WEAC Study of Superintendents view of No Child Left Behind

• 80% of superintendents do not believe their districts will meet the AYP goal of all students scoring proficient or advanced by 2013

So it sounds to me like the superintendents;

a) think their teachers are so bad that they can’t teach students how to read or add

b) think the students are so bad that no teacher would ever be able to instruct them

c) think that a child should not be required to be able to read or do math

“School superintendents have been working under the burden of this law for five years now,” WASDA Executive Director Miles Turner said. “And what they now know is this is a plan in which failure was inevitable.”

I get it now…they didn’t like the law and therefore created the outcome that they expected.

I guess Mrs. Wilson never looked up the word alien in the dictionary, well I did and here it is care of www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: alien
Pronunciation: 'A-lE-&n, 'Al-y&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin alienus, from alius
1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : STRANGE
b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : FOREIGN
c : EXOTIC 2 : differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility

alien
Function: noun
1 : a person of another family, race, or nation
2 : a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country; broadly : a foreign-born citizen
3 : EXTRATERRESTRIAL
4 : EXOTIC

If people are from another place and/or nation they are alien. Then if they are here illegally, that would be without papers for those in Miami Dade county, they would be ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!

From the Tennessee Center for Policy Research: Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Rep. Jason Fields
February 21, 2007 Phone: (608) 266-3756

STATEMENT FROM REP. FIELDS REGARDING SICK LEAVE

Assembly Democrats Follow Long Standing Rule on Vote

MADISON – Recently State Representative Jason Fields (D-Milwaukee) and other legislators debated Assembly Bill 31, relating to eliminating sick leave for elected officials.

“The procedural vote on Tuesday to suspend the rules and vote on AB 31 had nothing to do with the policy of sick leave. Parties, both Democrats and Republicans, traditionally stick together on procedural votes. Normal legislative procedure does not allow for a vote on passage of a bill on the same day it is taken up, the Assembly rules had to be suspended to do so. Assembly Democrats did not delay anything. We simply voted against suspending the legislature’s long established rules to rush the bill to a vote.”

“Furthermore, I don’t know what all the urgency is about. This bill does not have an effect until the NEXT legislative session. The Assembly has time to fully debate the bill. As a matter of fact, the best product was not before the body on Tuesday. There were several amendments drafted – by both parties – to make changes to AB 31. There is no need to fast track it.”

Legislators do not earn vacation time or personal time. They accrue sick time at approximately 65% of what other state employees do. However, no clear system for reporting sick days exists in the legislature.

“Doing away with sick leave, as AB 31 proposes, does not fully address the issue. The problem is an unclear policy of reporting sick leave, so if we want to fix the problem we should fix the reporting system. Something Democrats are already working on.”

Last week’s country was really easy now wasn’t it?!?!

It was Italy of course!!

This week the country is so uniquely shaped that I would find it hard that you would not get it…but if you don’t please don’t let it get you hot under the collar.

I’d rate this one a 3 out of 10.

The Republican State Assembly was blocked by Democrats today as the assembly was ready to pass a bill that would eliminate accrued sick time for politicians.

The Democratic Senate wasn’t any better than their Assembly colleagues by saying that the bill would not go to a vote in the Senate!!

Essentially the State Democrats are telling the people of Wisconsin that their well-being is more important than ours…how many of you are allowed to accumulate sick-time indefinitely to be paid out as cash at some future date.

Here is the JS Online article: Sick leave is staying

To be honest when I read the summary from the IPCC I missed this portion too but thanks to Pete Du Pont, former Governor of Delaware and chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, I was able to look it up and was surprised that the IPCC did not even address this phenomenon!!

“The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling,”

Which of these compounds would reduce global warming the most by removing it from the air?

1. Nitrogen (N2)
2. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s)
3. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
4. Water Vapor (H20)

That is right ladies and gentlemen. As we have been cleaning up the environment buy buying more fuel efficient cars and mandating cleaner energy production we have been putting more and more H2O in the atmosphere!!

CO2 only contributes 10% to global warming while Water Vapor contributes 38%.

So which is truly a danger?

These are a few must reads:

The Boston Globe: Irreconcilable positions: support troops, oppose war

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist February 18, 2007

WHAT DOES IT mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?

No loyal Colts fan rooted for Indianapolis to lose the Super Bowl. No investor buys 100 shares of Google in the hope that Google's stock will tank. No one who applauds firefighters for their courage and education wants a four-alarm blaze to burn out of control.

Yet there is no end of Americans who insist they "support" US troops in Iraq but want the war those troops are fighting to end in defeat. The two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it. Continued…


LA Times: Redefining 'black'

Obama's candidacy spotlights the divide between native black culture and African immigrants.
By Louis Chude-SokeiFebruary 18, 2007

ALTHOUGH NOT quite able to pass for white, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been able to pass for African American. He is biracial, but not white; black, but not African American; American but not African. What has entranced the country more than his somewhat vague policies is Obama's challenge to conventional racial and cultural categories.

Among African Americans, discussions about his racial identity typically vacillate between the ideologically charged options of "black" versus "not black enough" or between "black" and "black, but not like us." Continued...

I recently watched “An Inconvenient Truth” and have to say it was one hell of a dog and pony show! If it wasn’t for the fact that I have a scientific background I could have been swayed.

I’m going to ignore the glaring lies that actually came out of Al Gore’s mouth, the funniest one being that the end of communism was due to bipartisan cooperation, and I’ll focus on a graph that Al used. I found a similar graph on line at the Woods Hole Research Center web site:



Now Al Gore looked at this graphic representation and made a faulty assumption: CO2 levels cause temperature change.

I’ll admit when I looked at the graph my first thought is “Thank God we are raising temperatures! Look what is in store for us if we don’t!!” I mean with over 400,000 years of documented evidence to back it up you could claim that the next ice age is around the corner. Oh yeah they’ve hysterically claimed that before too!

But when I really looked at the graph I noticed something remarkable… there is no lag. What I mean is that there is an instantaneous relationship between temperature and CO2…so how do we know that CO2 is causing temperature increases and it is not the other way around?

An article written by Robert Essenhigh, Professor of Energy Conservation at Ohio State University, Does CO2 really drive global warming?, discusses these two options:

"Case 1: CO2 drives the temperature as is currently mostly frequently asserted; and
Case 2: Temperature drives the CO2 levels."

He concluded that temperature drives CO2 not the other way around.

Global Warming is real. It is going on as you read this. The IPCC was right in concluding that there is nothing man can do to stop this from occurring. That is where the hype ends.

Global Warming is a natural event and as we have seen (Katrina, the Indian Ocean Tidal wave, Tornados, Droughts) Mother Nature is in control.

Very powerful article from today’s Opinion Journal:

Awaiting the Dishonor Roll
Congress "supports the troops" while emboldening the enemy.

Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history.

On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while emboldening the enemy. The only real question is how many Republicans will also participate in this disgrace in the mistaken belief that their votes will put some distance between themselves and the war most of them voted to authorize in 2002.

The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to "support" the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their "bravery," while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to "protect" the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal.

Continued…

Last weeks country had quite a few people scratching their heads. Only reason mkfolks knew the answer is she has been looking for a vacation spot!

Last week was Trinidad and Tobago!

This week, since I am traveling, I thought I’d make things easy for everyone…this is rated a 1 out of 10.

Al has mentioned that he was considering this run in his last book as well as a number of times on his radio program…of which only 5 people bought his book and only 9 people listen to his radio program…so I know that this is quite a shock to the other 14 people who even know who he is.

:)

From Reuters today: Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches

Wow I didn’t realize that the waters surrounding Great Britain was rising! Oh that’s right they aren’t!

The “article” starts off very official like: “Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.”

But then we get to the heart of the matter and the bias that has now pervaded the media: “Rising sea levels could damage hundreds of miles of the English and Welsh coast over the next 100 years, according to a study commissioned by the conservation group.”

Next 100 years?!? Can they tell me what the water levels are going to be in 5 years? 3 years? Next year?

Since they can not why are we reporting this tripe as though it is real news?

Article should have been titled “If sea levels rise, Britain’s best-loved beaches threatened: study says”

I was rather upset by the column in Sunday’s Journal Times by Michael Burke which railed (no pun intended) against people like me who oppose KRM.

Michael is under the impression that growth that has been seen in the Mayfair and Regency areas only come by way of train. He believes that by putting in place an antiquated mode of transportation that will do nothing for our communities other than consume vast amounts of federal, state, and local tax dollars will bring about vast changes to our area. Now I see that William “Mac” McReynolds is a supporter of this monstrosity. LINK

While Mac has it right that the people of Racine don’t want to pay for this thing he is wrong that the people of the area want it.

I want Mac to force this thing to a vote. If you really think the people of Racine want this thing…put it to a vote. Put KRM as a referendum and see how it comes out.

KRM is NOT good for this area. It is NOT forward thinking.

Doyle would like to asses the oil companies 2.5% per barrel sold here in Wisconsin and mandate that that cost not be passed on to consumers!

HUH!?!?

I would like to see the legislature pass all of the Doyle measures (tax increases all) and mandate that the cost of these programs not be passed on to the taxpayers!

Doyle once again proves that he is bad for Wisconsin and an embarrassment…I hope that those of you that voted for him are happy!!

JT article
JS article

As promised I knew it was only a matter of time before someone would be railing against the Oil Companies again. Lo and behold it is our own Governor! (link)

Today Doyle is outraged because he read a report (link) generated by his Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) that states, “Staff analysis of oil company financial statements indicate that the five major oil companies earned $113.33 billion in 2006” and that “These excessive profits are more than the top four companies in the pharmaceutical, retailer, and industrial/agriculture combined.”

So Doyle is calling for the federal government to repeal the “big tax breaks” that the oil companies get (see my last blog about profits and taxes of oil companies here) and “to cap oil company profits and to force the oil companies to provide a refund to the American people from the windfall they have reaped since Hurricane Katrina.”

DATCP talks about the net income (profit) but never mentions the profit margin. For those of you that are not very business savvy, Profit Margin is an indicator of a businesses ability to control their costs. If Oil Companies were really out to hurt the consumers then you would see that their profit margins would be HUGE but that is not the case. In fact Microsoft and Coca-Cola have a substatially higher profit margin but no one is calling for them to reduce their prices!! (link)

Here is the Chart DATCP is boasting:



Here is a graph of the Profit Margins of the companies they looked at when they “analyzed” the oil company’s profits.


Ultimately what this boils down to is that we are heavily dependant on oil…the more we buy the more these companies make. End of story.

You know that you have become a bit of a techno-geek when this looks cool...



Roto-Rooter's 'Pimped Out John'

I guess Reality Check, SORRY...I meant still unreal...really does know his countries…it was Belgium!

This week’s country, while hard, has a very unique shape that could give it a way so it is only 8 out of 10.

REMEMBER – Posting guesses are great; looking it up and then posting is cheating!

Time magazine has these 8 items as key to the 2008 Presidential Election:

“8 Keys to ’08 Campaign”

1. Iraq
2. Money
3. Religion
4. Amazon Factor
5. Last Minute Campaigns
6. Operatives
7. Blogosphere
8. New Faces

Doyle is out spending like a drunken Democrat again! Where is he coming up with this additional cash? He just made $59 million worth of increases…I wonder how our tax bill is going to look next year?

$15 million increase in Shared Revenue

$44 million increase in Financial Aid

From the Tax Foundation Blog – ExxonMobil’s Record Profits – And Record Taxes.

"While they were recording record profits last year, they were also writing checks to Uncle Sam to the tune of $100.7 billion -- two and a half times what they made in net profit." (emphasis added)



We don’t hear Hilary talking about that now do we?

This is reprinted from the following link: Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?



Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

We are going to be bombarded with news stories, or at a minimum Democrat Press Releases, about how the President has opted to “cut” or “slash” Medicare spending in stead of caring for the elderly.

So here are the facts as laid out in a recent AP story (link):


The President is budgeting for Medicare to grow by 6.7% for the next 5 years.

This is in contrast to having it grow by 7.6% for the next 5 years.

The savings is over $66 billion over 5 years…is this a cut?

I am amazed every year when I graph out the Federal Budget. Here is the President’s 2008 Budget:

I’ve highlighted the largest four categories of us to discuss.

Let us start with #3 Defense (19% of the budget): I think that this one goes without too much discussion. The purpose of the government is to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies and therefore should have the funds needed to provide that protection.

#4 the Treasury (16% of the budget): I wonder about the growth of this every year but until we decide that the Internal Revenue Service has gotten too big and we are willing to completely overhaul our tax code…preferably to a flat (or possibly a consumption) tax we are out of luck in reducing this by a large amount.

#1 and #2 are HHS and SSA (combined 42% of budget – 22% and 20% respectively). 42% of our Federal budget is for these two Entitlement Programs!! Both of these departments are huge boondoggles that are grotesquely overweight. There is only one thing that should be done to these departments and that would be the systematic elimination of them.

With a clear conscience there is no feasible way to out and out eliminate them in a 2-5 year time period. Our best hope would be to phase both departments out over say 25-30 years. This would allow for people on these systems to be either transfer to private systems or to simply adapt to the new situation.

Now I know that I sound like a bit of a hard ass here but at no time should the government be responsible for guaranteeing someone health insurance or retirement funds…it just is not their job.

The Preamble of the US Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our forefathers believed that the government should “PROMOTE the general welfare” not “PROVIDE the general welfare” there is a huge difference.

The Democrat party has used the Patriot Act as their rallying cry to prove that the Republicans are trying to be “Big Brother” when in fact it is the Democrats themselves that wish to be big brother by promoting governmental guarantees like health care and retirement! These programs help to keep the masses, usually those that are in the lower economic side, in line and help to get Democrats elected. “If we provide for them they will vote for us.”

The reality is simple we need to show people that while hand outs are nice they come with strings…in the case of HHS and SSA that string would be a lazy attitude toward issues that are important. “If Uncle Sam is going to pay for my –fill in the blank with whatever government entitlement program you wish- why should I save any more?” This attitude then causes the program, which was meant to be a safety net, to become a guarantee. This then creates a situation in which government gets to decide matters that people should have a right to, such as what type of life would you like in retirement?

We should do our best to reduce the scope of the Government and begin by reducing Americans reliance on Entitlement Programs.

Our friends at the Tax Foundation noticed that the House Ways and Means Committee is going to hold hearings on the challenges facing the “middle class” so Scott Hodge from the Tax Foundation decided to review what the middle class looks like. (link)

Mr. Hodge found that the image of the “middle class,” married couple with 2 children, is not what it once was. This image of “middle class” now falls in the top 40% of wealthy Americans. He concludes that this is primarily due to dual income families and this increase in dual incomes has contributed to the perception of income inequality.

“When the so-called rich are increasingly couples with two incomes, they will naturally look wealthier than the vast number of single taxpayers who now populate the statistical middle.”

Meaning that when Democrats talk about increasing taxes to the wealthy in America they may be talking about you!

“As lawmakers look for solutions to the economic challenges facing today's "middle-class" but upper-income families, they would do well to consider the way in which taxes--federal and local--are contributing to the problem.”

It is Thursday again and it is time for my favorite contest…Name that Country.

Last week had a lot of people were stumped but with Lebanon being in the news all week I thought that it might have been easier.


This week’s country was hard for me so I’ll put it at a 10 out of 10.