Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The Stupidest Thing I've Heard All Day

I'll just give you the name of the headline from Huffington Post first:

Bob Kingsbury, New Hampshire Legislator, Explains Remarks Linking Kindergarten To Higher Crime 

 

And surprise, he is a Tea Partier with connections to legendary birther, Orly Taitz.  In addition:

Kingsbury has also sponsored legislation to require future state laws to be based on the Magna Carta and said in February that statehood for the District of Columbia could cause New Hampshire's crime rate to rise 25 percent.

So what is Representative Kingsbury basing these remarks on?

Kingsbury discussed with The Huffington Post on Tuesday his research showing a dramatic jump in crime. "The sources I have is I went to the Department of Education and got a list of kindergartens and I went to the safety department and got the crime report," he said. "In general, the towns with a kindergarten have 400 percent more crime than other towns in the same county. In every county the towns and cities with kindergarten had more crime."
Noting as well that some communities experienced a crime jump of 300 percent, he singled out his hometown of Laconia, the largest community in Belknap County. Compared to the other nine communities in the county, Laconia had the highest crime and the only kindergarten program, he said. Kingsbury cited crime reports indicating Laconia had 63 of the county's 70 rapes, 6 out of 9 robberies, 44 out of 47 arsons and 408 out of 506 simple assaults, along with all the county's murders and higher rates of other crimes.

I haven't done the research to corroborate Representative Kingsbury's story, and nor do I intend on doing any.  I'm just going to go ahead and call "bull shit".  Here is some information on the "devastating" effects that all-day Kindergarten has on children.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

A Video For Sunday

The great Bill Maher talks about the fact that Atheism is NOT A RELIGION, and then performs an un-baptism on Mitt Romney's father in law (who was a fellow nonbeliever).

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

First Day Back/Highlight of the Day

Today was the first day back at work after winter break.  I was greatly concerned, and quite convinced, that the autistic student I have been working with would have a really bad day transitioning with his behavior after two weeks away from school.  I would have considered today a success if we made it without him getting physical with staff, as opposed cussing me out, which is what he normally does.  Instead, he surprised me by having an absolutely fantastic day.  He went to all his classes, he completed all of his assignments, and he never so much as said a single bad word or inappropriate comment.  When he is having a good day like that, he is as pleasant a student any teacher could ask for.  I know that at some point, he will start acting out again, and have to leave the classroom.  I just hope that when it does, it is not on a regular basis like it was last semester.  Let's hope we can build upon the progress made from last semester.

On a separate note, I would like to share a funny story from today.  I was helping out in a Social Studies class, and they were talking about the Iowa Caucus.  One of the other paras in the room was talking about remembering when the state of Iowa decided to change their caucus to January so they could be one of the earliest states in the country to help decide the nominations.  A student in the classroom with Asperger's raised his hand and gave the following comment "So, what you are telling me is that Iowa is a very self-obsessed state."

I was apparently the only other person in the room who thought it was funny, because I was the only one to laugh.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Iraq War, 2003-2011

Photo from Here and Now

After 8 long and difficult years, U.S. Troops (most of them, anyways) are coming home from Iraq, and the war in Iraq is now officially over.  The events that have lead up to the war, and what has happened since then are numerous, disheartening, and outright sick.  From the amount of patriotic browbeating and full-out lying that took place in the lead up to the war, to the arrogance and mismanagement (to put it mildly) of the initial invasion; from the bloodshed and chaos of proceeding years of our occupation, to the relatively quiet, but marginally better (to put it kindly) final years of the occupation.  America's departure from Iraq is something that is long-overdue.

My initial reaction as someone who has always opposed this war is to say "good riddance" and try to push it as far into the distance past as possible.  However, it is also important that one revisits it's relatively short, but nonetheless eventful history.  We must do this in order to pay respect to the dead on all sides, and to show the brutal reality of what war is really like.  But we must also do this so that America (for all the good we stand for and for all the wonderful things we've ever done for people around the world) can realize the horrendous mistakes that it made, and try to never repeat them again.

I have decided that the best way to share write this post is to share a number of videos about the from individuals who could as good of a job of telling the story of the Iraq War, if not better, than I could have.  I will provide some of my own text, but I want to give credit to those who made these videos, and as well as those who did an outstanding job of reporting on this war when it was taking place(oftentimes, risking their own lives in doing so).

First, there is how we actually got into the war.  We all know now about the fact that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, almost no link to Al Qaeda, and absolutely no role in the September 11 attacks (as the Bush Administration had claimed).  But how many people actually remember the time and energy taken by the Administration (along with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain) to really sell the war?  It was immense, and it lasted for almost the entire year of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 leading up to the war.



The Administration was not alone in helping to push for this war.  One new word to enter the American mainstream lexicon as a result of this war was "neoconservative", and they were prevalent through the media and the Bush Administration foreign policy team leading up to the Iraq War.  They believed it was America's duty to push for democratic reform throughout the world, using military action if necessary.



The goal of promoting democracy in undemocratic countries is good enough in itself, and I'm sure many of those who were neoconservatives felt as if they had good intentions.  For instance, it is a shame that the late Christopher Hitchens (one of my heroes) so staunchly supported the invasion of Iraq, and was still one of the war's strongest supporters long after it was clear that the invasion was a disaster.  He originally supported it because he was friends with Iraqi Kurds who were being oppressed and slaughtered by Saddam Hussein.  The idea of what such an ambitious goal would look like, and the hard truth of what it really means to invade another country are two different things.

We were supposed to have an independent media that would ask questions about the legitimacy and acumen about what the Bush Administration was trying to do.  This isn't to say that members of the media shouldn't have lost all sense of objectivity, and come out staunchy against the war as say, a Democracy Now or The Nation would have.  But it seems like liberal outlets such as DN, The Nation, and the like were the only ones in the media who were truly doing their job in questioning the motives of the administration leading up to the war, and have done about as good a job as any media outlet on reporting on the war objectively in the first year or so of the war.  The same cannot be said about the mainstream media



While things have gotten a little better since then in regards to bringing truth to power, it wasn't that long ago that "liberal" MSNBC made Phil Donahue have two conservative, pro-war guests on the show for every one liberal, anti-war guest on his short-lived, prime-time show (Donahue was supposed to count as the second liberal, and thus, the debate was equal).

So, the United States went war in Iraq, bombed the hell out of Baghdad through the campaign of Shock and Awe, and within a matter of weeks, Saddam Hussein was thrown from power.  The war had just started, and it was already over.  At least, that's how it seemed at the time.  For a while, it seemed that the anti-war protesters and those damn hippies were wrong, and the neoconservatives and the Bush Administration were right.  In the months to come, the world realize just how far away from over this war really was.



What America soon found out was that "liberating" another country not as easy as it sounds, but it helps to listen to those who know the most about combat and military occupation.  This is one thing that the Bush Administration did not do.  Rather, they relied more on the opinions of those (primarily neoconservatives) who were most loyal to the administration and the Republican Party.  This ended up with disastoruos decisions being made that would cost vast numbers of lives, and greatly soil the reputation of the United States around the world.  This includes not sending nearly enough troops to Iraq to begin with; sending them with scare amounts of necessary equipment (often times, that was shoddy anyways); breaking international laws through the use of torture; dismantling the Iraqi Army; and basically not having anything resembling a realistic, long-term occupation plan.











Is it possible that America could have succeeded with the occupation aspect of this war, and not just the initial invasion?  Is it possible that, today, Iraq could be a truly safe and functioning democracy if  different decisions had been made, and the Bush Administration had actually listened to those who knew what they were talking about?  Perhaps, but of course, we will never know this for sure.

What started off as a half-assed, invasion and occupation quickly turned into chaos, and eventually turned into civil war.  One of the things the Bush Administration, and many of the supporters of the Iraq war did not realize before the invasion was the complexity of the country they were invading.  Specifically, they did not consider the different tribal, ethnic and religious conflicts that existed within Iraq , well before Saddam Hussein ever took power (if they even realized such conflicts existed to begin with). 



All of these decisions would lead to years of violence and blood shed for both American Soldiers and Iraqi civilians.  Baghdad would become the most violent and deadly city in he world. At least  one hundred thousand Iraqi lives would be lost, and so many more would be injured and displaced from their homes.  Nearly 4,500 American soldiers would parish, and many thousands more would be seriously injured.  This is not what so many American soldiers asked for, but it is what they got.









In more recent years, the situation on the ground in Iraq has ended up getting better, relatively speaking of course.  The arrogant and incompetent Donald Rumsfeld was replaced with Robert Gates as the Secretary of Defense, American commanders in Iraq started reaching out to different sects within Iraq to try and minimize the violence that was taking place, and more of the country were given over to Iraqi authorities.  In addition, violence and casualty levels on both sides have decreased, and deadlines for withdraw (which the Bush Administration had so stubbornly fought against for the first few years of the war) were finally being put into place.  In addition to changes in leadership and changes in policies, these successes must be given immense credit to our American soldiers, as well as Iraqi civilians, who have risked their lives to make Iraq a much more stable nation for the years to come.



This is not to say Iraq has turned out to be a successful, Jeffersonian democracy, or even safe and stable nation.  And it probably won't be one for many years, if ever.  For instance, Baghdad is still ranked as the most dangerous major city in the world, as it has been since the war started.  Gunfire, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), and suicide bombs are still a daily reality in the country of Iraq.   And despite the improvements that have been made, many experts are questioning whether Iraqi security forces will be able to keep the country as stable as it is.

Then there are the costs of the Iraq War: not just in money and resources, but in lives and limbs.  There are those who would argue that all of the bloodshed and sacrifices that have gone into this war will be worth it in the years to come.  While I do wish that the Iraqi people will continue to progress and make successful strides in the stability of their country, I cannot say at this time that the war was worth it, nor am I sure I will ever be able to.  







So, to recap in a more lighthearted, but still thought-provoking manner:
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - The Bush Years - The Iraq War
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

May those that have perished in the war (whether American, Iraqi, or elsewhere) Rest in Peace.

Photo from The Public Record

 May we never forget the lessons this unfortunate conflict has taught us, so that we can never repeat them again.
Photo from Impeach For Peace

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Obama, Matt Damon, Education Policy, and Electoral Politics

 Photo from Huffington Post

In the past year, Matt Damon's support for the Save Our Schools movement has made him a favorite of teachers all over the country who are opposed to the hurtful policies implemented by so-called "education reformers" across the country.  I count myself as one of those whose personal fandom of Damon has increased for this very reason. 

Today, I was reading an article on Huffington Post where Damon criticizes Obama's failure to be more audacious and anti-establishment during his first term as president.  One of the policy areas that Damon addresses is his policies on education:
"I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, 'I no longer hope for audacity,'" Damon told CNN host Piers Morgan. "He's doubled down on a lot of things, going back to education... the idea that we're testing kids and we're tying teachers salaries to how kids are performing on tests, that kind of mechanized thinking has nothing to do with higher order. We're training them, not teaching them."

Everyone who supports the SOS movement, including myself, would certainly agree with Damon's words here.  We do have an over reliance on standardized testing in this country that hurts both students and teachers.  Indeed, the policies that President Obama has implemented on Education since his inauguration are, on the whole, not any better (and possibly worse) than President Bush's were.  These policies include the aforementioned testing procedures, as well as his support for funding charter schools and merit pay, and the destructive and simultaneously inefficient Race To The Top.  But what is most surprising in all of this is not Obama's support for these positions, but rather, that many of those who supported Obama in 2008 are suprised by his education positions. 

This is because President Obama's platform on education in 2008 was essentially an endorsement of the education reform movement.  For instance, he publicly supported the idea of merit pay in a speech to the National Education Association, the nation's largest teacher union, in 2007.  In addition, he was a supporter of both charter schools and school choice.  From USA Today in October, 2008:
[Obama] wants to expand federal funding for charter schools from $236 million to $450 million. He says he'd "work with all our nation's governors to hold all our charter schools accountable," adding: "Charter schools that are successful will get the support they need to grow; charters that aren't will get shut down." He also wants to expand non-profit child care, parenting and education efforts such as the Harlem Children's Zone in New York to other cities.
Just like his support for the Afghan War, Obama proposed policy initiatives on education during the 2008 campaign that are unpopular to many progressives and supporters.  But then (SURPRISE) he ended up mainly keeping his promise when entering office.  I am not sure if those who originally supported Obama thought he would renege on these particular policies when he entered office, or if they were so caught up with "Hope", "Change" and "Yes, We Can", that they didn't notice those particular aspects of his platform to begin with.  In any case, nobody who did pay attention to the Obama campaign in 2008 should be surprised at his current education policies.

To be clear, I supported Obama then (with full knowledge of his platform), and would do it again if I had to.  The prospect of a McCain presidency, or any presidency led by the 2008 GOP contenders, is too unnerving to contemplate.  I supposed I am in the category that hoped he would renege on some aspects of his education platform, but alas, he kept his word (and then some).  In addition, I hope President Obama wins reelection in 2012.  This, however, does not mean I will necessarily vote for him.  Like Damon, I am extremely disillusioned with many of Obama's policies (including education and Afghanistan), as well the continuation of the Democrat's love-affair with pussyfooting and unnecessary compromise. 

This does not mean I will vote for a Republican.  There is not a chance in hell of that given the current lineup of  pitiful and moronic contenders for the nomination, as well as the ignorant and cruel platforms that seems to be considered "mainstream" in today's GOP.  But now that I am a voter in the state of Kansas (as opposed to Missouri, where I am originally from), my vote as a progressive does not really count when voting for the Presidency.  No amount of campaigning or electioneering in the next year and a half will get the state of Kansas to elect a Democrat for the Presidency.  Not unless something happens between now and then of such earth-shattering magnitude, that Kansas electoral support for Obama in simply unavoidable.  I may, based purely on the principals I hold as a liberal, as well as being fed up with Mr. Obama, vote for a third party in the 2012 election (e.g. Green Party).  This is not final decision yet, and the President still has time to win disillusioned liberals such as myself over for an electoral landslide in 2012 (although, admittedly, that support will be more important in key swing states rather than states like Kansas). 

For starters, there is one policy proposal on education that Obama put at the center of his education platform in 2008 that he could start pushing for.  I am referring to his support for the expansion of early childhood education programs.  Here is an excerpt from the same 2008 USA Today article quoted above:

[Obama] proposes a $10 billion "Zero to Five" plan that would quadruple the number of slots in Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve the quality of both; he'd make states compete to create or expand child care and education for pregnant women and children. He'd "encourage" states to adopt voluntary universal preschool; he'd expand the Child and Development Care Tax Credit, making it refundable and allowing low-income families to get up to a 50% credit for child care expenses.

We already know how important the exposure to early childhood education can be to the potential of a young person, and there chances at academic excellence in the long term.  It is somewhat surprising, and unfortunate,  that Obama has yet to pursue such a proposal during his first term (at least, as far as I know).  Perhaps he is fearful that, given the current political environment in favor of austerity and worriment over budget deficits, proposing federal spending for early childhood programs wouldn't pass, at least, without some type of backlash. 

But one thing the President is long-overdue in understanding is that there will be a backlash by Republicans in anything he proposes.  That is what the Republicans do.  He is too worried about compromising with Republicans without ever putting up a fight to begin with.   Although he has shown glimmers of hope in changing this trend in recent months, he needs to keep up, and advance the good fight.  His Presidency, as well as the good of our country, depends upon it.  A comprehensive, early childhood education bill would be a step in the right direction.  Come on, Mr. President, time to get audacious!

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Update on Bullying Bill in Michigan

A happy ending to an earlier post about a bullying bill in Michigan.  Originally, the bill allowed an exception to bullying on the basis of religion.  Fortunately, that has changed since then:
Michigan's state Senate dropped a bill Tuesday that critics called "a license to bully," and instead adopted a House version that represents a compromise among Republican lawmakers in a more comprehensive piece of legislation that would require anti-bullying policies in schools.

After the Senate passed the controversial anti-bullying bill, "Matt's Safe School Law," earlier this month, a wave of criticism poured in to lawmakers. The staunch opposition stemmed from a provision in the bill's language that permitted harassment by teachers and students if they can claim that their actions are rooted in a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction."
That fact such an amendment was put into place to begin with is absolutely shocking.  But given how the Republican Party currently exists, I must say that one can never underestimate the power of stupid or cruel. And when I talk about the Republican Party, I don't mean the extremes or fringe elements of the party; I mean the mainstream of the party.

The need to explain why such a proposal was a terrible idea to begin with seems almost preposterous.  But Michigan Democratic Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer did an excellent job of explaining why such a proposal was both asinine and cruel when the provision was first put into the bill.


Saturday, November 19, 2011

"Absurd" Education Proposal by Newt

 Picture from Polk County GOP

Newt Gingrich has a history of saying stupid things.  Here is a new one that I found on a NYT blog post generously titled "From Gingrich, and Unconventional View on Education".

In poverty stricken K-12 districts, Mr. Gingrich said that schools should enlist students as young as 9 to14 to mop hallways and bathrooms, and pay them a wage. Currently child-labor laws and unions keep poor students from bootstrapping their way into middle class, Mr. Gingrich said.
“This is something that no liberal wants to deal with,” he told an audience at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard on Friday, according to Politico.
“You say to somebody, you shouldn’t go to work before you’re what, 14, 16 years of age, fine,” Mr. Gingrich said. “You’re totally poor. You’re in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I’ve tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.”
 AFT President Randi Weingarten puts it very simply:

“Who in their right mind would lay off janitors and replace them with disadvantaged children — who should be in school, and not cleaning schools,” Ms. Weingarten said. “And who would start backtracking on laws designed to halt the exploitation of children?”

UPDATE:

Newt apparently had some other things to say about children working outside of school as well:
He added, "You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age. They all were either selling newspapers, going door to door, they were doing something, they were washing cars."
"They all learned how to make money at a very early age," he said. "What do we say to poor kids in poor neighborhoods? Don't do it. Remember all that stuff about don't get a hamburger flipping job? The worst possible advice you could give to poor children. Get any job that teaches you to show up on Monday. Get any job that teaches you to stay all day even if you are in a fight with your girlfriend. The whole process of making work worthwhile is central."

The former House Speaker acknowledged that it was an unconventional pitch, saying, "You're going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly."

To be fair, there is something to be said about young people getting jobs that helps to instills a sense of hard work, and appreciate what they earn.  Even if that means working for lower-wages, and doing more physically laborious tasks.  That are what jobs for younger people (who are being primary supported by parents and guardians) are supposed to be like. 

I hope that some of the ideas Mr. Gingrich is proposing, however, doesn't mean he wants to alter child-labor laws, as some are suggesting.   I also hope that Mr. Gingrich isn't simply suggesting that working as a child means that one will automatically rise out of poverty.  The primary causes of poverty are numerous and complex, and it is going to take a lot more than kids learning the meaning of hard work to combat it.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

A Video for Sunday

Recently, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell has allowed gay and lesbian active members of the military to come out of the closet.  Here is a video that has become a YouTube sensation.  It is a soldier stationed in Germany calling his father and telling him he was gay.  You may have already seen this video.  But if you haven't it is worth a watch.  It is both moving and coragous.




By the way, if you are someone who still thinks repealling Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a bad idea (I'm looking at you Republican debate audiences), you might want to not only take a look at yourself as a human being, but also who also supports it's repeal.  Two Words: TOBY. KEITH.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

A Couple of Points on the Recent GOP Debate

 Picture from Media Scrape

For the sake of disclosure, I did not actually watch the debate, but I still feel compelled to comment on a couple things.

First, Michelle Bachman made this comment on Governor Rick Perry's policy of instituting mandatory HPV Vaccination in the state of Texas after the debate to Fox News:
"There's a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences."
I am not an expert on medicine or vaccines and thus, I do not have much of an opinion on the HPV vaccine per se, nor do I have an opinion on this policy in Texas (it appears both sides have legitimate points). 

However, I am an expert on individuals with Intellectual Disabilities, and I can tell you that there is no link between the HPV vaccine (or any vaccine for that matter) and Intellectual Disabilities.  So, what cause one to become Intelectually Disabled?  There are numerous causes that range from likely to definite:

Now, I don't want to say for sure that Michelle Bachman lied when she told that story about the woman in the crowd.  But given the accuracy of a lot of the information that comes out of her mouth, one must take an immensely large grain of salt with her claim.

By the way, the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out refuting Bachman's claim and defended the use of the HPV Vaccine.

I also want to address something that happened at the debate that a number of people are talking about.  This is when Wolf Blitzer was asking a question to Ron Paul about giving life-saving treatment to someone who is uninsured and whether or not society has a responsibility to take care of that individual.  When Blitzer asks Congressman Paul if "society should let him die", watch how parts of the Tea Party crowd react:




The way the Tea Party has conducted themselves as a movement in the past two years ranges from comical to ignorant to just plain greedy and cruel.  It is all the more terrifying that they have not merely developed into a major political force in American politics, but they are now the controlling block in one of the political parties of our two-party system.  The dangerous and troubling fact of what the Tea Party (and thus GOP is today) is best described by Andrew Sullivan in a recent post about this incident:

"Of course, even if such libertarian purity does make sense, that cannot excuse the emotional response to the issue in the crowd last night. Maybe a tragedy like the death of a feckless twentysomething is inevitable if we are to restrain healthcare costs. But it is still a tragedy. It is not something a decent person cheers. Similarly the execution of hundreds, while perhaps defensible politically and even morally (although I differ), is nonetheless a brutal, awful business. You don't delight in it. And the same is true of torture. Even if you want to defend its use in limited circumstances, it remains an absolute evil, no humane person would want to do it, and no civilized person would brag of it or dismiss any moral issue with it at all. And yet that is what Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney have repeatedly done. They are positively proud of their torture record.
The fish rotted from the head down. Last night, we got a whiff of the smell."