Content by mchik1
Posted at 9:13pm on Jul. 9, 2007 War Is Costing $12 Billion Per Month
By mchik1
The following is an Associated Press article by Andrew Taylor that I found on Drudge. It is very pertinent to Iraq discussions:
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say.
All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion.
Posted in War — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:11pm on Jun. 17, 2007 First New Refinery Planned
By mchik1
Gorilla unveiled
S.D. site is finalist for oil refinery
By Dave Dreeszen and Michele Linck Journal staff writers
ELK POINT, S.D. -- The Gorilla has been freed from its shroud of secrecy.
A Texas-based energy firm wanting to build the first U.S. oil refinery in three decades said Wednesday that Union County is a finalist for its $8 billion project.
The refinery, which Hyperion Resources touted as the epicenter of a "green energy technology center," would create as many 10,000 jobs to build the sprawling plant. When completed in four years, it would employ 1,800 at wages averaging $20 to $30 per hour, company representatives said.
Posted in Archived — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:57am on Apr. 28, 2007 McCain: "Support of Iraq War won't harm his candidacy"
By mchik1
By Bret Hayworth Journal staff writer
Mindful of the important role of the January 2008 Iowa caucuses, two days after officially announcing he's in the 2008 presidential field, Republican John McCain made a stop in Sioux City.
In his previous run for president in 2000, the U.S. senator from Arizona enjoyed some major buzz for his plain-spokenness before Republicans settled on George W. Bush. Speaking at the Sioux City Convention Center, McCain said he should be president because he's a fiscal, social and national security conservative who is the most experienced candidate in the wide field of choices.
Posted in Archived — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:10pm on Jun. 18, 2006 Memories of a Former California Teacher
By mchik1
In California public schools, many teachers are pressured to compromise their standards to whatever extent is necessary to make it appear that most students are "successful." This is reflected in inflated grades and low achievement scores which are often rationalized on a socio-economic or cultural-racial basis.
This is not a problem with the top 15 or 20 percent of students. This group is relatively immune to anything going on with school districts, teachers or classrooms. The crisis in standards affects the rest.
The majority of students entering high school have failed 8th grade proficiency tests in reading, language, and math. Even worse, 50 percent of students entering high school read, write, or do math at the level of 6th grade, or below.
I knew a couple teachers who tried to be honest and fail students. A major effort was launched by the administration to get these persons fired. It was theorized that a teacher is inadequate if he or she fails too many students, so many teachers pass almost all the under-achievers to look effective to their bosses. Usually, Fs are only given to those students who are absent from class and do no work. These kinds of Fs can be justified to administrators. The grade creep causes some students and their parents to think that they are achieving when they really are not.
To make matters worse, some districts have so-called "heterogeneous classrooms." So you have these poor students (4th-6th grade readers) being thrown in with academically-inclined students (9-12th reading levels) which does damage to the efficiency and morale of both groups. This is based upon alleged research which supposedly showed that the poorer students improve if placed with the good students. The trouble is that the research was done on students who only had differences in reading, math, and writing levels of one to three grade levels, not four or five.
Some districts have honors or advanced placement courses. But, they are usually open to only the top 10 percent. Ther rest of the students are doomed to watch unruly and stupid students drag down their average to above average counterparts.
The bottomline is to compromise every standard for scholarship, deportment, and attendance, in order to "warehouse" students to graduation. This is how you look successful and get the tax dollars. It is unimportant how much is learned; if you are really preparing persons for society; or what is the value of a high school diploma. Besides, there are plenty of community colleges to take the courses over, again, and lots of remedial programs at universities.
There is a definite danger in trying to get students to behave, work, and achieve. Modern educational theory is that too many students might fail, lose their so-called "self-esteem," and drop out. Supposedly, it would also be non-egalitarian and discriminatory to have high standards. The bottom line is that if you lose students, you lose state ADA money. If you lose so-called low socio-economic groups, you lose federal and state grant money. You get less money if you have less students and less problems.
If you try to get rid of the dopers, psychos, trouble makers, and malingerers because they are preventing other students from learning in class, they can sue the school district. Hungry lawyers are anxious to take these cases.
My teaching experiences led me to believe that CA public schools are not only deficient in indoctrinating good values (This was originally one of the main purposes of having public schools.), but they even teach bad values. Little is being done to promote the work ethic, self-discipline, or personal accountability, not to mention moral values, including honesty.
For example, I was at a couple of public high schools where the students were academically very smart, but they openly cheated, had questionable lifestyles (dope, sex, alcohol), and ran "roughshod" over the teachers ( I'll tell my influential daddy and he will get you fired). There were young "schoolyard lawyers" who try to tell the teachers what they can or cannot say and do, and see how far they can push the system.
In this age of political correctness, saying something a student finds objectionable, can get you in a lot of trouble. I have seen seven and eight seven year olds argue with the teacher's statements and actions.
Cheating is actually encouraged because it is trendy for students to work mostly in groups or teams where they can copy each other's assignments easily. This is labeled as "cooperative learning." Quizzes and tests are often "open-book" or with "open notes," because it is feared that too many would get bad grades (fail) otherwise.
I had many 7-12th grade students openly state that they think it is all right to lie, steal, and cheat, if they don't like or respect the teacher or school. These students of diverse bakgrounds were indoctrinated to think that "adults have to earn their respect," not vice versa. Some cynically think that school is just to employ teachers anyway.
Power, influence, money, cronyism, nepotism, these are the things that students think determine a person's success anyway, not ambition, dedication, hard work, etc. Besides either "Uncle Sugar" or daddy is going to take care of me.
There seems to be a real blurred difference between popularity and respect. Students like teachers who are friendly and not too demanding, particularly if they seem "cool." I saw many teachers relax all rules (i.e. eating and drinking in class, wearing hats, MTV, allow chatting with friends, etc.) so that they supposedly could earn the students' respect. There is a whole "laboratory animals" psychology used with rewards for students just behaving and doing their job (Will society do this?)
Students often say they respect some teachers, but they often really like the teacher who is "permissive" and "easy" on work. Some teachers want to be the "pals" of these students (after all, learning should be all "fun and games"). This is not the type of respect that youths will need in the real world or the type that will teach a good "work ethic" needed in an increasingly competitive world.
There is very little student or parent accountability and students are led to believe that the real world is like the public school system where the system is supposedly going to "prevent" you from failing.
Fundamentally, the liberal progression is almost complete Students have a "right" to be in class, to be "socially promoted" through the grades (as long as their attendance isn't too bad), and pretty soon, a right to a high school diploma. They already have the right to go to a CA community college, with or without a diploma anyway. Besides, teachers are informed that two of the real jobs of public schools are: to keep students "off the streets" and out of the employment market.
I agree that it is important to give the student a feeling of "worth and success", but should actually accomplish something first (Work should not be the dirtiest four-letter word in CA schools.). In this atmosphere, students can advance together and higher academic standards can be achieved by everybody.
Schools should appreciate and use better, non-academic knowledge. In otherwords, it is possible to have much "real world" knowledge and expertise ("school of hard knocks, university of life", etc.) which is not necessarily backed up by degrees, credentials, and certificates. This could enhance the status and prestige of teachers with many students who now look at teachers as "losers".
It is very desirable to share practical knowledge and experiences with students to get them motivated. There are many well- educated persons in society without teaching degrees or credentials who have much to offer students. Unfortunately, many career teachers don't have diverse experiences.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:13pm on May 24, 2006 New Immigration Law Costs & Spending Priorities?
By mchik1
Congress showed us the big difference between passing and enforcing immigration laws after 1986. If the Senate gets its way, will we see it, again. All you have to do is not fund it adequately, divert the funds to political. rather than security priorities, and not hire the types and numbers of personnel needed.
The other threat is that the Senate doesn't know or care about enforcement costs. With the politicians "papering over" the public outcry with new laws, do they know the U.S. is still incapable of administering or enforcing a massive program, especially without tens of billions in tax dollars? And do they have anybody capable of doing the job anyway? A cynic might say, they know it. They just want to look like they are doing something.
Right now, we cannot adequately guard our borders, prosecute wayword employers, or track down and deport illegals. Would things get better just by passing new laws, without regard to government capabilities, costs and funding priorities?
Homeland Security cannot handle the border problem, but the politicians want us to believe that this agency can run a vast Guest Worker Program, which ultimately will involve 20 to 30 million persons.
Everybody knows, if the Federal Government, without the help of state and local agencies, tries to do what Congress wants, we shall need a massive bureaucracy with thousands of lawyers, agents, border guards, false documentation experts, and data base technicians. Administering a complicated Guest Worker Program is the highest priority, so it will get most of the money and manpower. Will the additional funds be soaked up on bureaucracies and paperwork, rather than stopping illegals at the border, catching and deporting them, and punishing employers?
At this time, the best chance to stem the population tide from Mexico is at the borders. All of this talk about a complicated Guest Worker Program is like an army general saying: "We don't need any priorities, we can do all of our missions simultaneously, and we shall put most of our troops in the rear, instead of the front, to stop an attack."
Nobody wants to deport millions of illegals. But, will giving priority to a Guest Worker Bureaucracy divert needed money from the more pressing border enforcement problems?
We have already blown millions on Homeland Security pork. It is going to cost additional billions to administer and enforce an elaborate Guest Worker Program. What is left for the borders?
Politicians are in a hurry to pass something to get past the next election cycle. They will worry about cost estimates, manning, and spending priorities, later, and only if demanded by the citizenry.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:50pm on May 24, 2006 Will the National Guard Secure the Border?
By mchik1
The Bush Administration will conduct a phony "show of force" for political and public relations reasons on the Mexican border. Is anybody reading past the headlines on the deployment of the National Guard?
The known details are: About 6,000 Guardsmen will be rotated during their two-week annual active duty for training, requiring a total of 156,000 Guardsmen over a year. No Guardsman can stay for more than 21 days.
A nearly two billion dollar exercise relying on "revolving door" Guardsmen, is supposed to deter illegals by their mere "presence." The Guard will not be allowed any law enforcement activities, such as apprehending and detaining illegals or drug traffickers. Their roles will include providing "photo ops" for the news media, and avoiding "international incidents."
Commentators, like Lou Dobbs, are already calling this an expensive P.R. boondoggle. In a stalemate, both the Right and Left will conclude that the operation wasn't really designed to secure the border, but to just appear to be getting "tough." It was needed to pacify the Conservatives and get Congress to pass a new immigration bill. But, what if this body cannot agree until after the next elections?
Will there be increasing conflict between the governors and the Bush Administration about chain of command and deployment? The troops cannot be federalized, but the federal government will fund and direct it? Bush didn't consult or plan anything with state governors which could result in publicized controversies.
Will the populations of the border states be disappointed? What can a "weekend warrior" do with two-weeks anyway? Congress had authorized the funds for several more thousand Border Guards, but the Bush Administration slowed down its implementation.
Can Bush be trusted to not giveaway the military plans to his buddy Fox? Will the Mexican Government divert illegals to non-covered areas?
How long until everybody finds out the lack of real operational effectiveness of Guardsmen on the border for only two-weeks? Will the Pentagon become embarrassed by an expensive deception of the public? Bush has set out on a desperate political gamble which has an embarrassing potential.