Could the Liberal Stranglehold on Education Go Away?

In what is shockingly good news to education, we have a ray of hope to get the stranglehold of left thinking education mills out of education itself.

The New York Times reports (an unusual place for such good news) that the New York State Board of Regents is poised to pass a measure that will allow alternative programs to certify teachers as opposed to tradition education colleges and universities.

Such programs already exist, like Teach America, but the state wants to expand the program to allow people that haven't been indoctrinated by such liberal education schools, but instead come from the real world, with real world experiences. This means people that actually had to work in the capitalist system as opposed to the cloistered civil service union cultures that has bred our current situation.

According to The Times, "Under the Regents’ proposal, which the board is expected to approve on Tuesday and does not need the approval of the State Legislature, Teach for America and similar groups could create their own master’s programs, and the Regents would award the master’s degree, two powers that are now the sole domain of academia.

The Regents are looking for academic programs that would be grounded in practical teaching skills and would require teachers to commit to working in a high-needs school for four years." 

I believe this will serve its purpose in getting not only more worldly and experienced teachers in the classroom, but better qualified people that have a more well rounded background than just theoretical education.

The Times continues:

"Education school deans say they are grateful that groups like Teach for America, which recruits heavily among recent college graduates, and N.Y.C. Teaching Fellows, which attracts young professionals seeking to change careers, have managed to rebrand teaching as both sexy and noble. Some in New York have formed partnerships with these programs.

But the deans also say that the charge that they are mired in theory is outdated. Geoffrey L. Brackett, provost of Pace University in Manhattan, pointed to Pace High School in Chinatown, which the university created in 2003 and functions as something of a laboratory for the university’s education school. “You have our students at the graduate level being placed in that high school, but you also have current teachers working with our faculty on best practices and innovation,” he said."

While some will decry that the research part of teacher education and cutting edge research will not be part of these "teacher mills", there seems to be room to try something different.

"Susan H. Fuhrman, president of Teachers College, said she had another concern — the potential separation of teacher training from what she called an “explosion of new research” into how children learn. Teachers College has chosen not to team up with alternative programs, in part because of philosophical differences over the concept of anointing a neophyte to be the “teacher of record” — the one responsible for a classroom — from the first day of school."


I would ask Susan, excluding special education, how has how children learn changed over the last 10, 20, 50 or 100 years? I am not talking about the medium or methodology, but how people really learn. The basics haven't changed at all. Thinking so would mean humans have evolved beyond what they were then and I would say rubbish. Sure, we have different tools, but the house gets built the same way. Instead, we have school systems that try these different methods like throwing spaghetti on a wall to see what sticks. That is like Edison going through 2500 iterations of the light bulb until he got to the right prototype. Tesla said if Edison only understood the scientific method, Edison would have do it in less than 25 tries.  What these schools have forgotten is the basics that do work.

I will say, if I have any axe to grind in terms of improvement in the classroom is that schools don't tailor their programs to allow individual students advance in areas of their strengths irrespective of how they do in areas they are weak. A couple real world examples.

One of my daughters is 95th percentile on standardized math tests. She wanted to take an advanced section of math, but was told she couldn't because she isn't advanced in her other subjects. I had to break balls to get her in the advanced section of math, but I did do it. The reason I pushed was from my own experience. I took three languages in junior/senior high school. Two years of French, two years of Italian and four years of Spanish. In my first year of Italian in the 11th grade, I wanted to take the second year final at the end of the first year. My reason was I had a 103 average in Italian, I wanted another regents sequence and I knew I could pass it. I was told it wouldn't be fair to the kids in the second year. So goes socialist thinking on their part and the beginning of the classical liberal in mine. If I can earn it, why not? All holding me back did was bore me to death with the putana that wouldn't let me take the test. This type of tracking and limiting mentality is rife in education and I went to school in NY over 30 years ago and my daughter is going to school in Iowa now. May be if they get people in the schools that haven't been indoctrinated in what Bruce Lee called "The Classical Mess", may be this will change. I hope so.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Bill Clinton Illustrates The Hypocrisy Of The Left

H/T to Tim at LCR

In an article in the New York Times from yesterday, Bill Clinton likens the Tea Party movement to Timothy McVey and the Oklahoma City Bombing. An except from the speech:

“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”


Really Bill? I bet you didn't feel that way about The Weather Underground, SDS, SNCC, The Black Panthers, etc. In fact, you were probably with your fellow proletariat in those movements. What hypocrisy.

I condemn what Timothy McVey did, but truth be told, we still don't know the whole story behind that as Nichols isn't talking and neither is our government. Tying what McVey did to the Tea Party is not a proven arguent. In fact, I would say it is an a priori argument that is political in nature to support the increasingly fabian nature of Obama's agenda. They know that they cannot roll over us with force like their compatriots Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, so they figure they better try guilt and shame first. Sorry Bill, we aren't buying it.

And while I am at it, Shame on Bill and the New York Times for printing such propaganda (said in the vernacular of Frank from Queens). At this point, it's obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt who and what the fourth branch of government is: The Main Stream Media. Josef Goebbels would be proud of how Obama has co-opted the press in the country, and he has done so without any threat to them at all. In fact, for the most part, the MSM is in total agreement. That makes everything so much easier.

Michelle Bachmann, the other beauty from the north, rebuts Mr. Clinton:

In her remarks Thursday, Ms. Bachmann made light of the suggestion that antigovernment activists were angry.

“You look happy to me, you don’t look angry,” she told the crowd. “That’s because you get it. You are smart enough to get off your couch and do something.”

The Article Continues:

Mr. Clinton said his intent was not to stifle debate or muzzle critics of the government but to encourage them to consider what repercussions could follow. He acknowledged that drawing the line between acceptable discourse and that which goes too far is difficult but that lawmakers and other officials should try.

“Have at it,” he said. “You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”


Mr. Clinton, who is carrying the gun here? Is it the Tea Party, or the government? So what measures should lawmakers try? Hate speech laws like Canada and Germany? Just try it.

Right now, the dems have driven themselves over the cliff and they are looking for someone to blame other than themselves. Note to Bill, The New York Times and the rest of the MSM:

Look in the mirror. Your ideas, agenda and propaganda are so out of touch with what the american people believe and it is that which put you where you are, going over a cliff. Take responsibility for your own bad ideas and bad actions. The Tea Party had nothing to do with your choices in life, but only illustrate how out of touch and utterly ridiculous you are.

November is coming and pay back is a bitch.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Obama Pisses Off The Press Corps: Biting the hand that feeds him

If you can believe it, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post has accused Barry Soetero of disreguarding the media. Yeah, you read that here and you can read it here:

World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.
They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.
In the middle of it all was Obama -- occupant of an office once informally known as "leader of the free world" -- putting on a clinic for some of the world's greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

Transported to Soviet-era Moscow? Those are strong words coming from the left-wing MSM, or am I redundant here?

The Author continues:

The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama's eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: "I'm going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session."

Reporters for foreign outlets, many operating in repressive countries, got the impression that the vaunted American freedoms are not all they're cracked up to be.

Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama's opening remarks as part of a limited press "pool": "The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks. . . . Sorry, it is what it is."


I wonder if the haute journalistes of the New York Times have caught on to this? Specifically the Global Edition. I bet not, and in fact, a search shows not.

One might say Mr. Obama wants to control the narrative. I wonder if he pissed off any American journalists. This should be a bigger story than it is.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Karl Rove Understands Business Management

Karl Rove understands management; There are two theories in management: A) Make the right decision or B) Make the decision and then make it right. According to The New York Times, "Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there." The question I ask is, was the president intentionally misinformed, or conveniently? My thesis on this expedition is that the administration used management technique B. This is not necessarily an indictment of W at all, but an honest observation.

It is possible that Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction shipped out of the country. Some assert the Russians and Syrians helped with this. If this was the case, then why not bring to light? Rove does "acknowledge that the failure to find them badly damaged Mr. Bush’s presidency, and he blames himself for not countering the narrative that 'Bush lied,' calling it “one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush years.” Then the question remains, did Rove intentionally misinform W?

Having worked in the private sector and I have seen many times when the boss or leader says the sky is red, and the yes men around him will assemble the evidence to make it so. So goes making a decision right. Too many people jumped on the bandwagon, George Tenet included, that should have done their due dillegence in this matter. My main objection is that of honesty. If you are going to do something, there is no need to trump stuff up. Be an adult and do what you have to do. Obviously, the Bush administration (again, not necessarily W, but his people) must have believed that they needed more to justify their agenda than just saying we want to do this.

Of course, with the victory at hand and with Obama carrying forth some of the same policies, it's easy to say, whatever, we won and it doesn't really matter. I would ask anyone, with a straight face, do you really believe that any presidential administration in this country would not have all the information, correctly vetted ad infinitum, before committing to war? I cannot believe for the life of me that these chaps either didn't know their weren't weapons of mass destruction or that if there was and I mean there was in such a way as there was intent on being used against us, that these weapons disappeared and that they cannot explain it. Why wouldn't they explain it? Rove doesn't strike me as such an incompetent. A plotter, a schemer, a guy that throws people under busses, but not incompetent.

I've said this all along: One, Rove, Cheney and Rice had a master plan for reshaping the middle east. Iran was seen as the real threat. They wanted to surround Iran with propped up democracies and countries that were influenced by us, thereby bringing pressure to both isolate Iran and force an internal revolution. The entry story for Iraq was just that, a story to get the job done to accomplish that agenda. I would have appreciated that kind of honesty from the Bush administration, but unfortunately, it wasn't and isn't forthcoming.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Sarah Gives Obama Hell

Sarah rocked and inspired all at first national tea party convention

Sarah Palin told the audience of 1100 in Nashville Tennessee that “America is ready for another revolution!”. The headline of the New York Times reads : "Palin Assails Obama at Tea Party Meeting". 


Of course the position of the New York Time is that of the fourth branch of government, that which is the propaganda wing of the Obama administration, for whom their messiah rules with progressive fervor.

The Times Continues:

"Ms. Palin gave the Tea Party crowd exactly what they wanted to hear, declaring the primacy of the Tenth Amendment in limiting government powers, complaining about the bailouts and the “generational theft” of rising deficits, and urging the audience to back conservative challengers in contested primaries."


I guess the sentiment is how dare she propose any opposition to The One. If this had been a democrat saying this, it would be on the front page in glorious review, promulgating the virtues of the left. Alas, The New York Times shows its true colors and to whom it answers.

Some excepts from the speech:


“This is about the people, and it’s bigger than any one king or queen of a tea party, and it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter,” she said.

--

She blasted him for rising deficits, “apologizing for America” in speeches in other countries, and for allowing the so-called Christmas bomber to board a plane headed for the United States, saying he was weak on the war on terrorism.

“To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law,” she declared.

--

Lastly, she gave this admonition to the the GOP:

“The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible,” she said. “This is a beautiful movement because it is shaping the way politics are conducted. You’ve got both party machines running scared.”

It is in the rational best interest of the GOP to do so, but I suspect that the leadership there is too entrenched, to complacent and too scared to accept the Tea Party, at least for more that one election cycle which is coming to a close this November. Any group of influence and power is afraid of chaos that would bring change and growth: They prefer the order that entropy brings, as it ensures that they will remain in power. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Go Saracuda and screw the New York Times.

Thank you for reading this blog.


Video of Sarah, H/T Teresamerica for video:

Picking up the mantle of a murderer

As much as this photo shows a caring doctor in medical setting, it is purely for effect from the New York Times, trying to show this murderer as some sort of caring saint.

Dr. Carhart sees the need for late term abortions, and will perform them in the absence of his friend Dr. George R. Tiller.

As someone that was born 12 weeks premature, as a rationalist and as a christian,  I find it repulsive that someone would want to kill a baby that obviously could live on his/her own. I find it repulsive that anyone would want to kill any baby. This guy is no saint and a few of his employees quit when they found out the nature of the expansion of his practice. While I don't prescribe the fate Dr Tiller got to Dr. Carhart, I do believe abortion should be against the law. No matter what, Dr. Carhart will face the same cosmic justice Dr. Tiller faced at his final exam, and nothing we can do on this earth matches god's justice.

This is one more example of the out of touch mentality that the left promulgates, even in the evidence that they are not only wrong, but that they are out of step with the majority of Americans. These members of the government sponsored media are fomenting their positions through the government, with Obama at the helm. Think I am wrong? Read this.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Mr. Obama's Epitaph:

It's Not Obama's Fault

H/T John Batchelor



Thomas Friedman shows us why he is such a lackey for the Obama Administration and how delusional he really is (And his ilk at HRH run media outlet). Haven't all presidents had to deal with congress?

Thank you for reading this blog.

Obama Tries to Manipulate The Rightwing Press

The Politico and the New York Times both reported that Roger Ailes and David Axelrod met to discuss Fox News and it's rough handling of the president.

According to The Politicio:

The two met privately in Manhattan during the president’s visit to the United Nations.
The two discussed news coverage and the relationship between the organizations. 

An FNC spokesperson tells POLITICO that Ailes and Axelrod had a “cordial conversation” over coffee while the president was in town.

Ailes is the founder of Fox News. A key part of Axelrod’s portfolio is the president’s image and broad message.

And further more:
White House officials have expressed pique with what they consider heavy coverage of Obama critics by opinion shows on the news channel.


Obama aides showed their displeasure by omitting “Fox News Sunday” when the president granted interviews last month to the other Sunday shows.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there freedom of the press?Does this mountebank in the oval office think he has the right to manipulate the news? Is Axelrod just a softer version of Goebbels? While it states that they had a cordial conversation, I can't imagine Ailes showing apostasy and giving in to these fascist fools. Certainly "playing ball"will not garner better ratings, and will the promise of access, one hold true and honestly, is it worth it? Obama must be in deep shit if he's sending his Goebbel's out to parley with Ailes. I hope hope Roger thinks better of it. 


Thank you for reading this blog. 

President Tom Back in the News

President Tom, as Glen Beck calls him, is at it again with regards to Israel. When will the MSM admit this guy want to destroy Israel? Probably never, considering the Times now takes advertisements from Al Jazeera.

Thank you for reading this blog.