My Beauty Best Teacher

Prosper Mondé writes:

Identifying traditional knowledge and putting it to good use is more important than ever, given that our economies remain geared towards outside markets and that people, especially those living in towns, do not have any viable way of feeding themselves. You only have to look at the quantities of frozen meat from the West and rice from Asia being imported by a number of West African countries, products that are widely acknowledged as less nutritious than their local counterparts. Sorghum and millet are disappearing in some parts of southern Benin, though these crops play an important role during lean periods.
How can we reverse this trend? By fighting collective ignorance. In this respect, governments, national and international civil society organisations, researchers and journalists all have a major role to play...[continue reading]

In SciDev Linda Nordling asks "Does Africa really need new idealism?" in its innovation policy.Commenting on a recent 'Knowledge Swaraj' manifesto which:

...suggests countries establish 'innovation fora' to debate technology investments and choices more broadly. And it wants funding for scientific 'centres of excellence' to give way to support for science that addresses local needs.

In addition it:

...will go a step further in promoting the 'domestication' of science in Africa, says ATPS executive director, Kevin Urama.He says that Africa's confidence in its own science — traditional knowledge — dropped with colonialism and the arrival of Western science traditions. He argues that this cultural loss underpins Western-sponsored science's inability to improve the lives of ordinary Africans.

More here

If this is "Idealism" I would suggest we have further doses of it. The lack of a self-reinforcing scientific culture can be traced to the very lack of a local intrinsic need and or connection to research as its currently practiced.

Anil Gupta writes:

Local innovations could help inform scientific research, if only scientists would invest the proper resources into exploring them.
Scientists do not respond as enthusiastically as they should because they are often sceptical about the value of traditional knowledge. There are few opportunities for understanding the real potential of grassroots innovations and the rewards of validating or further developing them may seem limited.

He suggests:

Creating a global grassroots innovation foundation could also help blend formal and informal science to address persistent problems of survival in marginal environments. Billions are spent on solving the problems of the poor, but not the millions it would take to forge partnerships between informal and formal science around the world to develop people-oriented sustainable technologies.

via SciDev
photo courtesy of the InnovationInsider

For months, my two brothers and I have been discussing the connections in our modern political system between church and state- that is, between religion and politics. We reject the false theory that religion and politics should be separated, because it is not possible. A person’s views on God, the nature of God, and the teachings of God do affect their political views- nay, those are the basis of a person’s political views. A person’s religion will form the foundation on which that person builds their political theories, and thus it is very important to consider what religious beliefs important political figures has.

This is not to say that one should vote based on religion- I’m not advocating identity politics or discrimination in any way. And this is not to say that the State should establish a particular religion as the only recognized religion- this is not the role of government and lessens liberty. But it is important to know what major political figures believe about the world so that you can better understand how they will use policy and power to shape the world.

One way of looking at the world is advocated by our current President, Democrat Barack Obama, and he has many others who share his worldview, such as Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Through their statements and policy proposals, they have revealed how they view the nature of the universe.

Generally speaking, the modern Democrat party feels that people are trapped in an unfair and unjust material world. In churches they blame a lot of people for this, and their anger and bitterness is felt quite clearly. They frequently point fingers at God himself, who unjustly and unfairly did this to certain groups and races.

This does not mean that Democrats reject God, although there are a lot of agnostic and atheists in this party today. Rather, they frequently reject the traditional Christian teachings of God, and try to go over his head to find some greater power than him. To Democrats, there is some higher power yet than even God- The People, The World, The Globe- they call it by many names, but the idea is the same, that there is some remote and powerful being out there who is higher than God.

Democrats today believe that man is good and that the world is evil- that man was a good and decent person but was ambushed and put in a nation or world where bad things occur. It isn’t man’s fault, it isn’t any groups fault- no one is at fault, since man is good. The fault lies with the world, which must be changed from its fallen state.

The chief way for a person to change this fallen world and once again hope of being divine is by believing in these facts and by more fully understanding how great humans are. Obama’s speeches are filled with platitudes and phrases about how he knows that people are good, about how he feels that people are great, and that if only they would follow his ideas, then we could overcome this fallen world and be great ourselves.

The key to Obama’s speeches are that knowledge and understanding and empathy are the central factor in this process of restoration. And I’m not talking about knowledge as in an understanding of policy, book learning in economics, experience in certain industries, etc- I’m talking about esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine.

It is more important for Obama to appoint Czars of various industries who feel what he feels, who have empathy like he has empathy, and who know what he knows, rather than appoint czars from within particular industries. It is more important that they are acquainted with Obama than they have real knowledge of subject matters. It is more important that they be inward 'knowing' people or people on journeys of self-exploration than be people who have common sense and are average people.

The idea is that the disorder and badness of the world can be overcome by dreaming and believing, and above all, by trusting the leadership of Obama and his guidance of this journey, because he is.

A lot of time it feels as if Democrats today are alienated from the world- Obama holds himself as aloof, above the world, and it is not uncommon for Democrats to insist that they be called by fancy titles that make them higher than the rest of us. They don’t feel connected with us, especially those of us in the heartland of the nation, those of us who are laughed at for clinging to our guns, gods, and goods.

This is not all speculative stuff- there is a policy impact of this. Obama and the Democrats, acting on these beliefs, seek to implement and or create a policy to actualize their speculations- to create a sort of heaven on earth. Now is the time, the one point in human history, these Democrats claim, when the kingdom of God can be replaced with the kingdom of man.

For example, some Democrats believe that we can establish the perfect healthcare system once selected bureaucrats, who have special knowledge, take control and overturn the natural forces of capitalism. Or that the perfect education system can be established if only it is run by chosen government official, who will overcome the natural forces of man and make us better people.

Democrats are now marked by a desire to dominate others, as seen by the Cap and Trade bill, because it is they who has The Vision. They Know, and they laugh at others who pretend to know things, because they Know that they don’t. As a result, there is very little regard for the welfare of those who are harmed by the resulting politics, which ranges from coercive to calamitous.

Hopefully, this little essay helps you to understand the beliefs behind Obama, Pelosi, and the Democrat Party today, and in the future you will not wonder why they do the things that they do. Their political policies are indeed affected by their religious views, and in understanding their religious views better, you will better understand their political views.

The award winning Tiwai African Health & Fitness Village is modern health and fitness center built around the principles and practices of West African ethnomedicine and located near the high biodiversity Tiwai Island Gola Forest. Their aim

...is to protect the high biodiversity environments of West Africa by making them relevant to sustainable livelihood activities of the people who live in or around them. West African life and customs emerged from the rich biodiversity of the Upper Guinea rainforest. Preserving the cultures that emerged from this forest could be an important unifying factor in conflict-prone West Africa, while applying traditional knowledge in a 21st Century context is potentially a rich source of revenue for rural development.

Richard Florida writing in The Atlantic:

Corrupt nations have more traditional economic structures, based on resource extraction or manufacturing; they have not yet made the transition to highly skilled knowledge economies. Corrupt nations are more likely to be intolerant; their citizens not only must endure lower material living standards but lower levels of happiness and life satisfaction.
If we really want to combat corruption we must deal with the broader and much harder challenges of economic development. When less developed nations begin to leverage their knowledge, skills, and human capital to raise their levels of economic output, then the battle is already won.

More Here

Last week, as part of our 'professional development', a group of teachers were given a tour of the new Model High School in our district. Model High Schools are a new movement, and are based on the philosophy that each child as a unique learner and thus should create their own educational experiences. These schools develop personalized education programs that focus on being fun and creative. They also try to surround students with nurturing adults who support and enable students in their learning. Students do not focus on learning abstract concepts or knowledge, and instead build a curriculum around whatever they are interested in. And they are assessed on standards they themselves set. Subjects that students focus on are 'Urban Culture,' 'Contemporary Art,' and 'Multicultural Literature.' These schools are supposed to be an alternative school for students who do not do well in traditional schools. Oh yes, Model High School is the vision of liberal education.

So we get to the Model High School, and are walking around the building listening to this new sounding language given by three African-American women who run the school. We were told to ask any questions if we had any, so I raised my hand.

"Why do you teach students those subjects- rather than learning about how to sell drugs, reading rap, and admiring a bunch of trash turned into 'art', wouldn't students benefit more by a deeper student of reading, math, and science?" While I was led to believe that no question was stupid (in fact, that was said with breathy belief at the beginning of the question and answer period, as if every question really is equal), you should have seen the glares that were leveled on me after asking that question. It was almost as if I had said that the emperor was wearing no clothes!

They answered with some sort of mumbo-jumbo about how all knowledge is equal and that there are no real truths in the world, instead students focus on the process of learning and discovery.

Oh yeah, my eyes rolled at this one, and even though the tour continued and we started to look at wonderful 'interpretive' art projects (random colors thrown at the paper) that students spent weeks on (rather than learning geometry or US history), I couldn't let that last answer go. So at the next pause in the tour, I asked "What do you mean when you say that students are assessed by standards that they themselves set? Do you really teach them that wrong answers are right?"

The group I was with went dead still with shock. I guess in schools that teach diversity and equality, there is only one view that is better than others, and you are not to question it. I did, and oh man, was the answer I got frosty indeed- "Good grades should come from good ideas," one of the directors told me.

I replied "even if the ideas lack any basis in science or rationality?"

Another director replied- "It is not really about science or rationality- it is about effort- the only thing that really matters in this world is effort anyways."

"Whoa," I said, "Do you mean to suggest that your school rewards effort more so than actual achievement? Do you really believe that if someone works really hard doing something that has little use, or works really hard doing something that could easily be done another way, or works really hard doing something that does not work, or works really hard doing the wrong thing, we should reward that person with a good grade just because of the effort? What about productivity? Efficiency? Correctness? Rightness? Do those things not matter" Apparently, in the liberal world of the Model High School, they don't.

The tour continued on, now with a certain edge in it, as the believes now sensed they had an unbeliever in their midst. I looked around the school with renewed interest, and was surprised by some of the work that was on the walls of the school. Whereas in my classroom, the walls are functionally decorated and convey a business-like approach to learning, the walls of this school were filled with meaningless and empty slogans. "Change," "Hope," "Togetherness," "Effort," "Equality," "Diversity," and "Save the Environment" the walls shouted to students. This Model High School looked less like a place of 'learning' and more like a 're-education camp.'

Once more, I tried to question the directors. At this point, I should have realized that I was now being watched more so than listened to- but I demonstrated the same stupidity here that I did when I questioned Earth Day last month (Earth Day: A Communist Plot?). Since I was no longer being recognized to speak, I simply voiced my question. "The students in this school are here because they were not disciplined- they failed their classes by not handing in work, they didn't study, they didn't try to understand the concepts, and many were insubordinate and disrespectful for teachers. And now your plan to help these students is to enable them, to give in to their demands, to surround them with 'nurturing' adults who put no discipline on them, and who appease them at every turn?"

"Yes, exactly," the directors replied, happy now that I understood their philosophy, that I finally got what they were doing in this school. Oh, and I did- now I understood that this school was meant to create a permanent underclass of slaves to serve the tyrants who ran it. The Model High School really was a vision of liberal education.

One of the hotly contested races this year at the Michigan Republican State Convention (held in Lansing on Saturday, August 28) will be the race for the Republican nominee for Secretary of State. In my opinion, there has been little objective analysis so far on the candidates, as I don't consider the liberals working at the major newspapers or the hired hands working for the candidates to be objective opinions, so I am going to once again jump into the void and provide some analysis of the candidates. To prove my objectivity, I will volunteer that when I began writing this blog post I still had not decided who I would recommend, although in doing research for it and looking over my notes from the many debates and functions that I have attended, I feel that I can offer some guidance on who delegates should vote for.

Voters will be able to vote for a Michigan Secretary of State election of 2010 on November 2, 2010.  Candidates for Secretary of State are nominated by political parties at their state conventions. The office of Secretary of State is an open seat because Michigan state term limit laws prevent current Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land from running for a third term, in spite of the fact that she has been doing an amazing job with that office and proved that someday she is going to be an important leader for our state.

Unlike in years past when the Secretary of State race really didn't matter that much, this year it does. The main reason for this is because of billionaire George Sorus and his attempt to corrupt our democracy by corrupting the very nature of elections in our county. As I wrote earlier in Soros Creates Project to Install Secretaries of State Across the Nation in Attempt to Control Vote Counting Forever:

George Soros has created a "527" group called the Secretary of State Project, which can accept unlimited undisclosed money, and will use that money to run attack ads and hit pieces on Republican and moderate Democrats in an attempt to install left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. Once Soros has put in place left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state all across the nation, they will be the ones counting the votes, deciding who is a registered voter and who isn't, and supervising the election process.

Joseph Stalin once remarked, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." George Soros is setting it up so that across the nation, left-wing Democrats will decide everything for our nation.

SoS Project is also endorsing Jocelyn Benson, candidate for secretary of state in Michigan, whom it lauds as an "[e]lection law scholar and community organizer." Benson is a candidate ACORN would love.

Now that you understand why important it is to win the Secretary of State position this year, let's immediately narrow down our list of possible candidates. Of course I hope that no one in their right mind considers voting for Democrat Jocelyn Benson- she is a left-wing liberal professor and lawyer who wants to let illegal aliens and Democrats from out of state vote, doesn't really like the 'one-person, one-vote' rule, wants to put an electronic chip in your license card so that she can track you at all times, wants to have Democrats count the votes and certify the votes in any election, and thinks that ACORN should run the entire Secretary of State office.

Also we probably can eliminate Green Party nominee John Anthony La Pietra, who is an attorney and likely a watermelon, Libertarian Scotty Boman, who is a community college instructor and will only suck votes away from real conservative candidates, and Tea Party candidate Kyle Franklin, who likely lives in California and is a registered Democrat who got on the ballot through forged signatures (see my post Fake Tea Party Group Exposed as Democrat Plot!).

So, let's now take a look at the possible Republican candidates for Secretary of State. There is State Senator Cameron Brown, Calhoun County Clerk Anne Norlander, State Representative Paul Scott, Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson, and State Senator Michelle McManus.

According to recent polling data the race is still wide open, although for the record McManus and Brown are in the lead. The numbers are Michelle McManus (R) 9.4%, Cameron Brown (R) 7.6%. Paul Scott (R) 5.2%, Ruth Johnson (R) 4.4%, Anne Norlander (R) 2.2%, and Undecided 71.2% (source: Glengariff Group Inc.).

As far as campaign finances go, Brown raised $228,000 (including $160,000 he gave his campaign), Norlander raised $224,000 (including $174,000 she loaned her campaign), McManus raised $197,000, Johnson has raised $174,000 (including $51,000 she gave herself), and Scott has raised $103,000 (includes $36,000 he gave his campaign) (source: The Detroit News), so it appears that McManus and Johnson are the big fundraisers.

Cameron Brown has a Master's Degree in Public Administration, served as St. Joseph county commissioner from 1988-98 and Mchigan State Senator from 2003 to present, and also is the former vice president of marketing for Freeman Manufacturing Co. He is a rather bland and boring speaker, does not get the crowd fired up, doesn't strike me as particularly conservative, has no experience as an elections official, and I haven't seen him at too many Tea Party events. He would be a solid and steady SoS, but doesn't strike me as the best candidate for the job.

Michelle McManus has a BA from CMU, is the former director of Gov. John Engler's northern office., was a State Representative from 1997-2002, and a State Senator from 2003-present. She has been involved with the Tea Party movement from the very start and strikes me as being a good conservative option for SoS, but she has no experience as an election official and doesn't excite the crowd. She would also be a good SoS, and I can see why she leads in both polls and fundraising, but I still feel there is a better candidate out there.

Ruth Johnson has a Master's Degree, was on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners from 1989-1998, was a State Representatives from 1999-2002, and since 2003 has served as the Oakland County Clerk. She's an able and nice clerk, but I think she like Mike Bouchard in that she is a state-wide election loser- I am bothered by her inability to run away with her last several Clerk elections here in Oakland County, and she was the lieutenant governor running mate for Dick DeVos in 2006 when he was hammered by an unpopular and inept Granholm. Also, she seems to be approaching the SoS position more as a legislator and less as an administrator. She's a good clerk and her experience running elections and ballots is a good plus, and she is raising a lot of money, and everyone in Oakland County is a homer for her, but I think that there are several candidates for SoS who bring a little more to the table.

Anne Norlander has a BA in Education from MSU, is a former kindergarten teacher, served as Calhoun county commissioner from 1984-1988, and has served as Calhoun County clerk from 1989 to present. Out of all the candidates running for Secretary of State, she has the most experience, and every time that I've seen her talk or debate, that experience has showed- she knows what the SoS office does better than any candidates, she knows the rules and regulations better than the other candidates, she knows exactly what's going on in other states and what the controversies are around the nation with regards to voting and elections, and clearly would run the SoS's office with command and ability. In any other year, I think she would be the best choice of candidates, as I feel the Secretary of State's office should be as un-political as possible and run by the best possible executive administrator, which I feel Norlander is. But I'm bothered by her lack of fundraising, her lack of support at events that I've gone to, and her poor polling numbers. I'd like to recommend her, but this election I'm going a different direction.

Paul Scott has a MA in public policy (from Harvard, and I'm not sure if that is a plus or a minus) and a law degree (from UofM, and again I'm not sure if that is a plus or minus), worked as the former deputy director, Gallup Organization's World Poll Division, and now is in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2009 to present. He lacks experience as an administrator and executive in elections and voting and he at times demonstrated a lack of knowledge about what the Secretary of State's office could do. But experience and knowledge can come quickly. Scott hasn't been active in the Tea Party movement that I know of, but in debates and speeches he expressed solid conservative values and struk me as the most game-changing possibility for the Tea Party/Conservative/Libertarian element of the GOP. He is a great speaker and debater and has charisma. Some people are going to hold his age against him- he is only 29 and is rather young, but contrary to what some of the old-timers in the GOP think, talent should be rewarded over 'paying your dues'. Scott is going to be controversial, he is going to upset a lot of people, and when the Democrats turn the SoS election ugly he likely is going to have some things that he said that rubbed people the wrong way, but I'm feeling a little reckless and annoyed with the traditional establishment in the GOP and don't want Brooks picking Johnson for me or other old-timers telling me to go with Brown, so I'm going to be recommending that you vote for Paul Scott.

A Conservative Teacher recommends that you vote for Paul Scott as the GOP nominee for Secretary of State. Let's roll the dice on this wild card and buck the traditional GOP establishment by going with a young and energetic conservative who could be the next great Secretary of State for Michigan.

(source information on degrees and experience came from the AP)

UPDATE: After another week of research and discussion, I'd like to add a few more things. First, a considerable amount of the 'vote for Ruth Johnson' stuff is coming from people who Ruth knows and has worked for- it's homer-type stuff. Second, most of the criticism leveled at Paul Scott continues to be of the 'he's too young' variety, and I consider that to be bogus criticism. Third, Anne Norlander seems to be switching her focus from winning the campaign to running up support for her doing other things in her political future. Fourth, Cameron Brown continues to exist. And last, Michelle McManus has impressed me more and more whenever I have met her.

So, that being said, I recommend that if you are feeling a little crazy and want to shake things up, go with Paul Scott. If you want a more solid and sensible pick, go with Michelle McManus. See you at the convention!

Some have a spoiled child mentality: "If something good happens to you, then that is bad for me."

There are a lot of people doing great things to move education forward. There is no "one" single best. We're too intertwined for that.

Some have a spoiled child mentality:

"If something good happens to you, then that is bad for me."

As educators, I think an abundance mentality is especially important. I can do well, you can do well.

How do I rank?

Competition can be a scorecard or a metric and have a purpose, but the "rankings" are being used to drive everything. We should ask:

• How do we score against ourselves? 
• Are we improving?
• Do we agree with the rankings at all? Despite serious questions about these standardized tests, we use their rankings anyway, giving them more credence.

As a parent, I'd want to see efolios and online work as well as measures of learning environment.

Is there really enough for all of us?
For example, there are a ton of great books hitting the market by wonderful edubloggers:

• Doug Johnson (The Classroom Teacher's Technology Survival Guide)
• Lisa Parisi and Brian Crosby (Making Connections with Blogging: Authentic Learning for Today's Classrooms)
• Scott McLeod and Chris Lehmann (What School Leaders Need to Know About Digital Technologies and Social Media) 
• are just a few that come to mind. (Please mention others in the comments that I've forgotten and I'll add them.)

Why, would I mention those books on my blog when my own book Flattening Classrooms, Engaging Minds: Move to Global Collaboration One Step at a Time comes out in just a few weeks?

Honestly, because I believe in the abundance mentality. Each of these books are by great people that I know personally and I honestly want them to be successful. I believe in their message and their purpose. More of these types of books need to be read. Period.

Many believe comparable means competitive. I disagree.
Here's why...

•  Successful edubloggers breed future successful edubloggers.
If we want to upset the traditional educational publishing apple cart, we can support those we know through social media. Plus, we know what we are getting because we've already seen their work.


• What these people are saying is good (IMHO) and will help education.
  I truly believe that if someone reads one of these books then it will lead to another and then another. As great as their blogs are, with the monstrous editing process that goes into writing a book, I think you'll have a higher quality product in their books. Blogs let you vent. Books make you think. These messages are good for education.
  
• I like each of them and wish them well. I know the sacrifice that it takes to birth a book and I know that each of them need to help their families. I want them each to be wildly successful.
  
• You reap what you sow. Be helpful and others will be helpful to you. Don't keep a scorecard because not everybody is like this, but in the end, helpful people find themselves receiving blessings from unexpected places.

"It’s sad that so few tech blog posts add the kind of value that can be added by including links to high quality off-site resources. It’s ok to send readers away, they’ll appreciate the pointers and they’ll come back. Some of the biggest sites on the web just aggregate links to other sites – why not combine that form of value with original content on blogs? Not only are the links valuable for readers, the research required to assemble those links is a big value add as well. Compiling research and links to other sites is a fine art. I know everybody wants to see more of this. Who on earth would believe that a single blog post’s author knows everything a reader wants to know about a topic?"