All these artists manage to scratch my brain in one or more ways. A TMBG song is something that will make you wonder if you actually liked it - and make you play it all day to figure it out. On the other hand, when they want to get down and say something important, they can do that too. Turns out they have done several children's albums, and having "taught the controversy" about numbers and letters, their latest one is about science. The intro song, "Science is Real," explains in a simple way what science is, what it's for, and how it works.
In this particular climate of ignorance, a children's song that explains rationalism and the scientific method is important.
Just think about trying to write a song that does that and which a three-to-five-year-old would want to dance to and which doesn't make adults want to scream and run from the room.
The album is called Here Comes Science and is available at Amazon and the other usual places. It makes a perfect gift - for teachers and the children of relatives who might not value that book-larnin' stuff so much. You might just want to slip a copy to the school librarian, too. :P
I wish I'd thought of this. I really wish I'd thought of this! But I'll settle for blogging it, and strongly suggesting that it makes an hilarious point. Call it a signpost on the road back to sanity, evidence and politics in actual contact with reality.
Oh, and the fact that it will cause spontaneous cranial detonations among mindless Midwesterners can only be seen as a bonus. For the latest in evolutionary schadenfreude from a verbal perspective, check out P.Z Myers who often writes about small changes smart people believe in.
The Texas legislature is generally the butt of jokes, and it's not hard to see why: it's an awesome body of distilled stupidity. However, that doesn't mean there aren't some good ones among the chaff, and State Senator Rodney Ellis and State Representative Patrick Rose should be counted among them. They've written an excellent op-ed for the Houston Chronicle in which they point out the contradiction of a state that wants to build a leading-edge set of scientific research institutions with a State Board of Education led by a mob of incompetent creationist cretins. They've put together some legislation to hold the SBOE accountable for their performance — a marvelous turnabout of the No Child Left Behind philosophy of policing schools on their performance. Let's see the rascals who want to put together bogus curricula scrutinized on the basis of long-term performance in science by the kids!
The Intelligent Community Initiative Website is kind of raw and new as of yet, and I'm unimpressed by the use of a frames based design. So retro. And not in a GOOD way. But let's hope it's as much of a bookmark as this post is. Folks, it should be a wiki, or a portal engine.
But the idea is so inherently fascinating - an integration of schooling, business and small business incubation - with such apparent potential, that I cannot possibly do it justice for a five dollar paid post. I find it easy to forgive them for getting all excited and going public before they are quite entirely dressed.
So, rather than do a once-over-lightly, I'm going to ask that you click the link, check out the idea yourself and see what you make of it with as few preconceptions as possible.
But thanks for the fiver, guys! And I will be investigating the whole concept in as great a depth as I can manage, once I'm a little more caffeinated and I'm not at all restricted by a quid-pro-quo.
The Snowflake School District is suffering a shortage of certified special education teachers, partly due to a shortage in the marketplace, so the school board approved a stipend for each in an effort to retain those they have and attract new ones.
Superintendent Monte Silk advised the school board June 14 that the shortage is disproportionate to regular teachers. The district chose not to renew one special education teacher’s contract, three others have resigned and the supply of applicants is low.
In an effort to compete with the demand and provide support for current employees who have stayed with the district, Silk recommended a stipend for all case managers within the district.
The case managers’ workloads are heavy, and their students are many times the hardest to reach and teach because of specific learning disabilities, negative attitudes toward school, and sometimes a lack of parental support and communication. Silk explained that in addition much time is taken to collaborate with regular teachers regarding accommodations for special education students. The case managers are the orchestra leaders for the daily activities of an average of 25 students with high need for academic and emotional support. The job they do is next to impossible, but they are dedicated and committed to special students, he said.
Silk suggested that each case manager within the district receive a $1,000 stipend for the responsibilities related to case management upon signing a memorandum of understanding that each Individualized Education Program (IEP) is held on or before the annual renewal date and each IEP signature page is to the district office within ten days of the IEP meeting date. A $40 deduction shall be made for each requirement not met for each IEP. Funding will come from Fund 020, Indian Gaming, which may be used for teacher compensation.
Gee, a thousand bucks, conditional upon actually meeting the terms of the job description, as opposed to the rational response to a shortage of workers in a high-demand occupation?
Special educators have jobs that are tremendously more challenging than regular education teachers, but are simply not paid accordingly, much less granted the degree of professional respect accorded any other top professional in any comparable field.
Say, a Systems Analyst.
To double retention, start by doubling pay, as in the Real World.
Thanks to Cyinical-C, there is now a comprehensive list of everything to blame for the Virginia Tech Shootings.
In this excerpt, you will note many of the usual suspects, and you are invited to add your own in the comments section.
In case you were wondering who’s to blame for the Virginia Tech massacre, I’ve created a list this morning to keep track. Feel free to send in any that I’ve missed.
Update:
The list keeps on growing and has 4546474951555657 58 different items at the moment. Thanks to everyone who is sending me more links to add to the list.
Now, many of these ideas, left and right, wackadoodlish and irrelevant though they are, are still mostly sincere. But there are a couple of exceptions, and here's one of them.
In a new video, the the right-wing American Family Association attributes the tragedy at Virginia Tech to: a lack of prayer in school, a lack of the Bible in school, a lack of spanking kids, a lack of physical punishment in school, abortion, condoms, Bill Clinton, Internet pornography, free speech, the entertainment industry, “satanic” music, and liberal culture in general. Watch it:"
I actually couldn't bring myself to watch more than a few seconds. Let me know how far you hurl if you feel brave.
I note they have disabled comments, but just in case they are paying attention,make sure you blog it, stumble it, digg it and bookmark it every way from Sunday, along with your comments. If you don't have anything profound in mind, well, you could respond with this rather eloquent fellow who has a terribly educated accent and quotes Epicurus.
But it is a majestic example of the cynical manipulation of the fearful and ignorant. It's not AFA you have to fear, though. It's the people who are persuaded by this sort of fear mongering.
The fact is, all the things the AFA would like to blame, the lack of proper authoritarian guidance with a steel hand in a steel wool glove are in fact just as likely to cause someone to go postal. The abuse of power tends to do that. And the solution for that is not to crush the souls of the innocent even harder, no matter what the ironically named "American Family Association" would tell you.
Update: A link from the above source, "It's the bullies" leads to a well-researched and passionate article at Alternet by Mark Ames, who leads gently into a multi -page article with these observations:
Of all the idiotic reactions, so far none tops an article posted on MSNBC.com, written by an "investigative reporter" with the ill-begotten name of "Bill Dedman." His investigation allegedly revealed that Cho Seung-Hui, the shooter, displayed alleged classic warning signs of a rampage shooting. Citing a landmark Secret Service study of schoolyard rampage massacre, Dedman observed, "In more than three out of four school shootings, the attacker had made no threat against the schoolteachers or students. But most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help. The attackers posed a threat even though they hadn't made a threat."
In other words, if you think someone's weird, but he hasn't threatened anyone, he's a threat.
There are two very serious flaws in Dedman's investigation. First, if the profile of a schoolyard rampager is someone who doesn't threaten anyone but who raises suspicions, then America will have to open up a new GULAG archipelago to hold all of the millions of kids who fit this description. But the second flaw is even more serious: the Secret Service study Dedman cites draws exactly the opposite conclusion: There is no way to profile a potential schoolyard killer. That was what was so shocking about the report. Everyone who has studied these rage massacres knows it. Everyone but journalists like Dedman, that is.
What Dedman's article reveals isn't just the sloppy work of a typical mainstream hack but, rather, of a culture desperate for an easy explanation for the massacre -- one that doesn't implicate it in the crime.
It is is far more difficult to deal with the possibility that other factors may have led to the massacre, factors that are still too painful and close to us to consider. For example, how was this nerdy South Korean immigrant treated at his suburban high school and at Virginia Tech? What is the campus life like? What was it about Virginia Tech that made it the setting for the first student-on-student college massacre? And why were there copycat threats at campuses across Middle America over the following days? [emphasis mine]
I suggest you go to the source article and, if you know people who may be usefully influenced by it - school board members, teachers, administrators, politicians - forward it to them. After that, digg it up, stumble it and otherwise generally raise it's profile to the skies.
And thanks, Mark.
UPDATE: I've started a YouTube Vblog with a subcategory of School Shootings, rather than clog this post up even more with videos.
While Iraq occupies the headlines, we have a country that is practically falling apart. The California experience is emblematic of the series of problems that face the nation. A high percentage of the military executing the president's war in Iraq is a product of a public school system that offered those now serving few choices beyond the military. To put a fine point on it, about half of those who enroll in the ninth grade in LA public schools drop out before graduation. And unfortunately, a fair number of those who graduate are not well-equipped for a job or a higher education, the latter of which is now unaffordable for many in California, a sad post script for a state that was built on the guarantee of excellent, free education for all.
If you are rich enough to send your kids to private schools, which most who write on this blog are, then the public school debacle seems other worldly. For those of us here in LA, that other world is about to collide with the cosseted west side in ways we only imagine. Hundreds of thousands of kids, now in their twenties, have no education, no jobs and no hope. How long can that human catastrophe continue to grow without it erupting into a crisis that feels like an earthquake?
Indeed.
At the most basic level, government must primarily serve those whom it depends on for it's continued existence - not just those who wish to be the primary beneficiaries of corporate welfare, the spoils of war and personal power or access to it.
A Digby-long post follows the cut that seems to have an overall point in my current state of sleep-disturbance.
Now, oddly it may seem, coming from me, all of these things have their place; the worker is worth the price of their hire, and money is not the only thing that motivates people. Those who go into public and social services are primarily motivated by things other than money - and they are due that reward. Moreover, they are so driven by those rewards that it's critical to ensure there are legitimate paths to it leading to important and useful vocations suited to their ambitions.
But not at the expense of those they are supposed to be serving.
We also need to realize that if we do not invest in the future - we will not have one. The future for all America (Indeed, ALL the Americas) - poor and rich, corporate and counterculture, public and private, left right and center depends absolutely upon educating our children up to a basic standard of capability.
If there is any area where we should spend liberally and not groan about the price, it is education, for education is an investment that pays off handsomely. Always has, always will. Anyone telling you otherwise, or that you should begrudge the few dimes it costs you because you don't have children is doing you a disservice. Do you wish to have to teach all your new hires to speak English and do basic sums? Do you LIKE having to buy cash-registers designed for illiterates, or being served by those who confuse "dos" with "three?"
Don't bet that private schools will graduate enough trained thinkers that you can afford to hire them, or that those pushing the voucher systems have superior curricula in mind. Most of the materials for the "home school movement" and the incestuously related "voucher" movement are more focused on NOT teaching skills that would bring religious "truths" into question than creating truly educated people capable of an informed decision about their faith or, indeed between soy and dairy in their Latte.
Good private schools, historically, are for those destined to lead, while in the main, public schools are primarily designed to equip followers to follow effectively, comprehend the tasks they are given and, ideally, not lose limbs to the machinery in the process.
This is how they were set up around the turn of the last century. The problem is, nobody has revisited the basic premise in that time. We have fewer and fewer "Dark, Satanic Mills" to send our children to, we have less and less need of blind followers capable of memorizing by rote and not thinking about what they memorize. The machines we do employ are more and more complex, requiring more educated operators to justify having them at all. You will find equipment on factory floors today that did not exist outside of research labs twenty years ago, and stuff coming down the pike that will require people capable of understanding them and exploring their capabilities in a practical context.
We have an increasing need for the ability to find out new things, to think critically, to derive new facts from facts on hand, and most importantly - to learn how to learn. What your kids learn in school today, from the very best, most expensive texts is already five to ten years out of date, so unless they learn how to learn from these texts, learning their contents is pointless.
The crisis is even more apparent in the context of private and advanced schooling. One only has to look at their product to see how very critical their failures have been. Consider how many people in our current government are from Yale, Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League. Would you consider them ideal - or even adequate - leadership figures?
Condoleeza Rice was considered a leading academic within the Ivy League before she was recruited by this administration. It has depended significantly on her expertise in foreign affairs and public policy, and has presumed as much upon her academic crediblity. It seems that the academic community either served her poorly, or worse yet, permitted her to continue teaching and believing nonsense.
Now, of all the states where reality based education is critical, it is California. It's economy depends upon a well-educated workforce, and (unfortunately), materials developed for California schools propagate throughout the entire nation because the education industry is very strongly represented there.
Again, folks; how well has that been working out for you?
My reading of the Constitution is that the Federal Government exists only to the extent that it serves common needs; not just needs common to the several states, but primarily needs common to all citizens that might otherwise be compromised by the ambitions or prejudices of those in charge of those states. It's most significant role is to set standards, to generate universal systems, to hear all sides, maintain an impartial system of justice, to regulate markets so that access is fair and transactions honest. It is not designed to have imperial ambitions - and most especially, none of it's ambitions are to be at the expense of any citizen of these United States.
It is a saying that "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs." This is true - and that is why Omelette's are an unconstitutional dish for our presidents and lawmakers. Eggs are sacred. Presidents, Representatives, Senators and appointed officials are not, save to the extent that they are citizens as well.
It should be a free choice to go into the military. It should equally be a free choice to work in retail, to become a public servant or to pursue a higher education, for all these choices are those of people who consider service, in one form or another, to be a higher calling than immediate financial reward.
Does that sound socialistic to you? It is by no means. I merely admit a fact - that if there is to be an entrepreneurial class, it must rest on new ideas, will depend on good government that is not in the hands of competitors and will absolutely require employees capable of working upon the cutting edge. Furthermore, those motivated primarily by financial reward must both employ and serve those who are primarily motivated by other things. It is a critical factor of interdependence that Neocons neither admit nor apparently understand. I advocate nothing new or even terribly radical simply a deliberate re-visitation of the accidental circumstance that created our middle class and the largest economy in the world.
It was a simple idea, born of the Great Depression and the threat of an immediate communist takeover - or indeed, something worse, fueled by poverty, desperation and the idle hands of very clever people. It was the idea that if people had the option, they would tend to make good choices, on the whole, so government should invest in good choices with large payoffs in terms of improving infrastructure and the potential for industrial development. Enough people will take those paths so that social unrest is kept to a minimum, while the success of those who make good choices will create more opportunities than government could possibly plan or administer. Or in other words, Government made a choice to actively trust the good will and common sense of the People, unless specific circumstances and individuals prove to be exceptions to the rule. I would suggest further that, without any great change in what we do about such exceptions, they should also be considered evidence of potential systemic problems that may be creating a tendency to make poor choices.
Human Liberty is all about choices. A government that values the Libertarian ideal will value the idea of providing as many free choices as possible, rather than trying to limit the absolute number of choices there are. It is an ideal of governance that inherently requires fewer people dedicated to oversight of choice, but will require rather more involved in informing choices. Personally, I think that a much better use of expensive and valuable human resources - and will certainly result in a philosophy of regulation that will not inevitably breed contempt and evasion.
This is the brutally real basis of the concept of an "inalienable right." It is a right so basic to survival and dignity that no government may place a barrier to it or conditions upon it with any expectation of success. Take "the right to bear arms." It recognizes that people have the inherent right to defend themselves by whatever means seems prudent to them, and will defend themselves against government itself should that government become a threat to them. Most governments consider that a threat to their survival - our Constitution establishes that "not being a threat" is a condition of government existing in the first place, it's legitimacy depending upon an armed citizenry who, while capable of removing it, sees no benefit in doing so.
Ultimately, regulation of what weapons a citizen may own is pointless if the Citizenry sees a greater benefit in ignoring the law than in obeying it, and should there arise conditions where rebellion becomes a reasonable proposition, or indeed, even reasonably foreseeable, the people WILL arm themselves in defiance of whatever law there may be. No government may expect to enforce laws that have the effect of making citizens feel less safe and less secure in their persons, property or individual affairs, and yet, this Administration has committed hundreds of such offenses against the dignity and security of it's citizens. It can no longer command the respect of the American people - and polls support the fact that neither the Executive nor Legislative branches have the respect a used car salesmen is generally given. Respect for the Judiciary and trust in the impartiality and constitutionality of their decisions has been badly eroded by the court-packing of Bushistas.
This is something that our national leadership had best consider an ultimate priority, with certain actions made obvious and apparent as steps toward regaining the respect they need to govern. Impeaching those most culpable for gross abuses of the people's trust would be a start, but it had best not end there. A priority of attending to the real needs of real, individual citizens, rather than pandering to industry and special interests focused on restricting the rights and choices of individuals is critically overdue.
Now, I wish you to consider for a moment what a wealthy State filled to the brim with educated, adventurous people such as California could do to any force determined to force it to continue to support efforts it is viscerally opposed to at the expense of the priorities of it's taxpayers.
I mention this, as the Pentagon has fairly much stopped recruiting officers from the Blue States, preferring the sort of reflexive obedience found in the Southern States. It seems to me a reasonable proposition that some within the Pentagon think it may be needful to administer a judicious "spanking" to increasingly truculent Blue states, especially those that have the clear ability to be nation-states on their own, should they so desire. New York and California head this list - with more States on the list as potential allies. Yes, the potential for domestic civil war has been obvious to anyone who cared to consider the matter for the best part of the Bush Administration, with grumblings that go back at least as far a Regan's vast expansion of Federal power.
So - and without getting too specific, since it's not yet time to be creating manuals of arms - let us just say that with access to Home Depot and the sorts of basic chemical knowledge used to make methamphetimene without blowing oneself up, I could easily create an improvised, quite functional Self-Forging Munition. For a little more effort, it could be made to appear identical to a manhole cover.
I could easily set up a shop in a garage to churn out silenced sub-machine-guns in quantity, from easily available materials. In Pakistan, the manufacture of Rocket Propelled Grenades is a cottage industry. It could also be so in California - though in a general insurrection they would likely be the product of computer-aided manufacturing. I am pretty sure that there are folks in CA, already disaffected, who in the context of a civil war could easily design and engineer fuel-air explosives that would be the equivalent of tactical nukes. FAEs are one of those things that, once you know they can be made at all, can be made fairly easily, and are appealing to our armed forces because they have a very high "bang for buck" ratio.
The sort of expertise we try to forbid North Korea, in terms of rocketry and guidance systems is well within the knowledge of domestic hobbyist groups who often include current and former weapons designers! Should they wish to launch real payloads, instead of going for altitude records with bowling balls I think they could produce genuinely frightening results within a couple of weeks using materials on hand.
Things like home-made Claymore mines, hand-grenades and mortars are disturbingly simple to construct. They might not be quite as lethal as military issue devices, but the things one can do with simple smokeless powder, bb shot, PVC pipe and any number of simple detonation devices is disturbing in the extreme.
Here's an example of an "improvised" mortar. Here's some "improvised mortars" found in Northern Ireland. Such devices are the stock in trade of an insurgency who would like to "shoot and scoot."
I should add that most households contain the materials to construct several improvised munitions, even without access to conventional explosives.
Good heavens, the number of small shops and personal garages across America hat contain metal-working equipment should give any government strategist pause. A state such as California could easily field a standing force equipped as well or better as any standing army or national guard force - without depending on any extant arms manufacturers at all. Any well-equipped machine shop could set up to create, say, Browning Automatic Rifles. Shops with stamping presses can turn out even cheaper things, such as Uzis and AK's, if the trivial question of legality is removed.
And of course, there ARE such manufacturers in California and the Western states,as well as two VERY porous international borders.
This is of course aside from all actual weapons and explosives in private hands that are not "misused" simply because citizens see no reason to "misuse" them. Any government who thinks that is primarily the result of laws that forbid and penalize their possession and/or misuse is sadly mistaken.
Should our government choose to continue to view it's citizens as potential threats - as it clearly does - it is the inalienable right of the citizenry to remove it as a genuine threat to their own individual and collective security, using whatever force and by whatever means is required. This is a right the Constitution recogzies for a very good reason - because there is no way that any government can survive the general opposition of it's citizenry. This is no theory, it's a matter of observable, historical fact, with the only variables being ones of ultimate body count.
I encourage the Pentagon to wargame the outcome, using the metrics available from Iraq and Afghanistan, while recognizing that for the most part these irregulars and insurgents are operating at a far lower level of effectiveness and with a lower quality of co-ordination, intelligence and leadership than would be the case in, say, the occupation and pacification of the Western Seaboard.
This series of facts are presented as an incentive toward a reconsideration of the role the federal government plays in our individual lives and it's relationship with local and state Governments. We have been patient with the Regan Revolution, just as we were patient with the compromises demanded of us during the Cold War. But these sacrifices and compromises have brought nothing but bitter fruit and an increasingly arrogant Federal Government, one that seems barely capable of treating an individual citizen with anything resembling respect.
Such respect is due, and one way or another, the people of these somewhat united states will have it. The only question is how and when - it is long past a question of "if."
We (as in the democratic party) just don't get it. We're so wrapped up in party politics and being on the "right side" of every itty-bitty issue that comes up so as to remain in good standing with the cool kids that we completely forget who it was we were supposed to want to represent. Let me remind you. It was regular people. Not party hacks, not wanna-be blogging mega-stars, not just the all-important and ever snarky Las Vegas pundits and definitely not the ultra-rich and uber-cool folks in Pacific Palisades who do not give a rats ass about Nevadans even on a good day.
A big amen chorus to that - and let's send that out to the Republicans, Libertarians and Greens too. SCREW your ideology! Take those knee-jerk special interest "litmus test" issues off the table. All politics are local, so let us not beat folks up for serving their constituents first and their party second. Most importantly, let us get back to basic, bread-and-butter politics. Tell me what's in it for me, that I should vote for you.
I do care about a woman's right to choose. But that concern is overridden by MY right to choose what is important to me.
I don't happen to be a womb-bearing American, so I'm not even sure I have a right to a vote on this one, assuming one ever comes up. But I've been listening to these arguments since Roe v. Wade and they have not changed a whit on either side; which tells me one thing for sure. Whatever is being argued about, it ain't the issues either side is apparently arguing.
Since that's clearly the case, either talk about what you are really trying to achieve, or shut UP already. The way forward here is less doctrine, more positive and practical outcomes to individual Americans, WHATEVER their political beliefs.
You want universal access to family planning - good idea. YOU want (ideally) no abortions, because Abortion is Bad. I have a hard time arguing that an abortion is anything other than a "least worst" outcome, so I'm all for doing everything possible to provide superior choices to abortion and ideally, no need to consider that final choice at all.
And if the Abortion Debate were actually about abortion, instead of an argument as to who gets to commit an act of social engineering upon which class of despised persons, the debate would have ended at that point of commonality.
I think that this issue illustrates the ethic I wish to speak of better than any other. Good governments exist to expand choices, opportunities and liberties. Bad ones exist to restrict options, compel obedience and restrict liberties. If the only options presented are to change who is oppressed every four to eight years, any actual liberty, any "right to choose" OR "right to life" is conditional and therefore a despicable illusion.
If this current government were a restaurant, it would have only one menu option - the "Family Values Meal," it would cost three hundred bucks, and it would be peanut based, because "average Americans" aren't allergic to peanuts. (The price of your meal would cover the complementary epinephrine injections to those who might request them.)
We have had far too much of our economy, our personal freedoms and our individual dignity sacrificed at the altar of ideology, despite the constant failure of that ideology to produce anything resembling the results it predicts. And we have to be very sure that we do not replace one set of ideologues with another, equally clueless set of beltway commandos.
I'm a Libertarian, but I'm a realist first. We have governments because we cannot do without them, they do things that cannot be done efficiently or fairly by any other means.
This is not to say that our current government IS efficient, fair, or does anything like what it should be doing as well as it should. It isn't. But then, that's what elections are all about.
I believe that if there is to be a government, it ought to do something useful and beneficial for the people it taxes and governs. I hardly think that to be a controversial idea, either. I've spent a lifetime putting up with being treated disrespectfully by governments, kept waiting in line, being judged on my "worthiness" for benefits, access or even consideration. I have learned - as has every other American - that the less you have to interact with government, the better off you will be.
And yet we pay for the privilege of this system of indignity.
Do you think it's reasonable that you or I have a harder time getting meaningful access to my government than, say, Paris Hilton? For that matter, do you think it reasonable that ANY elected official or functionary realistically has to give such a vapid twit priority over actual tax-payers? Does it seem to you like that's a good use of their expensive time on your dime?
But I'm not saying she should not be heard. I'm saying we all deserve the same respectful consideration as taxpayers that she, as a rich twit with the financial capacity to make some officials life hell, gets because they cannot afford to piss on her Pradas.
I passionately believe that the government that governs least governs best, but there are people and groups, cultures and subcultures, marketplaces and crossroads that need to be lightly, fairly and evenhandedly governed.
Let's not confuse that with "administered" or even "policed." Those might be the means, but they aren't the ends, and a lot of folks confuse the two.
Don't.
There are lots of ways to govern situations that do not depend on saying no and backing that up with force and compulsion. Those should be tools kept in the "sharps" drawer for special occasions.
The best way to govern is to concentrate on outcomes, and then consider the best way - here and now, in this particular community - to get there. That means increasing options, not restricting them. It means putting decision making power in the hands of the consumer of services as much as possible, and if not possible, as close to them, physically and hierarchically as possible.
As I write, I'm listening to re-runs of the Carson City Speachification on CNN and everyone I've heard has had good things to say. Of course, after years of listening to Clinton, Gore, Bush and Kerry, Tickle me Elmo would be a relief. It was nice to see some people throwing down and using words like "wrong" and "mistake" and "morality" and suchlike.
But I'm yet to be convinced that these are more than words.
Everyone there wanted out of Iraq. But few spoke about "Then what?"
But they are all on point about energy independence, universal health care, un-assing from Baghdad, at the very least and fixing education so that it prepares kids to work in the 21st century instead of the 19th.
This seems like a plan and about all I could expect in a few minutes, but I expect specifics in the next couple weeks, although Joe Biden gave us some good stuff on Iraq and education.
I missed Obama's bit, and I'm disappointed at that. I am convinced of two things; I will not be supporting Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kuchinich. One other candidate - and I misremember which - made a very serious point; the next president will have ZERO margin for error and I think both are predisposed to make some serious, ideological mistakes and diplomatic gaffes. I don't think Clinton realizes that this is not just more politics as usual - and more importantly, I think she's needed more in the Senate, and can do more there better and longer than she could as a highly controversial President.
Kucinich - well, he came across as a smug jackass; I found myself offended by his "no strings" stunting, because, well, he DOES have strings. And any politician who forgets he's beholden to them what brought him to the party ain't the sort of person who's got the judgment to be president.
Besides, it would be a waste of a perfectly good rabble-rousing ringtailed sumbitch. I want him in a position where he can kick ass, take names and not worry about being Mr. Popularity. I think he's my choice for Energy Czar, because I think he's probably not as vital to the senate as Sen. Clinton. On the other hand, he's a committee chair in the process of kicking ass and taking names, so maybe I should rethink that thought.
But it's not just the big names that are interesting. It's the small candidates that bring some of the more interesting ideas to the party. For instance, I was a little stunned when hard-line Liberal and dark horse candidate Mike Gravel came out with a proposal to eliminate the IRS and replace the IRS with a sales tax and a "prebate" covering the necessities of life.
It's not a bad idea, actually, and it's hardly original - but it's just so not socialist; it's a minarchist solution - if you grant that there is a need for social spending and non-Straussian views of poverty and welfare.
I happen to feel that's painfully obvious. But solution that just happens, with no ear-flappers or administrivia involved? No review committees? No preferences? No paperwork? Where's the socialism?
He's also an advocate of Direct Democracy. I'm not sure what I think of this yet - I need to read it instead of just skimming but while the man IS a flaming liberal and gloriously unapologetic about it, he's not a moonbat. Again, not presidential timber - too old, and we need two terms for sure. But definitely worth thinking of as cabinet material. And I'm starting to change my mind about this two year-long election cycle, because I'm sure glad I tripped over him.
Anyway, while I cringe at the idea of two years of unabated politics, THIS time, we have a LOT of thinking aloud to do as a nation and a people. I'm starting to thing that in these exceptional circumstances, two years is barely enough, and I suppose I must resign myself to doing my duty as a citizen. Indeed, so long as a single American is at risk due to the irresponsible choice of this as yet unimpeached president, I can do no less.
A must-read "review" of From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design bySean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier, and Scott D. Weatherbee, serves as an overview of the last twenty years of evolutionary biology. Apparently we have a much deeper and more profound explanation of the mechanisms of evolution than I was taught in school. The link above goes to the Amazon.com page for the book, which contains much praise for the book itself, though it's stated to be a dense and difficult read.
The upshot is this makes evolution a far more robust theory than in my youth, one with real predictive value and engineering applications. That of course is the essence of any scientific theory - that one can use the theory both to explain what is known and to suggest directions of inquiry toward what is not yet understood.
And since we ARE tipping Mike, it should be observed that Intelligent Design and Creationism both fail predicatively and in the realm of engineering utility. I mean, unless by "utility," you mean they are useful in discounting the importance of stack emissions and heavy -metal contaminants.
Until we re-think and rework the curriculum devised by the Committee of Ten in 1893 , education "reform"—standards and accountability, raising the bar, imposing rigor and so on—will produce little but political noise, student hoop-jumping, educator burnout, ever-escalating costs, and increasing societal inability to meet the demands of an unknown future.
A must read for everyone concerned with education, especially this bit.
Successful human functioning requires (a) ready access to the whole of one's knowledge via memory, (b) skill in identifying what one knows that’s applicable to the situation at hand, (c) an understanding of the systemic relationships between specific things one knows, and (d) the ability to predict or anticipate the consequences of the interactions of those things.
Consider the impact on society and politics if we started teaching to this standard in kindergarten. It would vastly expand the Reality-Based Community.
There are some profound thoughts in this, with a coherent plan of action that it appears can be implemented at the teacher level, at least to some extent, without the need to seek out approval. It's certainly applicable to charter schools, and I shall be suggesting that the Washoe County School District take a serious look at applying it.
The full-blown idea, plus supporting archives is at Marion Brady's site, complete with the expected PowerPoint presentations.
