Sunday, November 24, 2013
Yes, They Must, But Can They?
In “Our Schools Must Do Better,” Bob Herbert argues - as the title suggests - that the schools in the United States must do better at educating America’s children, and that we must begin by tackling “teacher quality” (90). He suggests that America needs to think differently when it comes to things like “paper qualifications, such as teacher certification,” which Herbert contends has “very little to do with whatever it is that makes good teachers effective” (90). He argues that these changes can be made without abandoning tenure for teachers (90). He also suggests offering competition with “alternative school models,” noting as an example the Knowledge Is Power Program, a “charter school network” which he says has gotten amazing results for poorer children (91).
Herbert believes America’s schools are failing the nation’s children because they are sticking with an antiquated system (91). He argues that the entire public school system needs to be revamped, and that the United States has not yet “faced up to that fact” (Herbert 89). Herbert contends that by rethinking things like how the country certifies teachers, and offering students different schools to choose from, America will be on the way to better educating her children.
Unfortunately, for someone who argues for the “wholesale transformation of the public school system,” I don’t believe Herbert goes far enough (89). The United States Department of Education has only existed for two more years than myself, and I believe most of the problems facing American education could be solved by eliminating the department entirely. There are almost 14,000 school districts, home to 55.4 million students, with one central education department deciding the standards, lessons, and curriculum for almost every single one of them. If the DOE were perfect, students scores and graduation rates would be skyrocketing; but it is run by human beings - and the worst kind, politicians and bureaucrats - and therefore, every single bad decision that gets made is passed on to fifty-five million students. Students today are still taught that Christopher Columbus was trying to prove that the world wasn’t flat. With the elimination of that federal bureaucracy, school districts would be able to fine tune their standards with their students’ needs in mind, and one mistake wouldn’t bring down the entire nation’s IQ. The monolithic department has had a virtual monopoly on education, as even if one wished to provide their child with a better education, they would be forced to pay twice - once in taxes for the public school which they already deemed unfit to educate, and once for the actual education. This practically insures that their monopoly remains strong while shutting the door to competition.
In regards to how we certify teachers, I do agree with Herbert that it is indeed an archaic and arbitrary process with little to no bearing on the actual effectiveness of a teacher, but he believes that the process can be salvaged without abandoning tenure, and I have to disagree with him. Job security is important, however it should be earned not with time, but with merit. I do believe that tenure allows for complacency in the same way that “qualified immunity” allows for police officers to abuse their authority. Telling someone they can’t be fired generally results in a poorer work ethic. Most “not-so-good teachers,” as Herbert says - because, apparently, there are no “bad” teachers - can be successfully weeded out in the first three years, but even he acknowledges that they have to be “closely observed” within that time frame (90). Most schools don’t have the resources to essentially pay for two teachers (one to teach, and one to supervise) for the first two to three years of a teacher’s career just to make sure they’re worth it. Most schools rely on students and parents to inform them of “not-so-good teachers.” However, if that teacher is already tenured, tough luck; that student will have a shitty teacher, and aside from homeschooling or paying twice for one education, there’s nothing they can do about it. This doesn’t even take into account the teachers who are restricted from student contact because of misconduct (violent, sexual, or otherwise inappropriate) but can’t be fired because of tenure and their unions. New York City alone had over 600 teachers being paid not to teach.
Herbert makes a good argument for more competition in school choices, and I do believe he is absolutely correct about this. According to Betsy Hammond of the Oregonian, Portland public schools have an overall graduation rate of only 62%, performing much worse than Beaverton or Hillsboro despite spending 25% more per student (Hammond). The main problem with government run schools - and there are many - is the lack of accountability. Teacher’s unions wield an insane amount of political power in this country, and they use that power to stomp out any and all competition to their monopoly. Much like the police union, a lot of their power comes from fear and manipulation. After all, who could be against teachers or police officers? This mindset is the breeding ground for corruption, as any who speak out against it are maligned, pilloried, and otherwise ostracized from polite society.
Herbert is right; our schools must do better; however, with the milquetoast suggestions he’s put forward, he misses why schools are failing to begin with. The Department of Education has been able to produce a nationwide 74.7% graduation rate, according to the National Education Association - the highest graduation rate since 1973. Please note that 1973 is six full years before the Department of Education existed. Abolishing the DOE, and at least replacing tenure with a more sustainable model should be the first things we do to fix schools.
Works Cited Hammond, Betsy. “Audit: Portland Public Schools has the worst graduation rate among large Oregon districts.” The Oregonian. Aug 19, 2013. Web. Oct 2013 Herbert, Bob. “Our Schools Must Do Better.” Everyone’s an Author. Eds: Andrea Lunsford, et all. New York. WW Norton & Co. 2013. Print. Yoshida, Helen. “U.S. Graduation Rate Highest in 40 Years.” NEAtoday.org. June 10, 2013. Web. Oct 2013
Monday, November 11, 2013
As an anarchist, do I thank the troops for protecting my freedom? No. Do I thank them for defending freedom? No.
But I do thank them. Not for serving, but for taking my spot. I support the troops in my own way (usually by voting for people who promise not to send them to war), and I bristle at the thought of disparaging soldiers the way I do police. But should there be a difference?
I despise cops because they routinely shatter the law and get away with it. But I don't despise combat soldiers (drone operators can suck a fart out of my ass, fuck you, war isn't a goddam game, and fuck your double-tap-kill-first-responders bull shit, you should be held for war crimes) who also routinely break the law and get it covered up. Why is that? Left over jingoism from my neoconservative days?
No, it's because for the most part, these are kids. Kids who've been lied to from day fucking one, brainwashed and manipulated into thinking that America stands for freedom. Let's kill that notion right now, unless Deming, New Mexico seems like your idea of "freedom." These are kids who are duped into literally signing their freedoms away to become a slave to the government; they own you, they decide if you live or die, you are replaceable.
Maybe instead of "thanking" and "supporting" our troops, we should set some time aside to say, "I'm sorry."
Maybe one day, when the troops are saying their oath to protect this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, they'll actually mean it, and then we can thank them for our freedoms.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
All based on the unspoken word of an animal who isn't even certified to sniff its own ass, let alone sniff for drugs. Watch this video if you want to see how even "certified" dogs are used fraudulently to circumvent your civil liberties.
However, if you really want to understand a story that involves police brutality, don't wait on the mainstream media to find out what's going on. They don't do investigative journalism on these cases. But William Norman Grigg does. Read the whole thing, but here's some important parts:
"On September 6, 2012, Eckert was stopped a few blocks from his home in Lordsburg by Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Deputy Robert Rodriguez, who claimed to have noticed a cracked windshield on Eckert’s car."
(Please note that this was a previous encounter, again using a non-crime as a pretense for the ensuing civil rights infractions.)
"Eckert politely asked if he was free to leave, as he had been told. Feigning offense, the deputy claimed that this was “rude” and said that he suspected Eckert had narcotics in his vehicle."
Aha! And now we find the real crime Eckert truly committed: contempt of cop. Despite what Glenn Beck says, this is, in fact, America. This is the war on drugs. This is what happens when you grant rights to certain people because they wear a costume an a badge. This might not be what you thought America was, but it is definitely what it is.
I always say that if cops aren't bad people, why do law abiding citizens piss their pants at the sight of red-and-blues in their rear view, but it's even worse than that now. A traffic stop now carries the same weight of fear as being abducted by aliens.
By the way, the hospital is billing him for his rape.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
The political process sucks. We have a one party system masquerading as two parties. A lot of conservative/libertarian/tea party people are fed up with McCain, Graham, Boehner, and the lot of them.
Here's the deal: if you want to vote, if you still think voting matters, you have two choices. The first choice is registering as an independent, and being locked out of the only part of the process where you can actually affect change - the primaries. You only get to vote in the general election. That's how we end up with McCain, Dole, Bush, and Romney.
Or, you can register as a republican. Don't give one red fucking cent to the party, but instead push and vote for libertarians in the primary. That's how we get Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.
I would love for the libertarian party to replace the republicans. But until that happens, why not just take your party back?
Why not a DINO?
Because the democrats aren't even close to liberty anymore. They have successfully purged almost every single blue dog from the party. They are united in their march towards totalitarianism.
I'm a registered republican, but a practicing voluntaryist. Register, but make them earn your vote. And if they don't earn it, don't you dare give it to them. You owe them nothing. They owe you everything.
But you're an anarchist. Why even bother voting?
I vote as a means of self defense. I don't believe in their authority, but I do believe in their guns and cages. My vote is a drop in the bucket, but dammit, at least I'm doing something.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
I'm watching A NORML Life, a documentary about medical marijuana, and one of the guys being interviewed says something like, "you locked up Martin Luther King, you locked up Gandhi, you locked up Rosa Parks..."
My first thought was, "yeah, but they also locked up Dahmer, Bundy, and Gacy, so maybe that's not a comparison you want to make." But I think the point he's trying to make (it's hard to think of the right words when you're "higher than giraffe pussy," as Joe Rogan would say) is that all of our heroes are criminals.
Jesus Christ was executed by the government. The founding fathers were all traitors to the crown. Harriet Tubman broke the law, as did Frederick Douglass. They invented new laws to try and make Lysander Spooner a criminal, and he openly defied laws routinely. Dietrich Bonhoeffer died in a concentration camp. Oskar Schindler was a criminal. Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks and countless others in the civil rights movement were law breakers. Gandhi, too.
I believe that all of our heroes are criminals because we instinctively know that government is a lie, and it always has been. We admire those who disobeyed.
And that gives me just a little bit of optimism.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Remember when the administration first started seriously talking about gun control, and there were a bunch of "patriot sheriffs" who would absolutely refuse to comply with such nonsense?
A 30 man team assaults a family over a spent shell casing, going on nothing but the word of a provably vindictive ex-wife, and not one fucking man on that team has the balls to do what's right. They yank a naked 16 year old out of the shower, put guns to the heads of children, cause 10k in damages all to disarm a man who has done nothing criminal.
As the author of that piece points out, David Fucking Gregory. No charges for him BLATANTLY (yes, he called first and asked if it would be illegal, and was told it was very definitely illegal) breaking the law on national fucking television. Well, his wife is good friends with this piece of shit persecutor (he's not a prosecutor), so of course, charging one of the elites with a crime wouldn't do anything for "public safety."
But ransacking this family's house and terrorizing children, that makes us all safe.
Not one real man on that team. Just a bunch of cowards. The only shocking thing here is that they didn't follow procedure and shoot someone.
The time is coming. It's not here yet, but goddam is it getting close.