12 April 2011

Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System (Page2)


Email this item EMAIL    Print this item PRINT    

SHARE0
Posted on Apr 10, 2011
Photo illustration by PZS based on an image by Lin Pernille Photography
(Page 2)
The demonizing of teachers is another public relations feint, a way for corporations to deflect attention from the theft of some $17 billion in wages, savings and earnings among American workers and a landscape where one in six workers is without employment. The speculators on Wall Street looted the U.S. Treasury. They stymied any kind of regulation. They have avoided criminal charges. They are stripping basic social services. And now they are demanding to run our schools and universities.
“Not only have the reformers removed poverty as a factor, they’ve removed students’ aptitude and motivation as factors,” said this teacher, who is in a teachers union. “They seem to believe that students are something like plants where you just add water and place them in the sun of your teaching and everything blooms. This is a fantasy that insults both student and teacher. The reformers have come up with a variety of insidious schemes pushed as steps to professionalize the profession of teaching. As they are all businessmen who know nothing of the field, it goes without saying that you do not do this by giving teachers autonomy and respect. They use merit pay in which teachers whose students do well on bubble tests will receive more money and teachers whose students do not do so well on bubble tests will receive less money. Of course, the only way this could conceivably be fair is to have an identical group of students in each class—an impossibility. The real purposes of merit pay are to divide teachers against themselves as they scramble for the brighter and more motivated students and to further institutionalize the idiot notion of standardized tests. There is a certain diabolical intelligence at work in both of these.”
“If the Bloomberg administration can be said to have succeeded in anything,” he said, “they have succeeded in turning schools into stress factories where teachers are running around wondering if it’s possible to please their principals and if their school will be open a year from now, if their union will still be there to offer some kind of protection, if they will still have jobs next year. This is not how you run a school system. It’s how you destroy one. The reformers and their friends in the media have created a Manichean world of bad teachers and effective teachers. In this alternative universe there are no other factors. Or, all other factors—poverty, depraved parents, mental illness and malnutrition—are all excuses of the Bad Teacher that can be overcome by hard work and the Effective Teacher.”
The truly educated become conscious. They become self-aware. They do not lie to themselves. They do not pretend that fraud is moral or that corporate greed is good. They do not claim that the demands of the marketplace can morally justify the hunger of children or denial of medical care to the sick. They do not throw 6 million families from their homes as the cost of doing business. Thought is a dialogue with one’s inner self. Those who think ask questions, questions those in authority do not want asked. They remember who we are, where we come from and where we should go. They remain eternally skeptical and distrustful of power. And they know that this moral independence is the only protection from the radical evil that results from collective unconsciousness. The capacity to think is the only bulwark against any centralized authority that seeks to impose mindless obedience. There is a huge difference, as Socrates understood, between teaching people what to think and teaching them how to think. Those who are endowed with a moral conscience refuse to commit crimes, even those sanctioned by the corporate state, because they do not in the end want to live with criminals—themselves.
Advertisement
“It is better to be at odds with the whole world than, being one, to be at odds with myself,” Socrates said.
Those who can ask the right questions are armed with the capacity to make a moral choice, to defend the good in the face of outside pressure. And this is why the philosopher Immanuel Kant puts the duties we have to ourselves before the duties we have to others. The standard for Kant is not the biblical idea of self-love—love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others as you would have them do unto you—but self-respect. What brings us meaning and worth as human beings is our ability to stand up and pit ourselves against injustice and the vast, moral indifference of the universe. Once justice perishes, as Kant knew, life loses all meaning. Those who meekly obey laws and rules imposed from the outside—including religious laws—are not moral human beings. The fulfillment of an imposed law is morally neutral. The truly educated make their own wills serve the higher call of justice, empathy and reason. Socrates made the same argument when he said it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong.
“The greatest evil perpetrated,” Hannah Arendt wrote, “is the evil committed by nobodies, that is, by human beings who refuse to be persons.”
As Arendt pointed out, we must trust only those who have this self-awareness. This self-awareness comes only through consciousness. It comes with the ability to look at a crime being committed and say “I can’t.” We must fear, Arendt warned, those whose moral system is built around the flimsy structure of blind obedience. We must fear those who cannot think. Unconscious civilizations become totalitarian wastelands.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,” Arendt writes. “For human beings, thinking of past matters means moving in the dimension of depth, striking roots and thus stabilizing themselves, so as not to be swept away by whatever may occur—the Zeitgeist or History or simple temptation. The greatest evil is not radical, it has no roots, and because it has no roots it has no limitations, it can go to unthinkable extremes and sweep over the whole world.”
  2

Click here to check out Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges’ new Truthdig book, “The World As It Is: Dispatches On the Myth of Human Progress.”

Keep up with Chris Hedges’ latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more atwww.truthdig.com/chris_hedges.




Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.
Previous item: The End of Shutdowns

11 April 2011

Geithner Warns Nation to Hit Debt Limit Deadline in Mid-May

Published April 11, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Mark it on the calendar. The next big deadline in Washington is May 16, if not earlier.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner now estimates that the nation's debt ceiling will be reached no later than that date. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Geithner wrote that Congress must act in a matter of weeks to raise the limit or face a fiscal calamity potentially worse than the one from which the nation is recovering.
Geithner noted that the Treasury Department can take "extraordinary measures" to buy time -- about eight extra weeks, maximum -- after the May deadline. But he said once those measures are exhausted the U.S. government would not have enough money to pay its bills. Military salaries, Social Security payments and jobless benefits would cease, he warned, adding that a default on the debt would drive up interest rates, erode home values and cause a new financial crisis.
"For these reasons, default by the United States is unthinkable," Geithner wrote.
But after extracting a last-minute budget deal out of Democrats, in turn averting a government shutdown and marking billions of dollars in spending cuts in their column, Republicans are in the mood for another stand-off on Capitol Hill. From the top down, GOP leaders warn they will not vote to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling unless they see genuine efforts to reduce the deficit.
"There will not be an increase in the debt limit without something really, really big attached to it," House Speaker John Boehner said at a fundraiser Saturday night.
"This is about making the right decisions now," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told "Fox News Sunday." He touted Rep. Paul Ryan's, R-Wis., budget proposal -- a plan released last week that contains about $6 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years -- and suggested Republicans would fight for at least a chunk of that plan as a condition of their support on the debt limit vote.
Ryan, in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," said the Republicans' strategy is not to default but compel the government to control spending.
"I think there will be some kind of negotiations, and yes, it probably will go up to some sort of a deadline. The debt ceiling deadline is a moving deadline, it's not a date certain deadline like the government shutdown," Ryan said.
He said the debt ceiling increase, if Republicans are to support it, must come with "real fiscal reforms, real spending cuts, and real spending controls going forward so we can deal with the debt in the future."
White House senior adviser David Plouffe, over the course of several television interviews Sunday, indicated that the White House is willing to put some reforms on the table. President Obama plans to announce a new deficit-reduction plan Wednesday -- a follow-up to a budget proposal earlier in the year which was widely panned by Republicans as doing little to control spending.
Plouffe, though, told "Meet the Press" that voting "no" on the debt ceiling increase could be a "catastrophic failure for the United States economy."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., urged Republicans to take the debt-limit threat off the table.
"It could be a formula for recession or worse," Schumer told CBS' "Face the Nation." "So this is playing with fire."
Though Geithner, in his letter to Reid, said Treasury has a few tricks up its sleeve to forestall the default deadline, he noted the government has "much less flexibility" than it used to because of the sheer size of its deficits.
The secretary said the U.S. government, for instance, can't simply cut spending or raise taxes to avoid hitting the cap. With the public debt increasing at a rate of about $125 billion every month, Geithner said it would take an impossible amount of budgetary rearranging to halt that climb in the near-term.
For reference, the projected fiscal 2011 deficit was about $1.6 trillion. After weeks of wrangling, Congress cut that by just $38.5 billion in the deal reached over the weekend.
"In order to avoid an increase in the debt limit, Congress would need to eliminate annual deficits immediately," Geithner wrote.
Print Close
URL
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/geithner-warns-nation-hit-debt-limit-deadline-mid/


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/geithner-warns-nation-hit-debt-limit-deadline-mid/#ixzz1JDlHmg52

24 December 2010

Stop Global Warming Sign Buried in the Snow

Found this over at "JammieWearingFool".  This is just HILARIOUS!!

Sign of the Times: 'Stop Global Warming' Sign Buried in the Snow


This amusing photo goes hand in glove with this idiocy:

That snow outside is what global warming looks like
There is now strong evidence to suggest that the unusually cold winters of the last two years in the UK are the result of heating elsewhere.
Who says something so stupid? Why, a renowned "expert" who was exposed as a total fraud during ClimateGate, of course. But wait, ten years ago we were told snow was a thing of the past. Oops.

Daniel Hannan is amused.
For all I know, Monbiot may be right. It just seems remarkably convenient that any climatic trend is the fault of greenhouse gases . Getting hotter? Global warming! Getting cooler? Global warming! Average overcast October day? Gaea is on her last legs!
But ... but ... NASA is telling us the truth!
Ye-e-s. There’s just one problem with this. Can anyone spot what it is? That’s right: the clue is in that phrase “published by NASA”. See, going to NASA GISS for reliable, unbiased temperature data is a bit like asking Charles Manson for tips on how best to set up a commune where everyone’s happy and no one gets ritually murdered or anything. James Hansen, the guy in charge of NASA’s dataset, is so committed to the religion of AGW he makes Al Gore sound like Viscount Monckton.
Can't wait to see them explain Australia's white summer.

It just turned to winter today here in the United States. We in the northeast have been freezing since at least Thanksgiving. I can't wait for spring. Just hope it warms up a bit by then.

Update: Submitted for further amusement.
posted by JammieWearingFool @ 8:50 AM
 Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam

21 December 2010

FCC VOTES 3-2 TO REGULATE INTERNET VIA NET NEUTRALITY


Talk about holy cR**!!!!

FCC VOTES 3-2 TO REGULATE INTERNET VIA NET NEUTRALITY

The FCC has voted 3-2 along political lines to extend the government’s reach and regulate the internet via net neutrality.
The vote to institute net neutrality rules marks the first time the government has stepped into the world of internet regulation. Proponent’s of the net neutrality rules say that the move allows the government to stop companies from controlling too much of the internet, while opponents view it as a scary example of government control and an impediment of private business.
“As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected… . That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said at a commission meeting on Tuesday, according to The Hill.
The paper says the new rules “create new transparency standards for wired and wireless carriers,“ while also preventing ”wired carriers from blocking lawful applications and services.” For example, “wireless carriers are prohibited from blocking websites as well as applications that compete with their services.”
The rules have drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle, with Republicans arguing that it marks too much government oversight, and Democrats saying that rules don’t go far enough. Instead, Democrat commissioners wanted stronger rules for wireless companies, but said they would settle for today’s new rules.
But the move enraged the commission’s Republican members.
“The FCC is not Congress. We cannot make laws,” said Republican Commission Robert McDowell, describing Tuesday as “one of the darkest days in FCC history.” He also suggested that new rules may be in for a court battle.
“The era of Internet regulatory arbitrage has dawned,” he said.
Fellow Republican Commissioner Meredith Baker accused the chairman of smarmy political and manipulative tactics to pass the order, saying she only received her a copy of the proposal in the late hours of last night.
“I think we can all do better and let’s do so in the New Year,” she said.
Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine

THE CHRISTMAS STORY (AS TOLD VIA FACEBOOK)

GREEN MAKE BELIEVE: VAN JONES ADMITS LEFT IS ‘PRETENDING’ NEED FOR REGULATIONS IN GREEN MOVEMENT

Are we REALLY surprised by this?


Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine
Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of ObamaGlenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine

How Much Euro Membership Has Cost Ireland In Terms Of GDP

This is the problem with having a single currency.  You're not letting the Market set a value on what your economy is worth, and so your currency ends up being managed by a bunch of ministers in a far off land.  Instead of what's best for each individual country, they're concerned with what's best for the collective.
How many times after the fall of the Soviet Union do we need to prove that Collectivism doesn't work?
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure

20 December 2010

So they're using Assange as a scapegoat for imposing censureship on the Internet.  Oh well, so much for Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
Freedoms We Lost
------------------------------------
Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.
How did the FCC get here?
For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.
David Klein
Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.
Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.
It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.
Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.
In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.
Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.
After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.
Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?
To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.
On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.
Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
Freedoms We Lost

Our Sponsors