In today's posting I will address the subject of teacher evaluation at my perfect school. This is in direct response to the article I posted earlier this week, when an incompetent CCSD teacher was not fired but moved to another school. In my school district, as a post-probationary teacher, I am only evaluated once a year. My supervisor only needs to observe me three times a year to make said evaluation. Compared to several years ago when I was evaluated three times with over nine observations from my supervisor. Here is my plan.
As stated in previous postings, my school would not have a central administration, with principles, deans and others. There would be one person responsible for evaluating the teacher of that school. That would be their job. Using a predetermined rubric of standards the Evaluation Manager would observe teachers on a daily basis. The goal would be for the Evaluation Manager to see each teacher AT LEAST once a grading period, but they would definately be observe them more than once.
The rubric used by the teacher would be something similar to this evaluation rubric (Click on the hypertext). I found this several weeks ago and thought it was one of the most comprehensive evaluation rubric for teachers. The only thing I would probably want to add to this rubric is an option for non-observed action or behavior. not that they are deficient but this cannot be observed by the evaluator. Here is the link if the hypertext does not work:
http://www.marshallmemo.com/articles/Kim%20Marshall%20Teacher%20Eval%20Rubrics%20May%2016,%2009.pdf
Now not everything on the evaluation rubric is observable in a classroom experience. Prior to the end of the grading period, the Evaluation Manager and the teacher will sit down and have a discussion on the evaluation. The goal would be for the manager to give the teacher all their notes, observations, and the rubrics prior to this final evaluation. The teacher would then need to provide evidence of any areas lacking in the evaluation rubrics. They would bring this to the meeting with the Evaluation Manager.
Also a part of the evaluation would include observations from other areas as well. In my perfect school the Department Chair (DC) would be responsible for observing and evaluation each teacher within their department. They would use the same rubric but included would be a section ability of the teacher on the course methods and content. The DC is the best person to do this since they should know the material better than anyone else. Teachers would also be observed and evaluated by a colleague. They would be randomly assigned at the start of the year. All of these observations and evaluations would also be given the the teacher so they could provide evidence of areas where they may be deficient or there was no observable evidence. These would be included in the final evaluation reports.
Lastly two groups of would also be allowed to observe and evaluate the teacher: parents and students. Too often schools do not listen to their parents and students about the teachers they hire. I would make it a prioroity to get an evaluation of the teacher from both students and parents as a part of the teacher's evaluation. Who knows the teacher's better than the students? They should have a voice in their evaluation. They observe them everyday, so their opinion should be consulted. Parents complain the most about teacher; they may not know them as well as their students, but they have insight to them as well. The school might send this out the last week or so of the grading period. It could be completely anonymous with student ID as the only identifier. The results could then be tabulated for that teacher.
All of these observations and evaluation, in the end the result would be a clearer picture of who this teacher is in the classroom. This evaluation method will apply to hiring, firing and pay increases. Though, I will leave those for postings for another day. Thanks for listening. Feel free to comment. If the comment link is not available her go over to my facebook page to comment on this posting.
Also, I may be abandoning this site for blogging. Facebook has a blogging app that seems to be just as good as blogger. Please email me your thoughts and comments on my moving my blog. Have a nice day.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Public Policy: Campaign Finance Reforms
I am starting a new feature (added to the government Lessons, News of the Day and My Perfect School features) on my blog. I am titling this Public Policy because I will address an area of local or federal policy that should be implemented by those levels of government. Today I am drawing my focus on campaign finances. The topic for today is relevant because of the breaking news.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that part of the 2002 McCain-Fiengold Campaign finance law was unconstitutional. I will not get into the details of the law or the courts ruling. so you can read complete story at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp
Campaign finance law is so long, complicated and full of loop holes its not even funny. The limits they place on individual and organizational campaign contributions are affront to the liberties of our Constitution; specifically, the first amendment. Giving money to campaigns can be interpreted as a form of political speech, therefore there should be no law abridging that form of speech.
There are issues that need to be dealt with under campaign finance but they are all able to be handled with provisions inside the Constitution. In Article I, Section 4 it states:
First, every amount of money that is donated must be recorded by the receiver with the name of the person donating and a verifiable address for the person who donated the money. This is directly tied to the second major provision.
Secondly, no amount of money may be accepted from any foreign person, nation, and/or organization outside of the United States. Only U.S. citizens and organizations may be allowed to donate money to political campaigns. It would corrupt indeed if another country could donate money in an attempt to play a part or role in our elections. This provision is linked to the first because it provides for the enforcement of the previous provision. Any candidate who accepts money from one of these illegal contributors must pay the same amount of money to the federal government in the form of a fine.
Thirdly, only individuals may donate to any political campaigns. I am not really sure any more how I feel that corporation and other organization like Unions can give as much money as they want to a political campaign. If the money was raised specifically for the purpose of political action then there should be no problem, but when you have organizations taking money from dues or other sources to give to a political campaign, there is a danger of corruption. This is partially what the supreme court rule on today, removing the limits and restrictions corporations and other organization in donating to political campaigns.
Fourth, only people of a given state may give to any political campaign of that state. Meaning a citizen of California would not be allowed to donate to the campaign of a Massachusetts senator. Similar to what happened when churches and people from all over the country donated money to the Prop 8 campaign in California. It should be up the people of California, or whatever state, to decide that referendum. Money from outside the state could corrupt the results.
Those are the four major provisions that should be a part of any campaign finance law. The key to any legislation though is that it is easy to understand and easy to enforce; which these provisions meet I welcome all comments and questions on this post.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that part of the 2002 McCain-Fiengold Campaign finance law was unconstitutional. I will not get into the details of the law or the courts ruling. so you can read complete story at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp
Campaign finance law is so long, complicated and full of loop holes its not even funny. The limits they place on individual and organizational campaign contributions are affront to the liberties of our Constitution; specifically, the first amendment. Giving money to campaigns can be interpreted as a form of political speech, therefore there should be no law abridging that form of speech.
There are issues that need to be dealt with under campaign finance but they are all able to be handled with provisions inside the Constitution. In Article I, Section 4 it states:
The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as the the places of choosing Senators.With this clause the Congress has the expressed authority to write election laws which the states must follow. This would include laws governing campaign finances, which were first written following several controversial appointments in by President Nixon. Before that point there was very little regulation. In this day and age thought it should be vitally important that we know who is financing a person's campaign. In the end though, campaign finance law needs to be rewritten so that is simple and easy to understand. I can see possibly three major provisions in a campaign finance law.
First, every amount of money that is donated must be recorded by the receiver with the name of the person donating and a verifiable address for the person who donated the money. This is directly tied to the second major provision.
Secondly, no amount of money may be accepted from any foreign person, nation, and/or organization outside of the United States. Only U.S. citizens and organizations may be allowed to donate money to political campaigns. It would corrupt indeed if another country could donate money in an attempt to play a part or role in our elections. This provision is linked to the first because it provides for the enforcement of the previous provision. Any candidate who accepts money from one of these illegal contributors must pay the same amount of money to the federal government in the form of a fine.
Thirdly, only individuals may donate to any political campaigns. I am not really sure any more how I feel that corporation and other organization like Unions can give as much money as they want to a political campaign. If the money was raised specifically for the purpose of political action then there should be no problem, but when you have organizations taking money from dues or other sources to give to a political campaign, there is a danger of corruption. This is partially what the supreme court rule on today, removing the limits and restrictions corporations and other organization in donating to political campaigns.
Fourth, only people of a given state may give to any political campaign of that state. Meaning a citizen of California would not be allowed to donate to the campaign of a Massachusetts senator. Similar to what happened when churches and people from all over the country donated money to the Prop 8 campaign in California. It should be up the people of California, or whatever state, to decide that referendum. Money from outside the state could corrupt the results.
Those are the four major provisions that should be a part of any campaign finance law. The key to any legislation though is that it is easy to understand and easy to enforce; which these provisions meet I welcome all comments and questions on this post.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
News of the Day - 1/20/2010: CCSD Teacher Moved
There were a few interesting stories today I could have commented on but a friend posted on story already on Facebook. I will instead use the story linked below since it has a bit of local flair and has an interesting focus on education. It even connects to "My Perfect School" posts. Here's the story:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/district-moves-gym-teacher-82143517.html
In brief, a gym teacher at a Clark County School District, high school denied that the Holocaust actually happened. Several students mentioned it to their parents. No disciplinary actions were taken until 23 days after the incident, and only after the Review Journal reported on the story. She is now teaching gym in a middle school.
The major issue here is allowing a teacher that is obviously guilty of gross incompetence to keep her job. First, she was talking about a topic she was not qualified by the state to teach. Now if she has done some reading on the topic that is great, but don't try and teach my students about a subject not necessary for the class. Secondly, to deny the Holocaust is to deny verifiable historical facts. I would expect to be fired if I said taught something like that.
The larger issue is the ways it is next to impossible to get rid of incompetent, lazy, or bad teachers in our public school systems. A teacher who is not a good teacher keeps getting a paycheck even though they are not doing actions required of them by the state, district or school. What's worse is the teacher's union protects these people. This is akin when the Catholic Church did nothing but move around priests who were known child molesters (Its not exactly the same but the concept is the same.).
This is the largest argument I can see for the elimination of tenure at any school. A teacher should not be protected just because they have been there a certain number of years. They need to be held just as accountable, if not more accountable as a new teacher to that school. Teachers need to be observed continuously and evaluated by more than one person. Students and parents need to be involved in this work because they know the teachers, their methods, and behaviors better than anyone else. They should also be involved because they are the consumers of our service.
Since the topic at hand boils down to teacher evaluation, it would be a good idea for me to do a blog posting on the subject of teacher evaluations in "My Perfect School." I will start working on that to post in the near future.
Comments?
http://www.lvrj.com/news/district-moves-gym-teacher-82143517.html
In brief, a gym teacher at a Clark County School District, high school denied that the Holocaust actually happened. Several students mentioned it to their parents. No disciplinary actions were taken until 23 days after the incident, and only after the Review Journal reported on the story. She is now teaching gym in a middle school.
The major issue here is allowing a teacher that is obviously guilty of gross incompetence to keep her job. First, she was talking about a topic she was not qualified by the state to teach. Now if she has done some reading on the topic that is great, but don't try and teach my students about a subject not necessary for the class. Secondly, to deny the Holocaust is to deny verifiable historical facts. I would expect to be fired if I said taught something like that.
The larger issue is the ways it is next to impossible to get rid of incompetent, lazy, or bad teachers in our public school systems. A teacher who is not a good teacher keeps getting a paycheck even though they are not doing actions required of them by the state, district or school. What's worse is the teacher's union protects these people. This is akin when the Catholic Church did nothing but move around priests who were known child molesters (Its not exactly the same but the concept is the same.).
This is the largest argument I can see for the elimination of tenure at any school. A teacher should not be protected just because they have been there a certain number of years. They need to be held just as accountable, if not more accountable as a new teacher to that school. Teachers need to be observed continuously and evaluated by more than one person. Students and parents need to be involved in this work because they know the teachers, their methods, and behaviors better than anyone else. They should also be involved because they are the consumers of our service.
Since the topic at hand boils down to teacher evaluation, it would be a good idea for me to do a blog posting on the subject of teacher evaluations in "My Perfect School." I will start working on that to post in the near future.
Comments?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
News of the Day - 1/19/2010: Filibuster & Cloture Rules
There were a number of good articles I could comment on today but the following sound clip won out. Mostly because it deals with the specifics of how our government is run. Give a click on the link to hear from Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and his take on the filibuster rule of the U.S. Senate. I will deal with his arguments point by point.
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
First, there is no constitutional issue with the filibuster and cloture rules. The Constitution states in Article I, Section 4, Clause w: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." It has been in the rules of the U.S. Senate for over two hundred years that the Senate shall be entitled to unlimited debate. When Rep. Frank suggests the Senate change the rules, he is correct in that the Senate can change its rules as it sees fit. The filibuster is totally supported by the founding fathers though, to get rid of it would be going against the original intent. Here is a story that explains the reasons behind a Senate and unlimited debate:
Thirdly, he says that the filibuster is anti-democratic. The U.S. government though is not a true democracy, it is a republic; where the rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution. Any democratically majority can pass legislation very quickly, but that would lead the tyranny of the majority, whether it be Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative and/or independent. The filibuster is there to protect the minority. Also it provide a check and balance against the House of Representatives.
The larger issue at stake here is changing good rules just because you don't like them. This happened in Massachusetts when Sen. Ted Kennedy died. Several years ago Sen. Kennedy asked the legislature to change the rules so that Republican governor Mitt Romney would not be able to appoint a Republican candidate for a temporary senate seat for his state. And just last year he suggested another change, so that a Democratic governor could appoint a temporary senator for his state.
Also the changes they are currently making to the reconciliation process of laws passed by Congress. The health care bills need to go into a conference committee as determined by the rules of legislation in the U.S. Code of Law, but the majority party will have nothing to do with it since it would require having a number of minority party members as part of the conversation. It would also require another cloture vote in the Senate; both parties have been guilty of this practice. All of these rule changes are completely legal, but they are highly unethical and/or immoral.
Comments?
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
First, there is no constitutional issue with the filibuster and cloture rules. The Constitution states in Article I, Section 4, Clause w: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." It has been in the rules of the U.S. Senate for over two hundred years that the Senate shall be entitled to unlimited debate. When Rep. Frank suggests the Senate change the rules, he is correct in that the Senate can change its rules as it sees fit. The filibuster is totally supported by the founding fathers though, to get rid of it would be going against the original intent. Here is a story that explains the reasons behind a Senate and unlimited debate:
The “Senatorial saucer” conversation between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is part of U.S. Senate legend. Jefferson had returned from France and was breakfasting with Washington. Jefferson asked Washington why he agreed to have a Senate.Secondly, he makes the claim, and rightly so, that the smaller states usually are the states that usually help filibuster. Those who look at history and the Constitution will see that originally the Senators were not elected by the populace as a whole, but by the state legislatures. The reason behind this was the Senate was created to look out for the powers and rights of the individual states. Those smaller states fought for equal representation and got it in the Great Compromise.
“Why,” said Washington, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it?”
“To cool it,” said Jefferson; “my throat is not made of brass.”
“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”
(http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_senate_is_the_saucer_into_which_we_pour_legislation_to_cool/
Thirdly, he says that the filibuster is anti-democratic. The U.S. government though is not a true democracy, it is a republic; where the rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution. Any democratically majority can pass legislation very quickly, but that would lead the tyranny of the majority, whether it be Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative and/or independent. The filibuster is there to protect the minority. Also it provide a check and balance against the House of Representatives.
The larger issue at stake here is changing good rules just because you don't like them. This happened in Massachusetts when Sen. Ted Kennedy died. Several years ago Sen. Kennedy asked the legislature to change the rules so that Republican governor Mitt Romney would not be able to appoint a Republican candidate for a temporary senate seat for his state. And just last year he suggested another change, so that a Democratic governor could appoint a temporary senator for his state.
Also the changes they are currently making to the reconciliation process of laws passed by Congress. The health care bills need to go into a conference committee as determined by the rules of legislation in the U.S. Code of Law, but the majority party will have nothing to do with it since it would require having a number of minority party members as part of the conversation. It would also require another cloture vote in the Senate; both parties have been guilty of this practice. All of these rule changes are completely legal, but they are highly unethical and/or immoral.
Comments?
Monday, January 18, 2010
News of the Day - 1/18/2010: Bible Verses on Guns
Almost decided to not post today since I was spending the day with my wife, but I found something interesting to comment on. Here is the story of the day:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794
So the basic gist of this article is the gun sights made by this one company have abbreviated bible verses printed on them. I will deal with each of the issues of this story a point at a time.
The first point they make is the fact that the U.S. military cannot proselytize any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan. The key facts is that they are not trying to spread any faith. The sights have scriptures written on them but that's not proselytizing. Its as harmless as a person handing out Bible tracts in the street. People can ignore them if they want or look them up if they want.
The second major points is that the verses were always a part of the sights. If the military did not know about it than they are neither liable, nor do they have a legal right to cancel the contract. If they wanted sights without bible verses they should have researched the company a little bit more.
Third points is the legal or constitutional issues. Michael Weinstein says it violated federal law. If he feels so strongly about it he should state the statue found in the U.S. Code of Law. There is no real constitutional issue. Even though the separation of church and state is not a constitutional doctrine there is nothing here that violates the first amendment. The use of these sights does not establish a church or religion, nor does it limit the free exercise of one's religion (Which are the only two constitutional issues related when it comes to freedom of religion). The government did not know about the scripture before hand so this is not a true establishment of any religion. To void the contract would be a true violation of the free exercise clause since the manufacturer has the right to practice its religion on its manufacturing process. In the future the U.S. government should check its products more carefully. It is also a drastic and insane step to say these are "pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun."
Fourth point is the argument that the people we are fighting against think this is a Crusade against them since they have bible verses on the guns. Well the people we are fighting against do think their war is a Crusade against us and anyone who is not a follower of Islam. Secondly, this will not embolden the enemy, our way of life emboldens the enemy. The fact that we allow our women to drive and vote, emboldens the enemy. The fact that we have the freedom to speak what we want emboldens the enemy. Even if these gun sights did not have bible verses they would still hate us. Plus, these extremists are our enemies, who cares if we offend them.
Am I off base? Comments. Oh yeah... I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794
So the basic gist of this article is the gun sights made by this one company have abbreviated bible verses printed on them. I will deal with each of the issues of this story a point at a time.
The first point they make is the fact that the U.S. military cannot proselytize any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan. The key facts is that they are not trying to spread any faith. The sights have scriptures written on them but that's not proselytizing. Its as harmless as a person handing out Bible tracts in the street. People can ignore them if they want or look them up if they want.
The second major points is that the verses were always a part of the sights. If the military did not know about it than they are neither liable, nor do they have a legal right to cancel the contract. If they wanted sights without bible verses they should have researched the company a little bit more.
Third points is the legal or constitutional issues. Michael Weinstein says it violated federal law. If he feels so strongly about it he should state the statue found in the U.S. Code of Law. There is no real constitutional issue. Even though the separation of church and state is not a constitutional doctrine there is nothing here that violates the first amendment. The use of these sights does not establish a church or religion, nor does it limit the free exercise of one's religion (Which are the only two constitutional issues related when it comes to freedom of religion). The government did not know about the scripture before hand so this is not a true establishment of any religion. To void the contract would be a true violation of the free exercise clause since the manufacturer has the right to practice its religion on its manufacturing process. In the future the U.S. government should check its products more carefully. It is also a drastic and insane step to say these are "pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun."
Fourth point is the argument that the people we are fighting against think this is a Crusade against them since they have bible verses on the guns. Well the people we are fighting against do think their war is a Crusade against us and anyone who is not a follower of Islam. Secondly, this will not embolden the enemy, our way of life emboldens the enemy. The fact that we allow our women to drive and vote, emboldens the enemy. The fact that we have the freedom to speak what we want emboldens the enemy. Even if these gun sights did not have bible verses they would still hate us. Plus, these extremists are our enemies, who cares if we offend them.
Am I off base? Comments. Oh yeah... I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #2: The Structure of Congress
Article I, Section I - All legislative power herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
This simple sentence describes the very basic structure of the legislative branch of our government, but does not describe the massive amounts of debate and compromise needed to create our government, specifically the legislative branch.
Under the Articles of Confederation there was a unicameral (one house) legislature where the states had equal representation (one vote each). This section of the Constitution creates a bicameral (two house) legislature, named Congress; the two parts being named the House of Representatives and Senate. At the Constitutional convention both ideas were debated. Many wanted to keep the unicameral system with equal representation, known as the New Jersey Plan. The other plan, known as the Virginian Plan, sought to make a bicameral legislature with both houses membership being determined by the population of the state. After much debate (which more of it will be shared in up coming lessons), they compromised on a bicameral legislature. One house's membership would be based on the population of the state (House of Representatives) and the other would be based on upon the idea of equal representation of the states (Senate).
One principle you see in this section of Article I is that of the separation of powers (principle of dividing the powers of government between separate but equal branches). Each branch of the government has specifically defined powers laid out in the Constitution. The specific power given to Congress is legislative power; the power to make laws. One overlooked item in this section is the fact that ALL legislative power is vested in Congress. When a president writes executive orders, or a regulatory commission makes new rules without a law from Congress they are usurping the power given to Congress by the Constitution.
Associated with this is the principle of checks & balances (principle of each branch having a set of checks on the power of the other branches). Since the Congress is a two house legislature that means there is a series of checks and balances on each other so that the House and the Senate do not get more powerful than each other. We will examine these checks and balances over our entire study of the Constitution.
But for today that is all I will discuss. The next lesson will focus on the structure and setup of the U.S. House of Representatives. Any questions? Class dismissed.
This simple sentence describes the very basic structure of the legislative branch of our government, but does not describe the massive amounts of debate and compromise needed to create our government, specifically the legislative branch.
Under the Articles of Confederation there was a unicameral (one house) legislature where the states had equal representation (one vote each). This section of the Constitution creates a bicameral (two house) legislature, named Congress; the two parts being named the House of Representatives and Senate. At the Constitutional convention both ideas were debated. Many wanted to keep the unicameral system with equal representation, known as the New Jersey Plan. The other plan, known as the Virginian Plan, sought to make a bicameral legislature with both houses membership being determined by the population of the state. After much debate (which more of it will be shared in up coming lessons), they compromised on a bicameral legislature. One house's membership would be based on the population of the state (House of Representatives) and the other would be based on upon the idea of equal representation of the states (Senate).
One principle you see in this section of Article I is that of the separation of powers (principle of dividing the powers of government between separate but equal branches). Each branch of the government has specifically defined powers laid out in the Constitution. The specific power given to Congress is legislative power; the power to make laws. One overlooked item in this section is the fact that ALL legislative power is vested in Congress. When a president writes executive orders, or a regulatory commission makes new rules without a law from Congress they are usurping the power given to Congress by the Constitution.
Associated with this is the principle of checks & balances (principle of each branch having a set of checks on the power of the other branches). Since the Congress is a two house legislature that means there is a series of checks and balances on each other so that the House and the Senate do not get more powerful than each other. We will examine these checks and balances over our entire study of the Constitution.
But for today that is all I will discuss. The next lesson will focus on the structure and setup of the U.S. House of Representatives. Any questions? Class dismissed.
Friday, January 15, 2010
My Perfect School - Grading Policy #1
If anyone knows me, they know a huge stress and angst I have felt this year in my teaching job this year has been due to over regulation of the teachers by the administration. Specifically its over regulation of grading practices and policies. That is what I intend to focus on today for my perfect school.
Last year I implemented a grade weighting system intended to show more clearly a correlation between grades and learning. I call it the 90-10 weighting. The summative assessments are weighted heavier than the formative assessments, specifically in my class ninety percent of a grade is determined by their summative assessments and ten percent of a grades is determined by the formative assessments.
Formative? Summative? What do you mean Adam? For those of you who are not educators I will explain these terms. Formative assessments are those assignments that form the knowledge or skills students need to learn. This would be like the notes, in class assignments, and homework given by the teacher. It is there so that the student can practice and accurately form the knowledge correctly. Summative assessments are those things that summarize what the students learn, like tests, quizzes, essays, projects, etc. Everyone clear on the vocabulary? (Seven second pause for questions) Good moving on.
The reason behind this grading weighting is to put the emphasis back on learning not on the process or how hard the student works. I explain it to my students like this. What things that the teacher gives you to do in class really tell you, as a student, if learned the material. Does the homework tell you learned the material? Do the notes show you learned the material? Most kids instinctively point to their tests as that things that tells them if they learned the material. So if we are grading based on what they learn tests, quizzes, projects and other summative assessments need to be the largest grade weight in the class. The grade then reflects what they have learned.
In my school we would have a system similar to this. It would be the policy of the school that teachers would have to implement a form of this system. Summative assessments would be the largest weighted grade. It would then be up to the departments and/or individual teachers to determine what they proper division between summative and formative would be.
One criticism that I have heard on this system is the fact that a student could take the quizzes never do any of the assignments and still pass the class. That is very true. I know a student who did just that. He was a smart kid. He came up to me about three weeks into the year and asked me, "If I just pass the quizzes and don't do any of the homework can I still pass your class?" I said, "Yes, because you are proving to me that you learned the material."
Other criticisms I hear is about kids who are poor tests takers or don't get it the first time. A teacher will need to make allowances for factors like that. A policy they implemented this year at my school is the ability to retake an assessment they did not do well on. That would also be the policy of the school. The teacher can set reasonable guidelines for a student to retake or assign an alternative assessment. To some that means you have to correct your quiz first. For me it involves doing all the assignments you may have not completed before that assessment was given. Either way the poor test taker and the student who maybe a little bit slower still has a chance to show the teacher that they learned the material.
I plan on addressing grading policy a little bit more in detail but this is good place to start. Comments or questions? (Side note: Blogspot does not seem to recognize summative as a real word.)
Last year I implemented a grade weighting system intended to show more clearly a correlation between grades and learning. I call it the 90-10 weighting. The summative assessments are weighted heavier than the formative assessments, specifically in my class ninety percent of a grade is determined by their summative assessments and ten percent of a grades is determined by the formative assessments.
Formative? Summative? What do you mean Adam? For those of you who are not educators I will explain these terms. Formative assessments are those assignments that form the knowledge or skills students need to learn. This would be like the notes, in class assignments, and homework given by the teacher. It is there so that the student can practice and accurately form the knowledge correctly. Summative assessments are those things that summarize what the students learn, like tests, quizzes, essays, projects, etc. Everyone clear on the vocabulary? (Seven second pause for questions) Good moving on.
The reason behind this grading weighting is to put the emphasis back on learning not on the process or how hard the student works. I explain it to my students like this. What things that the teacher gives you to do in class really tell you, as a student, if learned the material. Does the homework tell you learned the material? Do the notes show you learned the material? Most kids instinctively point to their tests as that things that tells them if they learned the material. So if we are grading based on what they learn tests, quizzes, projects and other summative assessments need to be the largest grade weight in the class. The grade then reflects what they have learned.
In my school we would have a system similar to this. It would be the policy of the school that teachers would have to implement a form of this system. Summative assessments would be the largest weighted grade. It would then be up to the departments and/or individual teachers to determine what they proper division between summative and formative would be.
One criticism that I have heard on this system is the fact that a student could take the quizzes never do any of the assignments and still pass the class. That is very true. I know a student who did just that. He was a smart kid. He came up to me about three weeks into the year and asked me, "If I just pass the quizzes and don't do any of the homework can I still pass your class?" I said, "Yes, because you are proving to me that you learned the material."
Other criticisms I hear is about kids who are poor tests takers or don't get it the first time. A teacher will need to make allowances for factors like that. A policy they implemented this year at my school is the ability to retake an assessment they did not do well on. That would also be the policy of the school. The teacher can set reasonable guidelines for a student to retake or assign an alternative assessment. To some that means you have to correct your quiz first. For me it involves doing all the assignments you may have not completed before that assessment was given. Either way the poor test taker and the student who maybe a little bit slower still has a chance to show the teacher that they learned the material.
I plan on addressing grading policy a little bit more in detail but this is good place to start. Comments or questions? (Side note: Blogspot does not seem to recognize summative as a real word.)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
News of the Day - 1/14/2010: Transparency
So one news article, or maybe its a column I don't know, caught my attention today. Here is the link:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/joe-biden-update.html
So basically this story goes into all the claims made by the Obama Administration that their president would be one of the most transparent administration. Well that's not so true. The author goes in great detail to show how even a meeting with the chief of transparency for the recovery programs is a closed meeting; no press allowed. As well as many other meetings that are closed to the press.
The bigger issues is that President Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth in a lot of cases. He was against and attacked Sen. McCain's tax on health insurance. There is now a tax on our health insurance in the proposed legislation. He said there would be no lobbists working in the White House. Only took eight days for them to break that and then recind the executive order. He wants to allow gays in the military (which I support by the way), but no that is also delayed. He fought against President Bush keeping guest logs to the White House as private but then defends the same practice when he is in office. He even broke a law that he cosponsored as the junior senator from Illinois, which technically could be an impeachable offense. You want more proof of his broken promises, go to this story by the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100114/D9D7MDGG0.html
Comments?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/joe-biden-update.html
So basically this story goes into all the claims made by the Obama Administration that their president would be one of the most transparent administration. Well that's not so true. The author goes in great detail to show how even a meeting with the chief of transparency for the recovery programs is a closed meeting; no press allowed. As well as many other meetings that are closed to the press.
The bigger issues is that President Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth in a lot of cases. He was against and attacked Sen. McCain's tax on health insurance. There is now a tax on our health insurance in the proposed legislation. He said there would be no lobbists working in the White House. Only took eight days for them to break that and then recind the executive order. He wants to allow gays in the military (which I support by the way), but no that is also delayed. He fought against President Bush keeping guest logs to the White House as private but then defends the same practice when he is in office. He even broke a law that he cosponsored as the junior senator from Illinois, which technically could be an impeachable offense. You want more proof of his broken promises, go to this story by the AP:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100114/D9D7MDGG0.html
Comments?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
My Perfect School - Extended School Year and Day
There are not real good stories in the news to which I want to comment (Most of the news is focused on Haiti right now. My prayers go out to all the men and women trying to dig their way out of the rubble). Also, I am currently trying to find an article to confirm some information presented yesterday in during "The Savage Nation." As soon as I can find the links I will more than likely post it as a News of the Day.
This is one area in which I actually agree with our President. I believe the school year and/or day in the United States needs to be extended to make us more competitive in the world. Where I differ with the president is that it should not be federally mandated. Education has always been a state and/or local issue. Therefore its up to the states and local communities to make those changes. But enough with politics, here is my reasoning behind the extended school day and year.
The main reason the school year and/or day needs to be extended is because we are working within a system that was used over 100 years ago when the society was very different. The nine month school calender was implemented because families need their children to help with the planting and harvesting of the fields. Now in the last 100-150 years our society has moved from primarily rural to urban and suburban. The traditional nine month school calender no longer is valid for about eighty percent of the nation.
The longer school day is also need so that students have a rich and complete education. Nowadays so many different things take up our student's lives when they should be focusing on school and their education. From basketball practice, to dance recitals and work. All of these things are great and beneficial but how much education has been lost to extracurricular activities, both inside and outside of school. That though is a topic for another time.
The school year would be comprised of three fifteen week trimesters. There would fourteen weeks of content and a week of exams. Between each trimester there would be at least a week break. Generally I would love to see if we could make it so the school "year" runs January through December but that might be stretching it at this point. In the traditional school year format, the first trimester would run roughly from the last week in August to the week before Christmas in December. I have planned for a possible week off during Thanksgiving, as well. The second trimester would run from the beginning of January through the beginning of April. The last trimester would run from the middle of April to the beginning or middle of July. Students would then get 5-6 weeks off as "summer break." By the way this plan is primarily for high schools since that is the level in which I teach. I fully support year round school for elementary schools with a track system properly implemented.
I would have school start between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning. Each class should run between forty-five and fifty-five minutes. Students would have to take between seven and eight classes a day. This means they would let out between 3:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon. I would not use block scheduling. I know the benefits of the block but find the faults of the system out weight the benefits. In a traditional period schedule student actually have more seat time with each teacher. They get more practice in essential skills in math classes. There it is easier for a teacher to see patterns of behavior, both academically and behaviorally, in the students.
Comments or questions? Feel free to post them. Lets start a discussion.
This is one area in which I actually agree with our President. I believe the school year and/or day in the United States needs to be extended to make us more competitive in the world. Where I differ with the president is that it should not be federally mandated. Education has always been a state and/or local issue. Therefore its up to the states and local communities to make those changes. But enough with politics, here is my reasoning behind the extended school day and year.
The main reason the school year and/or day needs to be extended is because we are working within a system that was used over 100 years ago when the society was very different. The nine month school calender was implemented because families need their children to help with the planting and harvesting of the fields. Now in the last 100-150 years our society has moved from primarily rural to urban and suburban. The traditional nine month school calender no longer is valid for about eighty percent of the nation.
The longer school day is also need so that students have a rich and complete education. Nowadays so many different things take up our student's lives when they should be focusing on school and their education. From basketball practice, to dance recitals and work. All of these things are great and beneficial but how much education has been lost to extracurricular activities, both inside and outside of school. That though is a topic for another time.
The school year would be comprised of three fifteen week trimesters. There would fourteen weeks of content and a week of exams. Between each trimester there would be at least a week break. Generally I would love to see if we could make it so the school "year" runs January through December but that might be stretching it at this point. In the traditional school year format, the first trimester would run roughly from the last week in August to the week before Christmas in December. I have planned for a possible week off during Thanksgiving, as well. The second trimester would run from the beginning of January through the beginning of April. The last trimester would run from the middle of April to the beginning or middle of July. Students would then get 5-6 weeks off as "summer break." By the way this plan is primarily for high schools since that is the level in which I teach. I fully support year round school for elementary schools with a track system properly implemented.
I would have school start between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning. Each class should run between forty-five and fifty-five minutes. Students would have to take between seven and eight classes a day. This means they would let out between 3:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon. I would not use block scheduling. I know the benefits of the block but find the faults of the system out weight the benefits. In a traditional period schedule student actually have more seat time with each teacher. They get more practice in essential skills in math classes. There it is easier for a teacher to see patterns of behavior, both academically and behaviorally, in the students.
Comments or questions? Feel free to post them. Lets start a discussion.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
My Perfect School - No Central Adminstration
Another feature I plan on contributing to my blog is my plans for the school I will build one of these days. Here I will try to explain some of the features that will be part of that school.
The first one is getting rid of as much of the bureaucratic central administrative structure. I see too many good teacher become deans, principals, and supervisors. It is my opinion administrators do almost nothing to influence the lives and education of the child. It is the teacher's in the classroom that make the different nine times out of ten. Here is my plan.
There will be managers of different specific areas but the teachers will run the major administrative functions of the school by working in various committees. The managers and the committees will work together saving money and time. The managers would be preferably teachers with experience but some are not required. Here is one example.
There will be an Evaluation Manager. It is their job to observe and evaluate every teacher in the school multiple times a year. These evaluations along with other evaluations from department chairs, colleagues, parents, and students will form a better picture of a teacher's strengths and weaknesses. The Evaluation Manager will then present to a rotating committee of faculty who should and should not be rehired during for the next school year. Also if there is a special circumstance the committee can be called to release a teacher prior to the end of the year. The teacher evaluation committee will not know exactly what teacher it is since the evaluation information will all be anonymous, with each teacher getting an ID to represent them at these meetings.
There will be an Discipline and Attendance Manager that keeps track of said records. If a student is sent to the discipline office. They fill out the paper work, set up appointments for conferences on behavior problems, dishes out disciplinary consequences, if needed, as well as other things that will fall into their domain. If there is a student that needs to be suspended or expelled then the discipline committee will be called to discuss the issues and give the student their due process.
The hiring of teachers will be handled primarily by a committee of teachers, specifically the Department Chairs, to search for and interview possible candidates. Budgetary items will be the concern of a Finances Manager and his staff.
Those teachers who serve as committee members will be compensated in some way out of the school's budget. They would either receive a stipend or an hourly rate for their work. Managers would be a salaried position at the school.
So what does everyone thing of my idea? Will it work? Give me your critiques.
The first one is getting rid of as much of the bureaucratic central administrative structure. I see too many good teacher become deans, principals, and supervisors. It is my opinion administrators do almost nothing to influence the lives and education of the child. It is the teacher's in the classroom that make the different nine times out of ten. Here is my plan.
There will be managers of different specific areas but the teachers will run the major administrative functions of the school by working in various committees. The managers and the committees will work together saving money and time. The managers would be preferably teachers with experience but some are not required. Here is one example.
There will be an Evaluation Manager. It is their job to observe and evaluate every teacher in the school multiple times a year. These evaluations along with other evaluations from department chairs, colleagues, parents, and students will form a better picture of a teacher's strengths and weaknesses. The Evaluation Manager will then present to a rotating committee of faculty who should and should not be rehired during for the next school year. Also if there is a special circumstance the committee can be called to release a teacher prior to the end of the year. The teacher evaluation committee will not know exactly what teacher it is since the evaluation information will all be anonymous, with each teacher getting an ID to represent them at these meetings.
There will be an Discipline and Attendance Manager that keeps track of said records. If a student is sent to the discipline office. They fill out the paper work, set up appointments for conferences on behavior problems, dishes out disciplinary consequences, if needed, as well as other things that will fall into their domain. If there is a student that needs to be suspended or expelled then the discipline committee will be called to discuss the issues and give the student their due process.
The hiring of teachers will be handled primarily by a committee of teachers, specifically the Department Chairs, to search for and interview possible candidates. Budgetary items will be the concern of a Finances Manager and his staff.
Those teachers who serve as committee members will be compensated in some way out of the school's budget. They would either receive a stipend or an hourly rate for their work. Managers would be a salaried position at the school.
So what does everyone thing of my idea? Will it work? Give me your critiques.
Monday, January 11, 2010
News of the Day #1 - 1/11/2010: Harry Reid
Today I would like to comment on the story that broke this past weekend. The story below is from the local newspaper the Review-Journal.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-sorry-about-race-comments-81088102.html
I have several issues related to this news that I relate to you in no particular order
First, did Harry Reid lie? I would argue his statement, while entirely improper and filled with derogatory language is the truth. President Obama, senator at the time of the quote, is a light skinned black man since he was parented by an Kenyan and a white U.S. citizen. Also President Obama speaks very good English and does not use Ebonics or a black dialect of the English language to reach people. He is a example all of us should live up to and exemplify. So if Sen. Reid did not lie, then I have no real issue with what he said.
Secondly, while Sen. Reid did use a term that could be labeled racist its none of our business. The person who he was making the comment about accepted his apology. While I may not agree with the language he does have the freedom of speech and made amends for his actions. Also this was like 2 years ago, so it has little validity today. I don't think Sen. Reid is racist.
The bigger issue in this whole news story is the hypocracy of the Democrats. If this had been a conservative or a member of the Republican Party (which is not always the same thing), the democrats would have been calling for guilty party's head. He would have lost all power and position in Washington, D.C. The fact that both Sen. Reid and former President Clinton are both quoted with offensive material in the new book "Game Change." Yet there is no outrage from the democrats shows them to be hypocrites in the worst way.
Lastly, Republicans and conservatives need to get off this issue, right now. To push it is only going to waste time and energy that could be better spent attacking the many wrong things Sen. Reid is doing as a Senator and majority. They should before the press daily about the nontransparent way this bill is being compromised on with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. They should talk about how no senator has even seen or read the Senate health care bill that has been sitting on the majority leaders desk since it was written. They should be talking about how the procedures of the U.S. House and Senate are being subverted to pass a bill, polls say a majority of Americans do not want. To double on the hypocrisy from my previous point; the actions of Reid, Pelosi and Obama are exactly the same methods they complained about several years ago against the Republicans. They should lead by example.
Anyway, just this government teacher's take on the news of the day.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/r
I have several issues related to this news that I relate to you in no particular order
First, did Harry Reid lie? I would argue his statement, while entirely improper and filled with derogatory language is the truth. President Obama, senator at the time of the quote, is a light skinned black man since he was parented by an Kenyan and a white U.S. citizen. Also President Obama speaks very good English and does not use Ebonics or a black dialect of the English language to reach people. He is a example all of us should live up to and exemplify. So if Sen. Reid did not lie, then I have no real issue with what he said.
Secondly, while Sen. Reid did use a term that could be labeled racist its none of our business. The person who he was making the comment about accepted his apology. While I may not agree with the language he does have the freedom of speech and made amends for his actions. Also this was like 2 years ago, so it has little validity today. I don't think Sen. Reid is racist.
The bigger issue in this whole news story is the hypocracy of the Democrats. If this had been a conservative or a member of the Republican Party (which is not always the same thing), the democrats would have been calling for guilty party's head. He would have lost all power and position in Washington, D.C. The fact that both Sen. Reid and former President Clinton are both quoted with offensive material in the new book "Game Change." Yet there is no outrage from the democrats shows them to be hypocrites in the worst way.
Lastly, Republicans and conservatives need to get off this issue, right now. To push it is only going to waste time and energy that could be better spent attacking the many wrong things Sen. Reid is doing as a Senator and majority. They should before the press daily about the nontransparent way this bill is being compromised on with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. They should talk about how no senator has even seen or read the Senate health care bill that has been sitting on the majority leaders desk since it was written. They should be talking about how the procedures of the U.S. House and Senate are being subverted to pass a bill, polls say a majority of Americans do not want. To double on the hypocrisy from my previous point; the actions of Reid, Pelosi and Obama are exactly the same methods they complained about several years ago against the Republicans. They should lead by example.
Anyway, just this government teacher's take on the news of the day.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #1: The Preamble
I decided if I really want to get a following for my blog I best update on a fairly regular basis. I am going to make it a point to update this blog at least once a week over the next few weeks. There will be a theme to these postings. I am going to take my blog title seriously. I am going to take this blog and teach about government. The first lessons, which will take longer than most think is on the U.S. Constitution. And it starts now!
So begins the Constitution of the United States of America. Allow me to break it down for you in to smaller bite size bits
We the People of the United States: While this constitution was written by the delegates from the thirteen states it was ratified intentionally by the people through constitutional conventions in each of the states. The immediate reason was because the founders knew the states legislatures would not give up the power they had under the Articles of Confederation. This wording, though, is a direct link to the words of Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence:
In order to form a more perfect union: Under the Articles of Confederation the 13 states were more like 13 individual countries in a military and economic alliance, similar to the European Union today. It was intentionally written to give all the power to the states. The problem came when the states needed each others help or worked against each other. Many state almost went to war over land, territory, or whatever. This document was made to make sure we were not just in an alliance but unionized into a strong country. The federal government was there to oversee the problems between the states.
Establish justice: Justice is the principle of treating everyone equally. The problem is even though "all men are created equal" we know not everyone is the same or equal. Some people have more skill or talents that they have developed over time. Some were born with more means or benefits that befit them. Equality can really only be achieved in three ways:
Provide for the common defense: This we see is the most primary job of any government: to protect its citizens. This is why we have the military and it has been standing since World War II. While people may not like the idea of "peace through strength" touted by former President Ronald Regan he is supported by our first president George Washington who said: "If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War. "
Promote the General Welfare: This phrase is only used twice in the Constitution but it is the most ill interpreted phrase. It has been used to defend the expansion of government into almost all areas of life, but few understand its meaning or its intent. Let us examine the words of the Father of our Constitution, the man most responsible for its language and intent: James Madison.
Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This constitution and the freedoms it provided were not just written for the founders and the citizens of that time, but for "millions yet unborn." There are no real rights listed in the original constitution, but the intent was that the powers listed in the Constitution were the limits of the government. The other powers, rights, responsibilities and liberties belonged to the people or to the states.
Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This the natural extension of the first phrase in the preamble though, minus the goals of the Constitution.
I hope you all learned something new this week about our government and more importantly our Constitution. I urge you all to go read and study the our U.S. Constitution. If you do not know it and understand it anyone can come in and reinterpret it or reinvent it to mean anything they want.
Until next time... class dismissed!
Blog Sources:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.-- Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
So begins the Constitution of the United States of America. Allow me to break it down for you in to smaller bite size bits
We the People of the United States: While this constitution was written by the delegates from the thirteen states it was ratified intentionally by the people through constitutional conventions in each of the states. The immediate reason was because the founders knew the states legislatures would not give up the power they had under the Articles of Confederation. This wording, though, is a direct link to the words of Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.The people would approve the the government because that is their right, not the states or the founder's. It was the people who ultimately decided if this government would be ratified. It is the right of the people to alter the government as they see fit if it becomes destructive to the ends of protecting our God give rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and property. (Property was the original thought, intent and meaning behind the phrase but was changed. Slaves were considered property by this time so the phrase "pursuit of property" would defend slavery).
In order to form a more perfect union: Under the Articles of Confederation the 13 states were more like 13 individual countries in a military and economic alliance, similar to the European Union today. It was intentionally written to give all the power to the states. The problem came when the states needed each others help or worked against each other. Many state almost went to war over land, territory, or whatever. This document was made to make sure we were not just in an alliance but unionized into a strong country. The federal government was there to oversee the problems between the states.
Establish justice: Justice is the principle of treating everyone equally. The problem is even though "all men are created equal" we know not everyone is the same or equal. Some people have more skill or talents that they have developed over time. Some were born with more means or benefits that befit them. Equality can really only be achieved in three ways:
- Equal before almighty God. The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak are all seen the same before God and are answerable to him for their actions in this life. He treats all people the same and judges with the same standard.
- Equal before the law. Every case is tried the same no matter who is on trial. Murder is the same for the millionaire and the pauper. The law does not recognize any different classes of people to be singled out or treated differently under the law.
- Equal rights. The book "The 5000 Year Leap" explains this idea of equal rights in conjunction better than I can.
The job of a society is to provide 'equal justice,' which means protecting the rights of the people equally: at the bar of justice to secure their rights; at the ballot box, to vote for the candidate of their choice; at the public school, to obtain education; at the employment office, to compete for a job; at the real estate agency, to purchase or rent a home; at the pulpit; to enjoy freedom of religion; at the podium, to enjoy freedom of speech; at the microphone or TV camera, to present views on the issues of today; at the meeting hall, to peaceably assemble; at the print shop, to enjoy the freedom of the press; at the store; to buy the essentials or desirable things of life; at the bank, to save or prosper; at the tax collector's office, to pay no more than their fair share; at the probate court, to pass on to their heirs the fruits of life's labors (Skousen 105).Insure domestic tranquility: This idea goes back to the first goal of forming a more perfect union. The U.S. did not have very much peace within its borders under the Articles of Confederation. The government provided under the constitution would see that every state was equal to each other, that they received the protection of all the other states and that they would have peace between each other.
Provide for the common defense: This we see is the most primary job of any government: to protect its citizens. This is why we have the military and it has been standing since World War II. While people may not like the idea of "peace through strength" touted by former President Ronald Regan he is supported by our first president George Washington who said: "If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War. "
Promote the General Welfare: This phrase is only used twice in the Constitution but it is the most ill interpreted phrase. It has been used to defend the expansion of government into almost all areas of life, but few understand its meaning or its intent. Let us examine the words of the Father of our Constitution, the man most responsible for its language and intent: James Madison.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.... (letter to Edmund Pendleton, 1792)Jefferson backs up Madison when he says:
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.So we see the "general welfare" does not mean government can do anything it wants since most laws do provide for the general welfare of the citizens. They can only do things that promote the general welfare within the powers laid out by this constitution.
Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This constitution and the freedoms it provided were not just written for the founders and the citizens of that time, but for "millions yet unborn." There are no real rights listed in the original constitution, but the intent was that the powers listed in the Constitution were the limits of the government. The other powers, rights, responsibilities and liberties belonged to the people or to the states.
Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This the natural extension of the first phrase in the preamble though, minus the goals of the Constitution.
I hope you all learned something new this week about our government and more importantly our Constitution. I urge you all to go read and study the our U.S. Constitution. If you do not know it and understand it anyone can come in and reinterpret it or reinvent it to mean anything they want.
Until next time... class dismissed!
Blog Sources:
- Monk, Linda R. "The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution." Stone Strong Press; New York City, 2003
- Skousen, W. Cleon. "The 5000 Year Leap." National Center for Constitutional Studies; 1991,
- http://www.brainyquote.com - George Washington quote
- http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/govt.html - James Madison & Thomas Jefferson quote
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Regulation, Part #1
Currently, school is getting me down over the last 8 weeks or so. During this period I have ranted and complained about this, that and the other about how my school is running things right now. I finally was able to pinpoint what they major issue is: Regulation.
While I may not agree with everything the Democrats believe in terms of policy and governmental practice they are right in that certain situations and things need to be regulated by the federal government. During the 1980s there was a HUGE amount of deregulation by the federal government over a lot of different areas. The basic idea was to allow industries to regulate themselves. In the grand scheme of things this is a good idea. Banks were allowed to regulate to whom they would lend money but creating their own regulation. This worked until the creation of the now flawed Sub-Prime mortgage market. I am off on a huge tangent though. Back to my problem of regulation at school.
It seems every day I am in school some new kind of set in concrete standard or regulation is set that I have to follow, no questions asked, with very little, if any flexibility. On Friday and email came down the pipe saying the school is now giving out student planners. Said planners will now be used in all cases for hall passes. Now I am not against hall passes or student planners but when the administration tells me exactly with what procedures I must do all this it is getting out of hand. There should be a general regulation stating: "Teachers must provide students with some form of written pass to leave the classroom. Students out of class without a pass will be disciplined. Teacher who fail to give a student a pass when excusing students will be disciplined." Simple and a common sense regulation. It allows teachers to be creative and flexible with the way they enact that policy/regulation to match their teaching style and methods.
Here are some of the regulations that were given to me since the time I have started at my current teaching location.
Get the HELL out of my way and let me do my JOB. One hundred years ago teachers did not need to be told what to teach, how to assess their students, and fix discipline problems. They knew what to do and were trusted by the community to do their job. Good students moved on, and bad ones failed until they either dropped out or figured it out on their own. I am sick and tired of being regulated and being told how to be a good teacher by a person who has not spent ANY time in a real classroom in years. Go back to your office and work on getting GOOD teachers in the school instead of propping up the bad.
This message of less regulation might be expanded into a larger context in the next few days. Stay tuned.
While I may not agree with everything the Democrats believe in terms of policy and governmental practice they are right in that certain situations and things need to be regulated by the federal government. During the 1980s there was a HUGE amount of deregulation by the federal government over a lot of different areas. The basic idea was to allow industries to regulate themselves. In the grand scheme of things this is a good idea. Banks were allowed to regulate to whom they would lend money but creating their own regulation. This worked until the creation of the now flawed Sub-Prime mortgage market. I am off on a huge tangent though. Back to my problem of regulation at school.
It seems every day I am in school some new kind of set in concrete standard or regulation is set that I have to follow, no questions asked, with very little, if any flexibility. On Friday and email came down the pipe saying the school is now giving out student planners. Said planners will now be used in all cases for hall passes. Now I am not against hall passes or student planners but when the administration tells me exactly with what procedures I must do all this it is getting out of hand. There should be a general regulation stating: "Teachers must provide students with some form of written pass to leave the classroom. Students out of class without a pass will be disciplined. Teacher who fail to give a student a pass when excusing students will be disciplined." Simple and a common sense regulation. It allows teachers to be creative and flexible with the way they enact that policy/regulation to match their teaching style and methods.
Here are some of the regulations that were given to me since the time I have started at my current teaching location.
- Grading practices. I agree a school needs specific regulations for grading but the school went so far as to tell all teachers exactly what system to use for grading instead of setting up a standard and allowing flexibility within that standard.
- Common assessments & final exams. I have learned to hate this because it is teaching to a test, which is not necessarily bad, but just uncreative, inflexible, and is not good for the student who wants and needs to be assessed a different way.
- Hall passes. Don't let students out during these parts of the period. Use only this for passes in the school.
- Bar coding textbooks. I can check out books fine with a pencil and a piece of paper.
- No checking out textbooks. How am I supposed to assign homework then?
Get the HELL out of my way and let me do my JOB. One hundred years ago teachers did not need to be told what to teach, how to assess their students, and fix discipline problems. They knew what to do and were trusted by the community to do their job. Good students moved on, and bad ones failed until they either dropped out or figured it out on their own. I am sick and tired of being regulated and being told how to be a good teacher by a person who has not spent ANY time in a real classroom in years. Go back to your office and work on getting GOOD teachers in the school instead of propping up the bad.
This message of less regulation might be expanded into a larger context in the next few days. Stay tuned.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Conservative v. Liberal
Ok so what is the difference between a conservative and a liberal in modern American politics. That is probably one of the more common questions asked of me in my U.S. Government classes during the year. I have found three good ways of comparing the two sides of the same political coin. One big thing I would like to point out is that BOTH conservatives and liberals are truely American. Both sides are needed to find a balance that works to serve the citizens of the nation, within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.
The first taken from a set of notes I got at an AP conference I got this summer. The list is set up so that the corresponding number line up as opposites of a political spectrum.
Liberals
The last way I will describe the differences between a conservative and a liberal is in a few short sayings that describe them both in similar situations. I do not take all of these seriously. I post them in an effort to show some of the satire about the positions conservatives AND liberals take on issues. Yes I know its very slanted to the conservatives, but I am one.
"The simple fact of the matter is that the major difference is that conservatives wonder first what it is they are responsible for while liberals wonder first what everyone else should be doing for them. Here are some brief rules of thumb"
The first taken from a set of notes I got at an AP conference I got this summer. The list is set up so that the corresponding number line up as opposites of a political spectrum.
Liberals
- Internationalist (thinks globally)
- Individual Moral (moral relativism)
- Change is good
- Domestic Emphasis
- Brotherhood of Man (community)
- Expansive Government
- Fair Market principles
- "Just" capitalism (i.e. regulation on the market)
- Trusts Government
- Nationalistic (patriotic, the country comes first)
- Moralistic (set standards of moral behavior)
- Traditionalist (Why change something if its not broken? Or just fix the part that's broken)
- Militaristic (provide for the common defense)
- Individual Responsibility
- Limited Government
- Free Market
- Capitalism
- Distrusts Government
The last way I will describe the differences between a conservative and a liberal is in a few short sayings that describe them both in similar situations. I do not take all of these seriously. I post them in an effort to show some of the satire about the positions conservatives AND liberals take on issues. Yes I know its very slanted to the conservatives, but I am one.
"The simple fact of the matter is that the major difference is that conservatives wonder first what it is they are responsible for while liberals wonder first what everyone else should be doing for them. Here are some brief rules of thumb"
- If a conservative sees a U.S. flag, his heart swells with pride.
- If a liberal sees a U.S. flag, he sees only our mistakes.
- If a conservative doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy them.
- If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one else should have one either.
- If a conservative is a vegetarian, he won’t eat meat.
- If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.
- If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat it.
- A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
- If a conservative is homosexual, he’ll quietly enjoy his life.
- If a liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.
- If a successful conservative is black or Hispanic, he’ll see himself as having succeeded on his own merits.
- Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
- If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to work to better his situation.
- A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
- If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
- If a liberal doesn’t like a radio show, he demands that the station be shut down or censored.
- If a conservative is a non-believer, he just doesn’t go to church.
- A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God or religion silenced.
- If a conservative needs health care, he shops for it, or chooses a job that provides it.
- A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
- If a conservative sees a law, he thinks long and hard before suggesting a change.
- If a liberal sees a law he assumes it is just a suggestion and does what he wants anyway.
- Conservatives feel there is a right and wrong.
- Liberals feel that nothing is really wrong… unless it is believed by a conservative.
- Conservatives believe in freedom, responsibility, tradition, and self-reliance.
- Liberals believe in license, government restrictions, upending tradition, and collectives.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!
Please watch the attached video the rest of the blog might not make sense without it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcuDMoSOOrs
Use this image from the Lord of the Rings as a starting point for this blog, its not a perfect illustration but stay with me a little while longer. As citizens of the United States, we are all Gandalf standing the the Bridge of Durin in the mines of Moria. As Gandalf it is our job to protect other citizens from the Balrog of an oppressive, tyrannical, partisan or apathetic government. My weapons are the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Like Gandalf, I will give my life willingly to protect my fellow citizens from any government that would seek to destroy them.
I am a watchdog for the U.S. Constitution, as shown by my profile picture. I am not longer having the argument about what laws, appointments, agencies or practices are good, bad, or ugly for our country. The argument will always be focused ONLY on the fundamental and supreme law the greatest nation on God's green earth, the longest lasting written Constitution in the history of modern man: The Constitution of the United States of America. This is my question to any and all politicians who want my vote: "Under what authority in the U.S. Constitution can you pass this law, appoint this office or create this agency? I would like the Article, Section & clause please."
To paraphrase Gandalf, this is my battle cry to the government staring me down on the bridge: "You cannot pass! I am a servant of the American republic, wielder of rights given to me by Nature and Nature's God. The choice of the majority will not avail you, political partisans. Go back to your constituency. YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcuDMoSOOrs
Use this image from the Lord of the Rings as a starting point for this blog, its not a perfect illustration but stay with me a little while longer. As citizens of the United States, we are all Gandalf standing the the Bridge of Durin in the mines of Moria. As Gandalf it is our job to protect other citizens from the Balrog of an oppressive, tyrannical, partisan or apathetic government. My weapons are the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Like Gandalf, I will give my life willingly to protect my fellow citizens from any government that would seek to destroy them.
I am a watchdog for the U.S. Constitution, as shown by my profile picture. I am not longer having the argument about what laws, appointments, agencies or practices are good, bad, or ugly for our country. The argument will always be focused ONLY on the fundamental and supreme law the greatest nation on God's green earth, the longest lasting written Constitution in the history of modern man: The Constitution of the United States of America. This is my question to any and all politicians who want my vote: "Under what authority in the U.S. Constitution can you pass this law, appoint this office or create this agency? I would like the Article, Section & clause please."
To paraphrase Gandalf, this is my battle cry to the government staring me down on the bridge: "You cannot pass! I am a servant of the American republic, wielder of rights given to me by Nature and Nature's God. The choice of the majority will not avail you, political partisans. Go back to your constituency. YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!"
Thursday, September 3, 2009
National Debate, Local Solutions
I love the fact that there is so much heated debate over health care and other issues during the last month. As government teacher it gives me lots of discussion fodder for my classes. The current debate is the oldest and longest debate in American Government and Politics. The eternal debate of American politics revolves always around this question: How much power should the federal government possess? This debate goes back the Federalist and Anti-Federalists. It even goes back to the Declaration of Independence.
The United State government is granted only specific powers as defined in the U.S. Constitution. Health Care is not a national issue for national legislation and enforcement. Education is not a national issue for national legislation and enforcement. You want to see what powers the Congress has, look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Those are its powers. Any other power belongs to the state as defined by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The President and Congress should take these national issues and have a good debate on them among the American people. Bring together people from both and all sides of a particular issue. They sit down and talk about solutions and options. The government then presents these options to the states to choose for themselves. Provide a national debate on issues but look to locals to enact solutions that will work for them. Here is an example.
I totally agree with President Obama on some issues regarding education. He mentioned shortly after his election that our schools need to go longer in days or hours. Also he mentioned he supported merit pay for teachers (Read my past blog on that to see how I stand on that issue). Great, but there should be no national mandate of this issue. It is a state and local issue as it is not granted specifically in the U.S. Constitution. The President should sit down the the teacher's unions, superintendents, teachers, parents, and student to come up with solutions and options. Then present them all to the states and say here are some options we came up with. Let the states choose these options or come up with their own.
Another example: health care/insurance. The President should sit down with the insurance companies, doctors, nurses, and all other people. Come up with lots of different solutions and options. Then leave it to the states to implement the reforms.
Lead a national debate, but leave it to the locals to solve the problems. They know their communities and situations better than those who rule 3,000 miles away. No national solution will fit for all local situations. Let the free market work, so that those states and communities that are successful will see people choose to move their and take advantage of their solutions and therefore be more success.
That will be my mantra: National Debate, Local Solutions
The United State government is granted only specific powers as defined in the U.S. Constitution. Health Care is not a national issue for national legislation and enforcement. Education is not a national issue for national legislation and enforcement. You want to see what powers the Congress has, look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Those are its powers. Any other power belongs to the state as defined by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The President and Congress should take these national issues and have a good debate on them among the American people. Bring together people from both and all sides of a particular issue. They sit down and talk about solutions and options. The government then presents these options to the states to choose for themselves. Provide a national debate on issues but look to locals to enact solutions that will work for them. Here is an example.
I totally agree with President Obama on some issues regarding education. He mentioned shortly after his election that our schools need to go longer in days or hours. Also he mentioned he supported merit pay for teachers (Read my past blog on that to see how I stand on that issue). Great, but there should be no national mandate of this issue. It is a state and local issue as it is not granted specifically in the U.S. Constitution. The President should sit down the the teacher's unions, superintendents, teachers, parents, and student to come up with solutions and options. Then present them all to the states and say here are some options we came up with. Let the states choose these options or come up with their own.
Another example: health care/insurance. The President should sit down with the insurance companies, doctors, nurses, and all other people. Come up with lots of different solutions and options. Then leave it to the states to implement the reforms.
Lead a national debate, but leave it to the locals to solve the problems. They know their communities and situations better than those who rule 3,000 miles away. No national solution will fit for all local situations. Let the free market work, so that those states and communities that are successful will see people choose to move their and take advantage of their solutions and therefore be more success.
That will be my mantra: National Debate, Local Solutions
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
What I Stand For
Though much of the passionate debate on health care an argument has come up that we, the loyal opposition, are against Obama or Health Care for the poor, or any other ill informed opinions. But if you listen carefully to the people you will see not what they are for not what they are against. Here is what I am for:
I stand for and by the Constitution of the United States as written in 1787, ratified in 1789, and amended throughout its 220 years of existence. It is the government that has sustained us for those 220 years and made us the most prosperous and influential nation in the world. And now members of Congress, the Presidents (both modern and former, going all the back to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson), and even the Supreme Court sometimes, want to ignore or destroy the powers granted and denied to themselves within its writings.
I stand by the Bill of Rights and the protections given by it to CITIZENS of the United States. I refuse to be censored by this government, the PC police, or by threats of being called a racists. I will own a gun for my own defense of life, liberty and property. But government agencies have been erected in years to deprive me of these rights from the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine, and ineffective gun control laws.
I stand by the states in our Union. We are a Union of States. A country that is made up of 50+ territories unified for the common goals of life,liberty and property. Each state is different and allowed to do things different, not bow to every whim and wind that blows from Washington, D.C. The U.S. government only has the powers given to them in the Constitution, everything else belongs to the state or the people. This is the genius of federalism. There are 50 states who can decide to do things like, education, health care, welfare and many other things, any way they see fit as long as it does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution. But now I see the federal government stripping the state of the power granted to it in the Constitution, driving states and people to the idea of a second secessionist movement because they do not respect the states.
I stand by the men and women of our U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, SEAL, the state militias, the CIA, NSA, and any other agency who's job is to "provide for the common defense" of this great nation and its people. Whose job it is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. But it sickens me the way our government prosecutes our men and women who protect them and want to release the people who would want to see us killed.
I stand by the CITIZENS of the United States. The vast majority of the time the majority of them know what is good and right. The majority of citizens knew slavery was wrong, but it did take 600,000 American lives to make them free. The majority of citizens knew segregation and the treatment of blacks was wrong. The majority of citizens know we cannot spend ourselves out of debt. But I have been called racists, Nazi, AstroTurf, unamerican, and shills for a corrupt political party.
I stand by the idea that the government that governs least, governs best. Government is like a fire, useful when controlled, but can easily grow to big and get out of control and burn the whole forest to the ground. But the government thinks that it can solve all our problems, from our mortgage, to our cars, the environment, health care or any other problems. It is the citizens of this country who will solve it, not our elected officials.
I stand by the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
What do you stand for?
I stand for and by the Constitution of the United States as written in 1787, ratified in 1789, and amended throughout its 220 years of existence. It is the government that has sustained us for those 220 years and made us the most prosperous and influential nation in the world. And now members of Congress, the Presidents (both modern and former, going all the back to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson), and even the Supreme Court sometimes, want to ignore or destroy the powers granted and denied to themselves within its writings.
I stand by the Bill of Rights and the protections given by it to CITIZENS of the United States. I refuse to be censored by this government, the PC police, or by threats of being called a racists. I will own a gun for my own defense of life, liberty and property. But government agencies have been erected in years to deprive me of these rights from the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine, and ineffective gun control laws.
I stand by the states in our Union. We are a Union of States. A country that is made up of 50+ territories unified for the common goals of life,liberty and property. Each state is different and allowed to do things different, not bow to every whim and wind that blows from Washington, D.C. The U.S. government only has the powers given to them in the Constitution, everything else belongs to the state or the people. This is the genius of federalism. There are 50 states who can decide to do things like, education, health care, welfare and many other things, any way they see fit as long as it does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution. But now I see the federal government stripping the state of the power granted to it in the Constitution, driving states and people to the idea of a second secessionist movement because they do not respect the states.
I stand by the men and women of our U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, SEAL, the state militias, the CIA, NSA, and any other agency who's job is to "provide for the common defense" of this great nation and its people. Whose job it is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. But it sickens me the way our government prosecutes our men and women who protect them and want to release the people who would want to see us killed.
I stand by the CITIZENS of the United States. The vast majority of the time the majority of them know what is good and right. The majority of citizens knew slavery was wrong, but it did take 600,000 American lives to make them free. The majority of citizens knew segregation and the treatment of blacks was wrong. The majority of citizens know we cannot spend ourselves out of debt. But I have been called racists, Nazi, AstroTurf, unamerican, and shills for a corrupt political party.
I stand by the idea that the government that governs least, governs best. Government is like a fire, useful when controlled, but can easily grow to big and get out of control and burn the whole forest to the ground. But the government thinks that it can solve all our problems, from our mortgage, to our cars, the environment, health care or any other problems. It is the citizens of this country who will solve it, not our elected officials.
I stand by the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."
What do you stand for?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Guns and Political Protest
Recently some people have gone to these Town Hall Meetings toting guns. From all reports though most people are doing it legally. I ask what is the big deal? If I am remember correctly the right to bear arms in the defense of yourself and your country was one of our rights, right after that one that says I can say whatever I want, go to whatever church I want, and assemble with whom I want peacefully.
The second amendment is there to safe guard U.S. citizens in two ways. First, it is there so we can protect ourselves from others. The police cannot be with us all the time. When a person breaks into my house with malicious intent and the police or still five minutes away am I to stand by while a person is in my house? No, I can defend my life, liberty and property with whatever means necessary, a gun being the foremost protected by our founding fathers. Secondly, the second amendment is there to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. Just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [defending our unalienable rights], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.." If our fore fathers had not been armed to protect themselves then the Revolution would be dead in its tracks.
These rights do not come from the Constitution though, it is our God given right to defend ourselves. While he may sound a little nuts in this video, I think this explains the right in the second amendment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo
As a law abiding citizen it is my right to protect myself. What I find funny is how we want more control when it has not done a lick of difference. People who want to use guns illegally, generally get them through illegal means. To take away guns from law abiding citizen, who use them for their defense, gives the criminals an advantage.
These people at the protests, if they are law abiding citizens, should not be harassed, because they know how and when to use a gun. Just because you bring gun out in public does not mean your crazy, it means you know they can defend themselves and that is their right.
The second amendment is there to safe guard U.S. citizens in two ways. First, it is there so we can protect ourselves from others. The police cannot be with us all the time. When a person breaks into my house with malicious intent and the police or still five minutes away am I to stand by while a person is in my house? No, I can defend my life, liberty and property with whatever means necessary, a gun being the foremost protected by our founding fathers. Secondly, the second amendment is there to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. Just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [defending our unalienable rights], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.." If our fore fathers had not been armed to protect themselves then the Revolution would be dead in its tracks.
These rights do not come from the Constitution though, it is our God given right to defend ourselves. While he may sound a little nuts in this video, I think this explains the right in the second amendment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo
As a law abiding citizen it is my right to protect myself. What I find funny is how we want more control when it has not done a lick of difference. People who want to use guns illegally, generally get them through illegal means. To take away guns from law abiding citizen, who use them for their defense, gives the criminals an advantage.
These people at the protests, if they are law abiding citizens, should not be harassed, because they know how and when to use a gun. Just because you bring gun out in public does not mean your crazy, it means you know they can defend themselves and that is their right.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Nazis & the American Political Parties
Just the other day I saw the SPeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi say this about the people who have been protesting and asking questions about the National Health Care Reform bill (H.R. 3200).
ANd another Democrat calling the people coming to the meetings using "Brown Shirt" tactics (http://www.columbian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090806/NEWS02/708069952). For those of you unaware, the Brown Shirts were the followers of members of Hitler's personal security force the SA. So in esenence through these two bit of evidence we see the Democratic leadership trying to brand the opposition as Nazi's. What they fail to understand is what the Nazi's actually stood for and against. Here is a refersher for those who are bad with history.
Well, the Nazis were against big business — they hated big business. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare. (this is an excerpt from a Rush Limbaugh broadcast that I took from the following news article: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_limbaush_swastikas/2009/08/07/245316.html).
So tell me again that I am facist or a Nazi when in all honest the platform of the Democratice National Committee, the President of the United States, the Speaker of the Hosue and the House Majority Leader are closer to the Nazi's than most conservatives.
ANd another Democrat calling the people coming to the meetings using "Brown Shirt" tactics (http://www.columbian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090806/NEWS02/708069952). For those of you unaware, the Brown Shirts were the followers of members of Hitler's personal security force the SA. So in esenence through these two bit of evidence we see the Democratic leadership trying to brand the opposition as Nazi's. What they fail to understand is what the Nazi's actually stood for and against. Here is a refersher for those who are bad with history.
Well, the Nazis were against big business — they hated big business. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare. (this is an excerpt from a Rush Limbaugh broadcast that I took from the following news article: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_limbaush_swastikas/2009/08/07/245316.html).
So tell me again that I am facist or a Nazi when in all honest the platform of the Democratice National Committee, the President of the United States, the Speaker of the Hosue and the House Majority Leader are closer to the Nazi's than most conservatives.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Opener by Lost and Found
So I was listening to some music as I unpacked the new apartment Katie and I just moved into and decided to listen to Lost and Found. I found this song. I love it because it speaks so much to the how Christ's church has changed and fallen so far in these later days. It' called "Opener" by Lost and Found. Check them out at http://www.speedwood.com
I WENT TO MY CHURCH ON SUNDAY, JUST TO HEAR GOOD NEWS. AND I CONFESS IT'S BEEN YEARS MORE OR LESS SINCE I'VE WARMED THESE PEWS. I AM LOOKING FOR SOMETHING STRONGER THAN MY OWN LIFE THESE DAYS BUT THE CHURCH OF MY CHILDHOOD SEEMS LIKE THE YMCA.
EVERY SUNDAY IS JUST LIKE THE LAST, AS IF THE CHURCH HAS NO HISTORY AND THE PEOPLE HAVE NO PAST. WE JUST SING THE SONGS WE LIKE TO SING AND WE PREACH ABOUT THE NEWS AND WE THINK UP SOME NEW THING JUST TO FILL UP THE PEWS.
I WANT PALMS ON PALM SUNDAY, I WANT PENTECOST STILL TO BE RED, I WANT TO DRINK OF THE WINE AND EAT OF THE BREAD. BUT THEY STRIVE FOR ATTENDANCE WHILE I STARVE FOR TRANSCENDENCE, BUT I COUNT AMONG THIS BODY BOTH THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.
WHETHER ITS GUITARS AND AMPS AND VIDEO SCREENS AND CORDLESS MICS, OR INCENSE AND ROBES AND COPES AND CANDLE LIGHT. LET'S STOP ALL THE FIGHTING OVER WORDS AND WAYS AND TELL ABOUT JESUS LIKE IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)