June 27, 2014
Teachers protest money in education

Teachers marched Thursday to protest Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's involvement in K-12 education. They marched from Westlake Park to the Gates Foundation across from the Space Needle. I don't know if they blocked any traffic, but the city was warning of traffic disruptions.

Gates Foundation is putting a lot of money into K-12. Do they want less money?  But if the Gateses were NOT putting money into education they would be begging  for them to.

And they are shocked that strings are attached to private money. Yes, strings are attached to most money. When the federal government funds K-12 education they are very clear about what must be done; those are strings.

Gates spent a lot of money on writing and implementing the Common Core standards which have been adopted by Washington and 44 other states.  The NEA says 75% of teachers support it/them - NEA. But here they are concerned that Gates supports teacher evaluations being tied to student test scores, though Gates has recently called for a delay of two years while implementation of Common Core progresses.

Seattle Times - This was written before the event.

KING 5 today. The link to the story says "More than 100 teachers, parents and advocates marched..." But the story itself does not include information about the number of protesters.

Posted by Ron Hebron at June 27, 2014 03:17 PM | Email This
Comments
1. "Do they want less money?"

Ron, as others have already noted, you recently seem to have encountered some trouble writing the titles to your posts. Let me fix this one for you, and perhaps your bewilderment may abate, albeit quite slowly, and in a very small way.

"TEACHERS PROTEST PRIVATE MONEY IN PUBLIC EDUCATION "

Did that make it clear enough for you? Need I try again?

Posted by: tensor on June 27, 2014 04:03 PM
2. "Do they want less money? But if the Gateses were NOT putting money into education they would be begging for them to."

Apparently you're not up to talking about the power of a college dropout to use his wealth to shape the nation's education system. In fact, shape it towards loss of local control as well as loss of privacy through data mining. How does something not grounded in parental and community control jive with your right-wing philosophy? How do you reconcile this conflict?

A viewer complains to Fox News about Cavuto's interview with Bachmann, "Boy, what an ass Neil was," the viewer wrote. "I will watch for a Dem to get grilled like that but won't hold my breath."

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/your-brain-fox

It's worse than I realized. It's not just that they live in an alternate reality. Some inhabit alternate realities within that alternate reality, similar to Chinese boxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_boxes

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 27, 2014 04:07 PM
3. "TEACHERS PROTEST PRIVATE MONEY IN PUBLIC EDUCATION"

I doubt that Ron is interested much in talking about all the money and corporate connections.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18442-flow-chart-exposes-common-cores-myriad-corporate-connections

When Republicans sell out their core principles, there's usually money involved. Or sex. Sometimes both, but mostly money.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 27, 2014 04:18 PM
4. An Obamabot is never content or self directed. They march, flash mob and get aggressive when they get the Bot programming email from Media Matters or the White House.

Posted by: Mike on June 27, 2014 05:31 PM
5. The teachers did not like the teacher evaluations tied to Common Core, therefore were protesting Bill Gates's money. 75% of the teachers like Common Core ? Seems like a skewed sample. Prof. Cliff Mass despises it.

"When Republicans sell out their core principles, there's usually money involved. Or sex. Sometimes both, but mostly money."

Part of the leftist Taliban saying that (its ironic) when it is also clear that Democrats double down on money, sex, drugs & rockn'roll which will cause them to sell out their so-called principles 24/7. Your not one to point that out, since your cred is in the sewer for now and eternity.

Posted by: KDS on June 27, 2014 05:33 PM
6. For future reference; Obamabot = Obamunist= leftist Taliban

Posted by: KDS on June 27, 2014 05:36 PM
7. "shame on Ann Coulter"
"I happen to enjoy soccer"

You two sound like a couple of communists.

Posted by Tom at June 26, 2014 11:38 PM

Yes, I happen to like soccer. Tom - Are you a right wing extremist ? (your mindset is simplistic and you give the Tea-Party a bad name) I am not a hyperpartisan like you or the extremists from the left (i.e. the leftist Taliban) who show their bigotry and ignorance regularly as you have.

Posted by: KDS on June 27, 2014 05:54 PM
8. KDS - what's the value in calling the folks you are talking with names? Tea Party members care about things just like you do... they are not all bigots nor ignorant.

Posted by: Mike on June 27, 2014 06:41 PM
9. @8 - Did you catch that Tom referred to you as a communist because you like soccer ?

You misinterpreted my comment - it was about Tom being similar to the leftist Taliban in ignorance and bigotry, not the Tea Party. Try rereading.

Posted by: KDS on June 27, 2014 10:43 PM
10. Gates spent a lot of money on writing and implementing the Common Core standards which have been adopted by Washington and 44 other states. The NEA says 75% of teachers support it/them - by Ron Hebron, 03:17 PM

So? It's another case of a tail wagging the dog. What the teachers want doesn't - and shouldn't matter a whit. Further, they seem to have forgotten for whom THEY work. They do NOT work for the NEA. The NEA may represent them, but their EMPLOYERS are the parents and the CONSUMERS are the children.

Rasmussen: Common Core Support Among Those with School-Age Kids Plummets

Support for Common Core among Americans with school-age children has fallen dramatically, as more now question whether the new national education standards will actually improve student performance.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 34% of American Adults with children of elementary or secondary school age now favor requiring all schools nationwide to meet the same Common Core education standards. That's an 18-point drop from 52% in early November of last year. Forty-seven percent (47%) oppose the imposition of the national standards, compared to 32% in the previous survey. Little changed are the 19% who are undecided.

It's predictable and ironic that the bobbleheads will defend the NEA and teachers wanting Common Core and acting in it's own self interest but will excoriate Hobby Lobby and the religious for NOT wanting to pay for/provide abortions and abortifacients and acting in it's own self interest.

I would say that they must be terribly confused, but really it's just another glaring example of their hubris that dictates they are the only arbiter of what's good in any given situation. Yep, I believe it's called situational ethics, moral relativism ... which brings us back full circle to terribly confused probably better called cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 28, 2014 10:01 AM
11. @10 - Your post will elicit crickets or obfuscation from the leftist Taliban and you can take that to the bank !

Posted by: KDS on June 28, 2014 10:08 AM
12. Gates did not put money into education. He put the money into creating standards and testing. Both are failures and are not appropriate to students or teachers. His only attempt to put money into public education was a complete failure. I know as I was a participant. (the Small Schools Project)

Posted by: Mike Snodgrass on June 28, 2014 11:28 AM
13. Consider This!

Parents with school-aged children have a growing disdain for the Common Core State Standards, a new Rasmussen report found.

Just 34% of American Adults with children of elementary or secondary school age now favor requiring all schools nationwide to meet the same Common Core education standards. That's an 18-point drop from 52% in early November of last year.

Posted by: Ken Mortland on June 28, 2014 12:48 PM
14. In Washington state, a decade of hard work by dedicated educators to create state standards was simply pushed aside by the pressure to adopt national 'Common Core' standards and obtain the money that was promised to come with it. Much of this pressure came from the groups the Gates Foundation funds. It is, therefore, logical that many educators will recent the manipulation of education policy by non-educators with big money. It is leading many states to reverse their commitment to Common Core.

Posted by: Ken Mortland on June 28, 2014 12:58 PM
15. Hey @10 - here's some more fodder...

The Imam in Chief speaks to the Democrat operative on GMA.
When Rome burned, Nero fiddled...when the US border burned, Obama Lied on GMA then teed off...

In an interview that aired on "Good Morning America" on ABC on Friday, President Barack Obama was asked by George Stephanopoulos about the ongoing crisis at the border caused by the influx of Central American youth overwhelming the U.S. Border Patrol and its resources.

Stephanopoulos asked Obama if he thought he had done enough in voicing a warning not come, to which Obama insisted he had.
Partial transcript as follows:

"STEPHANOPOULOS: You mentioned immigration. There's a humanitarian crisis on the border. Some of your critics have said you need to speak out directly to the people of Central America and say, 'Don't come. If you come, you will be deported.'
OBAMA: We've done that. The problem is, under current law, once the kids come across the border, there's a system in which we're supposed to process them, take care of them, until we can send them back.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is your message don't come?
OBAMA: Our message is absolutely don't send your children unaccompanied, on trains or through a bunch of smugglers. That is our direct message to families in Central America. Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they'll get sent back. More importantly, they may not make it."

The corrupt media giving the platform to the POTUS without offering any cross examination - way to lie by omission again. In the meantime, low information voters swallow this garbage and leftist progressives cheer in their blissful ignorance and stupidity..

Posted by: KDS on June 28, 2014 02:03 PM
16. If Common Core standards were really good, the Gates' would pull their kids out of Lakeside and send them to a "common core" school. But what's good for the plebes isn't good enough for them, right?

Yes, highline school district's small schools experiment was funded by Gates. It has resulted in higher operating costs (more principals), lower graduation rates, reduced enrollment at the schools that went all-in as children and parents realize they aren't going to get what they want, and no uptick in student achievement.

So we're supposed to trust common core when Milgram and Stotsky, the insiders who know it best, say it is not benchmarked against world class schools, is developmentally inappropriate, does not help kids who are on fast track to be ready for AP or IB classes, etc?

Common Core is a beautiful idea, but pull back the idea and there's a lot of garbage.

Posted by: commentator on June 28, 2014 02:45 PM
17. When the federal government funds K-12 education they are very clear about what must be done; those are strings.

First, as other commenters have already noted, the Gates Foundation didn't send any money to any public schools; the money was spent on "standards and testing." The federal government delivers money to public schools. So Ron has equated two unequal things here.

Second, yes, there are requirements for spending federal money on local schools; for example, southern schools can't teach about how everyone loved slavery, Jim Crow, etc. These requirements are developed by public agencies with public funds, subject to review processes, up to and including Congressional oversight. None of these checks or safeguards were applied to the Gates Foundation's activities. So, Ron has equated two unequal things here.

Why does the right wing get so many obvious things wrong when it comes to public education?

Posted by: tensor on June 28, 2014 08:07 PM
18. Would you accept money for doing something that you think is wrong? That was what the US Dept of Ed did with Common Core. They put out the carrot to states to accept Common Core EVEN THOUGH THE CORE HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN AT THAT POINT. Since most states were trying to recover from the Recession, the money was too much to refuse. But the CC wasn't written by educators and in many respects is inappropriate for some grade levels. It is also tied to a regime of tests that are useless in terms of educational use. That's what the teachers are trying to educate the public about. That's what they do- they educate. A citizen wishing to make a fair judgement would look at the other side of the argument, too.

Posted by: Richard Reuther on June 28, 2014 08:49 PM
19. Why does the right wing get so many obvious things wrong when it comes to public education?

Posted by tensor at June 28, 2014 08:07 PM

So tell us, what things (with supporting documentation) do you think that they "got wrong" ?

Posted by: KDS on June 28, 2014 09:01 PM
20. That's what the teachers are trying to educate the public about. That's what they do- they educate.

It is NOT a teachers job "to educate the public". It is their job to educate the children entrusted to them. And based on just about every measure - graduation rates, literacy rates, math and science scores compared to the rest of the world, lowering SAT standards, need for remedial work in college - they are epically FAILING at the task they are assigned.

Kids can't read, they can't add, they don't know American history, they know even less world history, they can't identify a country on a map and I doubt but a few even grasp the basic meaning of the term "scientific method".

On the other hand, we have THUGunions that refuse to allow teachers to be rated on their proficiency and that vigorously defend the proven the worst of the worst.

We have a top heavy education bureaucracy rewarding and protecting themselves while whining they have too little money and too many children.

AGAIN: children have not changed: they are still capable of learning the exact way we did, the exact way our parents did and yes the exact way our adult children did, What has changed is "education".

Quit F^@king with it and do what works.

Every damned generation knows less and is learning LESS in more complicated way. Who does that serve? We all know that answer, and it's not 'the children'.


Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 28, 2014 09:18 PM
21. How many parents say to their kids "you can't go to sports practice because you haven't done your math homework?" How many school districts say "no sports unless you have a B average"? It is not appropriate to blame the teachers for everything. How many parents say "I want my kid to be pulled out of class if they misbehave?" Here's a difference of teachers and everyone else in the workplace: teachers are stuck with their clients. If a person walks into Dennys and is rude, dishonest, acts in an inappropriate manner etc, Dennys can say "we won't serve you, leave." if the customer doesn't, then they can call the police and get them removed. Do you know how hard it is on teachers to have a few absolute losers take up a huge part of their time? This is in no way a reflection of their ability to teach. It may be a reflection on their ability to manage a classroom, but this is where ineffective administrators can really leave a teacher hung out to dry.

The reality is very complicated. Don't blame the teachers for everything. They rarely get to choose the curriculum either.

Posted by: commentator on June 28, 2014 10:49 PM
22. Blame bureaucracy,unions and yes, some apologists masquerading as teachers.

There is not one single metric of education that has improved in the last ... 50 years? ... DESPITE "new math" "sight reading" (trying to teach to memorize words instead of sounding them out) "Chicago math" and now the Common Core gibberishbabble.

EXAMPLE:

New York is one state that has released some Common Core tests. The tests for elementary school kids remain strictly guarded. However, other tests including the Common Core Algebra Regents test which eighth- and ninth-grade students took in early June - and must pass at some point to get high school degrees - are now available online.
The algebra test is shockingly awful.

Take the very first question, for example:

When solving the equation 4(3x² + 2) - 9 = 8x² + 7, Emily wrote 4(3x² + 2) = 8x² + 16 as her first step. Which properly justifies Emily's first step?

(1) addition property of equality
(2) commutative property of addition
(3) multiplication property of equality
(4) distributive property of multiplication over addition

In addition to the unnecessary and confusing presence of Emily, there is no actual math here. It's purely a vocabulary question.

Perhaps the worst question of all is Question 34, which highly imprecisely tells students:
"Describe how your equation models the situation." The "situation" is a garden surrounded by a walkway.

For all of these questions, the obvious answer to "Explain your answer" and "Justify your answer" is very easy for any honest kid: "I used math."

We know what works. We have proof that it works and has worked for many many years. We know that immigrant children in the 30's learned English by immersion - my Mother was one of them. My default example is the EIGHTH GRADE EXAMINATION GRADUATION QUESTIONS thirty some years before my Mother was even born! That farm kid in Kansas who 'only' had that 8th grade education knew more as an adult farmer than most college graduates today. That is a disgusting FACT.

I attended public kindergarten, Catholic through 8th and public high school. We memorized and then learned to apply in math, in grammar (yes, I can still diagram a sentence) and in science, we studied the Iliad, other classics and great art, we attended opera's by Wagner, learned CIVICS. If we failed a class - we took it over in the summer and could not graduate until we passed.

The classical education is, above all, systematic -- in direct contrast to the scattered, unorganized nature of so much secondary education. This systematic, rigorous study has two purposes.

Rigorous study develops virtue in the student. Aristotle defined virtue as the ability to act in accordance to what one knows to be right. The virtuous man (or woman) can force himself to do what he knows to be right, even when it runs against his inclinations. The classical education continually asks a student to work against his baser inclinations (laziness, or the desire to watch another half hour of TV) in order to reach a goal -- mastery of a subject.

Systematic study also allows the student to join what Mortimer Adler calls the "Great Conversation" -- the ongoing conversation of great minds down through the ages. Much modern education is so eclectic that the student has little opportunity to make connections between past events and the flood of current information."The beauty of the classical curriculum," writes classical schoolmaster David Hicks , "is that it dwells on one problem, one author, or one epoch long enough to allow even the youngest student a chance to exercise his mind in a scholarly way: to make connections and to trace developments, lines of reasoning, patterns of action, recurring symbolisms, plots, and motifs."

And don't tell me teachers don't have "time". Time hasn't changed - the use and waste of it has.

"The schools are telling parents they will no longer offer 'math acceleration' classes, in order to align with Common Core, and that grade skipping (for high achieving students) will no longer be the 'best practice,'" she explained. "This will do nothing other than discourage the high-achieving students, frustrate the lower achieving students and force the teacher to 'teach to the middle.'"

"Both parents and teachers are seeing their students being overly tested, with assessments being mandated on a continuous basis to monitor progress," Brandon added. "Every time a teacher has to test his or her students, time is taken away from actual teaching."

"Additionally, the push for group work, group projects and project-based learning also take time away from teaching the foundations our children need," she said.

This 'dumbing down' and teaching to the least common denominator while letting the highest languish is absolutely no different than the income "equality" argument or the minimum wage argument - drag down the highest instead of focusing on raising up the lowest. Bullsh*t.

There are those bobbleheads here who like to claim technology frees students from actually having to learn something as silly as math. Their great example is that cash registers free the dopes behind them from actually knowing how to make change. It is the difference between using your brain and using a tool - a hammer and a tape measure will not build your house unless you know HOW to apply them mathematically and logically as well as physically.

I had a mix of public and Catholic education.
My kids had Montessori and Catholic
I hope and will press hard and WORK hard that my grandchildren are homeschooled.

In 1997, Dr. Irene Prue, Assistant Director of Admission of Georgia Southern University, released a nationwide survey of admissions personnel's knowledge, attitudes and experiences with home educated applicants. In general, a total of 210 (out of the 1,289 surveyed) respondents to the study reported:

Homeschoolers are academically, emotionally, and socially prepared to succeed at college.

Parental motivations and involvement are in the best interest of their children.

And another from 2010:

A new study published in The Journal of College Admission suggests that homeschool students enjoy higher ACT scores, grade point averages and graduation rates compared with other college students. The finding are especially interesting because there has been a paucity of research focused on how homeschooled students fare in college.

The research, which was conducted by Michael Cogan, the director of institutional research and analysis at the University of St. Thomas, focused on the experiences of homeschooled students at an unnamed medium-sized university in the upper Midwest.

Here are some of Cogan's findings:

1. Homeschool students earned a higher ACT score (26.5) versus 25.0 for other incoming freshmen.
2. Homeschool students earned more college credits (14.7) prior to their freshmen year than other students (6.0).
3. Homeschooled freshmen were less likely to live on campus (72.4%) than the rest of the freshmen class (92.7%).
4. Homeschoolers were more likely to identify themselves as Roman Catholic (68.4%).
5. Homeschool freshmen earned a higher grade points average (3.37) their first semester in college compared with the other freshmen (3.08).
6. Homeschool students finished their freshmen year with a better GPA (3.41) than the rest of their class (3.12).
7. The GPA advantage was still present when homeschoolers were college seniors. Their average GPA was 3.46 versus 3.16 for other seniors.
8. Homeschool students graduated from college at a higher rate (66.7%) than their peers (57.5%).


And yes, even, especially in this Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want and hope they get it.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 29, 2014 12:34 PM
23. Gay Group Urges Loosening Of School Internet Filters

A gay advocacy group is calling for the federal government to loosen internet filters in schools as a way to assist the gay community.

In a paper released Thursday, the LGBT Technology Partnership and Institute argues that the gay community has "particular needs" for the internet that call for government action. In particular, the group is urging a reform of the government's E-Rate policy that they say is blocking low-income individuals and students from accessing important LGBT resources and reaching out to other members of the gay community.

Because, of course, catering to 3.8% of the ENTIRE US POPULATION so much more important than ... history ... science... and there are no more pressing issues in education... like actually EDUCATING.

Yep, Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want - so please keeping working hard toward achieving it.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 29, 2014 12:49 PM
24. Two Out of Three American Youth Unfit for Military

The U.S. military estimates that roughly two thirds of today's youth are ineligible to serve due to a variety of physical, behavioral, and educational issues. Military hopefuls can be deemed unfit for service due to tattoos, felony convictions, low scores on intelligence tests, and drug use, among other reasons.

... about a quarter of high school graduates cannot pass the Armed Forces Qualification Test, meaning that they lack even basic mathematics and reading skills needed to join the military. A recruit scoring below the tenth percentile on the AFQT is "generally" not permitted to join the military.

This is sad--both for the rejected recruits and as a snapshot of the country as a whole. A graduate of high school should, in theory, be adequately prepared to serve in the military. It's crazy to think that roughly one out of four students is unable to score high enough on a test with a pretty generous curve. That's indicative of major failure in America's schools.

Of course, that simply serves to make the unicorn rainbow-fart community organizer bobbleheads jump for joy, because... military.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 29, 2014 12:57 PM
25. @22: Ugh. Your demonstration of a "superior" education does not show in the quality of your argument or your opinions.

There is not one single metric of education that has improved in the last ... 50 years?
Sigh. An easily disproved lie. Many scores have not increased substantively, but students aren't getting "dumber".

The algebra test is shockingly awful. Take the very first question, for example:
The author that you quote is absurd -- testing students on why they should take a particular step in a math problem is a key component of critical thinking. It's amusing (and quite apt) that you would be a staunch opponent of critical thinking, while trying to advocate later that you are in favor of "rigorous, systematic" study.

We know what works. We have proof that it works and has worked for many many years. We know that immigrant children in the 30's learned English by immersion - my Mother was one of them.
Get off your high frickin' horse. Immersion is a great concept -- for those that it actually worked for, and in an economy where you could succeed through rough physical labor and get by with poor English skills. On the other hand, if your dear mother were to arrive to the US today, and attempt to live and survive in an economy that exploits immigrants and low-skilled labor, you'd probably have a much different outcome.

Likewise, I find it amusing that you rail on teachers for "not teaching", and suggest that people should do what they are trained to do, when you yourself are proposing that teachers and educators should NOT do what they've found to be successful through research. You have no training in education (at least, none that shows through), and no experience in educational research. Basing policy off of some stupid anecdote is the WORST approach for building a successful ESL education system.

My default example is the EIGHTH GRADE EXAMINATION GRADUATION QUESTIONS thirty some years before my Mother was even born! That farm kid in Kansas who 'only' had that 8th grade education knew more as an adult farmer than most college graduates today. That is a disgusting FACT.
Really? Seriously? That may be an amusing example, but if you were to look at the curriculum that these students had, their questions are based around that material and probably that material alone. You could just as easily give eighth-graders questions like that and they would be just as successful, as long as you cut out a lot of useful components from a modern curriculum.

And funny enough, that 19th-century curriculum would also not likely make students better thinkers, or even make them better prepared for life or the job market. It would just allow them to answer those questions on an exam, just as it did a century ago.

I attended public kindergarten...
And you lived in Technicolor glory with a white picket fence out in the front and the milkman coming around every day. I get it. Blah, blah, blah. Fifteen kids in one house, but you were all happier because you didn't have cell phones or indoor plumbing, and you got by without the help of the government (despite the fact that you did). Got it. Heard the story a hundred times.

The classical education is, above all, systematic -- in direct contrast to the scattered, unorganized nature of so much secondary education.
Where is the proof that "secondary education" is scattered, or that this is the cause of the apocalyptic future that you are wailing about? You're advocating for a "classic" education that pretty much was just the same one from the 1950s which, by the way, was criticized at the time for not keeping pace with foreign counterparts.

Rigorous study develops virtue in the student. ... Systematic study also allows the student to join what Mortimer Adler calls the "Great Conversation" -- the ongoing conversation of great minds down through the ages.
You're not really establishing much, other than you have a very specific notion of education that simply does not work for every student, even if you force-feed it down their throats. Likewise, there is no evidence that students, especially students in AP and IB courses, do not get the opportunity to receive both rigorous and systematic study in public schools.

Much modern education is so eclectic that the student has little opportunity to make connections between past events and the flood of current information."The beauty of the classical curriculum," writes classical schoolmaster David Hicks , "is that it dwells on one problem, one author, or one epoch long enough to allow even the youngest student a chance to exercise his mind in a scholarly way: to make connections and to trace developments, lines of reasoning, patterns of action, recurring symbolisms, plots, and motifs."
Again, while you're talking about a "modern" education versus a "classical" one, your argument seems to be more focused on some idealized version of both, with little discussion of what would work for most students. You may lament sanctioned bullying in the schoolyard or forcing left-handed students to write with their right hands, but are these things the best for students either?

This 'dumbing down' and teaching to the least common denominator while letting the highest languish is absolutely no different than the income "equality" argument or the minimum wage argument - drag down the highest instead of focusing on raising up the lowest. Bullsh*t.
Ahhh, yes -- the tried-and-true conservative argument of "let the fittest survive, screw the rest".

Students today have more resources to exceed these bounds. More availability of advanced placement courses, the ability to take additional online or college courses in advance, and so forth. However, what is amusing to me is that a representative of the "party of responsibility" cowers in the face of it -- public education is a basic resource, not the ultimate one. There are plenty of resources available outside of school to make sure that people with talent in certain areas can work to succeed in those areas.

And your argument is, in many ways, counter to what many conservatives like to talk about. We could easily create an educational system tomorrow that caters not only to advanced talent in languages or math or science, but also the arts, sports, and technical skills. However, you are advocating for an educational system that takes more responsibilities away from parents, costs more public money, crowds out many private schools currently in this space, and essentially defers responsibility to government. Are you actually advocating for a massive expansion of government? (Apparently I would be in favor of that, since obviously all godless-communist-progressive folks are automatically advocating for government expansion.)

There are those bobbleheads here who like to claim technology frees students from actually having to learn something as silly as math.
No, but it does mean that some kids don't need to be as impacted by a lack of skill because they have no talent in math, and never will.

It is the difference between using your brain and using a tool - a hammer and a tape measure will not build your house unless you know HOW to apply them mathematically and logically as well as physically.
That's fine, but not everyone needs to build their own house. I would not dream of becoming a professional dancer, nor am I a great graphic designer. I wouldn't ask them to learn computer programming skills, but that doesn't mean they are not good thinkers.

I hope and will press hard and WORK hard that my grandchildren are homeschooled.
Akin to child abuse, in my mind. From the experiences I've had, as well as family members who are in the teaching profession have had, with homeschooled kids, the common consensus I've found is that these kids may be well-educated in specific topics, but they are unable to form the same bonds with other kids their own age, they are inflexible with ideas from outside of their own perspective, and they tend to have lower social and emotional skills than other kids. To each his own, but I find it to be an incredible waste of time and resources for those kinds of outcomes.

And studies are great... except when you consider that home-schooled kids get personal, one-on-one instruction, are likely part of wealthier households, and are generally a self-selected population that would not include students with lower chances of success. To each his own -- for some kids it may be great -- but it is akin to the "sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly" approach to dealing with the education system.


@23: Because, of course, catering to 3.8% of the ENTIRE US POPULATION so much more important than ... history ... science... and there are no more pressing issues in education... like actually EDUCATING.

Great! Then you agree that schools should ALSO filter, say, any religiously-themed website? Roman Catholics, for example, make up only about one-quarter of the population, and there are far more pressing issues in education... like actually EDUCATING!


@24: The U.S. military estimates that roughly two thirds of today's youth are ineligible to serve due to a variety of physical, behavioral, and educational issues. Military hopefuls can be deemed unfit for service due to tattoos, felony convictions, low scores on intelligence tests, and drug use, among other reasons.
And? What is truly amusing is that these types of criticisms -- as well as your other criticisms! -- have existed for as long as there have been crotchety, myopic blowhards lamenting a past that... well... was not really too dissimilar to the present day.

Posted by: demo kid on June 29, 2014 08:02 PM
26. "Students today have more resources to exceed these bounds. More availability of advanced placement courses, the ability to take additional online or college courses in advance, and so forth. However, what is amusing to me is that a representative of the "party of responsibility" cowers in the face of it "

Resources don't matter if someone does not effectively instruct kids how to use them and fewer teachers do so than 25-30 years ago and beyond. Consequently, critical thinking has all but disappeared in many schools and has been replaced in part by indoctrination per the NEA agenda. Sure, there are online courses and improved technology and that is an advantage, but it comes back to the lack of critical thinking, which some of you folks on the left demonstrate time and time again on this blog along with narrow mindedness - not trusting the private sector and its no good unless it can empower government. The Republicans may be the party of some responsibility, but they have the same weakness as Democrats who have recently sworn to not be accountable because they know they can get away with it - that attitude sets a wonderful example for today's youth.

"And? What is truly amusing is that these types of criticisms -- as well as your other criticisms! -- have existed for as long as there have been crotchety, myopic blowhards lamenting a past that... well... was not really too dissimilar to the present day."

What's your point ? It seems unknowingly that you are chastising the Democrats, for which the NEA is an appendage of the Democrat party - they have clearly been more influential than Republicans here. The fact is that if the NEA would have been less political and more objective - these criticisms would have been better addressed which would have resulted in the better education system on a large scale basis than there is today.

Oh wait... you don't really give a rip about these criticisms because they come from someone with a conservative (Rags) view and they just can't measure up to you intellectually.

Posted by: KDS on June 29, 2014 09:41 PM
27. So tell us, what things (with supporting documentation) do you think that they "got wrong" ?

Please read my comments @1 and @17 again. In #1 I describe how the title of this post is incomplete and misleading. In #17 I repeatedly describe how the author has misleadingly equated dis-similar things to make dis-honest arguments against the teachers' protest.

Demo kid, @25, has a long post, with citations, showing how Rags, once again, got everything wrong.

As MikeBoyScout once noted, fewer things create more amusement value than when the (u)SP peanut galley attempts to tackle the topic of education.

Posted by: tensor on June 29, 2014 09:49 PM
28. On the other hand, if your dear mother were to arrive to the US today, and attempt to live and survive in an economy that exploits immigrants and low-skilled labor, you'd probably have a much different outcome.

Really? We're "exploiting" children by immersing them in English in kindergarten rather than catering to 110 languages we do now?
You think the 5 yr old Italian speaking child who became my mother labored in a salt mine? Or a pasta factory?

Hyperbole (and ignorance) much? Clearly you do not understand that FIRST GENERATION AMERICAN means she was a child born in America of LEGAL immigrant parents who spoke only Italian.

You could just as easily give eighth-graders questions like that and they would be just as successful, as long as you cut out a lot of useful components from a modern curriculum.

Proof? What "useful components"? I never claimed there was nothing useful in the modern curriculum - I said kids today simply don't know as much as then, nor are they required to know as much as their equals then.

And funny enough, that 19th-century curriculum would also not likely make students better thinkers, or even make them better prepared for life or the job market. It would just allow them to answer those questions on an exam, just as it did a century ago.

You clearly do not understand the basis of a "classic education". Read it again, as I generously provided you with the definition. Further, that was an EIGHTH grade test - the schools provided ALL the children with the knowledge to prepare them to leave school at that moment as most did OR to move on to higher education with the abilities they needed to succeed.

And you lived in Technicolor glory with a white picket fence out in the front and the milkman coming around every day. I get it. Blah, blah, blah. Fifteen kids in one house, but you were all happier because you didn't have cell phones or indoor plumbing, and you got by without the help of the government (despite the fact that you did). Got it. Heard the story a hundred times.

Go back to screwing yourself you insulting little punk. My parents were first generation Americans that got themselves educations (that were actually worth something) owned every home they bought and gave their children educations. And as much as you think you might know, cell phones were invented in MY adulthood... so much for your insult when you can't even get that right.

Again, while you're talking about a "modern" education versus a "classical" one, your argument seems to be more focused on some idealized version of both, with little discussion of what would work for most students. You may lament sanctioned bullying in the schoolyard or forcing left-handed students to write with their right hands, but are these things the best for students either?

Your red herrings are mighty cute - irrelevant and nonsensical but cute.

You are damned right I'm focused on an idealized version - WHY NOT? Shouldn't we expect the best? Do you think behavior problems suddenly cropped up with "new math"? Of course not - children are children are children: some want to learn, some don't, some grasp math earlier and others prefer literature, some behave, some don't, some are active, some are passive and yes some are bullies and some aren't: whoop de frickin' do. They have been so since the beginning of humanity and yet somehow humanity has survived with its esteem in tact without anti-bullying crusades and treating children like precious little bubbles that will pop if you look at them cross-eyed. And children were taught successfully ... until the damned government got its nose in it. No one can give a child "esteem"; to think that they themselves don't know they are ill-prepared, or did badly compared to the guy next to them is utterly insulting. KIDS KNOW when they achieve and when they fail. Lying to them to "protect" their "self esteem" is insulting to them.

I absolutely believe there should be uniform standards and that children should have to prove they can accomplish them BUT not nonsensical ones that take away from actual LEARNING to teach TO gibberish tests! Did you learn nothing from the WASL debacle?

Students today have more resources to exceed these bounds. More availability of advanced placement courses, the ability to take additional online or college courses in advance, and so forth. However, what is amusing to me is that a representative of the "party of responsibility" cowers in the face of it -- public education is a basic resource, not the ultimate one. There are plenty of resources available outside of school to make sure that people with talent in certain areas can work to succeed in those areas.

So? Who is denying that? However given that FACT why are children failing? Why are they illiterate when/IF they graduate? Why can't they balance a check book? Why do they need remedial classes in COLLEGE? Why do they need "affirmative action" to get into college?

That's fine, but not everyone needs to build their own house. I would not dream of becoming a professional dancer, nor am I a great graphic designer. I wouldn't ask them to learn computer programming skills, but that doesn't mean they are not good thinkers.

That's not what I said - and of course you know it. Ask that kid who gives your change based on what his cash register tells him WHY the register told him $7.56 from $10 on a $2.44 sale. Better yet, befuddle him by giving him 44 cents AFTER he counts out the $7 so you don't have to fill your pocket with loose change. It would be a joke if it weren't so utterly sad.

Akin to child abuse, in my mind. From the experiences I've had, as well as family members who are in the teaching profession have had, with homeschooled kids, the common consensus I've found is that these kids may be well-educated in specific topics, but they are unable to form the same bonds with other kids their own age, they are inflexible with ideas from outside of their own perspective, and they tend to have lower social and emotional skills than other kids. To each his own, but I find it to be an incredible waste of time and resources for those kinds of outcomes.

Again, you didn't read the studies. I know more than 2 dozen home schooled kids - they don't sit in a one room cabin with a candle. As they get older, the families pool their resources, their strengths and work together. One Dad is a physicist - guess what - yes, he teaches them and the other kids in their co-op physics and sciences. His eldest was a catalyst for Notre Dame to set admission standards for home schoolers, and he is now in the final years of his medical residency in Virginia. Kirby Wilbur taught history to kids in a home school co-op . The kids participate in sports and 'clubs' through the schools. They participate in music and theatre programs and science fairs. They are actually more well-rounded than their classroom counterparts for the FACT that they deal with and, as older students, work with professionals of the real world.

I know a high school math teacher in Nevada, a young Latina woman an avowed liberal and Obama apologist who defends public schools and unions completely - yet she tells horror stories from her math classes - that the kids come in not knowing what they should have been taught in 5th grade, that they have no grasp of basic concepts, that she can't teach her lesson plan to the prepared students because she has attempt to teach those basics, which of course means she falls behind in what's expected of her, that because they are ignorant of what they should know, they are ill-behaved, disruptive and bored ... and this is in a "good" school in a "good" neighborhood.

Great! Then you agree that schools should ALSO filter, say, any religiously-themed website? Roman Catholics, for example, make up only about one-quarter of the population, and there are far more pressing issues in education... like actually EDUCATING!

Well except of course for its significance and place in HISTORY and LITERATURE. And you do understand, don't you, that 25% is more than SIX and HALF times 3.8%...

What is truly amusing is that these types of criticisms -- as well as your other criticisms! -- have existed for as long as there have been crotchety, myopic blowhards lamenting a past that... well... was not really too dissimilar to the present day.

Those are called FACTS about the readiness of today's youth to enter the military. You may find them inconvenient but that does not make them "criticisms". Perhaps you should have had a better education so that you could discern the difference.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 29, 2014 10:14 PM
29. @28: Really? We're "exploiting" children by immersing them in English in kindergarten rather than catering to 110 languages we do now? You think the 5 yr old Italian speaking child who became my mother labored in a salt mine? Or a pasta factory?
That statement doesn't even make sense. I said that if a new immigrant were coming to the US today and had to manage in a time when a lack of language skills is MORE of a penalty, you'd have a harder time getting ahead. However, if you mentioned that she was five years old in your initial statement, I probably would have laughed and not even continued to entertain your absurd line of reasoning -- starting to learn English at five is not a major disadvantage as an adult.

Hyperbole (and ignorance) much? Clearly you do not understand that FIRST GENERATION AMERICAN means she was a child born in America of LEGAL immigrant parents who spoke only Italian.
Your mother was five years old when she came to the US, and you're using her as an example of learning through immersion? Okay... but that's not actually much of a case for (or against) it, then. I'm not even certain why you brought it up, since it doesn't say much of consequence.

Proof? What "useful components"? I never claimed there was nothing useful in the modern curriculum - I said kids today simply don't know as much as then, nor are they required to know as much as their equals then.
And I'm saying that your claim that students learned more then is absolutely false, and not borne by experience. Kids today could learn exactly that material if the curriculum was changed, but that wouldn't make for better outcomes in areas where we would want them to actually succeed.

You clearly do not understand the basis of a "classic education". Read it again, as I generously provided you with the definition. Further, that was an EIGHTH grade test - the schools provided ALL the children with the knowledge to prepare them to leave school at that moment as most did OR to move on to higher education with the abilities they needed to succeed.
I fully understand a "classic education", and the subtext it implies. However, what you're suggesting is that this test shows that kids a hundred years ago were smarter or better educated. That is not borne out by one test. In fact, I'd suggest that kids today are smarter, as they have to learn from a much broader and deeper set of disciplines.

Go back to screwing yourself you insulting little punk. My parents were first generation Americans that got themselves educations (that were actually worth something) owned every home they bought and gave their children educations. And as much as you think you might know, cell phones were invented in MY adulthood... so much for your insult when you can't even get that right.
Please. You are asserting that somehow your childhood was noble and vaunted, when it isn't borne out by evidence. Kids are the same, they are not getting dumber, and the idea that education was somehow "better" 50 years ago is foolish nostalgia.

You are damned right I'm focused on an idealized version - WHY NOT? Shouldn't we expect the best?
There's a difference between "idealized" and "best". I'll let your "classically trained" mind ponder that one.

Do you think behavior problems suddenly cropped up with "new math"? Of course not - children are children are children: some want to learn, some don't, some grasp math earlier and others prefer literature, some behave, some don't, some are active, some are passive and yes some are bullies and some aren't: whoop de frickin' do.
To which you say, let's give them the same fifty-year-old education that's based less on research and more on personal philosophical views. The ones that make it can survive, while the ones that don't are worthless and should be digging ditches.

They have been so since the beginning of humanity and yet somehow humanity has survived with its esteem in tact without anti-bullying crusades and treating children like precious little bubbles that will pop if you look at them cross-eyed.
Adversity and overcoming obstacles is fine, but assuming that intentional abuse and assault will "toughen kids up" is garbage. Might as well beat your kids at home and cut out the middle-man.

And children were taught successfully ... until the damned government got its nose in it. No one can give a child "esteem"; to think that they themselves don't know they are ill-prepared, or did badly compared to the guy next to them is utterly insulting. KIDS KNOW when they achieve and when they fail. Lying to them to "protect" their "self esteem" is insulting to them.
Oh, please. "OMG the government!" is a horrible fall-back when conservatives just don't seem to get that beating and humiliating kids isn't the best way to motivate them.

I absolutely believe there should be uniform standards and that children should have to prove they can accomplish them BUT not nonsensical ones that take away from actual LEARNING to teach TO gibberish tests! Did you learn nothing from the WASL debacle?
I don't disagree, but you're twisting yourself in a knot here trying to argue both sides.

However given that FACT why are children failing? Why are they illiterate when/IF they graduate? Why can't they balance a check book? Why do they need remedial classes in COLLEGE? Why do they need "affirmative action" to get into college?
The problem is that you're arguing that ALL children are failing/illiterate/innumerate/etc, when that is simply not the case. I don't think that any child is somehow dumber or less educated than they were a decade or a century ago. I just think that you have a horrible memory and aren't cognizant of what shifts in our society are doing to the way that we perceive these issues.

That's not what I said - and of course you know it. Ask that kid who gives your change based on what his cash register tells him WHY the register told him $7.56 from $10 on a $2.44 sale. Better yet, befuddle him by giving him 44 cents AFTER he counts out the $7 so you don't have to fill your pocket with loose change. It would be a joke if it weren't so utterly sad.
It's not simply the educational system... different types of folks are taking these jobs now that are not as skilled as before. That in no way means the educational system is different, just that those same people would have been doing different jobs in the past... an innumerate kid looking for a low-wage summer job like that would probably have to dig ditches instead of being a cashier, but he'd still be around and still unable to add numbers.

Again, you didn't read the studies.
No, I've read the studies, and I know from my own experiences, as I mentioned. Talking about special cases is fine, and if you have the time and the money to lavish care and attention on your special snowflake to keep them away from godless heathens, then sure, that's great.

However, you're proposing a solution that: 1.) is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and 2.) in the hands of the wrong people, can be very, very bad. Similarly, from the handful of homeschooled students I've met, my impression is that this feeling of entitlement carries over into their interactions with their peers. When a few tried to transfer back into public school, in fact, they found that they could not survive in the social environment, even if they were ahead in classwork.

Honestly, I don't care what you do, and I'll fully admit to a personal bias (which is more than what I can say for you). I just think that it is absurd to think of it as a panacea for education policy at all. I'd rather tutor my kids after school and over the summer than simply assume that taking my ball and going home is the best policy.

I know a high school math teacher in Nevada, a young Latina woman an avowed liberal and Obama apologist who defends public schools and unions completely - yet she tells horror stories from her math classes...
OMG! A horror story! Awful! To be frank, this smacks more of issues with classroom management and discipline, and coordination of the curriculum. Nothing in your whining suggests that it is an endemic problem with the education system overall, just an indictment of the administration in her school.

Well except of course for its significance and place in HISTORY and LITERATURE. And you do understand, don't you, that 25% is more than SIX and HALF times 3.8%...
You're implying that a minority shouldn't be important, and you do understand, don't you, that 25% is still a "minority". Likewise, if you are concerned about significance and place in literature, I would assume that gay and lesbian literature should be included in that.

Those are called FACTS about the readiness of today's youth to enter the military.
And? The conjecture you're drawing from those facts is not correct.

You're falling prey to some fascinating examples of the survivorship bias. Your impression is that the same groups of people are applying to join the military as were applying decades ago. That, to be frank, is absolutely wrong. Physical fitness aside -- which I will admit is more of a problem today -- I would posit that the groups that have higher skills with reading and math are less likely to apply now.

You may find them inconvenient but that does not make them "criticisms". Perhaps you should have had a better education so that you could discern the difference.
It's not "inconvenient" truth... it is your misinterpretation of the facts. If your "classical" education included critical thought, maybe you would be able to make a better go at it.

Posted by: demo kid on June 30, 2014 12:57 AM
30. starting to learn English at five is not a major disadvantage as an adult.

The SUBJECT is EDUCATION via the babblegibberish of Common Core. In the real world, the one not of unicorn rainbow farts, talking about EDUCATION means you are talking about CHILDREN.

Your mother was five years old when she came to the US

Clear proof you do NOT read - or you have no comprehension skills. Figure it out.

And I'm saying that your claim that students learned more then is absolutely false

Curriculum's have been dumbed down to produce better test scores in order to score more money for schools. Further, productive time is being wasted on issues secondary to education. And it's born out, again for he who does not read, BY THE FACT that colleges lament high school grads are ill-prepared when they enter and NEED remedial classes to catch up to even begin freshman requirements and by the FACT that the SAT has again lowered its requirements.

The SAT college admission test will no longer require a timed essay, will dwell less on fancy vocabulary and will return to the familiar 1600-point scoring scale in a major overhaul intended to open doors to higher education for students who are now shut out.
intended to open doors to higher education for students who are now shut out DUMBED DOWN

I fully understand a "classic education", and the subtext it implies.

There is no subtext, except in your closed mind. A classic education refers to a well rounded education that builds upon itself, from broad concepts to specifics using different disciplines: you can learn history with and from art, science goes hand in hand with math, literature, history, art and grammar are all inter-related. WHY DON"T YOU READ?

The classical education is, above all, systematic -- in direct contrast to the scattered, unorganized nature of so much secondary education. This systematic, rigorous study has two purposes.

Rigorous study develops virtue in the student. Aristotle defined virtue as the ability to act in accordance to what one knows to be right. The virtuous man (or woman) can force himself to do what he knows to be right, even when it runs against his inclinations. The classical education continually asks a student to work against his baser inclinations (laziness, or the desire to watch another half hour of TV) in order to reach a goal -- mastery of a subject.

Systematic study also allows the student to join what Mortimer Adler calls the "Great Conversation" -- the ongoing conversation of great minds down through the ages. Much modern education is so eclectic that the student has little opportunity to make connections between past events and the flood of current information."The beauty of the classical curriculum," writes classical schoolmaster David Hicks , "is that it dwells on one problem, one author, or one epoch long enough to allow even the youngest student a chance to exercise his mind in a scholarly way: to make connections and to trace developments, lines of reasoning, patterns of action, recurring symbolisms, plots, and motifs."

Please. You are asserting that somehow your childhood was noble and vaunted, when it isn't borne out by evidence.

Your ugly prejudice is showing ... again. I never even intimated any such thing.

There's a difference between "idealized" and "best". I'll let your "classically trained" mind ponder that one.

Best? Shall we discuss graduation rates? Shall we again discuss the need for remedial classes? Or the standing of our student against other countries?

And for the record. the word 'idealized' was YOURS.

To which you say, let's give them the same fifty-year-old education that's based less on research and more on personal philosophical views.

Philosophical views? Your ugly prejudice is showing ... again. What were graduation rates 50 years ago? Oh wait - they were higher than today WITH LESS MONEY per student. Studies and expectations on all levels were more rigorous. You are trying to compare an annotated abridged graphic novel of War and Peace to War and Peace as it was written. They are NOT the same, nor does the graphic novel have the same ability to convey what the author wanted conveyed. Pretty broad strokes vs accurate SPECIFICS.

Adversity and overcoming obstacles is fine, but assuming that intentional abuse and assault will "toughen kids up" is garbage. Might as well beat your kids at home and cut out the middle-man.

Wow. Talk about a red herring and false equivalence. You really have bought the party line, haven't you? Every cross word is "intentional abuse" and "assault". I can't remember, but didn't you once say you have no children? It shows.

Kids are kids - best pals one minute, fighting the next, back to best friends again. It's a scenario played out in school yards, neighborhoods and families since the beginning of time. Is it hard to witness? Yes. BUT it serves to teach them how to deal with others, how to solve problems. Teaching them they are poor little victims ... teaches them to relish victimhood for the attention it garners them and, worse, to enjoy the punishment of others.

Oh, please. "OMG the government!" is a horrible fall-back when conservatives just don't seem to get that beating and humiliating kids isn't the best way to motivate them.

No it's just that the federal government is incapable of knowing what is best for every community at every locality. They do too much so badly with their 'one size fits all' attitude. The only thing that mentality accomplishes is to force into a box all that don't fit. PARENTS know what is best for their children. Local authorities - including teachers, know what's best for their communities. Set national standards and let people alone to accomplish them. I expect you hope/want the same from your employer: Tell me what you need, what you expect and let me get it done.

I just think that you have a horrible memory and aren't cognizant of what shifts in our society are doing to the way that we perceive these issues.

Irrelevant babble. PERCEIVING the issue has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT that children have not suddenly changed they way humans learn. Yes, children may learn better in different ways and at different rates - I absolutely believe in 'learning style assessment's' and teachers need some understanding of that in each child. I'm visual, my attorney son is auditory, and another learned best when he was in motion. BUT, school is not a bubble. At some point children need to learn to live in the real world. If your employer has gone with the trend of 'open' offices instead of individual offices and you work/think best drumming your feet,tapping your pen and humming loudly - YOU need to adapt so as not to be disruptive when/IF you think.

different types of folks are taking these jobs now that are not as skilled as before.

Well, no sh*t Sherlock. Because they aren't learning it in school.

an innumerate kid looking for a low-wage summer job like that would probably have to dig ditches instead of being a cashier, but he'd still be around and still unable to add numbers.

Well, no sh*t Sherlock. And apparently that works for you: condemning him to ditch digging rather than making sure he could be a cashier if he so chooses. Wow. That perfectly illustrates what's wrong with liberalism. Good job.

However, you're proposing a solution that: 1.) is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and 2.) in the hands of the wrong people, can be very, very bad.

What you have now is one size fits all but worse: it's ONE SIZE FIT TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR.

WRONG PEOPLE? PARENTS are the "wrong people" for their children? Are you insane?

When a few tried to transfer back into public school, in fact, they found that they could not survive in the social environment, even if they were ahead in classwork.

A few? Suddenly anecdotal evidence is your cup of tea, eh?
Perhaps for a nameless, unproven "few", but perhaps it was because the "social environment" was deemed more important by those IN IT. Perhaps those in it cared more about the "social environment" than THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF SCHOOL. Yes, home schoolers are usually more focused on getting an education than dissing this girl or that look in 144 characters.

And? The conjecture you're drawing from those facts is not correct.

Again with your pre-conceived prejudice. There was no conjecture, The facts stand on/for/with themselves. A FACT is just that. Dictionary.com, dude, USE IT:
fact - noun
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

You're falling prey to some fascinating examples of the survivorship bias.

Babble.

I would posit that the groups that have higher skills with reading and math are less likely to apply now.

and CONJECTURE ... highly insulting and prejudiced conjecture at that. I wonder if you have the balls to mention that to those at West Point, The Naval Academy ... or at the gates of JBLM. Go ahead: Hey military dopes, you're dumb which is why you joined to protect my ass. Give it a try - perhaps on Friday.

Rebekah and Kevin Nelams moved to their modest brick home in this suburb of Baton Rouge seven years ago because it has one of the top-performing public school districts in the state. But starting this fall, Ms. Nelams plans to home-school the couple's four elementary-age children.
The main reason: the methods that are being used for teaching math under the Common Core, a set of academic standards adopted by more than 40 states.

Ms. Nelams said she did not recognize the approaches her children, ages 7 to 10, were being asked to use on math work sheets. They were frustrated by the pictures, dots and sheer number of steps needed to solve some problems. Her husband, who is a pipe designer for petroleum products at an engineering firm, once had to watch a YouTube video before he could help their fifth-grade son with his division homework.

"They say this is rigorous because it teaches them higher thinking," Ms. Nelams said. "But it just looks tedious."

Across the country, parents who once conceded that their homework expertise petered out by high school trigonometry are now feeling helpless when confronted with first-grade work sheets. Stoked by viral postings online that ridicule math homework in which students are asked to critique a phantom child's thinking or engage in numerous steps, along with mockery from comedians including Louis C. K. and Stephen Colbert, these parents are adding to an increasingly fierce political debate about whether the Common Core is another way in which Washington is taking over people's lives.

... "To make a student feel like they're not good at math because they can't explain something that to them seems incredibly obvious clearly isn't good for the student," said W. Stephen Wilson, a math professor at Johns Hopkins University.

Some parents of children who have typically excelled at math find the curriculum laboriously slow.

In Slidell, an affluent suburb of New Orleans, Jane Stenstrom is concerned that her daughter, who was assigned to a class for gifted students as a third grader last year, did not progress quickly enough. "For the advanced classes, it's restricting them from being able to move forward," Ms. Stenstrom said one recent afternoon.

Her daughter, Anna Grace, 9, said she grew frustrated "having to draw all those little tiny dots."

"Sometimes I had to draw 42 or 32 little dots, sometimes more," she said, adding that being asked to provide multiple solutions to a problem could be confusing. "I wanted to know which way was right and which way was wrong."

Poor little Anna Grace .. in the world of unicorn farts and babblegibberish there is no longer "right" or "wrong", there is only try. Yoda ("Try not. Do or do not!! There is no try."*) and those existing in the real world weep.

*Yep, had a pediatrician use that on my kid once when said kid told him he would "try" to break a bad habit. 26+ years later both he and I remember it well.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 30, 2014 12:59 PM
31. Endless cut & Paste. No attribution.

Apparently your grandmother and education didn't teach you to respect the law.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 30, 2014 03:57 PM
32. @25 - "Please read my comments @1 and @17 again. In #1 I describe how the title of this post is incomplete and misleading. In #17 I repeatedly describe how the author has misleadingly equated dis-similar things to make dis-honest arguments against the teachers' protest."

No, you make a dishonest argument and you also did not answer my basic question with a definitive response - which amounts to your opinion which only applies to the author and not "the right" in this post. That's why I cannot take a vast majority of your comments seriously.

"Endless cut & Paste. No attribution."

Apparently your grandmother and education didn't teach you to respect the law."

Posted by Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon at June 30, 2014 03:57 PM

That's creative bullcrap. More than likely, you are just too lazy to put up a substantive argument. It appears that she doesn't respect you and your ilk any more than you all respect here - A Mexican standoff (now it's your turn to play your empty race card)

Posted by: KDS on June 30, 2014 05:32 PM
33. "That's creative bullcrap."

And that's horseshit. Rags is violating U.S. Copyright law. She obviously has no respect for the sources she rips off, nor this blog, the entity which could find it's tit in a wringer.

"you are just too lazy to put up a substantive argument"

Try not to be such a damned, stupid idiot, KDS. I was merely pointing out that cut & paste as she's doing it is a violation of copyright law.

"Did you catch that Tom referred to you as a communist because you like soccer ?"

Jesus H. Christ, KDS, would you grow a pair? Really, for someone who readily resorts to calling people all kinds of bullshit - communists, fascists, socialists, Jihadists, baby killers and on and on - you sure as hell cry like a baby when someone does it to you.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 30, 2014 05:53 PM
34. @33 - blind Doc - you are boring with your stupid drivel with your a-hole demeanor. With all due respect, FOAD.

Posted by: KDS on June 30, 2014 06:51 PM
35. @30: Sigh. What a mess of an argument for someone with a "classical education". Whatever. I'll try to dive into this morass where I can.


The SUBJECT is EDUCATION via the babblegibberish of Common Core. In the real world, the one not of unicorn rainbow farts, talking about EDUCATION means you are talking about CHILDREN.
No, the subject matter in that case was the best way that ESL students could learn, and you proposed immersion, since your immigrant parents learned that way a long time ago when they were very young. I'm saying, though, that a five-year-old's experiences learning English several decades ago isn't evidence of anything relevant here. You are getting confused.

Clear proof you do NOT read - or you have no comprehension skills. Figure it out.
No, it's clear proof that I'm not going to read through your massive body of comments to make your case for you, or to figure out at what age your mom came to the US.

Curriculum's have been dumbed down to produce better test scores in order to score more money for schools. Further, productive time is being wasted on issues secondary to education. And it's born out, again for he who does not read, BY THE FACT that colleges lament high school grads are ill-prepared when they enter and NEED remedial classes to catch up to even begin freshman requirements and by the FACT that the SAT has again lowered its requirements.
Oh my god -- where to begin with this?

First, you are saying that curricula EVERYWHERE are being dumbed down. Totally unfounded. While there is evidence that schools are trying to game the system, believing that the ENTIRE system EVERYWHERE has been degraded is garbage, and without merit. And students are still learning, even if they need to take a health class or gym class here or there.

Second, colleges are requiring remedial classes not because the students are any dumber, but because MORE students are seeking (and gaining) admission. If the distribution of students is still the same, but colleges are attracting students now that otherwise would have gone directly to work thirty years ago, of COURSE the need for remedial classes are going to go up.

There is no subtext, except in your closed mind. A classic education refers to a well rounded education that builds upon itself, from broad concepts to specifics using different disciplines: you can learn history with and from art, science goes hand in hand with math, literature, history, art and grammar are all inter-related. WHY DON"T YOU READ?
And then blah, blah, blah about some quote that in the grand scheme means quite little. No, when folks talk about a "classical education", it's usually code for conservatives that rebel against any kind of progress in the classroom, and get frustrated that education has actually changed within the past fifty years.

Your ugly prejudice is showing ... again. I never even intimated any such thing.
False -- you have claimed repeatedly that your upbringing and education are superior, when I would suggest that neither is true.

Best? Shall we discuss graduation rates? Shall we again discuss the need for remedial classes? Or the standing of our student against other countries?
No, you were talking about a modern versus classical education -- there is zero evidence you have provided that a strictly "classical" approach according to your dream example would work, and zero evidence that it would meet student needs across the board. It is simply an elegiac notion that if we just learned how Beaver Cleaver learned in the classroom, students would be A-OK.

Philosophical views? Your ugly prejudice is showing ... again. What were graduation rates 50 years ago? Oh wait - they were higher than today WITH LESS MONEY per student. Studies and expectations on all levels were more rigorous.
I'll omit the absurd comparison. However, compare the school system today with that from fifty years ago -- the availability of assistance for special needs students, the need to address a broader range of students, greater needs for technology, and so forth. Of course costs have gone up. And likewise, student performance has NOT decreased over the past few decades -- it increased a bit in the 1980s, but have stayed largely level.

Wow. Talk about a red herring and false equivalence. You really have bought the party line, haven't you? Every cross word is "intentional abuse" and "assault". I can't remember, but didn't you once say you have no children? It shows.
Grow up. What I'm saying is that NOT addressing bullying -- actual physical and emotional abuse -- is condoning assault. If you are of the belief that this should exist, and in fact, be implicitly promoted, then why not do it yourself and make sure it's done right?

Kids are kids - best pals one minute, fighting the next, back to best friends again. It's a scenario played out in school yards, neighborhoods and families since the beginning of time. Is it hard to witness? Yes. BUT it serves to teach them how to deal with others, how to solve problems. Teaching them they are poor little victims ... teaches them to relish victimhood for the attention it garners them and, worse, to enjoy the punishment of others.
No, there's a difference between "kids being kids", and actual physical or emotional assault. What a poor parent you must be if you cannot make that distinction.

No it's just that the federal government is incapable of knowing what is best for every community at every locality. ... PARENTS know what is best for their children. Local authorities - including teachers, know what's best for their communities. Set national standards and let people alone to accomplish them. I expect you hope/want the same from your employer: Tell me what you need, what you expect and let me get it done.
Honestly? Parents do NOT always know what is "best" for children, and to believe that all "local authorities" always do as well is false as well. Federal and state standards exist for a reason, and they do allow for input from parents and local schools as you describe, but they are also supported by research and science. The belief that schools without ANY oversight would suddenly flourish? Completely unfounded.

Irrelevant babble. PERCEIVING the issue has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT that children have not suddenly changed they way humans learn.
Again, you're proposing the idea that a fifty-year-old education is better than one supported by research that took place over those intervening fifty years.

different types of folks are taking these jobs now that are not as skilled as before. / Well, no sh*t Sherlock. Because they aren't learning it in school.
For someone that claims to be "smart", you sure don't get concepts easily, do you? I'm saying that kids aren't getting dumber or less educated, just that the smarter, more educated ones aren't jockeying machines that no longer require math skills to operate.

Well, no sh*t Sherlock. And apparently that works for you: condemning him to ditch digging rather than making sure he could be a cashier if he so chooses. Wow. That perfectly illustrates what's wrong with liberalism. Good job.
That's not what I said -- apparently you have a massive problem with reading comprehension after your "classical education". I'm saying that given the same quality of students, students that were bad at math before can now do those jobs, and don't need math skills to do them. In effect, they CAN be cashiers now, since under the old system they would have been relegated to digging ditches.

What you have now is one size fits all but worse: it's ONE SIZE FIT TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR.
Completely incorrect -- a "one size / lowest common denominator" system would be where all students graduate, and there are no resources for advanced students. That does not exist today.

WRONG PEOPLE? PARENTS are the "wrong people" for their children? Are you insane?
If I said to you that your child needed a heart transplant, a trained surgeon was available to do the procedure, and they told you that this was the only chance for your child to live, would you say, "I don't need someone telling ME what's right for my child!"?

A few? Suddenly anecdotal evidence is your cup of tea, eh?
To which I admitted my bias in this particular case. Still, it is quite amusing that on one hand, you're defending homeschooling up and down, while here you specifically stated that, say, students need to learn to "live in the real world", so they are "not disruptive when/IF [they] think", and they

Perhaps for a nameless, unproven "few", but perhaps it was because the "social environment" was deemed more important by those IN IT. Perhaps those in it cared more about the "social environment" than THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF SCHOOL. Yes, home schoolers are usually more focused on getting an education than dissing this girl or that look in 144 characters.
Part of being in school is EXACTLY this -- social learning. Pretty much EXACTLY as you said above.

Again with your pre-conceived prejudice. There was no conjecture, The facts stand on/for/with themselves. A FACT is just that. Dictionary.com, dude, USE IT:
And apparently you cannot debate my point on it's actual content. I was stating that students ARE ready to enter the military -- but the ones that are scoring the highest have chosen not to join for certain reasons. But that's incorrect, as the gauge was an ESTIMATE of failure rates across the entire population, not actual failure.

But actually, upon further reflection -- what have been the historical rates of failure? I tried looking for information about this, and came upon this source:

In 1950 the national failure rate of the Armed Forces Qualification Test was 19.2%. But the failure rate in nine states where incomes and educational expenditures are low ranged from 34% to 58%. Youth from other areas had to fill the spots in the Armed Forces for which the failures couldn't qualify.

Likewise, talking about "failure" is all about where you draw the line, and what you use to gauge education:

Just six years ago, during the Iraq war surge, the military had lower standards. Only about 86% of new recruits had high-school diplomas, and just 67% of recruits scored in the top 50th percentile on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Waivers excusing health issues and prior misconduct -- even felonies -- were not uncommon.

Over the last couple years, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have enlisted their highest-quality recruits since at least 1973, when the military discontinued the draft.

Now a whopping 99% of recruits have a high-school diploma -- an all-time high. Even candidates with GEDs are often turned away and encouraged to complete at least 15 college credits before re-applying.

Top military officials also credit the sluggish job market for their hiring success. A slow economy "makes recruiting less challenging, and operates to the advantage of those who are hiring, including the U.S. military,"

So I will admit -- my initial statement was wrong, since I read the 25% failure rate pretty quickly. The 25% figure is for everyone, including those that do not take the AFQT. The military is more competitive for talent, and are refusing to take folks that are less educated, unless they really need to.

Still, what exactly are the trends? Has the test changed in difficulty? (I would assume it has.) What are the short- and long-term trends with the test? If the test was likely less rigorous in the 1950s, and the ACTUAL failure rates were about 20% back then, is it unreasonable that current failure rates if ALL students took the test would be 25%?

Without answering those questions, simply dropping a statement like "25% of students cannot join the Army" is pointless, since we don't know whether less than 25% were unqualified back when "classical education" was the tool of choice.

and CONJECTURE ... highly insulting and prejudiced conjecture at that. I wonder if you have the balls to mention that to those at West Point, The Naval Academy ... or at the gates of JBLM. Go ahead: Hey military dopes, you're dumb which is why you joined to protect my ass. Give it a try - perhaps on Friday.
Now you're just being a moron. You YOURSELF pointed out that scores for applicants to the military have been decreasing, and now you're launching into a debate over Common Core. I'm stating reasonable explanations for the purported decline in the quality of APPLICANTS -- even correcting myself for a mistake I made! -- and you're deflecting in favor of ranting. Shows me what kind of arguments you really have, and what level your skills at rhetoric are really like.

Pffft. I just find it funny that you claim the benefits of a "classical" education, and you cannot even comport yourself to that kind of thinking.

Posted by: demo kid on June 30, 2014 07:10 PM
36. Don't you love the bobbleheads who whine when you CITE and call you lawless when you don't?

OOPSIE -

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[4]

Oh by the way - would you care to know who FIRST informed me of the wonders of "fair use? Roger Rabbit up ...er, AT the HorsesAss.

Further, I am not profiting by my use of relevant quotes - YOU ARE.

Interesting the straw you grasp at - is that all you have?

Don't want to talk about babblegibberish of Common Core? No comments about ... oh I don't know ... the end of the Supreme Court for the year? The illegal children lured and dumped WITH their diseases at the border? That Canada finally gave a great big FU to Obama regarding the Keystone Pipeline? That despite the 'sky is falling' screams of 45 days ago the Actic Sea ice set a new record level? That a caliphate has been formed and that Isis Jihadists mocked Barack Obama: 'Did You Prepare Enough Diapers for Your Soldiers?'? Economic contraction? Lowest participation in the work place since the 1930's? Benghazi? Berghdal? IRS?

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 30, 2014 07:19 PM
37. Stupe sez, "With all due respect, FOAD."

What a stupe loser.

Hate-filled woman sez, "Roger Rabbit"

As with you and the rest of your so-called education, it appears Roger's lessons didn't quite sink in as there's something about attributing what you cut & paste to who authored it that you still don't understand and likely never will.

"Don't want to talk about babblegibberish of Common Core?"

Christ, you stupid woman, I already did. The rest of your nonsense is OT. As for your unbridled hatred for everything about our nation, shove it.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 30, 2014 08:01 PM
38. "What a stupe loser."

Takes one to know one - idjit.

Posted by: KDS on June 30, 2014 08:08 PM
39. No, it's clear proof that I'm not going to read through your massive body of comments to make your case for you, or to figure out at what age your mom came to the US.

And yet, you think you know enough to COMMENT on them. Who's the idiot? Who comes with preconceived prejudices. Further

Second, colleges are requiring remedial classes not because the students are any dumber, but because MORE students are seeking (and gaining) admission

One has nothing to do with the other. They offer remedial classes so that students can catch up and be prepared to learn in college classes.
Dictionary.com, dude: USE IT

remedial
adjective
1. affording remedy; tending to remedy something.
2. intended to correct or improve one's skill in a specified field: remedial math.

No, when folks talk about a "classical education", it's usually code for conservatives that rebel against any kind of progress in the classroom, and get frustrated that education has actually changed within the past fifty years.


Conspiracist much? OMG! Demokid broke the code! We need a new code.

PLEASE continue to expose your foolishness - it's very entertaining!


If you are of the belief that this should exist, and in fact, be implicitly promoted, then why not do it yourself and make sure it's done right?

Yawn another red herring ... and purposeful twisting of words. Bullying happens. Kids learn No one promotes it and no one in their right mind accuses someone of doing so. I've noticed the less you have to say, the more ridiculous your insults.

No, there's a difference between "kids being kids", and actual physical or emotional assault. What a poor parent you must be if you cannot make that distinction.

See above. WTF is "emotional assault" beside a buzz word of the week? "You're ugly" - is that "emotional assault"? "I hate you" - is that emotional assault"? "Liberalism is the ideology of morons and fools" - is that "emotional assault"?

Grow up.

We taught our kids that words only hurt if they already confirm what you believe about yourself - if you believe you're ugly, if you believe you're stupid or fat. If you know you're smart, attractive - whatever - let them roll off your back; they reflect more on the bully than the recipient. Oh gosh, I do believe I've repeated that a few times to the insult hurling liberal bullies here at SP

Honestly? Parents do NOT always know what is "best" for children, and to believe that all "local authorities" always do as well is false as well. Federal and state standards exist for a reason, and they do allow for input from parents and local schools as you describe, but they are also supported by research and science. The belief that schools without ANY oversight would suddenly flourish? Completely unfounded.

THEIR children - you conveniently missed that part. Beyond that, unbelievable. I suspect you also believe parents should get governmental permission to HAVE children before they dare care for and raise their own. And really? They ALLOW input from parents? How flippin' generous of them! No one claimed NO oversight - again you ... misrepresent to bolster your own (misguided and prejudiced) point of view. What does the FACT that you don't even see it say about you? Or is it purposeful? Either is quite ugly.

Again, you're proposing the idea that a fifty-year-old education is better than one supported by research that took place over those intervening fifty years.

Research? WHAT research? That which came up with new methods of teaching? Or the TESTING that shows kids falling horribly behind? The testing that admits dumbing down?

different types of folks are taking these jobs now that are not as skilled as before.
I'm saying that kids aren't getting dumber or less educated, just that the smarter, more educated ones aren't jockeying machines that no longer require math skills to operate.
I'm saying that given the same quality of students, students that were bad at math before can now do those jobs, and don't need math skills to do them. In effect, they CAN be cashiers now, since under the old system they would have been relegated to digging ditches.

You said EXACTLY the opposite. Let me QUOTE: "No, but it does mean that some kids don't need to be as impacted by a lack of skill because they have no talent in math, and never will."

Here's the difference between us, as I see it: We both believe education needs to be improved. You view what you see as an improvement through the lens of your ideology of big, wonderful, can do all, government. I view it through MY EXPERIENCE of a cumulative 6 years of pre-school, 3 years of kindergarten, 21 years of elementary school, 3 years of middle school and 12 years of high school. I view it from my experience of being in those classrooms EVERY SINGLE OF THOSE YEARS as a parent volunteer. I view it from my experience in and on PTA's and their boards, in interacting with school offices in those and other volunteer capacities and interaction with OTHER parents. I saw how it changed (for the worse) over those 24 years from my first child in preschool to my last graduating high school.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 30, 2014 08:09 PM
40. Sorry misplace HTML symbol, Should read:
No, it's clear proof that I'm not going to read through your massive body of comments to make your case for you, or to figure out at what age your mom came to the US.

And yet, you think you know enough to COMMENT on them. Who's the idiot? Who comes with preconceived prejudices? Further, I call BULLSHIT on that claim as evidense by your repeating my words to parse them.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 30, 2014 08:11 PM
41. And regarding that 45 cumulative years of pre-school, kindergarten, elementary and high school: that was in 3 states (East and West), 5 cities and 12 different schools.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on June 30, 2014 08:28 PM
42. Rags seems to be frustrating the bejeezus out of the leftist progressives - she responds back and uses the Cloward Piven style (not sure she even realizes that) by overwhelming them with the barrage of comments - some referenced and others not, then rebuking their points which are absurd on their face but holier than thou to them. If they aren't frustrated, then how come some of them are writing such long responses themselves ?

It's rather humorous to watch and peruse and then boring after one realizes that the responders get their arguments from leftwing talking points or publications, or channel intellects like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dick "Turban" Durbin or the White House - none of which have any cred, but that doesn't stop them - like the good little Obamunist soldiers they are and their dog squeeze doesn't stop "Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want" from putting it out there. For all of the denigration of the SP website, those who criticize it sure use a lot of time blogging on it - can you say ironic ?

However, a number of the rest of us have lives outside of this screen have other fish to fry.

Posted by: KDS on June 30, 2014 08:49 PM
43. Stupe sez, "Takes one to know one - idjit."

Takes one to know one, huh? Trying to take a swipe at me, you instead just told everybody that you're an idjit. No disagreement here, Stupe!

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 30, 2014 08:50 PM
44. "Rags seems to be frustrating the bejeezus out of the leftist progressives"

Yeah, right. Was it our laughter that gave us away?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 30, 2014 08:57 PM
45. As this blog lags behind in discussing National events, another one does; Consider this a respite from a Rags;rampage. Note the last paragraph -

From Powerline -by John Hinderaker

dated August 26, 2008, was titled "Would An Obama Justice Department Be Used To Prosecute Conservatives?" I wrote:

We noted here efforts by Barack Obama's campaign to shut down his critics' free speech. In particular, Obama obviously doesn't want the public to know about his long-term, cozy relationship with proud-to-be-a-terrorist Bill Ayers. Now, Obama himself has upped the ante by demanding that the conservative who funded the Ayers ad be criminally prosecuted:

Obama general counsel Bob Bauer today sent a second, sharper letter to the Justice Department, directly attacking the Dallas billionaire funding a harsh attack ad, Harold Simmons.

"We reiterate our request that the Department of Justice fulfill its commitment to take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute the American issues Project, and we further request that the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute Howard [sic] Simmons for a knowing and willful violation of the individual aggregate contribution limits," he wrote.

Obama's suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous. Here's the real question, though: if Obama is elected President, will he appoint an Attorney General who will carry out politically-motivated prosecutions like the one he is now demanding? I suppose we can't know for sure, but why wouldn't he? If he demands criminal prosecution of free speech that opposes his political interests when he's a candidate, why wouldn't he order it as President?

Which is exactly what he has done; just ask Dinesh D'Souza or Catherine Engelbrecht. The IRS's well-documented assault on conservative 501(c)(4)s brought Obama's 2008 wishes to fruition. But it wasn't just the IRS: Eric Holder's Justice Department was deeply involved. Thus, when the IRS illegally sent the FBI 1.1 million pages of documents on 501(c)(4) groups that included confidential taxpayer information, it was in coordination with Eric Holder's Department of Justice, specifically, Richard Pilger.

The significant point here is that Barack Obama has always been openly opposed to free speech, and has always been willing, if not eager, to use the power of the state-illegally, if need be-to punish his political opponents. We had fair warning of Obama's corrupt and tyrannical impulses in 2008. Unfortunately, not enough voters paid attention.

Posted by: KDS on June 30, 2014 09:37 PM
46. Hey, Idjit, you just copied John Hindrocket's ENTIRE blog post. You provided no commentary, no criticism, nothing.

"...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"

Stupe, you copied Hindrocket's entire post. Rags may not understand attribution much, but even she isn't that stupid. Heh. Just kidding. She is that stupid.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 30, 2014 10:45 PM
47. A Hindrocket masterpiece from 2005, back when all of you now-in-denial-freaks were cheering and worshiping the very ground George Bush walked on, his war, his deficits and excusing his blowing off a Presidential Daily Briefing warning of a terrorist attack:

"It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."

http://thedailybanter.com/2011/03/because-its-always-fun-to-remember-how-dumb-john-hinderaker-is/

Good grief! Yeah, I bet it is strange being George Bush, and stranger yet to be KDS. LMFAO! My god, KDS may have actually found someone to quote, Hindrocket, who is damn near as stupe as himself.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on June 30, 2014 11:03 PM
48. The purpose of comments is to discuss the issue of this post. Not name calling and making this your own blog. Name calling reflects on the speaker more than the object.

Posted by: Ron on July 1, 2014 08:27 AM