Common Core: If Obama is against it will conservatives be for it?

Conservatives are against Common Core because it represents a top-down takeover of schools and in essence a national curriculum for schools that traditionally have been locally controlled since time immemorial.

Liberals oppose Common Core because it is often used as a cudgel against the teachers' union and along with non-unionized charter schools are able to break the backs of collective bargaining for one of the largest (by membership) unions in the country. Common Core also is a commodization of children's education that are in turn  seen as profit centers for private testing companies like Pearson, and parents don't appreciate their kids being turned into products.

So now the Obama administration has admitted that there is currently too much of an emphasis on testing, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said “But I can’t tell you how many conversations I’m in with educators who are understandably stressed and concerned about an overemphasis on testing in some places and how much time testing and test prep are taking from instruction.” Quite the reversal on testing. Now that Common Core in most forms will be tampered down, and remove the force of law of implementing Common Core nationwide, will conservatives applaud the move or simply reject it out of hand because of it's coming from Obama? The teachers' union has already declared this a minor victory, will liberals relent in criticizing the watered down version of Common Core and continue to redress their concerns about testing only now towards their state capitols instead?



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/obama-administration-calls-for-limits-on-testing-in-schools.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Complaints Regarding Ferguson Were Unmerited And It Is A Cesspool Of Racism? WTF

Ferguson And Benghazi's Troubling Parallels

Earlier this week, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen attempted equivocate the conservative delusional belief there was a scandal associated with the September 11th 2012 attack on American diplomatic post in Benghazi and the systemic often violent interaction between police officers and the communities of color they are sworn to protect. 22 other Diplomatic outposts throughout the Arabic speaking world were alerted to possible threats to security on September 11th's 12 year anniversary, and the disloyal opposition party chose to be opportunistic on a tragedy that had actually played itself out ten times under George W. Bush while he was in office. But to stipulate that the people of color and their allies who are outraged that police routinely overstep their duties of enforcing the law and become bullies with badges is not the same as an internationally held belief throughout the Arabic world that America is the "Great Satan" and routinely has American consulates under attack. The facts be damned is what is central to anyone that finds some especially scandalous about the handling of the September 11th 2012 attack on Benghazi, this I agree with Cohen, to also believe that the scandal of the American police nationwide frequently escalate situations into violence is not fact-based fully detached from reality. Below are a couple excerpts from Cohen's article that I find contradictory:

Did the Justice Department later find that Ferguson’s police force was a cesspool of racism, incompetence and corruption? Yes. 

...

A grand jury studied what happened and did not indict Wilson. Eric Holder’s Justice Department reached the same conclusion. Let me offer another conclusion: If Brown was not criminally shot because he was black, then possibly the cop was accused because he was white. Who was the stereotyped individual here?

The emphasis on Cohen's 'if'' was my own, as I believe that the St. Louis county prosecutor Robert McCulloch sought to exonerate Officer Darren Wilson with a landslide of extraneous evidence and witnesses that were not qualified nor vetted by Mr. McCulloch, and was characterized by Cohen's colleagues at the Washington Post as being an unusual approach in the Darren Wilson grand jury process. McCulloch also heavily relied upon Witness #40 who he later admitted "clearly wasn't present when this occurred", the only witness that  corroborated Officer Wilson's testimony based her entire testimony on media reports of what Darren Wilson claimed had occurred. Ferguson is the shorthand of the outrage left, while the Benghazi is the stand-in for those on the right? Except the rage targeted around Benghazi had the investigation carried out by exactly the people that wanted to claim some horrible calamity that would make President Obama (better yet Secretary of State Clinton) culpable, the Republican controlled House of Representatives concluded that all wished upon claims of malfeasance were unfounded. The targeted rage of the left that police routinely and criminally culpability treat unarmed people of color with a disproportionate level of force that goes unchecked because those responsible for prosecuting do not wish to punish law enforcement officers of any act of violence, resulting in McCulloch in St Louis and Donovan in Staten Island doing whatever was within their power to fail in getting an indictment from a grand jury. Grand juries not returning an indictment are rare, rarer still are those possibly being indicted testifying to the grand jury as if they are cooperating witnesses. If that sort of privilege was extended as matter a of common practice then we would never see anyone but those that confess to their crimes be indicted!

Cohen falls into the extremely lazy and prevalent practice of punditry and self-appointed intelligentsia claiming that both left and right are equally guilty in an attempt to be neutral. If sports reporters were ever to follow political "opinion makers" such as Washington Post columnists, we would never know who won football games or if basketball players beat the shot clock since we would have sports columnists interview both sides and declare that they both had a "great game" and that both sides "did the best they could" along with other pablum that fills locker room post game interviews. Neutrality isn't the goal and nor does it serve the reading audience and the general public; neutrality is not a synonym for objectivity. Objectivity is able to provide context to a narrative, neutrality is banal and is offensive in exactly how it tries not to challenge of offend the general public with new facts.  New facts, are going to be offensive to those that have gotten cozy with their demonstratively wrong old "facts", and it is up to those employed by the news media to offend the people want to desperately hold onto their moldy old-erroneous-perspective regardless to how the world has changed or even if the world had never been congruent with their worldview.

"All in for Alleyn" I Fully Endorse My Friend Alleyn Harned For Harrisonburg, VA City Coucil

I have known Alleyn Harned for 10 years and have counted him as friend for all those years. I have zero reservations in endorsing him in his run for City Council of Harrisonburg, VA.

Alleyn is a smart, hardworking, committed, individual who bring integrity and fresh new ideas to local government. He is a great champion of renewable energy and would strive to make sustainability a top priority in his tenure as City Councilman.

If you live in Harrisonburg, VA, or know of friends and family that do, please go out to vote November 4th, or encourage your friends and family to vote for Alleyn Harned for city councilman.

I am the schnook that took this picture in 2004.
I'm a schnook because I didn't think of getting my picture taken with the future president as well.

President's Justifications For Discontining The Constitution

Below is a quote from the paper the NSA released yesterday to outline the role and authority of the agency regarding the dragnet surveillance of Americans.

Scope and Scale of NSA Collection (page 29 of PDF)

According to figures published by a major tech provider, the Internet carries 1,826 Petabytes of information per day. In its foreign intelligence mission, NSA touches about 1.6% of that. However, of the 1.6% of the data, only 0.025% is actually selected for review. The net effect is that NSA part in a million. Put another way, if a standard basketball court represented the global collection would be represented by an area smaller than a dime on that basketball court.

For the Obama administration to justify unconstitutional surveillance using the rational that it is microscopic in nature, goes in the face of the constitution itself as well as contradicts the administration previous statement that it wasn't occurring at all. On top of that The administration has refuted similar rational when put forward regulations such as Toxic Substances Control Act of 2009, which sought to regulate toxins that routinely showed up in fetuses and newborns that could not have been exposed to the toxins but from the bloodstream of their mothers-- only parts per billion within the bloodstream was beyond the pale, while parts per million of data (1,000 times larger) of unconstitutional searches should be acceptable to the American people?

Additional to the NSA paper explaining the extent of the surveillance, the Obama administration put out a 22 page unclassified 'white paper' in attempt to pacify citizens that have learned there government is spying on them, providing hokum justification that based upon the Patriot Act's Section 215's clear language that searches would need to a specific Foreign Intelligence investigation with a specific target-- not all denizens of the Internet and Americans that use phones within American borders. Glossing over those pertinent facts that, President presumes that this announcement will pacify the critics and that the reforms to the edges of the unconstitutional program is sufficient rather than uprooting and ending the illegal activities of the NSA. Senator Ron Wyden expectantly disagrees that the reforms go far enough to resolve his issues with the program. He goes as far as stating the following:

I have seen absolutely zero evidence that the bulk collection of Americans' phone records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act has provided any unique value to intelligence gathering or actually made Americans any safer, so I believe that these reforms should ensure that bulk collection is ended.

As there is no apparent end to bulk surveillance, and that the President's comments are to confirm to public the justifications of the mass surveillance, the President can no longer deny complicity in the unconstitutional activities that his administration is committing, leaving only one result: impeachment.

As someone that voted for Barack Obama in the New York State Democratic Primary, 2008 General Election and 2012 General Election, it is of great disappointment to me that he should now be removed from office.




http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-statement-on-president-obamas-proposed-reforms-to-the-fisc-and-patriot-act

College GOP: Wrong medium, wrong message, wrong messenger; But we can move the around the Titanic's deck chairs!

This week the College Republicans (CRNC) released a report regarding the failures in persuading voters under the age of 30, and possible remedies. Regards to the medium, College Republicans after 6 focus groups around the nation of attainable voters, that social media should be top priority in reaching younger voters but the issue that is ignored that social media is easily challenged so that creating a new meme like a chain letter that can be debunked by the crowd of friends. Unlike traditional media broadcasting the message that can never be refuted, social media is made to be interacted and if dubious will be called out on. So assuming that the right's agenda will be accepted if only there some very share-able picture associated with it, fails to accept the inherent counter-authoritarian nature of the Internet. Traditionalists believe that traditional authority whether "well breed" aristocrats, successful businessmen, or church leaders, should always be deferential to the authority. The culture of the Internet is in dire opposition to this supplication, due to anonymity and pseudo-meritocracy that exists on the Internet, and any self proclaimed authority is constantly challenged (best scenario) or demeaned (worst and most frequent scenario). So how the College Republicans hope to persuade netizens and young voters to capitulate to corporate or religious authority is not just implausible but impossible.

The College Republicans (CRNC) discovered the typical under-30 voter strongly objects to the conservative's social views, and wants public policy to make their day-to-day life easier. From both the survey and multiple focus groups the conclusion drawn is that if the Republican party avoids social issues and focus on positive solution based policy these voters could be won. The report also acknowledges "perhaps most troubling for Republicans is the finding from the March 2013 CRNC survey that showed 54% of young voters saying 'taxes should go up on the wealthy,' versus 31% who say 'taxes should be cut for everyone'.” While taking as a silver lining, the same survey showed young voters are resistant to more government spending; what type of spending are these voters opposed to is omitted from the CRNC's report. So it would be difficult for Republicans to persuade this segment of voters to only cut government spending that do not help big business given the opinion of the general electorate is mistrust of both Big Business and the Big Government that according to "one respondent in {the report's} Orlando group of young Latino voters noted, people in the higher tax brackets “have a lot of tax breaks and loopholes” that allow them to avoid “paying their share” and can be inferred that Big Government that is not confrontational towards Big Business will be perceived as in collusion with Big Business. Within the report it states that 93% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement "We need leaders who aren't afraid to fight existing interests like big companies or big unions in order to reform outdated and unsustainable programs." The conclusion of the report is moderate the message to associate all business with that of small business and keep social issues to the minimum.

As far as who should be delivering this message, the report concluded with the following:

To shed the brand of being old-fashioned, the GOP need not just find young candidates who can make pop culture references with ease. Instead, candidates need to be able to show that they understand the problems young people face when it comes to economic opportunity and have a plan to break down the barriers that are standing in their way

The most significant aspect about this conclusion is that through CRNC's own focus groups attributed their perception that the GOP was considered old and old-fashioned because of their policies and stated values and not their relate-ability nor understanding the problems they faced. Republicans' solutions and public policies is contrary to what these young allegedly "attainable" voters state within focus groups and the March 2013 survey. That the advice for GOP candidates to accentuate "caring" aspect of an economic program and how it would help the downtrodden; also that the party doesn't believe itself to be "the leave me alone" party. I have some bad news to the authors of this report, the Republican Party is "the leave me alone" party that doesn't want to change their ways just to win over votes from "the other". The report's solution to how celebrity-centric and seemingly cool President Obama is with Sara Jessica Parker inviting people over for a fundraiser and the President posting a picture of himself drinking a beer in a college dive bar that spread like wildfire across social media is to advertise towards the audience of Family Guy reruns. The focus groups participants responded to question of the most prominent Democratic leaders being former and current Democratic elected officials, while Republican leaders were listed of the media stars like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Family Guy guest star Rush Limbaugh. If the starting point that CRNC acknowledges is that the wrong medium is being used to deliver the wrong message being delivered by the wrong messenger but there is no need to admit the policies and values of the Republican party need to be adjusted, just how and who delivers the message can be fixed to lead the party back into salvation of successful general elections.

My advice to my own Democratic party, challenge every entrenched interest and upend the status quo where ever it benefits the individual employee or student and every small business owner. Opposition to those that have already made it economically who will use any and all of their machinations to disparage this, but the electorate will recognize and reward the effort made and being the gladiator for the little guy against the behemoth of the powerful speaks to a truly American trope that is as old as ragamuffins of Lexington and Concord taking on and winning against the most powerful military the world has ever known the British Empire.

http://images.skem1.com/client_id_32089/Grand_Old_Party_for_a_Brand_New_Generation.pdf

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159875/americans-similarly-dissatisfied-corporations-gov.aspx

John Boehner: Who is going to jail over this scandal? Which of the plethora of scandals?

John Boehner stated in a press conference today: "Who is going to jail over this scandal?" Which scandal? LIBOR? House GOP gutting diplomatic security a year before the Benghazi attacks? Banks auto-signing foreclosing on homes that were already paid off? HSBC money laundering for drug cartels and Al-Qaeda affiliates? Director of the SEC Mary Jo White being paid by financial industry defense law firm $500,000 a year bribe (ahem... I mean retirement plan)? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas obvious conflict of interest for his wife being paid by plaintiffs that appear in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, such as Citizens United Vs. FEC that created a new legal channel to affect elections and public policy with excessive and obtuse dark money?

No, none of that, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was instead referring to Internal Revenue Service bringing extra scrutiny to non-profit 501c4 organizations whose legal intended purpose was to "promote the general welfare" but public statements were to oppose taxes in all there forms. The scrutiny started back in 2010, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Citizens United, and the anti-government movement flooded the IRS with requests most with newly named organizations with "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in them. As I wrote yesterday that the of the non-profit organizations that the IRS provided extra scrutiny to, 25% had conservative leanings with telling anti-tax terms in their names. All of whom were non-profit organizations that were the children of the Super PACs and the Citizen United decision, whose sole purpose was to make their finances opaque as possible and hiding the contributors before they went off to run deceptive political ads for the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. The actions of the IRS were far from adroit but it was equally distance from being illegal; it was equally legal to the Bush administration auditing Planned Parenthood, NAACP, Greenpeace, National Organization of Women and other left from center non-profits that existed before the Bush administration, and continue long after the shot callers of their political harassment have left office (unlike a majority of the non-profit organizations that were targeted). Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation sparking this controversy, after 8 years of promoting the politicization of the IRS under the Bush administration, brought this to national attention after a 13 month effort. So has it become common wisdom that audits and extra scrutiny are only a tools to be used against the left without repercussions? Could there be any possibility that the same standards of behavior be for both sides of the aisle not leniency for those calling for uncompassionate market forces to mete out "justice" and rigid higher standards for proponents of universal forgiveness?

Please comment what you think about the situation, and of course share and forward this to your social network.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18275058-boehner-on-irs-controversy-whos-going-to-jail?lite

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/boehner-on-irs-scandal-who-is-going-to-jail/

http://www.alternet.org/story/10496/defunding_the_left

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-targeted-naacp-in-2004-91284.html

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/10/mark-levin-may-have-prompted-irs-conservative-group-revelations/

NRA: Please put away the Obama target mannequin, but lone female target "the EX" keep selling those

This past weekend at the NRA national conference in Houston, TX had hundreds of vendors sell their wares from guns, hunting accessories, gun related books, clothing, and practice targets. One of the vendors that sells practice targets that bleed when you shoot them, named Bleeding Zombie Targets by Zombie Industries. The NRA requested that take the Bleeding Zombie Target model named "Rocky" (which has user submitted videos on their website referring to it as "Barry") off display due to it's obvious resemblance to President Barack "Barry" Obama. They were free to continue to sell the less than respectful depiction of the Commander-in-Chief, the vendor was just not allowed to put it up front on display. This decision was in reaction to news reporting about the product, what strikes me is that no mention to the other model that clearly plays out on a fantasy of violence towards women named "the EX" and the only female target.

So it is okay to carry out violence on exes effigy that bleeds faux blood, but it is beyond the pale to claim that conservatives have a war against women.

So it is okay to carry out violence on the president effigy if he is a Democrat, but if Code Pink interrupts public appearances and calls judicial process being initiated to prove whether or not war crimes have been committed in our name-- that is demeaning to Office of the President.

So moral relativism is an abomination when discussing public policy, unless it is American Exceptionlism because all countries are equal just some countries are more equal than others.

http://zombieindustries.com/video/jerry-ike-reviews-our-rocky-zombie/

Shows of solidarity or flaunting how unnecessary exaggerated salaries are needed at the top

Sequestration has taken a meat clever to the Federal budget, those hoping the cuts will affect programs for the working poor equal to the military contractors should not hold their breaths. Yesterday President Obama announced that he would return 5% for as long as the sequestration is in place to show a sign of solidarity of those being affected by the sequestration. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth (IL-D), and Congresswoman Eleanor Norton (DC-D), have already volunteered salary paybacks of varying amounts. But the solidarity with those at the bottom of the economic strata, though nice in theory, won't have the effect that is intended of quickening a resolution to bring to an end of the sequestration. The cuts do not have equal affect since the military contractors have an excess largess while recipients of economic programs and middle class civil servant jobs do not have any excess resources to depend on during the hard times of the sequestration. To compare furloughed employees to executives who can spend a small portion of their profits to lobbyists and campaign contributions to ensure their largess comes back to pre-sequestration levels while no one advocates to restore anti-poverty programs.


http://www.politicususa.com/game-on-republicans-follow-president-obamas-lead-repaying-5-pay.html

Even Broken clocks are right twice a day--Newsmax Poll results

Though this highly biased unscientific poll doesn't prove what Newsmax wishes it would (which is that the entire interwebs believes that Obama and unions are bad) it still provides an interesting modicum of real data points. It provides a base of Obama supporters being ~25% of the poll takers that agree with Obama in his criticism of Union buster Wisc. Gov. Scott Walker (R), against stripping individual rights of workers to negotiate in collective bargaining agreements and voted for Obama in 2008, but 6% peel off to committing to re-electing Obama. Though the poll is just of the number of people clicked through an ad and not even indicative that 100s of thousands of individuals since the same people could have just taken the poll over & over. With that caveat, it is significant that 24% of the response that in general were Obama supporters are considering to vote for someone else or stay home on election day.

http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/results/id/9?PROMO_CODE=BB8B-1

Large Swaths of the American Public Are Ignoramuses

Liberal blogosphere has already jump all over the fact that 39% of the American public believe the government should stay out of the beloved government agency Medicare. My concern is that only 90% believe the fiftieth state admitted to the Union believes Hawaii is part of the United States.

6% of the respondents deny that Hawaii is part of the United States, while another 4% taking the Hamlet route and are unsure of the state's being... well a state. 4% and 6% seem like far too small of numbers to be concerned about, but 10% either denying or unsure about 1.2 Million U.S. citizens status as citizens is disconcerting. 10% of Americans is 30 Million people, not a population you could really ignore. 39% being ignorant of the fact that Medicare should also bring shame to our national pride (especially since those 39% respondents are likely the ones that are quick to claim we are smartest, richest, best in everything country in the world), but confusing a government agency with private insurance is a little more understandable since Medicare pays private service providers and it is the private service providers are in direct contact with the public while Medicare exists several degrees of separation away from the end user. 30 million Americans not knowing enough about their own country shocks me.

With this response I would have like to seen the same poll have asked whether Alaska is part of America? The Hawaii question was the first of a string of questions leading to ferret out how many 'birthers' really are out there, and where do the 'birthers' believe President Obama was born. My question far any of these 30 million or any 'birther' conspiracy theorists, do they believe that Panama is part of the U.S.? Why would I ask that non-sequitur question? Well because that is where 2008 GOP nominee for president John McCain was born. Panama being one of the rare examples of former U.S. territory being handed back.

If birthers can't believe Hawaii is a state, or that the state's department of health issued a certificate of live birth for Barack Hussein Obama, or that 2 newspapers in Hawaii independently issued birth notices contemporary to the president's birth; how would they contain the possibility that John McCain was constitutionally eligible for the office of the president but not Barack Obama who was born in a state that is still part of the U.S.?

McCain unsure how many houses he owns - Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen - Politico.com

McCain unsure how many houses he owns - Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen - Politico.com

McCain is so wealthy (more accurately his wife is so wealthy) that he doesn't know how many houses he owns. This story seems to really have gotten a foot hold amongst the political press. Obama certainly has taken advantage of it producing an ad with the politico.com interview already.

What I think about when I hear this story is Kerry flubbing this exact issue in 2004, he brought up Bush's tax returns and stated how much money Bush got refunded for owning a lumber company that made capital purchases. Kerry should have jump all over Bush's joke ("got wood?") by replying "I know where most of money comes from, and so does everyone in the room, because there is a bottle of ketchup on everyone's kitchen table. This guy is so wealthy and so out of touch that he doesn't have the faintest clue where his money comes from."

I know fighting the last battles is not productive, but indulge in my cathartic rant. Kerry should have used humor in that instant, it could have won him the election. It would have cast Kerry in a new light and would have shown Baby Bush as exactly what he is, which is a silver-spooned brat.

Nevada Polls

Electoral-Vote.com has listed some public polls that shows Saturday's Nevada Caucus much closer 3-way race than I would have imagined. Given that the Casino workers union endorsed Barack Obama, and the second most powerful union in the state the teachers union endorsed Hillary; it is a little surprising that Edwards is within the margin of error of winning the state in the Research 2000 poll and Edwards is plausible to win in reality if we take the pollsters' track record (ie NH polls) into account. Obviously we will have to see what happens this Saturday.Just a point of order about political reporting premature electoral obituaries: Chris Mathews the weekend before NH's primary asked 12 of his regular contributing pundits and unanimously agreed that Barack had the nomination in his back pocket.

There should be serious discussion within the fourth estate that
we will see a brokered national convention. As long as Edwards gets 15% in most states and Clinton and Obama continue to fight it out splitting up most of the Feb 5th state the delegate count will never reach a majority.

Brokered Convention

We could see the first televised brokered convention one maybe even both national parties this summer. With the GOP so scatter-shot four or even five candidates that are plausible to be nominees (plausible= Giuliani; Huckabee; Romney; McCain, and much less plausible Thompson). On the Democratic side Obama and Hillary are unlikely more than 45% of the delegates except in their respective home states. A brokered convention is probably what Edwards is banking on, because when Denver rolls around and head-to-head match ups are the only thing the political press can write about Edwards will certainly look better than Hillary, and Hillary will probably start slinging mud at Obama to take the shine off him. Saving grace for Hillary and Obama are that some states have winner-take-all primaries, I couldn't find a list of them on the net , but thenattering-nay-bobs of negativity (aka the media) will get around to talking about it by Febuary 5th.