Via Small Dead Animals I found this 2 minute video from Senator Jim DeMint (Republican, South Carolina) which explains how big government is making it harder for Americans to find jobs and more difficult for small businesses to succeed. As the video shows in an amusing way, when big government puts too many burdens on America's economy, it forces jobs and investment overseas instead of here at home. It also makes it harder for middle class small business owners to compete against large corporations (who receive exemptions and build loopholes into legislation through their lobbying), discouraging real competition and job growth.
Here is the video:
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut tanggal untuk kueri investment. Urutkan menurut relevansi Tampilkan semua postingan
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut tanggal untuk kueri investment. Urutkan menurut relevansi Tampilkan semua postingan
Video: The Burden Big Government Puts on a Small Businessman
Read User's Comments(0)
Is It Closing Time Again For More DC Public Schools?
Join Empower DC's Exposing DC's Equation for Displacement: Info on DCPS closings & plan of action Saturday, Feb. 4 @ 11 am -1:30pm @ 1419 V St NW
The headlines from today's top education stories reads: "Many public schools in D.C.’s poorest area should be transformed or shut, study says; more charters recommended" written by Bill Turque, Washington Post writer while Mike Debonis' blog: DeMorning Links reads: "School Closings Contemplated" and Channel Fox Five TV news reported the DC School System study recommends making major improvements or close three dozen under performing public schools or expand high performing charter schools.
The Washington Teacher blog first reported on October 31, 2011 about future plans to close additional DC public schools. An excerpt from the 21st Century School Fund September - October newsletter stated: "The Deputy Mayor for Education, with a 100,000 dollar grant from the Walton Family Foundation, engaged IFF (Illinois Facility Fund) to study the capacity and performance of DCPS and public charter schools. IFF has authored reports in Denver, Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Louis, using a defined method to determine what they term "performing" or "non- performing" seats. This analysis is being done with an eye to "right sizing" district schools which beyond consolidation could include reconstitution and replacement with school management organizations."
Not unlike other major cities including NY, Chicago, Ohio- DC has been at the forefront of shutting down traditional public schools. In 2008, twenty-three public schools were closed under former DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee and then mayor Adrian Fenty which led to a community outcry to save our public schools. Local education stakeholders voices weren't heeded by Rhee or Fenty and only one neighborhood elementary school- John Burroughs was saved from the chopping block.
Natalie Hopkinson who authored the article - "Why School Choice Fails"which appeared in the December 4, 2011 N.Y. Times discussed how this country’s reform policies in Washington, DC- put in place by a Republican led congress in 1995 led to the birth of many of our charter schools. Hopkinson wrote:" if a school was deemed failing, students could transfer schools, opt to attend a charter school or receive a voucher to attend a private school. The idea was to introduce competition; good schools would survive; bad ones would disappear. It effectively created a second education system, which now enrolls nearly half the city’s public school students. The charters consistently perform worse than the traditional schools, yet they are rarely closed."
The results of IFF's study recommend that DC make major improvements or close thirty six under performing schools in some of the city's poorest neighborhoods or expand high performing charter schools. It’s a finding that heralds the continued growth of the charter schools sector at the expense of the D.C. Public Schools, if not its outright domination. While some people are questioning the motives of the Illinois Facilities Fund, the study is “likely to rekindle impassioned debate about possible school closures and the future of public education in the District,” Bill Turque notes. Officials tell Turque, education writer for the Post that any decisions about a “major restructuring” are at least a year and many community meetings away.
What comes as no surprise to anyone is that schools in ward 8 were identified as having the greatest need, according to the IFF study. The study recommended turning around or closing the following public schools: Simon, Patterson, Terrell-McGogney and Ferebee-Hope and closing two bottom-rung charter schools, Center City Congress Heights (pre-K to 8) and Imagine Southeast (pre-K to 5). H.D. Woodson Senior High School which is located in Ward 7 was also recommended for turn around or closure, a school which recently has undergone capital investment which cost millions of dollars in investment.
One of the things that I find disturbing about IFF's report is the recommendation for DC to consider expanding charter schools in the 10 targeted neighborhood clusters and call for the DC Public Charter School Board to authorize about 6,500 new charter seats (current enrollment is about 32,000) while utilizing former public school buildings as incentives to get the public charter board to actively recruit the highest performing charter school operators to replicate their school models.
The writing should be on the wall for all of us to see. If it's not, I don't know what to tell you. From where I sit, this situation looks bleak for working, middle class families and many of our teachers in some of our poorest communities. The loss of our public schools is a disinvestment in our school communities and may lead to higher classrooms sizes, further declining enrollment in DC public schools and extinction of traditional public schools and fewer teaching jobs. Now is not the time for parents, students, teachers, school staff and community members to sit back. We have to ask the hard questions, organize and demand to have a voice as education stakeholders or we may likely have a re-run of the 2008 school closures.
On November 8, 2011 - I issued a call to action to DC teachers and school personnel: "In the midst of upcoming contract negotiations, there are big plans ahead to close our traditional public schools. Never in our history has been there been a greater need for teachers and school personnel to have an effective organizing union. Our very future as educators and the future of our students will be determined by how vigorously we, alongside parents and community members are willing to fight to save our public schools." Won't you heed the call to get involved before your local school is reconstituted and turned over to a charter school, your job is lost and your community no longer includes you?
Republicans May Have Better Direction for Education Policy?
Every month teacher unions from around the nation gather together to pray at the alter of the Democratic Party, offering up the usual sacrifices (unions dues) and saying the usual prayers (another term for Obama). As part of this monthly ritual held in every public school district in the nation, union leaders faithfully repeat the claim that Republicans are anti-education and that President Obama is pro-education. Let's examine this claim in light of the a recent release from the House Education and the Workforce Committee Republicans:
Late last year, the U.S. Secretary of Education took unprecedented action and announced a plan that would allow the administration to unilaterally dictate federal education policy without Congressional input.Our Founding Fathers designed our legislative branch to implement and pass policies and to pass the laws which govern our nation- they clearly did not give the President the power to issue directives and orders establishing policies and laws, paid for out a giant slush fund (stimulus dollars, which were supposed to go for shovel ready projects that would put Americans back to work back in 2009). But this is what we have- a President who thinks he is smarter than the American public and their elected Representatives and Senators, and who thinks that he is supposed to be running our nation as a King, ordering his advisers and czars and secretaries to implement policies and rules and waiver plans without any Congressional authority to do so simply because HE believes it to be the right policies. Process and the means matter, and Obama is not going about implementing education policy the right way (with Congressional approval and direction).
Secretary Arne Duncan’s plan to grant waivers for certain requirements under No Child Left Behind in exchange for states adopting the administration’s preferred education agenda has been called “the most sweeping use of executive authority to rewrite federal education law since Washington expanded its involvement in education in the 1960s” by the New York Times. In the Washington Post, George Will likened the plan to “coercive federalism”...
...Already, this conditional waivers plan has generated great uncertainty for state and local education officials. States that opt in to the plan will be forced to dedicate time and limited resources to implement a host of new federal regulations. However, the requirements could be easily changed by Congress, Secretary Duncan, or the next administration, potentially rendering a state’s investment in changing its education system meaningless...
...Making matters worse, the secretary's waiver plan – similar to his ill-fated Race to the Top program – pressures states to adopt common academic standards and tests in reading and math, creating de facto national standards and national tests. This one-size-fits-all approach usurps the power of local superintendents, school boards, and parents who know more about what kids need to learn than bureaucrats in Washington...
...House Education and the Workforce Committee Republicans are determined to fix current education law the right way – with smart legislative policies that will have a lasting impact. Toward that effort, Republicans recently released two pieces of draft legislation to overhaul No Child Left Behind. In addition to provisions that support state-developed accountability systems and a smaller federal footprint in education, the legislation includes four provisions that rein in the authority of the Secretary of Education and preserve state and local control...
...We cannot allow the Obama administration to implement a backdoor education agenda. It’s time to advance real change in our nation’s education system. The Student Success Act and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act provide states and school districts with a clear path forward that will help get more effective teachers in the classroom, enhance accountability, and raise the bar on student achievement.
Furthermore, by his actions President Obama does not demonstrate that he is any sort of 'friend of education', deserving of one-sided and considerable support by the National Education Association and its various state chapters. Pressuring states to adopt common core standards is the same sort of 'national standards' that the unions opposed so loudly during Bush's administration- the emphasis on national tests is the same sort of 'national testing' that brought howls from unions and magazine articles in education magazines- and the push for merit pay should be met with a storm of opposition by the education labor unions. On these issues and many others, the labor unions have decided to compromise their positions and policy stances so that Barack Obama can remain as President, and by doing so continue to destroy the property tax base and income taxes on which education depends for its funding.
The truth of the matter is that today, perhaps it is the Republican Party which offers the best path forward for public education in America. A rising tide floats all boats, and Republican policies which encourage economic growth- less regulation, more protection of private property, less fees, less red tape and bureaucratic interference, etc- will likely lead to increased tax revenues that will in turn lead to increased funding and money for education. Further, policies designed in the legislative branch and laws passed by our Congress will have more broad consensus and input from more parties and thus be better designed and implemented that dictates issued by an overbearing and close-minded Executive Branch.
Daily Education and Technology News for Schools 01/10/2012
-
Report calls for investments in STEM education, broadband - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
New report just released from the US Commerce Department this past Friday. You can expect even more investment in STEM.
“Underinvestment in sectors like STEM education, high-tech research, and 21st century infrastructure has diminished the nation’s competitive edge. Sustained federal investment in these sectors will not just help grow today’s economy, but it will also lay the groundwork for generations to come.” -
Seth's Blog: Simple thoughts about fair use
Seth Godin writes about fair use. Whether you claim fair use or not, give credit. That is the right thing to do.
-
I'm glad all of these organizations have received money to recruit and retain women in computing and technology fields of studies, but I sure would like to see some online initiatives, campaigns, and social media type things being done. This approach seems a bit traditional to me.
-
35% of Child Sex Abuse Caused by Minors - TIME
We have a hidden problem. Is it lack of supervision? How is it that 1/3 of sexual abuse of children is by other children?
"Recent high-profile cases of child sex abuse have roused national revulsion against the adults who perpetrated them. Rarely mentioned is the sobering statistic that more than one-third of the sexual abuse of America's children is committed by other minors."
Time Magazine -
The Human Anatomy, Animated With 3-D Technology - NYTimes.com
NYU Medical students wear 3-D glasses and dissect a virtual cadaver projected on a screen. The professor says "it's like a living digital textbook." I do, however, really hope my doctors have experience with the human body and don't do like a kid who has practiced basketball and never played in the game - bumble the ball as they start. No one wants to be a practice dummy - in this case a practice cadaver.
Yet, do you realize that we could now add human dissection to anatomy class? In 3D you could dissect the human body? There are very exciting things coming in this area. -
CBAL ELA Competency Model and Provisional Learning Progressions - home
This is interesting. ETS has launched a website about:
"Educational Testing Service (ETS), the world's leading measurement and research organization, has launched a new website to stimulate discussion, debate, and promote empirical research to help teachers and students meet the goals of the English language arts (ELA) Common Core State Standards." but this is most definitely a wiki (looks like wikispaces.) I find it fascinating that a company would use a wiki because so many have resisted this. I wonder who can join and who can edit. Interesting.
It says you can join. It will be interesting to see what they are doing with this. Perhaps some of you common core experts should join. -
Mystery Apple event to focus on education, iTunes U, digital publishing? | ZDNet
The end of this month we'll get a new kind of Apple for the teacher. Apple has a big event planned in New York (publisher central) that is rumored to talk about iTunes University, and textbook publishing. It willbe big news as this is a topic that is said to have been "dear to Steve Jobs."
-
Kno Adds 15 Publishers to its Catalogue -- THE Journal
Textbook app, Kno, adds more publishers to the app.
The publishers include a range of diverging specialties, from humanities publisher Hackett to scholarly publishers such as The MIT Press, University of Nebraska Press, and Indiana University Press as well as more general publishers and Norton Publishing, producers of the long-time campus standby Norton Anthologies. Other recent additions include Morton Publishing, Oklahoma Career Tech, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, and AVA Books. -
Alfie Kohn: The Risks and Potential of Required Community Service
Requiring community service. I do this in National Honor Society. They have a certain number of hours to earn, however, they choose what they do. Serving and helping others is part of what we do. However, I see the points he makes in this article, particularly if a competition or reward is put in place.
-
Tom Vander Ark: How Intelligent Scoring Will Create an Intelligent System
Yesterday a competition to improve automatic scoring of essays kicked off and computer scientists are invited to join the competition to "best well known testing firms including AIR, CTMMcGraw-Hill, ETS,and Pearson." The Open competition runs through april.
This is an effort to grade essays without a human grader involved.Personally, to me, writing implies audience and to not have a human read the writing of these students is problematic to me. -
Here we go again: Congress considers blocking government's open access policy
Publishers don't like the Federal government's open access policy that requires that research funded by government-sponsored grants be released to the general public a year after publication. I cannot believe how the publishers are continuing to try to shut down the flow of information. This is as infuriating as SOPA.
-
Make a Local Backup Of Your Gmail Account - Wired How-To Wiki
How to make a backup of your gmail account. (I may have to do this to archive old emails as I am beginning to get a full inbox. Just don't know that I need things from 2007.)
No DC Middle School For You !
deformer: (n.) One who deforms.
Why School Choice Fails
By NATALIE HOPKINSON
Washington
"IF you want to see the direction that education reform is taking the country, pay a visit to my leafy, majority-black neighborhood in Washington. While we have lived in the same house since our 11-year-old son was born, he’s been assigned to three different elementary schools as one after the other has been shuttered. Now it’s time for middle school, and there’s been no neighborhood option available.
Meanwhile, across Rock Creek Park in a wealthy, majority-white community, there is a sparkling new neighborhood middle school, with rugby, fencing, an international baccalaureate curriculum and all the other amenities that make people pay top dollar to live there.
Such inequities are the perverse result of a “reform” process intended to bring choice and accountability to the school system. Instead, it has destroyed community-based education for working-class families, even as it has funneled resources toward a few better-off, exclusive, institutions.
My neighborhood’s last free-standing middle school was closed in 2008, part of a round of closures by then Mayor Adrian Fenty and his schools chancellor, Michelle Rhee. The pride and gusto with which they dismantled those institutions was shameful, but I don’t blame them. The closures were the inevitable outcome of policies hatched years before.
In 1995 the Republican-led Congress, ignoring the objections of local leadership, put in motion one of the country’s strongest reform policies for Washington: if a school was deemed failing, students could transfer schools, opt to attend a charter school or receive a voucher to attend a private school.
The idea was to introduce competition; good schools would survive; bad ones would disappear. It effectively created a second education system, which now enrolls nearly half the city’s public school students. The charters consistently perform worse than the traditional schools, yet they are rarely closed.
Meanwhile, failing neighborhood schools, depleted of students, were shut down. Invariably, schools that served the poorest families got the ax — partly because those were the schools where students struggled the most, and partly because the parents of those students had the least power.
Competition produces winners and losers; I get that. Indeed, the rhetoric of school choice can be seductive to angst-filled middle-class parents like myself. We crunch the data and believe that, with enough elbow grease, we can make the system work for us. Naturally, I’ve only considered high-performing schools for my children, some of them public, some charter, some parochial, all outside our neighborhood.
But I’ve come to realize that this brand of school reform is a great deal only if you live in a wealthy neighborhood. You buy a house, and access to a good school comes with it. Whether you choose to enroll there or not, the public investment in neighborhood schools only helps your property values.
For the rest of us, it’s a cynical game. There aren’t enough slots in the best neighborhood and charter schools. So even for those of us lucky ones with cars and school-data spreadsheets, our options are mediocre at best.
In the meantime, the neighborhood schools are dying. After Ms. Rhee closed our first neighborhood school, the students were assigned to an elementary school connected to a homeless shelter. Then that closed, and I watched the children get shuffled again.
Earlier this year, when we were searching for a middle school for my son — 11 is a vulnerable age for anyone — our public options were even grimmer. I could have sent him to one of the newly consolidated kindergarten-to-eighth-grade campuses in my neighborhood, with low test scores and no algebra or foreign languages. We could enter a lottery for a spot in another charter or out-of-boundary middle school, competing against families all over the city.
The system recently floated a plan for yet another round of closings, with a proposal for new magnet middle school programs in my neighborhood, none of which would open in time for my son. These proposals, like much of reform in Washington, are aimed at some speculative future demographic, while doing nothing for the children already here. In the meantime, enrollment, and the best teachers, continue to go to the whitest, wealthiest communities.
The situation for Washington’s working- and middle-class families may be bleak, but we are hardly alone. Despite the lack of proof that school-choice policies work, they are gaining popularity in communities nationwide. Like us, those places will face a stark decision: Do they want equitable investment in community education, or do they want to hand it over to private schools and charters? Let’s stop pretending we can fairly do both. As long as we do, some will keep winning, but many of us will lose."
Is Social Entrepreneurship a Ponzi Scheme?
Over at Little Devices that Could:
"Most investment funds that have been set up in the social/impact spaces (i.e. Impact50) are focused on mezzanine and growth stage investments (in other words: if you are already making money, we may invest our money; if you are not, then you are too early)"- Laurie Lane-Zucker
If you combine that fact with the undeniable requirements for investments in risky endeavors, especially when challenges require invention and innovation, you can see not just the Ponzi scheme but a nearsighted lens on executing the hard stuff. Hard stuff is not just collecting information on a mobile phone about health, it's about creating that diagnostic or treatment device for you to do something about it in the first place. Hard stuff is not just creating a super mashed up version of a business model that assumes social entrepreneurs actually enjoy a strange lifestyle that combines exotic conference locations with a struggle-pay-their-student-loan lifestyle. Hard stuff is investing in the SE startup facing the reality that the co-founders have 10 different options in the non-SE space that will be meaningless, yet investible. The hard stuff makes an impact and it's a road worth travelling. We're just going to have to find better vehicles than Cinderella pumpkins.More here
Yulia Tymoshenko, former PM of Ukraine, is Now in Prison for Political Differences
For some reason, my blog has been getting very popular in Ukraine recently- after the US, the second largest source of readers of my blog is coming from Ukraine over the past month, and all-time, Ukraine is the 5th biggest nation of readers of my blog. Why Ukraine?
Perhaps it stems from a post I wrote in January 15, 2010 supporting Yulia Tymoshenko for President of Ukraine. You see, I keep my eyes on a lot of different subjects (just in the last several weeks alone I have written In Praise of NASA's Curiosity Mission, About Black Friday and why Obama, Robert Frank, and Other Liberals are Wrong for Hating It, and about Teaching and Brain-Dead Liberal Students), and one of the nations that I've always been fascinated with is Ukraine. So during the 2010 Presidential Elections in Ukraine, I read about all the candidates (it was a three-way race- between then-current President Viktor Yushchenko, then-former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, and then-current Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko), and came out in support of Tymoshenko.
Tymoshenko ended up losing the race to Yankukovych. Via wikipedia, you can read what happened next:
...In the first round of the presidential election on 17 January 2010, Tymoshenko took second place with 25% of the vote and Yanukovych took first place with 35%. The two proceeded to the runoff round held on 7 February 2010 in which Yanukovych was elected President of Ukraine with 48.95% of the votes, Tymoshenko received 45.4% of the votes. Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc members immediately claimed that there was systematic and large-scale vote rigging in this run-off. However Tymoshenko herself did not issue a statement about the election until a live televised broadcast on 13 February 2010 in which she said that she would challenge the election result in court. Tymoshenko alleged widespread fraud (according to Tymoshenko, a million votes were invalid) and said Yanukovych was not legitimately elected.
...On 3 March 2010 the Ukrainian Parliament passed a motion of no confidence in the second Tymoshenko Government in which the cabinet was dismissed with 243 lawmakers voting in favour out of the 450 (207 against).... Tymoshenko resigned from the Prime Minister post on 4 March 2010....
...Ukraine's prosecutor's office re-opened on 12 May 2010 a 2004 criminal case against Tymoshenko on accusations she had tried to bribe Supreme Court judges.... Tymoshenko also claimed that she was told by "all the offices of the Prosecutor General's Office" that President Yanukovych had personally instructed the Prosecutor General's Office to find any grounds to prosecute her....
...On 15 December 2010 the General Prosecutor's Office instituted a criminal case against Tymoshenko, alleging that she misused funds received by Ukraine within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. She was officially charged on 20 December 2010. Tymoshenko denied the money had been spent on pensions and insisted it was still at the disposal of the environment ministry and called the investigation against her a witch-hunt....
...A third criminal case against Tymoshenko in connection with alleged abuse of power during the 2009 Russia–Ukraine gas dispute was opened on 10 April 2011.[215][216] This case was labelled "absurd" by Tymoshenko. On 24 May 2011 prosecutors charged her in connection with this (third criminal) case. She was not arrested....
...Tymoshenko's trial (she was charged in May 2011) over abuse of office over a natural gas imports contract signed with Russia in January 2009 started on 24 June 2011.... On 5 August 2011 Tymoshenko was arrested for 'ridiculing the court proceedings'... On 11 October 2011, the court found Tymoshenko guilty of abuse of power, sentenced her to seven years in jail, and ordered to pay the state $188 million. She was convicted for exceeding her powers as Prime Minister, by ordering Naftogaz to sign the gas deal with Russia in 2009.] The judge also banned her from seeking elected office for her period of imprisonment (disqualifying her from participation in the 2012 parliamentary and 2015 presidential elections)....
...A 2001 criminal case on state funds embezzlement and tax evasion charges against Tymoshenko was reopened in Ukraine on 24 October 2011. Since late October 2011 Ukrainian prosecutors are investigating whether Tymoshenko was involved in the murder of Yevhen Shcherban. With that Tymoshenko was under criminal investigation for ten criminal acts; prosecutors have claimed she had committed more criminal acts. On 4 November 2011 the Ukrainian tax police resumed four criminal cases against Tymoshenko. She was charged for these cases on 10 November 2011...
You can see for yourself exactly what is going on- Tymoshenko is a pro-democracy former businesswomen who rejects the communist approach of keeping the masses poor while the elites proposer, and the elites manipulated the voting processes and the masses to win, and then turned around and have imprisoned her and likely will kill her while she is in prison. She's one of the good guys and deserves our support. Under Yankukovych, the President of Ukraine has assumed more and more powers and has acted in an ever more autocratic manner, demonstrating that he intends to centralize more power, freedom, and property under his control and his allies control so that they can live good live while the people of Ukraine are poor and taken advantage of. Equally before the law, rule of law, and civil-rights protections have been trampled on, investment in Ukraine has dropped off considerably, economic growth has staggered to a halt, and relations have fallen apart with most nations of the world. Yulia Tymoshenko is a political prisoner, and deserves the support of every decent nation and the support of the Ukrainian people.
For more information, check out this story from the Telegraph, or a recent letter that Yulia Tymoshenko was able to get out from prison and publish in the Wall Street Journal.
The Sweet Smell of Success Starts at Home (part 1)
A cross post with my blog over at the Balancing Act on the Lifetime Channel. (View part 2 life on the Lifetime blog)
The fact is that student success is more highly correlated with the parent than the teacher. A 2005 study through Harvard (Parental Involvement and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis) that looked at all research studies about parenting and school success found that:
Have you ever heard the statement:
Well, you can now say:
Is it any surprise that it is the same answer?
The other team is from a school twice our size and in a higher division. We won by 1 point last year in the last 2 seconds. Every game with them is a killer and it is a great rivalry. We are 14-0 from last year and this was our 15th win -- WE WON! My son was part.
My son has to work hard for what he gets in football. It has been very hard the last two years seeing him give every thing he had just to be a practice dummy for our state football team.
It is hard seeing your kids work hard and not get what they desire. But not once have I or my husband discussed playing time with the coaches. I am convinced that is NOT what good parents do.
So, that sweat smelled good to me. It meant that his hard work has paid off and he got to play and contribute on the team.
Bring it on. I'll take that sweat any day.
Because when I see my children when they are 40 (God willing) I will think they are successful if they are doing WORK worth doing and contributing to a team. Do they make the world around them better? Do they stand up against injustice? Are they making a difference in the world? Are they investing their lives long term in their own children? Are they willing to work hard today for a payoff next year or in ten years or later?
Research, life experience, and my time as a teacher have helped me help my children succeed. How can a woman who is wildly busy (I run a blog, 4 businesses, a non profit, author of 2 books, presenter, and full time teacher and I run 7 miles a week) still take time to help her children succeed? How do we balance it all?
This is what the balancing “act” is all about and yet it can’t be an act. It has to be real balance or your children suffer or you suffer. Let’s take this journey together.
In my next post in this series, I’ll share with you 10 tips for starting student success at home.
"Two of the patterns that emerged from the findings were that the facets of parental involvement that required a large investment of time, such as reading and communicating with one's child, and the more subtle aspects of parental involvement, such as parental style and expectations, had a greater impact on student educational outcomes than some of the more demonstrative aspects of parental involvement, such as having household rules, and parental attendance and participation at school functions."
Have you ever heard the statement:
"How do children spell love? T-I-M-E"
Well, you can now say:
How do children gain success: T-I-M-E.
Is it any surprise that it is the same answer?
The Sweet Smell of Success
After the football game Thursday night I smelled horrific. Not just bad but locker room bad. Three days in a gym bag bad. My sweaty 6'6" almost 200 pound junior got to play in the second half of the game. Not just play but he had a great game, opening up a hole for a touchdown run and playing as part of our team. (I later found out he got a “pancake” sticker for putting an opponent on his back.)The other team is from a school twice our size and in a higher division. We won by 1 point last year in the last 2 seconds. Every game with them is a killer and it is a great rivalry. We are 14-0 from last year and this was our 15th win -- WE WON! My son was part.
My son has to work hard for what he gets in football. It has been very hard the last two years seeing him give every thing he had just to be a practice dummy for our state football team.
It is hard seeing your kids work hard and not get what they desire. But not once have I or my husband discussed playing time with the coaches. I am convinced that is NOT what good parents do.
- Good parents help their kids prepare.
- Good parents help their kids see that hard work and goal setting does show rewards.
- Good parents help their kids see that life isn't always fair.
- Good parents believe in their children to work through things.
- Good parents seek wise advice and step in only when necessary and in that case, very rare.
- Good parents never quit.
So, that sweat smelled good to me. It meant that his hard work has paid off and he got to play and contribute on the team.
Bring it on. I'll take that sweat any day.
Because when I see my children when they are 40 (God willing) I will think they are successful if they are doing WORK worth doing and contributing to a team. Do they make the world around them better? Do they stand up against injustice? Are they making a difference in the world? Are they investing their lives long term in their own children? Are they willing to work hard today for a payoff next year or in ten years or later?
Research, life experience, and my time as a teacher have helped me help my children succeed. How can a woman who is wildly busy (I run a blog, 4 businesses, a non profit, author of 2 books, presenter, and full time teacher and I run 7 miles a week) still take time to help her children succeed? How do we balance it all?
This is what the balancing “act” is all about and yet it can’t be an act. It has to be real balance or your children suffer or you suffer. Let’s take this journey together.
In my next post in this series, I’ll share with you 10 tips for starting student success at home.
Other posts relating to this topic:
The Magic of Diasporas
The Economist on Diaspora's:
These networks of kinship and language make it easier to do business across borders (see article). They speed the flow of information: a Chinese trader in Indonesia who spots a gap in the market for cheap umbrellas will alert his cousin in Shenzhen who knows someone who runs an umbrella factory. Kinship ties foster trust, so they can seal the deal and get the umbrellas to Jakarta before the rainy season ends. Trust matters, especially in emerging markets where the rule of law is weak. So does a knowledge of the local culture. That is why so much foreign direct investment in China still passes through the Chinese diaspora. And modern communications make these networks an even more powerful tool of business.More here
Diasporas also help spread ideas. Many of the emerging world’s brightest minds are educated at Western universities. An increasing number go home, taking with them both knowledge and contacts. Indian computer scientists in Bangalore bounce ideas constantly off their Indian friends in Silicon Valley. China’s technology industry is dominated by “sea turtles” (Chinese who have lived abroad and returned).
Creating their own Economic Miracles-The Informal Entrepreneurs of China
Reason profiles Wenzhou China, a commercial powerhouse propelled by informal entrepreneurs:
via Stealth of Nations
Private citizens were the first to connect Wenzhou to neighboring regions by building roads, bridges, and highways, as well as the city’s airports and substantial portions of the dock. Even today the city is scattered with infrastructure investment firms through which groups of businessmen pool money to build the transport routes they all need to get their goods from factory to the point of sale. The result is not pretty. Aside from the confusion faced even by residents driving into the city, it is not uncommon to see sidewalks torn up to insert piping, with seemingly no intention of replacing the concrete. Nevertheless, the system is crudely efficient, merchants can all easily access factories, and the factories in this geographically isolated city now have sales networks that span the globe. ...More here
Images courtesy of Reason
The streets around the railway station are covered in stalls selling $3 blue jeans and $5 boots. There’s a city block dedicated to baby clothes next to a street that sells plastic signs for bathroom doors. In one run-down alleyway you’ll see people repairing televisions, making blankets, and selling fruits, vegetables, and poultry (live or dead). Further outside the center, you can find small shops dedicated to aluminum rods, sheet metal, tire rims, and tires. ... Pool halls are set up wherever there’s open space that you can set a tarp over. Gambling dens are openly advertised. Taxi drivers often drive off the meter. The karaoke parlors are numerous, and almost all of them double as brothels. The poorest residents take part in one of the largest citizen recycling programs anywhere in the world. In an alley one family collects scraps of fabric to sell to the local textile mills, another hoards scraps of paper and cardboard to send to the paper mills, and in front of a lot that looks like it is being used for a garbage dump, a man has set up a secondhand goods shop.
via Stealth of Nations
Taxpayers Will Lose Nearly $40 Billion on Bailout Out GM?
...The Treasury Department yesterday revised its loss estimate for the Government Motors bailout from $14.33 billion to $23.6 billion, thanks to the company’s sinking stock price. GM’s Sept. 30 closing price, on which the new estimate is based, was $20.18, about $13 less than its December IPO price and $35 less than what is needed for taxpayers to break even.Read the whole article here- it is very good, and echo's a lot of my earlier comments and thoughts about the whole 'bailout.' From the beginning, I was critical of the bailout. In my post More Thoughts on the Auto Loan Bailout written on December 12, 2008, I wrote:
The $23.6 billion represents a 25 percent loss on the feds $60 billion direct “investment” in GM. But that’s not all that taxpayers are on the hook for. As I explained previously, Uncle Sam’s special GM bankruptcy package allowed the company to write off $45 billion in previous losses going forward. This could work out to as much as $15 billion in tax savings that GM wouldn’t have had had it gone through a normal bankruptcy. Why? Because after bankruptcy, the tax liabilities of companies increase since they have no more losses to write off.
This means that the total hit to taxpayers, who still own about a quarter of the company, could add up to $38.6 billion. That’s even more that the $34 billion on the outside I had predicted in May....
...GM’s new competitors are not Toyota and Honda that share its cost structure but Hyndai and Kia that have a far leaner one. These companies concentrate on the small car market and don’t offer a full product line so GM and Ford’s most profitable vehicles—those evil, gas-guzzling, greenhouse-gas emitting SUV’s and pickup trucks—are somewhat insulated from the downward price pressure. But the greens and Obama administration want GM to reorient its product mix away from big cars and toward money-losing hybrids and electrics, something that could well put GM back in a hole.
But that’s part of the administration’s long-term strategy for ruining GM....
...But the Ostrich-in-Chief Barack Obama, who had assured taxpayers that their GM "investment" would cost them "not a dime," is drawing the opposite lesson, obviously. He has been trumpeting the success of the bailout—repeatedly....
I don't think that the banks should have bailed out either (auto company), and by bailing them out, Congress created this whole auto loan mess themselves. Second, the reason I'm not in favor of the bailout is out of principle- it is not fair and morally right that some companies are allowed to go bankrupt by the government, and others are saved with loans. Why one company and not another? The only arguments I ever hear in favor of the auto loan is the the auto companies affect a lot of people- that's true, but if you gave out loans of $1 million to 25,000 small companies (total of $25 billion, same as auto companies), that would probably affect a lot of people too.The simple fact of the matter is that under President Barack Obama and the new Democratic Party of Pelosi and Reid, government policy is now to direct money borrowed from China to favored groups in American society, such as auto workers and those who work for 'environmentally friendly' companies like Solyndra and SunPower. Government leaders take a cut of this money to make themselves more and more wealthy-see Frank, Dodd, Obama, Pelosi, Gore, Clinton, etc for a range of Democratic Congressman who have made themselves rich redirecting taxpayer funds. And thus America becomes just like every other corrupt oligarchy in the world, and our life, liberties, and property is less protected.
And also, why now? Why let past companies fail, and then come in and rescue one now? Were the other companies in the past less deserving- were their works less important than the workers now? My grandpa worked for a steel company, and the US government let it go under- why didn't it rescue that company and provide money for my grandpa's pension and healthcare? Why rescue GM now- because it has better lawyers and lobbyists? That's not how America works- that is how corrupt regimes work.
The only way to stop this is to throw the bums out next election. That means Obama has to go, and Democrats and Republicans who have supported his agenda also have to go- that's pretty much every Democrat and a good number of Republicans too. The most tea-party or conservative candidate who can win the general election must be nominated and we must act to get them elected, or America will continue to slide into the kind of tyranny that is evident when looking back at the sad and unprincipled chapter of the auto loan bailout.
For more information on this subject, check out Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road to Bankruptcy and Bailout-and Beyond
or Bail Out
or What Would the Founders Say?: A Patriot's Answers to America's Most Pressing Problems
or How Capitalism Will Save Us: Why Free People and Free Markets Are the Best Answer in Today's Economy
.
Obama Administration Pressured Solyndra to Delay Layoffs Until After 2010 Election
Solyndra’s chief executive warned the Energy Department on Oct. 25, 2010, that he intended to announce worker layoffs Oct. 28. Solyndra was bleeding cash and quickly going bankrupt, and the only thing that would possibly save the company, bring confidence to investors, and help protect taxpayers heavy investment in the company would be quick action in trimming its workforce and shutting down factories. It was an economic decision that needed to be made.
But Democratic President Barack Obama disregarded all of those things and made a political decision and urged officers of the struggling solar company Solyndra to postpone announcing planned layoffs until after the November 2010 midterm elections. He didn't want citizens to pick up on the fact that he used his clean energy initiatives to steer valuable taxpayer money to benefit his friends and donors, all under the oversight and supervision and approval of a Democratic Congress that was about to suffer historic losses to to their historic bad governance of the nation's finances.
President Obama made a political decision to bring pressure to bear on private companies to hide their financial position and continue to go further into debt until there was no hope left but bankruptcy and ruin. In many ways, Solyndra is a metaphor for his plan for America- cover up the true reality of the destruction that his policies are doing to our nation and put off crucial economic decisions in a desperate attempt to hold tight to political power.
From the Washington Post article "Solyndra: Energy Dept. pushed firm to keep layoffs quiet until after midterms":
The Obama administration urged officers of the struggling solar company Solyndra to postpone announcing planned layoffs until after the November 2010 midterm elections, newly released e-mails show.
Solyndra, the now-shuttered California company, had been a poster child of President Obama’s initiative to invest in clean energies and received the administration’s first energy loan of $535 million. But a year ago, in October 2010, the solar panel manufacturer was quickly running out of money and had warned the Energy Department it would need emergency cash to avoid having to shut down.
The new e-mails about the layoff announcement were released Tuesday morning as part of a House Energy and Commerce committee memo, provided in advance of Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s scheduled testimony before the investigative committee Thursday.
Solyndra’s chief executive warned the Energy Department on Oct. 25, 2010, that he intended to announce worker layoffs Oct. 28. He said he was spurred by numerous calls from reporters and potential investors about rumors the firm was in financial trouble and was planning to lay off workers and close one of its two plants.
But in an Oct. 30, 2010, e-mail, advisers to Solyndra’s primary investor, Argonaut Equity, explain that the Energy Department had strongly urged the company to put off the layoff announcement until Nov. 3. The midterm elections were held Nov. 2, and led to Republicans taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives....
I've written about Solyndra or related topics before- check out my posts Data Reveals that SunPower Employees Donated to Democrats, then Got Massive Loans or Executives as Investors-in-Chiefs: A Bad Idea?
For more information, check out Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies
.
Data Reveals that SunPower Employees Donated to Democrats, then Got Massive Loans
The best way for a company today to secure billions in loans is to donate money to Democrats, who will then steer taxpayer money to these companies so that they can then donate thousands of dollars to Democrats. At least that is the lesson that SunPower Corporation demonstrates.
I first heard about SunPower on Sean Hannity's show, where he was talking about how SunPower is going to be twice the scandal that Solyndra is. SunPower is a company with headquarters in California that builds solar panels and employees over 1500 people. For the last several years, it has been unprofitable and bleeding cash and is now heavily in debt, with a business model that most analysts believe is unsuccessful. But yet the United States Department of Energy gave a last-minute loan to this company for $1.2 billion on the hope that it will suddenly become profitable and also because this loan will help SunPower to create jobs (at a cost of $80/million per job). Here is more information on SunPower, via Human Events:
How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.Most of the attention on SunPower centers on Democratic California Congressman George Miller, who has been a big proponent of SunPower, probably because it has a major manufacturing facility in Miller's district and his son happens to work for the company as a lobbyist- in fact, Congressman Miller has supported the very loans that pay his sons $178K/year salary!
The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization. If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain....
....According to the SunPower PAC filings for its activities in the 2010 midterm election campaign cycle, it donated more than $36,000. Of the $15,650 donated to House and Senate candidates, $14,650 went to Democrats, with these top recipients: $4,000 to Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), $3,000 to Rep. Gabrielle Gifford (D.-Ariz.) and $2,900 Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.)...
But in reality, the story is not simply one of a Democratic Congressman who steers massive loans to a company his son works for- in reality, the story is that SunPower is yet another example of the sort of crony capitalism that the new Democratic Party and Barack Obama support.
A quick look on OpenSecrets.org demonstrates how the corrupt system of government that Democrats run actually works. Opensecrets tracks how much money donors give to political candidates. To reward all of my loyal readers, I went ahead and did some research for you on OpenSecrets to find out just how politically connected SunPower was so that we can speculate using real numbers on how much of a role their political donations might have played in securing taxpayer-backed loans for their unprofitable business.
Using OpenSecrets,org, I searched the 2008, 2010, and 2012 cycles, and then under 'occupation' type I wrote in 'sunpower', and was happy to see 156 entries for people who work at SunPower. These entries indicate employees of SunPower who gave money in these campaign cycles. I sorted all of the 156 entries into six columns to help me to better understand the data.
The first column that I created was of the total amount of money that employees of SolarPower gave to Republicans. This amount came to $250, given to the Republican National Committee.
The second column was the total amount of money that employees of SolarPower gave to Democrats from 2008-2012. This amount comes to $82,700, most of it going to President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign or the Democratic National Commitee.
The third column that I created represented money given to liberal/Democrat interest groups that primarily donate money to Democrats- this amounted to $15,750.
The fourth column showed that the amount of money given to conservative/GOP interest groups was $500.
Employees of SunPower also gave $83,006 to a political action committee that was set up called SunPower PAC, which in turn has donated heavily to Democrats (SunPower PAC has given $16.7K to Democrats vs $6K to GOP).
Employees of SunPower also gave $45,700 to a political action committee called Solar Energy Industries Association, which has also given more heavily to Democrats (2006-2012, $105.9K to Democrats vs $54K to the GOP).
The data is pretty clear- donating money to Democrats, in particular to Barack Obama, assures your company will receive massive loans regardless if your company is profitable or a good investment.
Under this Democratic administration, supported by these Democrats in Congress, the way to wealth, loans, high pay, and job security is to donate money to the Democratic party and then have them use the power of government to grant you these things. If the GOP were to do these things, it would be wrong too, but the reality of the situation is that it is not a GOP administration overseen and supported by a GOP Congress acting in such a corrupt manner, it is a Democrat with oversight and support from Democrats. 'Hypothetical Corrupt Republican' isn't on the ballot in 2012- Barack Obama is, and it really doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate, because they haven't demonstrated this level of corruption yet, whereas Barack Obama has. Voters need to vote out these Democrats who have used campaign donations and family connections to corrupt the usual decision-making process for granting government loans and turned our once great nation of the free and the brave into the home of the corrupt and bought-off.
For those who are new to my blog, I've written about this topic before- see my posts State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism, Syndicaliam, Corporatism... Obamaism or The Third Way: Obama and Fascism.
UPDATE: The Detroit News today ran another editorial about Solyndra, in it pointing out that
...in October last year, Solyndra donated $7,500 to the California Democratic Party and that company employees had kicked in $20,000 to Democratic candidates. They also contributed to the Republicans. But the Times said records show about 72 percent of the company's political contributions went to the Democrats and only 27 percent to Republicans. Contributing to Solyndra's failure were allegations that once it received the government-backed loans, it spent funds willy-nilly, including on a new $700 million plant deemed unnecessary by some company insiders....That's how it works boys and girls- donate money to Democrats, get massive loans, pay yourself big salaries and live life large, and then get out before it all goes under, leaving taxpayers holding the bill. That's what you get when you vote Democrat (and sometimes for squishy GOPers too).
Former Michigan Governor: US Can Learn a Lot from Michigan
Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic former Governor of Michigan, is exactly right- the United States can learn a lot of lessons from Michigan's government- lessons on what not to do.
Before the Obama years, many looked back at the Bush years and talked about how bad 4% GDP growth and 6% unemployment were, but to be honest, those numbers were never that good in Michigan, which suffered under a single state recession for much of the 2000's and had low GDP growth rates, high unemployment, and bad numbers on everything else. For many years, the people of this great state were told that the reason why Michigan was doing so poorly was George W. Bush's fault- but from 2009 to 2011 Bush was gone and yet Michigan still led the nation in all of the wrong numbers. The reason why Michigan did poorly as a state from 2003 to 2011 was because during this time our state had a progressive Democrat as Governor who put in place the same policies at the state level that have failed so miserably at the national level as well.
Governor Granholm believed that the government should take money from those who are successful and then use that money to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace. Her administration decided that what made a company or an industry a 'winner' was not whether or not it was profitable, whether it provided a good that was valued by society highly (as determined by private investment), or whether it was a stable and sound investment. No, under Democratic officials and Granholm, the decision to use the power of government to anoint an industry a 'winner' was made based on political decisions of whether or not that industry or company donated to the Democratic Party, the decision was made based on whether or not the industry or business was deemed 'cool' and 'hip', and whether not the business or industry provided a good or service that the ruling powers liked, whether it was 'green products' or movies.
Using the power of the government to transfer wealth from savers and producers and successful people to those who are spenders and wasters and unsuccessful has a decided effect on an economy, whether at the state level or the national level- it leads to less economic success, more waste, more inefficiency, less jobs, less tax revenue, and a thoroughly lessened society on almost every level. When property is taken and corrupt decisions are made in the government, a state and a nation are not successful.
Michigan showed the entire nation what would happen if those same policies were enacted at the national level- it was a lesson of what not to do. And yet, in spite of this, much like our national leaders that continue to press on in the face of failure, those who inflicted this awful economy on us have no apologies and hold true to their course. President Barack Obama, much like Jennifer Granholm, will not change in any substantive manner and will not alter his policies if he wins a second term.
Jennifer Granholm is coming out with a new book, "A Governor's Story: The Fight for Jobs and America's Economic Future," and in it she gives our great nation of how not to run a state or government or anything at all.
As is typical in a government which inserts itself into the marketplace and plays political games with citizens, the book talks about all of the political gamesmanship and behind-the-scenes deal-making and continual crisis that marked the Granholm years in Michigan. The book argues that government involvement — tax payer money given away in the name of green jobs and pork programs — is essential to economic growth, in spite of the track record that that philosophy has had whenever and wherever it has been tried. They attempt to argue that because another government has (the Obama administration) has awarded tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money borrowed on credit from China as loans to various industries in Michigan over the last couple of years, this is some sort of an indication of success for their method.
Granholm says "Smart and active government is really what's needed"- as if a small elite class of unconnected politicians working in a capital will be smarter than the thousands of decisions that free citizens make every day in a free market, and as if a more active government will not crowd out investment and decisions freely made by businessman and force them into making unwise and bad investments.
"If you place no bets, you will lose every time," she said, suggesting that the government should use its extreme lack of information about the market and rely on its lack of personal investment in the situation to gamble away taxpayer money at every political or 'cool' industry or company that comes along. Oh, a couple of those bets will win- even a Democrat finds his way out of a recession every now and then- but on the whole, taxpayers will take it on the chin many more times than not, and Granholm and her cronies will walk away with pensions, paychecks, a nice university position, and a new book.
United States, be prepared- Michigan has shown the nation the way, and don't ever forget- Granholm won a second term of office after her disastrous first term saw her destroy Michigan's economy and ruin many lives.
Detroit News provided quotes and source information.
Abolish the Department of Education- What Does the Data Suggest?
The Cato Institute put together the graph you see on this post which shows the amount of federal spending on education relative to the reading, math, and science scores in our nation. As you can see, the amount of federal spending per pupil has increased quite a bit since the federal Department of Education was created, growing almost 190%, from a budget of $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) in 1980 to $77.8 billion by 2011. And yet, in spite of the massive increase in federal spending, scores have remained flat. Two conclusions can be drawn from this.
The second conclusion that one could reach when looking at the data, a conclusion that many conservatives and tea party people might agree to, is that the massive spending in education at the federal level was largely a waste of money and did nothing to improve our test scores. Much like the arguments that these groups advance to oppose the stimulus spending of the federal government today ("imagine if our nation would not have blown several trillion in dollars on nothing during the Obama administration- our children might actually have a future and the unemployment numbers would look basically the same!"), this group would argue that all of the spending done at the federal level is having little to no effect on test scores for students because the money is being gobbled up by bureaucrats in Washington who are far removed from the real educating of students at the local level. They would suggest spending less amounts on education at the federal level and seeing what might happen- perhaps test scores would remain flat as they have done for over 30 years, but if this happens than our nation could save that $77 billion dollars/year and use it in other areas where it might be needed or not use it at all and have our government run a balanced budget.
One of these conclusions is reasonable, measured, and supported by the data. The other conclusion is not. I'll let you be the judge of which is which.
H/T Doug Ross
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)