Jon Stewart of the Daily Show: Slams the Koch Brothers

Daily Show viewers are likely to be the most -- moderately informed, if not best informed -- viewers (viewers being the people who still bother to watch the tripe produced for cable TV these days). This is because, Jon Stewart (and Stephen Colbert on his show), will slam anyone who is acting stupid, or trying to gloss over a heinous activity. Historically, these two shows don't really care if their targets are Democrat or Republican, or Tea Party or in the seat of the White House ... or advertising on the time slot of their show, as the Koch brothers found out this week. Basically the message is, "we care about our viewers, and if you are going to imply that we condone your actions, you are leading with your chin."  

Thank you Jon Stewart for Doing It Right!

If you would like answers to baffling questions like these:

Why is America 83% in favor of health insurance companies being required to accept pre-existing conditions, yet only 43% in favor of Obamacare?

Why after six years of growth on Wall Street, lowering Unemployment, bringing healthcare reform and encouraging public schools with unprecedented resources for teachers which will minimize the unpaid "at home" hours they are required to engage in, is Obama's acceptance level only 43%?

Why, even after the Speaker of the House has admitted to the public that it is Congress who is holding up Immigration Reform (for the last six years) and even after the elections in November will continue to hold up Immigration Reform for another two years -- is the News Industry still pointing their finger at Obama?

Why, after Obama wrote an executive order directing activities which will insure the proper adoption of ACA by companies who have between  50 and 100 employees, which is well within his job description, and historically not even close to being a over-reach -- did Congress (while blocking, and fighting to make ACA fail) sue Obama with cheers coming from across the Internet?

Why, with only an 8% approval rating for their performance for the last two years, and the culture of obstruction they have created, do any of the Congressmen coming up for election in November have any chance of wining? Let alone, in some states, an edge in winning?

For answers to these and other troubling questions tumbling around in the educated minds of America, the Koch Brothers are a good place to start.

The goals of the Koch brothers, truly, do not have your best interests in mind. Here's a list that has been complied and researched.

Idiocracy

How many teen pregnancies are there in your country? Nope, wrong. What percentage of people are immigrants? Sorry, that's incorrect. How many Muslims live where you live? Whoa, way off. Let's spell it out Jeopardy-style. Hint: This person is wrong. Answer: Who is
you? A recent study of public perception in 14 countries came to this basic conclusion: 

Everything you think you know about the news is probably wrong.
+ The Guardian: Mistaken perceptions can shape political opinion.

Also see an earlier blog of mine: Basically the News isn't News anymore.

Teachers and Parents need to Stop listening to Secondary Sources

Remember in school, when we learned the difference between Primary sources of information and Secondary sources of information -- and why the two are not the same? 

1. A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include:

2. Primary vs Secondary Sources

   www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html
   

   Princeton University

A parent just asked me if I had answers for the problems with Common Core. Apparently the teachers in her district are looking for ways out of using CCSS. The problem is, the answers are in the Core. 

See, as soon as they succeed in removing CCSS from their school system, then life becomes seriously difficult, because as soon as Common Core is gone, then they are back to 10 years ago under ESEA and the No Child Left Behind hell of 2002. Since every school failed that impossible thing, and the 12 years are up, this means that the schools will be closed, until a new plan can be presented to the Dept of ED, and approved. Most of the teachers will be fired and likely the principal as well. Probably what will happen is the school will be sold to a charter corporation and then re-opned. ESEA and NCLB are laws, not suggestions. Moving into the Race to the TOP program using as a standard CCSS, allowed Obama to give your school an out, and get you from under that mess of a law, since Congress won't fix it.

Obama came up with the "patch" solution of Race to the Top, but to satisfy the requirements of ESEA and NCLB each state is required to have in place a set of standards which demonstrate an ability to "ready students for College ..."  The Gov.'s of each state, seeing that ESEA was going to cut their throats (the changes made by NCLB are simply impossible to achieve. They sounded good when they were adopted, even reasonable, but they didn't take into account the many realities of  education. Too many realities were ignored. In fact, so many that I do not believe a single public school district made the minimum goal once in the 12 year period given to them.) The Gov's came up with CCSS back in 2007, starting development in 2008. At 2010 they had it ready when Obama came up with his waivers and Race to the Top.

It is important to remember here that ESEA and NCLB are not policies or suggestions, they are laws. It falls to the Executive branch to enforce those two laws. Obama has no choice in this. But he also understood that it was impossible to achieve the dictates. 

NCLB -- since the schools were all at "Failure" for more than four years -- dictates that 1) all the teachers, plus the principal should now be fired and replaced with teachers capable of making the goals. (which is impossible for two reasons, 1) all of the teachers are fired, there are not enough to hire available and 2) all the goals are impossible to meet no matter who is teaching the kids) Next the State should take over the school directly OR the school should be sold to a private corporation -- wish I was making this up, but you can verify this here on my blog where I pulled out these amazingly daft dictates.

You'll notice this part --   Institute and fully implement a new curriculum, including providing appropriate professional development for all relevant staff, that is based on scientifically based research and offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students and enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress.

That there is where Race to the Top comes in, and the need for a fully developed, heavily researched set of standards is needed to satisfy the law. The states had this, developed by the National Governors Association (NGA) The Dept of Education read over the CCSS, and gave their nod to Obama as being acceptable. 

That is and was Obama's only interaction with CCSS -- Simply to accept the DOE's assessment. I'll point out here too that it is against federal law for any Federal Office, including Obama as President, to involve itself with the schools directly at the local level... which is why he could not develop CCSS himself or have it created or suggest that it be created or anything else. The states had to do this themselves. 

So much for Federal plans of Indoctrination. All of this stuff about CCSS is BS. It is a very simple, unoffending, non-dictating set of standards. 

Paul Krugman Sums Obama Up

Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning Economist took a second look at Obama in an article published in Rolling Stones, and then a follow up with ABC News. His conclusion? Obama is likely to be the most effective, and certainly the most successful president we have ever had. 

“Bill Clinton is an incredibly gifted politician,” Krugman told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl. “But, in fact, Bill Clinton was not a consequential president. And Obama, although clearly not the natural politician, is a consequential president.”

With his polls so low right now, it's difficult to get behind this kind of arithmetic, but Krugman shows that the economy is on the rise, unemployment is down, health care has been reformed and significant financial reform is in place. The environmental issues are being addressed.  No, he admits, it might not be everything you wanted, but it is more than any president has accomplished in decades.

Reading this, I felt a bit vindicated. Though I would never have claimed Obama was 'the most successful', he was doing much better than his press. What has always bothered me about his press though, was the amount of it, the shear mass of the machine.

You expect Fox News, and some jabs from the main stream editorials. Then there are the web papers on the far-right like Town Hall, National Association of Scholars, the NRA main sight,

• Buchanan Brigade

• Accuracy in Media 

• The Conservative Caucus 

• LibertyGuide.com

• Cato Institute 

The usual suspects. Also, the republicans in congress, just like the democrats with Bush (expected, and accepted). The Koch brothers were more active, not liking things going the way they were, especially with Obama going directly at the environment and health care.

Likely, Obama was the Koch's worst nightmare - between 1998 and now Koch has been an environmental terror (with one of the few companies I have ever heard of being tried and convicted for double homicide). Obama not only wants EPA powers to increase, he was making it happen. It wasn't going to be a few $10 million dollar fines any longer. Likely, shut downs were on the horizon. So, we also expect some flack from that area.

Some flack. Sure. .. but sweet mercy...

The girl friend video coming out of the Koch, from  Americans for Shared Prosperity should have been the real clue. That was the point the shadows were pulled back. Whether that was a purposeful move or not, it was the beacon that caught my attention. The ad, which I'm sure you have seen, has a woman who is acting like Obama is an abusive boyfriend -- and is warning us to drop him, not to vote for him again. Again? This was published on Sep 21, 2014.

This is the second term. Right? This is Anti-Obama, like two years

too late. Isn't it?

No. Not at all. They just don't appear to care any more that you notice.

I'm not capable of doing the amount of document research that would be required for a true analysis -- I'm just going to put that up front -- but I believe, just from the amount I've been able to do, that no President has been against the continuous demagoguery Obama has over his two terms. There is the slams and the mud during the election, but then people get down to doing their jobs. The sensationalist go back to writing real news, and waiting for someone, normally a Congressman, to do something extremely silly. But that didn't happen with Obama.

• Crowds of mudslingers continued
• Torrents of false controversies were created
• Demagoguery was shouted at every Presidential move
• Congress took on a culture of obstruction

For example -- despite Obama's pre-election release of his official Hawaiian birth certificate in 2008;[1] confirmation, based on the original documents, by the Hawaii Department of Health;[6] the April 2011 release of a certified copy of Obama's original Certificate of Live Birth (or long-form birth certificate); and contemporaneous birth announcements published in two Hawaii newspapers.[7] Polls conducted in 2010 suggested that at least one quarter of adult Americans said that they doubted Obama's U.S. birth,[8][9] while a May 2011 Gallup poll found that 13% of American adults (23% of Republicans) continued to express such doubts. -- Wikipedia

Hundreds of lawsuits, some filed by GOP leaders, some from Congressman, Senators, and Tea Party members. In 2009 and 2010 the numbers in the South and in the Tea Party are so high, that they are seen as useful to many of the GOP. They under mind anything Obama does, inciting angst toward any decision he makes. A few Republicans openly gaff at the claims that Obama's Presidency is not legitimate, but most do not. Colorado GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck is caught on tape complaining about walking the line between openly agreeing with the "Birthers" and denying the legitimacy of their claim to keep them going.

"Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera," Buck said to the worker while laughing. "God, what am I supposed to do?"

Word of the Day : Proselytize

 pros·e·lyt·ize

ˈpräs(ə)ləˌtīz/

verb

1. convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

   "the program did have a tremendous evangelical effect, proselytizing many"

   synonyms:

   evangelize, convert, save, redeem, win over, preach (to), recruit, act as a missionary "I'm not here to proselytize"

   • advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).

     "Davis wanted to share his concept and proselytize his ideas"

     

     synonyms:

     promote, advocate, champion,advance, further, spread, proclaim,peddle, preach, endorse, urge,recommend, boost "he wanted to proselytize his ideas"

   
   

Time Hits Hard -- Teachers Judging Cover?

The writers on EmpathyEducates have put out a plea for their readers to demand an apology from Time Magazine, based on the Cover. The cover has the blurb:

It's Nearly Impossible to Fire A Bad Teacher...

I'm guessing that is the offending comment, and what they are objecting to. I'm all in for Teachers, I really am. I spend many hours a week, unpaid, writing, researching and supporting them with all of my skills... however, I'm even more supportive of the kids. That is where my loyalty lies.

The page that requests our support to give Time a black eye for their "attack" on teachers, does nothing to support their request with anything other than emotional appeals. This saddens me.

And Time‘s cover doesn't even reflect its own reporting. The Time article itself looks at the wealthy sponsors of these efforts. And while it looks critically at tenure, it also questions the testing industry’s connections to Silicon Valley and the motives of these players. 

But rather than use the cover to put the spotlight on the people using their wealth to change education policy, Time‘s editors decided to sensationalize the topic...

Right now, there is an extremely high trust value given to teachers from the general population, and this trust value has a long history. What people don't trust are the politicians making the schools their battlefields.  People don't trust Billionaires poking around in education. Even when the billionaire in question has dedicated half of his value to the schools and education (and some other charities), asking nothing in return, not even his name mentioned (aka Bill Gates).

Some findings include:

• 62% of those polled said they had never heard of the Common Core State Standards.
• 36% of those polled said that standardized testing was hurting school performance; 41 percent said it had made no difference.
• 88 percent of parents feel their child is safe when he/she is in school.
• To promote school safety, 59% of respondents prefer adding mental health services compared with 33% who would opt for hiring more security guards.

These are interesting stats, but more interesting is where the mainstream media chose to focus with them:

• Washington Post, Poll: Most Americans unfamiliar with new Common Core teaching standards
• Education Week, Most Americans Unaware of Common Core, PDK/Gallup Poll Finds
• Christian Science Monitor, Americans’ confidence rising in public school teachers, poll finds
• Huffington Post, Education Poll Finds Common Core Standards Remain A Mystery To Most Americans
• Orlando Sentinel, Americans don’t know about Common Core, doubt testing has helped schools improve, poll shows
• San Jose Mercury News, A comparison of PDK/Gallup poll questions and AP-NORC poll questions regarding standards and testing
• The Answer Sheet, Analyzing the new PDK/Gallup poll on how Americans view public education
• Los Angeles Times, Public opposes use of test scores in teacher reviews, poll shows

Christian Science Monitor, likely the most neutral of group (still, after all of these years) talks about the teachers. Just about everyone else focuses on the Core or  test scores affecting teacher reviews which is the way the Core is being implemented right now by the Department of Education. In other words, eye catching things. Things that are going to sell papers.

Should we mention that for the most part, it is the teachers who are not getting the word out about Common Core, and what it is, what it means? No. We won't go there, but it sure would have helped things if that were done a little more enthusiastically.

This letter demanding an apology is more of a Whistleblower than the cover could ever be. This letter implies that the teachers are very sensitive, overly sensitive, and extremely defensive (which I don't believe is an accurate personification). The letter states clearly that nothing in the article is blasting teachers, and that most of the focus is on calling into question the intentions of these billionaires and bringing to the surface what their real motivations are for putting pressure on the school system.

In other words... what exactly are we asking TIME to apologize for? For selling issues? (as if this is the first time that a publication has gone for sensationalism to sell copy). Are we asking for apology for getting the word out that the Teachers now have some serious opponents and may be up against people that have far greater political and monetary resources than they do? That teachers may need some support from their community as these billionaires move in?

Personally, I think teachers should focus on the article and leave the cover alone. Because it sounds like you do have some serious players looking you over, and their intentions could do you and the school system some harm. Look at our current Congress, and how the influence of a few large bank accounts are affecting them.

In my view, what this really is, is a sensationalism ploy to get more teachers to read this EmpathyEducates website, and I'm not liking it very much. I see it as incitement, rather than support.

Besides, my teachers always taught me not to judge books by their covers.