Pedagogy a-go-go

Linda Chavez an "ex-liberal"had an article in the Dallas Morning News today called "Lets focus on U.S. history, not ethnic studies."  One of these days I will get to spend time discussing the issue brought up, but no.....instead I need to focus on the information she uses to defend her position.

Ms. Chavez states that the Tucson Unified School Districts ethnic studies course identifies some of the goals as: 

Advocating for and providing curriculum that is centered within the pursuit of social justice. ... Working towards the invoking of a critical consciousness within each and every student. ... Providing and promoting teacher education that is centered within Critical Pedagogy, Latino Critical Race Pedagogy and Authentic Caring.

Now I am going to assume that this is what it actually states, because even if it did not, my point would still be the same. Ms Chavez writes:

The idea of the public schools promoting "race pedagogy" of any sort should send shivers down the spine[.]

Apparently, like me, Ms. Chavez has no clue what "pedagogy" means.  Unlike her, I am willing to admit my ignorance and look it up.  Now there are a number of definitions that all lead to the same meaning.  You can see them all here.  The one I will settle on is this:

Pedagogy is the art and science of how something is taught and how students learn it. Pedagogy includes how the teaching occurs, the approach to teaching and learning, the way the content is delivered and what the students learn as a result of the process.

So, apparently the art and science of how Latino Critical Race is taught and how students learn it should make my spine tingle with angst.  Not exactly sure why an ethnic studies class that focuses on the Latino race is upsetting.  To me it's no different than studying geography and focusing on Japan.  (As an aside, I think the way the goals are worded is designed to sound academic at the expensive of being understandable, I mean what does 'Latino Critical' mean?  Be critical of Latinos or Latinos are critical.)

Now y'all know (all two of my readers) that I am critical of people that do not cite their work.  Because it becomes at best hearsay and at worst made up shit designed to move the point in a particular direction.  So when Ms Chavez writes:

According to a series in the Arizona Republic last year, videos posted online showed Tucson Chicano Studies classrooms decorated with "heroes" such as communist dictator Fidel Castro, Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the Argentine revolutionary who served in Castro's regime and ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent Cubans, and Pancho Villa, a common criminal whose escapades were more about enriching himself than freeing Mexico from one of its perennial dictators, Porfirio Diaz.

I am a bit skeptical.  So I went to the Arizona Republic's web site and put in the search box and found this

In one of Romero's TUSD classrooms, in fact, a video posted for a time on the Internet Web site YouTube showed at least four separate posters of the beret-capped Ché decorating the classroom walls. And a poster of Pancho Villa. And, yes, one poster of the godfather of the revolution himself, Fidel.

I cannot find the video mentioned on YouTube. Now I have no idea if these posters are there to promote these men as heroes or as part of a particular history lesson.  See, that's what is missing here, context.  Without the video all we have is the reporter's description - and you know how biased mainstream media is, I have no idea who to trust on this one.

Now I don't really have a lot to say about the merits of ethnic or gender studies programs.  They do seem a little patronizing, and I can understand the argument that they put in what is left out when traditional American history is taught.  Are the teachers leftest America-haters? Possibly, but it is also possible that they understand the value in what is being taught, that they understand Ché, Fidel Castro and  Pancho Villa are important figures in Latino history.  You know, similar to the Confederate flag and statues of Jefferson Davis that are still in place.

And that my good woman is what Pedagogy is all about.

See Dick, See Dick Shill, See Dick take your money....

So Dick Morris, Clinton's one time pal and now a darling for the lunatic fringe on the right, wants to help you "protect your money and financial freedom" from:

President Barack Obama [who] is leading America down a dangerous path to socialism. But, en route, he will take us through an even longer recession than we need to have; rocketing inflation, and perhaps a second downturn to cure the inflation.

/yawn.

Dick Morris has "agreed to participate in a special seminar online called "The Call To Arms" hosted by my friend Christopher Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax as well as famed former CNN anchor Bob Losure."  He discloses that:

Even though they are paying me to send you this e mail; I have, in fact, invested my own money with them because I think they are onto something. We expect upwards of 250,000 people to participate.

OK, so if Dick Morris is in, I'm in!  I wonder if this is open to me too?

I want to encourage you to sign up for this "Call to Arms" online meeting. There is no charge to attend. After you sign up, they will give you FREE access to a members-only website. This site will help you protect your wealth and investments from the far-reaching hands of Barack Obama and the Democrats in Washington.

Woot!  I too can sign up for Call to Arms - just like good ol' Dick did.  So what's this call to arms thing all about?

On May 7, 2009, Newsmax hosted "A Call to Arms," a "national internet webcast" which invited viewers to pay $1,295 for a package including a year's worth of stock tips from Ruddy's "chief financial adviser." Ruddy wrote (PDF) that the "Million Dollar Secret Code" he promoted in the "Call to Arms" is based on the stock-picking of analyst David Frazier, whom Ruddy called his "private financial weapon." Ruddy stated that he was investing $1 million of Newsmax's money in the promotion, adding, "David believes he can bring a 50% to 70%-plus return over the next 12 months to this $1 million." The promotion would provide "About 36 Massive Profit/Minimum Risk Plays," in which "[y]ou will be given guidance about exactly what to buy, at what price, and how much. David Frazier will provide you with all of the research and analysis behind each recommendation. And you will get a 48-hour head start on me, before I can buy the exact same stock recommendations."

So....let's do the math

50% to 70% return on investment.  Wow - that's fantastic!  They believe in it enough to put one million of their own money into it.  Well hell - even if it only did 10% that would be pretty damn good!  If it is so good, why not sink all they have into what your "private financial weapon" has to say?  Why only one million?

They are gunning for 250,000 suckers, sorry I mean investors to fork over $1,295 bucks for "36 Massive Profit/Minimum Risk Plays."  250,000 x 1,295 = $323,750.000.

Lets say that their total capital outlay is one million dollars, with part of that going to their new friend, Dick Morris and to pay for the internet and mailing and promotion.

If, they got 10% of the 250,000 fools, sorry I mean investors to participate, that would bring in $32,375,000.

If involving Dick in this gets a 1% bite of the 250,000 idiots, sorry I mean investors they think are out there, well that's a net haul of $3,237,500.

1% of 250,000 is 2500 people that watch Fox News, are scared of Obama, and would believe that the Dick has found them away to protect their money.

2500 people is 50 from each state (probably more from Alaska and Arizona)

So if it costs a million bucks for them to put on this promotion, and they give advice and inform you of the risk, no laws will be broken and they will make 3.2 million dollars.

1 million invested as per Call to Arms = $750,000 maximum potential return

1 million invested IN the Call to Arms scheme = $3,237,500 potential based on 1% of the 250,000 targets they have set their sights on.

I wonder which path ol' Dick went for?  He does not say he is following their advice just that he "invested my own money with them because I think they are onto something."

You do the math.....

C'mon people use your head not Dick!


Source: Media Matters

The 4th Amendment Goose and the 1070 Gander

Let's say we are having a real problem with people possessing stolen guns.  Some of those guns are used in a crime, most are just kept hidden out of view.

Now these stolen guns cost the rest of us a lot of money.  They raise our insurance rates, they coast money to replace, they create an imbalance between good people and bad, and they take away my my ability to defend myself if they are missing.

Now my state finds that there are compelling reasons to justify a law to make sure that only those who legitimately bought and registered the gun should be the only one's allowed to have them in their homes.

This new law gives the police the right to search the house and ask for proof of gun ownership and registration anytime they have a reasonable suspicion that there is a stolen, unregistered, or illegitimately obtained weapon possibly present.

• Would this be considered an evasion of privacy when the police ask to look for a gun or request documentation for a gun they think may be there?

• Would the police be out of line to ask a law abiding citizen for proof of ownership for a weapon anytime reasonable suspicion is warranted regardless of the situation?

• Would law abiding gun owners feel threatened by a law such as this?

• Would the NRA oppose such a law and call for a boycott of the state that imposed it?

• Would me telling law abiding gun owners "if you are not breaking the law - you have nothing to fear" piss them off?

Now if you answer "Yes" to all these questions then you understand how upsetting it must be to law abiding citizens of Arizona - that because they don't look as lily white as me - could/will/may be asked to prove they are a citizen.  The problem with illegals does not warrant this line of questioning or methodology just as the hypothetical I posed above does not.

If you can't see a difference, then you will have nothing to fear when I impose my "compelling interest" for public safety, freedom, and security on you.  Hey, as long you are law abiding who cares what they ask or where they look, only bad guys have something to hide. Live with it!

It's a phobia and you got it sister!

You know......there are a lot of really bad people reporting stuff out there. Unfortunately they all seem to have conservative as their designation.

I was trying to find a Fox News story I saw on the demise of Newsweek - but could not so I can't really discuss it without being able to cite it. So in the process I came across some woman named Debbie Schlussel.

Apparently Ms. Schlussel is a "Conservative political commentator, radio talk show host, columnist, and attorney" and according to her Encyclopedia Britannica-sized "About Debbie" she is an expert on "radical Islam/Islamic terrorism."

I was once an expert on WMD and how to properly respond, but that's a story for another time.

So here is one of her blogs (please read the comments if you want to be enlightened as to the state of understanding by those who follow these types of "experts").

Your Day in “Moderate Muslim” America

This story was about a kid in Manchester NH that threw a "bomb bag" into one of his classrooms. Now before you say OMG! let me explain that a bomb bag is nothing more than an Mylar sealed pouch filled with citric acid and sodium bicarbonate. When you break the inside bag the two mix and gas is created and the "bomb" is a pop - like a plastic bag makes. Here is a good description of how this "bomb" works.

Now nothing in the police report, or the news makes any reference to Ismael Bang (yes- that's the kid's name) being Muslim or Islamic - yet our "terrorism expert" Ms. Schlussel has put two and two together. Because "Ismael" is a Muslim name, Mr. Bang is Muslim. I kid you not, this is what she says:

Hey, kids, it’s time for another edition of “Guess the Religion.” I’m sure his name is “Ismael” just by coincidence. Probably a Wiccan or a Buddhist.

Here is a picture of Ismael Bang.

You can see "Muslim" written all over him. Here is another picture of a guy named Ismael Bang. He is a rapper- and also because of his name - a Muslim. Now if these two guys are one and the same - I have no idea - but damn! those Muslims have nice six-pack abs!

Now based on Schlussel's logic, the name denotes the religion, and the throwing of a gag bomb is just another reason why "students–and other Americans–are afraid of Islamic students."

Now here is something funny: We gave our two adult sons the same gag gift for Christmas (8 pound baby Jesus loves a good laugh) - only ours were the stink bag bombs that go bang and smell like rotten eggs. They were a buck at the dollar store (a Muslim Mecca for cheap bombs)

Since my boy's names are "Sam" and "Max" one can conclude that they must be Jewish - so when they threw the stink bag bomb into the room - it was just another example of how Jews killed Jesus and hate Christians.

And so......we conclude with her conclusion:

It’s not a phobia. It’s called “being an informed consumer.”

Yes Ms. Schlussel, it is called a phobia, and you, my good woman, are terribly misinformed, arrogant, stupid, or more than likely - all three.

Note: My boys are not Jewish just very naughty!

Things a Good Christian Man Does

Allen Academy, Bryan Texas, has hired Dave Bliss, you know, the ex-Baylor guy who threw one of his dead players under the bus in an effort to cover up his own wrongdoing.

"He's a great coach and a great Christian" says Former Allen Trustee Dennis Goehiring.

"What happened at Baylor was an unfortunate situation in an otherwise sterling career" says Lynn Hickey former Texas A&M head coach of the woman's team.

Poor coach bliss - well not really, he just got a nice job while he waits out his 10 year penalty to coach in NCAA. Prediction: in 2015 Coach Bliss will leave Allen Academy.

So he is repentant, sorry, "suffered tremendous consequences" - but should he be the coach for young kids? It's not making a mistake that should ever prevent another chance. It is the type of mistake that really needs to be looked at. In my opinion "despicable" behavior is not a one time event, especially for a "Christian man."

We send kids home from Texas A&M with felonies for marijuana possession preventing them from ever moving forward in their career. We discharge top grade military folk who we find out are gay. We charge 18 year old kids as sex offenders because their underage girlfriend's parents did not like their daughters boyfriend when he was under 18.

And yet, Coach Bliss will be allowed to coach young children - well at least until 2015 when he will take a better job coaching a little bit older young people.

Kind of harsh aren't we there Jeff? Yes - yes I am. Lets look at what he did:

• Patrick Dennehy's [murdered Baylor Basketball Palyer] girlfriend had told them Bliss paid for the sections of Dennehy and Herring's tuition not covered by financial aid.

• Bliss confessed to making the payments, estimated at $7,000—a major violation of NCAA rules.

• Two members of Baylor's 2001-02 squad told the Dallas Morning News that Bliss and several members of his staff had been present at a pickup game involving star recruit Harvey Thomas during his official visit to Baylor—another major NCAA rules violation.

• It also emerged that Bliss and his staff knew about rampant marijuana and alcohol abuse among Baylor players, but did not follow procedures for reporting failed drug tests.

• After Bliss resigned [from Baylor], it emerged that he had told players to make up a story about Dennehy being a drug dealer in order to pay for his tuition. The story was intended to serve as a cover-up for Bliss paying Dennehy's tuition. The conversations were tape-recorded by one of Bliss' assistants, Abar Rouse. Bliss had threatened to fire Rouse if he didn't go along with the scheme, leading Rouse to record the conversations.

Maybe he has re-evaluated his life and really understands his despicable actions. Only God knows what's in his heart. Soon the kids at Allen Academy will get all the benefits of this good Christian man. Oh, and they will win in sports too. Forgot about that one.

Oh, and if they need a teacher, Amy Beck will be available in 10 months. And if they need a school hall monitor, William Dickson Jr. just resigned and is also available.

Lynn Matsko Has Her Eyes On Your Kids!

OK, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but try as I may I can't come up with any other reason except YOU ARE LYING.

Yes, Ms. Harriton High School Assistant Principal Lynn Matsko, you are the next contest for "To NOT tell the truth."

The story "Pa. school district's webcam surveillance focus of suit" goes like this (USA Today):

The Robbins family says they found out about the webcam photos when Harriton High School Assistant Principal Lynn Matsko called Blake into her office to discuss possible drug use she learned of through photos and instant messages captured on Blake's computer. The photo, Blake's parents say, shows the 15-year-old holding a handful of Mike and Ike candies.

Now we could discuss the issue of it not being the school's business what goes on out side of the school - pro or con. We could discuss the right to monitor students behavior via screen shots or webcam. We could discuss ACLU, right-to-privacy, and Big Brother issues. Maybe for another post. This one is about lying.

Matsko says she did not monitor students' laptops nor authorize anyone else to do so. At a February news conference, she called the accusation "unjust" and "offensive."

So......how did the Mike n' Ike pill popin' kid come to your attention? If you weren't monitoring him or anyone else then you would not have found need to call him to the office and - as proof - show him the photo you had not obtained from monitoring. See, you did monitor him, and possibly others. If you did not then you would not have seen anything that looked like drug use in the kid's own bedroom.

Now this we know - there are 52000 photos of different kids that were collected. Somebody knew that photos were being taken. Somebody saw them. Somebody reported what they saw to you. If you did not authorize them to do so then why did you use the unauthorized photo to charge the kid with drug use?

You see where your "truth" breaks down? If you did not authorize it then you yourself did the monitoring. If no one was monitoring then no one would have confused the Mike n' Ikes with drugs necessitating an office visit with you.

You are lying.

Here is what I think transpired. You could not walk away from such a powerful tool as Big Brother's Telescreen that would allow students to be scrutinized by you or your staff and/or because students and parents signed a policy acknowledging the school could monitor the laptops' contents and Internet usage you felt justified that you had every right to do so.

So why lie about it? Not only will the 52000 photos and your association be found a violation of privacy but now you will be known as the Vice Principal of Spying and Lying. You should have put two and two together and realized you were sliding down a slippery slope. But then again, that requires a bit of wisdom and smarts.

"I'll take Lying for 52000 Alex!"

Me n' Bill Moyers

I noticed I have written 129 posts. 129 random bits of stuff I felt compelled to put down and made available for all to see. No one reads this blog except two of my "family" members and they only do it so I don't feel bad.

I continue to write it because it gives me something to do and it allows me to synthesize my thoughts on a topic. Because I force my self to cite the information I use to counter something, I become better informed. Case in point was my post on "cop killer bullets."

I think there is a need for all different takes on things, especially from honest brokers which is what I am trying to be. I have no self-serving agenda - no dog in any one particular hunt. I am pro humanity, against torture, and think we have both a moral and social obligation towards one another.

You can call me a parent, a husband, a teacher, a mentor because I want to be those things, even though I fall short. I am not a conservative but neither do I want to be called a liberal. I am not idealogical except on two points - I believe that man can be better and you can engineer out most problems. My views are changeable based on where the data takes me unless they conflict fundamentally with what I am.

When it's all said and done I want to be remembered in a similar manner as Bill Moyers who will be retiring this year:

Assessing Moyers' work in the L.A. Times recently, Neal Gabler wrote: There's no shortage of loudmouths on television. There is, however, a very short supply of soft-spoken moralists: exactly one. Moyers can speak truth to power precisely because his motives are unimpeachable, his independence firmly established, his respect for ideas and thought amply demonstrated.

Hopefully "being remembered" wont be for 25 or more years, but that's what I want my rambling to be seen as.

Cheers!