Newt. My only hope is that Newt's ancestors came across the ocean speaking the "language of prosperity." My guess is they did not. Shall we look a Newts family history to see? What kind of name is Gingrich? For the sake of argument, let us assume German. Shall for the sake of argument harken back to say the early 1900's when speaking German was frowned upon. The 1900's when German families changed their names to avoid repercussion. In the 1900's, Newt, I would bet someone may well have looked at the German neighborhoods and said "They need to learn English, and stop living in those ghettos." Now how does it feel Newt? Stop for a change, and think about what you are going to say, and the historical implications. You are after all a history professor.
Ok, so he wants to preserve the rights of family, and happiness. Good! Finally some sense spoken from the mouth of one of these guys, but wait! What if you are gay? Are the second class citizens? Are they to be denied unalienable rights simply because who they go to bed with? What ever happened to the notion of American values that Republicans are supposed to be so proud of? The idea that all people are created equal? We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right? Guess that doesn't apply to homosexuals, immigrants, poor, or non-Christians. Sorry guys and gals. Better luck next time.
We'll make sure your the first one up there Newt!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Exactly What We Need
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/02/146265421/more-voter-id-proposals-introduced-across-the-nation
When I first heard this story, I was first drawn to the question: Why are law makers trying to limit those who vote? In a time when voter turn-out in a general election might reach 50%, limitations on who can vote are not what this country needs. It is simply un-American and bad for Democracy.
Besides the fact that it limits Democracy, there are very few draw backs to these laws. It will ensure that those people who vote are who they say they are. If you think about it, responsible citizens who vote are really who the government needs to keep it's collective eye on.
When I first heard this story, I was first drawn to the question: Why are law makers trying to limit those who vote? In a time when voter turn-out in a general election might reach 50%, limitations on who can vote are not what this country needs. It is simply un-American and bad for Democracy.
Besides the fact that it limits Democracy, there are very few draw backs to these laws. It will ensure that those people who vote are who they say they are. If you think about it, responsible citizens who vote are really who the government needs to keep it's collective eye on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)