Saturday, March 26, 2011

National right to work act S504 – Referred To Committee

The National Right To Work Act, sponsored in the Senate by Jim DeMint (R-NC), and cosponsored by the following Senators: John Barraso (R-WY), Tom Coborn (R-OK), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), James Inhofe (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Paul Rand (R-KY), James Risch (R-ID), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and David Vitter (R-LA), has been forwarded as of March 8th 2011 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. (Source, Library of Congress)

Now, it has to go through the Committee, with a rather long list of priorities, primarily the Health Care Reform Act and how to make it more palatable to the American people, although it has yet to pass Constitutional Muster. The following are the members of this committee:

Democrats by Rank
Tom Harkin (IA) (Chair)
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Patty Murray (WA)
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT)
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (PA)
Kay R. Hagan (NC)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Al Franken (MN)
Michael F. Bennet (CO)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
Richard Blumenthal (CT)
Republicans by Rank
Michael B. Enzi (WY) (Ranking Member)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Richard Burr (NC)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
Rand Paul (KY)
Orrin G. Hatch (UT)
John McCain (AZ)
Pat Roberts (KS)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Mark Kirk (IL)

The full text of the bill



112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. 504
To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form,join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 8, 2011
Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LEE, Mr. PAUL,
Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill;which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,Labor, and Pensions
A BILL
To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to
refrain from such activities.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Right-to-
5 Work Act’’.
6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.
8 (a) RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.—Section 7 of the Na9
tional Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157) is amended
VerDate Mar 15 2010 00:15 Mar 09, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S504.IS S504 smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2
•S 504 IS
1 by striking ‘‘except to’’ and all that follows through ‘‘au2
thorized in section 8(a)(3)’’.
3 (b) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.—Section 8 of the
4 National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended—
6 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ‘‘: Provided,
7 That’’ and all that follows through ‘‘retaining membership’’;
9 (2) in subsection (b)—
10 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or to
11 discriminate’’ and all that follows through ‘‘re12
taining membership’’; and
13 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘covered
14 by an agreement authorized under subsection
15 (a)(3) of this section’’; and
16 (3) in subsection (f), by striking clause (2) and
17 redesignating clauses (3) and (4) as clauses (2) and
18 (3), respectively.
19 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.
20 Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152)
21 is amended by striking paragraph Eleven.


Currently, 22 States have Right To Work Laws, a majority of those states with right to work laws, as of January this year, had lower unemployment than that do not. Although there are many occupations that would suffer without the right to unionize, individuals wishing to belong to a union should have a choice, not be forced into an organization in order to gain employment.

Anyone Wishing to put in their two cents, can contact a Senator on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions at senate.gov/general/contact-information/senators

Friday, March 25, 2011

Media in Snit Over Slow Start of 2012 Debates – Democrats First To Roll Out Pre-Fall Presidential Debates in 2003 – Enter Last - Finish First


Obama and a field of "potential GOP Contenders", image: The State.com

The New York Timesis wondering why there may be few if any Republican Presidential Contenders at the first televised debate on May 2nd. They cite the standard “Republican Strategist” as saying GOP potential candidates may not want to face a hostile media (NBC and politico), the Times wonders if the GOP Candidates would dare not appear at a Fox News Debate scheduled 3 days later on May 5th. They also offer the dire warning of entering the race later than sooner, as being somewhat of a political disaster for a candidate, pointing out the brief candidacy of Republican Fred Thompson.

Meanwhile, the latest Gallup poll shows Huckabee with the lead over a field of seventeen potential, but yet to officially announce, candidates. In the Gallup Poll, Huckabee leads, followed by Romney and Palin, with Trump on the Gallup rolls, 2 points behind the candidate most likely to announce first, Tim Pawlenty. There are four candidates in this particular scenario that garner double digits: Huckabee, Romney, Palin and Gingrich. The Gallup articles states there are no clear frontrunners this late in the game, and notes that the 1000 people polled, apparently are not galvanized behind any one candidate.

Talk about stating the obvious. If, for example the field included ten officially announced candidates, one would bet that, in the reality of this extremely early stage in presidential contests, the results might be the same.

Going far back into the history of Presidential Debates and announcements to run, one finds that for the 2004 presidential contest, the earliest recorded debate took place on May 3rd, 1999 in California. This was the DNC debate noted as the earliest recorded and featured Howard Dean, John Edwards (considered the front runner), John Kerry (who eventually won the nomination and lost to President George W. Bush, and rounding out the field were Gephardt and Lieberman. Source WSWS.org (World Socialist Web Site) Prior to the Democrats starting the trend of the screamingly early debate, debates for both major political parties were held later in the year preceding the general election, and in some instances, candidates did not attend nor announce their intent to run, until after the first two debates were held.

On November, 29, 1999, George Bush entered the debate arena, skipping two prior debates. (McCook Daily Gazette). The first GOP debates of the 2000 General were held in the later half of October 1999, two weeks apart. (Washington Post) On the DNC side, Bradley did not announce his intent to run against Gore until December of 1999, even though Gore had announced earlier in the year. In that case, Gore, who was the sitting Vice President under Bill Clinton, did not anticipate a serious challenge. In this one scenario, with Bradley entering “late” in that year, Gore did go onto win the nomination. However, one might have anticipated it a given, as he was, again, the sitting Vice President and therefore “heir to the throne”.

In the case of the GOP nominees, and their late to the debate, Gorge W. Bush, all should know the outcome; G.W. Bush went on to two terms in the White House.
Therefore, the media and its close alliance with the DNC (or preference for), may stem from the fact that, although ideologically wedded to the Democratic Party, they also gain from early announcements and debates in “content”. Otherwise they may be forced, at this point, to cover other stories such as the fact that the Pentagon has announced that the U.S. will continue military operations in Libya. (AP) Additionally, the U.S. now has boots in the form of the Marines, on the ground in Libya(National Review), or that the military under Obama’s watch, was involved in murdering civilians and then posing for photos with the deceased”> (Guardian-UK)

Unfortunately, the general media cannot run these stories every day, on several pages within a printed piece, or on the network news, as it would, in all likelihood, make their case for a second Obama Presidential bid a bit more difficult. (Unlike the way any move made by George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan was put under the media microscope and beat to death by the press.)

The fact that Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Mitt Romney and whoever else may end up jumping into the cesspool left behind by the current administration has yet to announce, is moot and in keeping with the traditional time to announce, rather than the earlier announcements and debates set by the DNC in the 2004 general. On the face of it, the later the date, the better for those weary of politicians from the on-set, additionally, from a Machiavellian point of view, the later the GOP nominees enter the fray, the more difficult for the competition (in this case the President), in terms of having the time to define themselves against a known enemy – with the help of a few friends, consistently beating the drums against the ineptitude of this Pastor, or that Mayor, or God Forbid, the man who wants to tell the President: “Your fired!”. (However, these barbs are available in media daily, just in case).

Should Huckabee skip the first 4 debates for that matter, or Palin or Romney or Gingrich or Trump, they have had the time to meet with constituents, world leaders, small and large businesses, and get a real sense of the magnitude of the task at hand. In addition, should an announcement come in say July of 2011 that gives the public 17 months of speculation to deal with, which might still be too much. Imagine announcement in July and debates in October! Less is more, and in this case, perhaps history will repeat itself (as it is want to do), with the last man in, taking the prize. As Gallup noted in the above reference article, once there are actual announcements of an intent to run, a front runner will appear, in due time, at the right time, just not at a time that is convenient for journalist, pundits and political junkies.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

2012 Update: Palin Shores Up Foreign Alliances, Attacks begin from the Right, Trump enters the Fray in Iowa, Odds are on Palin.


Palin in Israel with the Netenyahu's, photo Ben Gershom gpo

As 2011 begins to shape up, although few have announced an actual intent to run for the 2012 GOP nominations, pundits are picking sides, and trips are being made both at home and abroad, to shore up alliances and “test the waters”. Palin’s recent swing through the nations that represent perhaps, our two most stalwart allies outside of Great Britain, India and Israel, made quite the impression according to Irish Central.com. The Indian Press appears to be in agreement as Positive Palin stories abound in India, and more so now that she has set foot in the country. In Israel, Palin met briefly with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, making the promise to return for a lengthier visit in the near future. The Prime Minister – however, what is more interesting is that Netanyahu chose to meet with Palin over a Left Wing American Lobby:

J Street officials, who are in Israel for a meeting of the Knesset Diaspora Affairs Committee, complained on Monday that Netanyahu had refused a request to meet with them but had chosen to meet with Palin.

The left-wing American lobby’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, said he had wanted to meet with Netanyahu “to introduce ourselves and explain how we can work together as allies.”


This denotes the respect the Prime Minister has for certain American Dignitaries who carry more weight than say, a left-wing American lobbyist.

Back home, Palin’s first stop in Florida was to a sold out crowd of over 1,000, Naples News Press), where, once again, she noted she was weighing a run in 2012.

Meanwhile, the barbs come from the right National Review reports on pundit Bill Kristol as spouting “"I think she's unlikely to be the Republican nominee, and to be honest I think she probably shouldn't be the Republican nominee for president." in reference to a question posed about a potential Palin run in 2012. Conservative activist, Andrew Breitbart, believes that Palin should be akin to an Oprah, in other words a cheerleader for a particular candidate. His choices: Congresswoman Michelle Bachman and Alan West(Politico) Although more than meeting the conservative criteria, both are, at this point, about as relevant as either Ralph Nader or Ron Paul entering the race, perhaps less so, given national name recognition. West and Bachman have exemplary Tea Party Credentials, and Bachman, to her credit, has a stellar voting record in the Congress – that said, Bachman is being taken seriously by ABC News, where she parrots Palin, as saying “she wants to be part of the conversation in 2012” and goes on to note a decision will be made by summer as to her intent to enter the race for the White House

While in India, Palin noted it was time for a woman to be President of the United States, however, to be clear, she did not mention which woman. (See Irish Central link in first Paragraph as source).


All in all, the odds are currently in favor of a Palin run and win, literally she is, as of now, tied with Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, and is the leading Republican candidate in offshore betting on the overall 2012 Presidential race at Sportsbook.com Having watched the line in previous elections, the odds on favorite at this point is normally the incumbent, however, the closer one gets to 2012, and the candidates begin to own their positions within the two political parties, the odds tighten. As those bets are placed from both within and outside of the U.S. the fact that Palin is the top choice for the nomination, is interesting in itself. A side note: Odds in 2007, on the 2008 election, Barack Obama has a slightly lower line than Palin does now, with Hillary Clinton in the lead and McCain as the top choice for the Republican ticket, with odds being slightly less than 5,000. It is interesting to see who those in Vegas and elsewhere are willing to put their money on in the hopes of a win, of course, the greater the odds, the greater the payoff, but the point is to be paid off. Of note: Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee are tied for White House win, both slightly behind Mitt Romney (who is right behind Palin) and Trump is now on the board.

Speaking of which, Trump will be making a foray into Iowa for the June Iowa Republican Dinner (Des Moines Register), this, along with his recent Face Book notes to fans about his patriotism and his love of country (as in I want to be able to do this for our country), indicates that “The Donald” is serious about the run.
Stock up on popcorn, this is going to be one of the best GOP presidential hopeful debate years in history.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Federal Reserve Warns of Insolvency – Can a rise in interest rates be avoided – Scenario eerily similar to 1978-1979.


The end result of inflation in 1979 - gas lines and shortages, photo the razor.org

This week, CNBC reported that The Dallas Federal Reserve’s President, Richard Fisher , noted the U.S. is on the path to insolvency. In an interview at the University of Frankfurt, Fisher stated “The short-term negotiations are very important; I look at this as a tipping point." He went on to conclude that the Fed has other avenues available other than raising interest rates (which would enhance the inflation currently creeping upwards in commodities affecting food and fuel). A March 5th article at from the Los Angeles Times asks: “Is inflation wolf at the door?" - in response to Congressional Testimony by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, when Bernanke was queried about the rise in commodity prices he said: "The most likely outcome is that the recent rise in commodity prices will lead to, at most, a temporary and relatively modest increase in U.S. consumer price inflation," .

Recall, when the dollar dropped in the 1970’s, the Fed , in the face of a trade deficit and a Federal deficit, Carter and the Fed’s raised interest rates in order to “right” the economy. The Press Courier, September 12th. Interest Rates on used car loans were as high as 26%.

By the end of Carter’s term in 1979, Fed and administration policies had driven inflation up to an annualized 13.3%, or the “worst in 33 years. Spokane Daily Chronicle.

The Stimulus Programs, Increase in Entitlement Programs, the bailout of auto makers, increase in promises to Unions, and a subsequent budget of 30 Billion Dollars by January of 1979 (Wall Street Journal) combined over a period of time to devalue the dollar and drive up inflation. ($30 Billion adjusted for inflation (using 2009 as the stop gap) $87,507,668,383,160.)

What can be anticipated? Inflation on food and fuel will continue to rise though the balance of 2011, with a subsequent increase in unemployment. It is the trickle up effect of a rise in commodities to a rise in the cost of steak, vegetables, and even durable goods, that consumers can no longer afford, causing the trickle down effect of less spending at a retail level, fewer orders for durable goods (who needs a car when gas is $5 plus per gallon?), leading to subsequent layoffs and business closing.

What should happen? Granted the 1970’s are not ancient history, but history none the less, those who are in charge of the nation should at least study trends from “recent history”, to ignore failed policies and then repeat them, leads to misery.

Although some on the right may be seeking the elusive next "Ronald Reagan", it is apparent that person does not exist, look for the individual who is able to effectively govern and has a keen appreciation for business and has a grasp of recent history.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Clinton Denies 2012 Run at Obama - Desperate Rank and File Hope She Will Reconsider, From Huffington Post, Tabloids Bloggers, Clinton #1 Choice


Hillary Clinton as depicted by Arabic Al Jezeera in June of 2008 - The Iron Lady of the Palace

Hillary Clinton 2012? Not so fast, according to news sources such as Politico who wrote on November 21st, ”Clinton won't run in 2012 - or ever” using Clinton’s own words, speaking on Fox News’s Sunday morning talk show, about a potential retirement from the public side of life. Of course, that was in November, and times have changed.

It is not so much that times have changed for Clinton (other than the day to day business of being Obama’s Secretary of State), it is that times have changed for Democrats, rank and file, who are now looking for an alternative, as the Commander in Chief appears hesitant, as basketball appears to take precedence over world affairs, and as there is no clear and consistent message being delivered at any given time on any given issue. It just may be a style of governing that has gotten the rank and file a bad case of the jitters over a run at a second term for Obama, it is the polls, which indicate that, as time goes by, anyone, and by that, any candidate that has a GOP sticker attached to their lapel, should be able to best Obama for the white house.

Although much fun is poked at the lack of a strong field in 2012, polling shows some interesting leads, specifically Mike Huckabee, who ran in 2008 for the GOP nomination. The press, by implication calls out the weak candidates, but, truth is only one or two to date have committed to a run and those would be, at present, the minor players. All of the alleged Heavy Hitters, Romney, Huckabee, Palin and yes, Donald Trump, all place a summer announcement on the table – they are most likely gauging how bad it will get before honestly assessing if they really even want the job. It takes time, money, and dedication, and one of them, stands better than even odds of becoming the next President. It is daunting under the current situation.

Dedication.

There is no one more dedicated to the American Ideals wedded into the Democrat Party than one Hillary Clinton. She is respected, she’s smart, she’s a force to be reckoned with, and Al Queda and the rest of those terrorists were terrified she’d beat Obama in 08 – She was dubbed on Arabic All Jazeera as “The Iron Lady of the Palace”, and Obama was considered a “movie star”. (See: this blogs “A Case for Rethinking The Candidacy of Hillary Clinton”)
After the she was robbed at the DNC Convention by a Group of Super Delegates that ignored the popular vote (which Clinton had), and push Obama forward as the Candidate (the party rules, not the peoples wishes) – it was evident that Clinton would go no further. The pain was felt by moderate Democrats who formed organizations such as PUMA (Party Unity My Ass).

Now, with the State of the Democrats, the rumblings have begun, a second term for Obama appears to be out of the question (Gallop’s conservative polling on his job approval, should it hold, and not go deeper into the depths of poll number, will allow him to pick up 10 states in 2012 – hardly enough to hold the White House for the Democrats.

The articles being:

The Huffington Post (or AOL) with a large share of voice on the web, for the 18 plus group – queries if Is Hillary Planning a run at Obama in 2012? the piece goes further giving reasons why Clinton should jump in to save the “the Party”
The Blog It’s News 2 Them” offers a piece on the tabloid Examiner Story whereby the Kennedy’s have allegedly Begged Clinton to run.

Colleen O’Connor over at the LaJolla Patch, perhaps gives the most compelling argument for Clinton to stay in and offers up a few tidbits that she just might – borrowing a phrase from Sarah Palin, O’Connor suggests that Clinton is merely reloading, and then notes that Clintons 2008 presidential team is certainly doing so.

That Clinton has not totally dismantled the framework of her 2008 candidacy, may or may not mean a hill of beans, but given the circumstances the nation and the Democrats now find themselves, it now appears to be money in the bank, should the crisis deepen.

Then there’s the right – or the semi-right in former CBS newsman, Bernard Goldberg’s piece from July of last year: “Wanna Bet?”
He lays out the case, (excerpt from article follows) which call him clairvoyant, is more relevant today than when it was written:

I’m climbing out on a limb. I’m jumping the canyon on a motorcycle without a parachute. I’m walking the tightrope without a net. I’m out of clich├ęs. So here goes:
I know the next presidential election is more than two years off, and all sorts of things can happen between now and then. But I am predicting right here, right now, that Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2012 – yes 2012 — challenging President Obama for their party’s nomination.
Is it a long shot? Sure. But it’s no longer crazy.
If it’s occurring to millions of Americans who voted for Obama, it must be occurring to Hillary Clinton too: The magic is gone. Barack Obama can’t walk on water no matter how hard his fans in the media tried to turn him into the messiah. And that hope and change thing? Well, it isn’t working out the way it was supposed to, either.
Read the rest of the article “Wanna Bet” here at http://www.berrnardgoldberg.com/wanna-bet/

One will quickly pick up on the reasons why, Clinton would be best suited to make a run at Obama, even more so now than a year ago. In addition, unlike Ted Kennedy who ran against Carter (when the going looked impossible and it was), Clinton appeals to a broad base of the electorate and that includes the Independents that Obama has lost.

Granted this is all speculation, and the brand may be too far damaged for a Democrat, even FDR returned, can stem the tide that has the brand so badly damaged that, at this point, any Republican can best Obama, but….could any Republican best Hillary Clinton? It could be that Clinton is, as she says, tired and about to take time for herself, she’s worked hard and long for the Democrat Party, with little in return but criticism and heartbreak and a ton of debt, that said, her inner “Goldwater Girl” cannot but help raise the flag high and consider the options on the table. The stakes are higher than they ever have been (at least since James Earl Carter was President), and it will take a moderate, to put this nation back together, one that understands fiscal restraint and specifically polls (giving the people more input), one that would more than startle those who would hurt us most (see article referring to Iron Lady of the Palace.)

She may deserve a break, but will she answer the call of the nation? Time will tell one thing is certain; she has a growing fan base. What to watch for as the consumer prices rise (food, fuel, anticipated 26% increase this year, gas upward to $5.00 per barrel) going into 2012, and indecisiveness continues to embroiled the United Sates into you name an issue, while France Leads Coalitions, and takes the mantel of World Leadership – Hillary Clinton – on a personal note: she would at the very least return honor and hope to my father’s party, but to be sure, it is not a job that anyone, but the most dedicated, would truly want to take – batting cleanup for the Obama administration.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Newsweek Q&A on Why 38% of American Citizens Fail U.S. Citizenship tests

Disparity in Education, Disparity in Income and a Complicated Government Blamed - Seriously

Newsweek’s recent article entitled: How Dumb Are We? offers web readers the opportunity to take a part of the U.S. Citizenship test here at www.newsweek.com/2011/03/20/take-the-quiz-what-we-don-t-know.htm”. In so much as they offer approximately 20 questions that are basic, it would not be of any surprise if most high school students could not pass the test. One commenter noted that they felt like they were on Jay Leno, in reference to Leno’s “Jay-Walking Segment”, where questions are posed to individuals on the street, and the answers are astounding considering some of those queried claim teaching as a profession.
Or does that come as a surprise at all? One of the biggest concerns pointed out by Newsweek is the lack of quality education in our nation to those who are not “wealthy” (by implication) and the disparity in education between states. The comparison used by Newsweek to judge the competency of the American Education system – Europe. The fact that wealth would be a factor in the U.S. is one point every one of us should consider ridiculous, due to the fact that our teachers, under the guidance of the teachers unions, are allegedly the best of the best, especially when they are not out picketing for their respective unions.

In reality, in the 1950’s and 1960’s one would be hard pressed to find a 4th grader who would not be able to pass the citizenship test, given the fact that civics was taught from those grades forward, along with history, which in large part, was American History, not “Social Studies” which is an amalgamated version of History, Geography and what one might consider the “larger world view”. To suggest that students in the United States do not have access to quality education based on income levels is ludicrous. Rather to suggest that there is a variance in levels of competency within the educational system, would be more to the point. When a teacher has tenure, they are “safe” from any incompetency. To truly fix the education system, one would have to go back to basics, or simply fire a teacher or two. To fix the problem, the teachers should be treated much like a degreed professional in the private sector: employment based on performance.

On the educational system and inequality compared to Europe:

It doesn’t help that the United States has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the developed world, with the top 400 households raking in more money than the bottom 60 percent combined. As Dalton Conley, an NYU sociologist, explains, “it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Unlike Denmark, we have a lot of very poor people without access to good education, and a huge immigrant population that doesn’t even speak English.” When surveys focus on well-off, native-born respondents, the U.S. actually holds its own against Europe.

Read that twice.

Therefore, due to the income level, when compared to Denmark (the size of say Massachusetts), the US fares well if only upper income individuals are scored. However, there’s the unfortunate fact that we have a large immigrant population that does not speak English – A simple solution would be to mandate students learn English using old fashioned immersion. It works in Europe, it works in private schools in the United States, and it would work in the public schools as well.

The author goes on to bemoan the fact that there public broadcasting is not mandated. According to the article, if public broadcasting was the only option, the education level would increase specifically regarding world affairs. However, we do have access to news regarding foreign policy, be it in print, cable or the evening news. Simply put, to improve scores on this level, students in a “social studies class” might be assigned to watch the evening news, or cable news, or read a newspaper, and report back each day, allowing for discussion. This was a feature of the educational system (pre-cable of course) in the U.S., how much more effective a tool would that be now?

Additionally, with the ability to connect to news in an instant on the web, it would be simple for those, even in the poorest states and the poorest districts, to offer even 20 minutes daily of current events, as regards to foreign policy. What about encouraging parents and children to watch a news segment together? There’s one public service message that should be played during prime time, not at 3 am in the morning (along with most of those spots.

The article continues to touch on the problem of our debt, and how the average American clearly does not understand the need for social programs, and debt spending in the U.S., Bemoans the fact that our government is too complicated, that we have too many positions to fill by election, and that it is impossible for average people to understand the way the system works. The solution: mandate blindfolding individuals to teach them the “facts” according to one professor, and then they will become enlightened and be just as wise as our European counterparts.

Seriously.

This is perhaps the most insulting article one could image being written. It is from the world view point, and does little to address the fact, that as a whole, the United States Educational System, our system of government, and the fact that we live in a free market society, has for decades been a selling point to those who would risk life, limb and fortune for a chance to become an American citizen. The fix is simple, teach competent civics from an early age, include current events, and fire incompetent teachers, and one would find those scores rising at a rapid rate. (As well as scores in math, reading, and the sciences). One more thing, incorporate the use of immersion as part and parcel of the education system. Immersion: as in every other country in the word, places a child in the classroom , and every lesson is taught in the native language (not the students native language), the student may be placed back a year, but, in the long run, ends up competing on a par with those who have lived in that nation from the beginning. (A system used by most private primary schools in the U.S.to great effect.)

The Newsweek the test, is rudimentary, mandates one signs in and post their answers to a comments section, prior to scoring oneself. An actual on-line test which allows scoring is available here at the USD.gov portal This test, is by far the better test, and includes immediate scores. For the record, the questions should be easy for anyone educated within the United States prior the 1970’s. Pop Quiz: What was organized in Philadelphia in the 1970’s that led to the decline in the education in the United States?

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address
Subject
Message