HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 39,405

Journal Archives

What did Rep. Michael Grimm mean when he threatened to break reporter "like a little boy"?

What the fuck is that?

Doesn't it sound like some kind of Freudian slip, confession some past crime or sexual fantasy?

I could see how a hothead could come up with throwing someone off a balcony (they were on a balcony), but the little boy remark is not something I could imagine coming out of my mouth in a moment of anger.

Anybody have a different take on this?

POLL on TPP Fast Track poll

What I find shocking here is not that TWO-THIRDS of Americans oppose fast-tracking TPP, but that a slight majority of DEMOCRATS FAVOR IT.

On some poll questions, not having enough options can skew the results, like on health care reform, so on the left "opposed" it not because they didn't want health care reform but because they wanted something different.

In this case, it's hard to see how there could be any distortion in the question since "fast track" can only mean they support passage of the TPP.

Does anyone here have an explanation for Democratic voters supporting TPP fast track?

Also, while entirely unscientific, Do you support TPP? Do you support fast-tracking it? Could those two issues be different?

By more than two to one, voters say they oppose (62%) rather than favor passage of fast-track negotiating authority for the TPP deal. Among those with a strong opinion, the ratio climbs to more than three to one (43% strongly opposed, just 12% strongly favorable). Demographically, opposition is very broad, with no more than one-third of voters in any region of the country or in any age cohort favoring fast track. Sixty percent (60%) of voters with household incomes under $50,000 oppose fast track, as do 65% of those with incomes over $100,000.

While opposition is relatively uniform both geographically and demographically, the survey data reveals a sharp partisan divide on the issue. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving fast-track authority to the president (8% in favor, 87% opposed), as do independents (20%-66%), while a narrow majority (52%) of Democrats are in favor (35% opposed).

The survey goes on to simulate a public debate over the merits of fast track and the proposed TPP trade deal, by presenting each respondent with an equal number of arguments made by organizations supporting and opposing fast track. Respondents indicate whether they find each argument convincing, and then have the opportunity to express a more fully informed judgment on the issue of fast-track authority. However, voters’ informed judgment is the same as their initial response: overwhelming opposition to fast track.

* At least 50% of voters find eight different opponent arguments to be very or fairly convincing (more than 60% for four of them), but not a single argument by supporters meets that standard.


One way an underdog could win 2016 primaries: dump corporate education reform and embrace educators

Whatever good Obama does will be tainted by a corrupt K-12 public education policy (now creeping into higher ed) that lets the Wall Street hedge fund managers and billionaire "philanthropists" dictate education policy, not for the good of students or the country as a whole, but to privatize it and maximize their profits from it.

Actual teachers have lost a voice in the highest circles of the Democratic Party. They still need our votes, but once we vote, we're told to shut up and sit down, so the rich people can tell us how to do OUR job for THEIR benefit.

Testing companies dictate how often we need to test. Curriculum like common core are developed by companies who will sell the books and software necessary to implement it, and anyone who makes the right political donations can start a for profit charter school that siphons off money meant for real public schools, which would be okay if they actually did a better job, but they do not.

Oddly, the touted advantage of charters is that they are free of the micromanaged curriculum of public schools, so teachers and administrators are free to do what they think will work for their students. If the profit motive were not involved, there would be a much simpler way to execute this idea: give that freedom to regular public schools.

No one goes into education hoping to get rich. We want to make a difference in kids lives and make enough money doing to give our families a middle class standard of living.

Those dictating education policy now see it as the next part of the commons they can privatize and divert our tax dollars into the way they do in the Department of Defense with weapons contracts.

And like those weapons, whether or not the education we pay them for works will take a back seat to their profits.

What is more frustrating is after their crimes that caused an economic collapse, not only are we NOT punishing them, we are giving them something else to destroy for their profit: our children's futures.

The Democrat who calls bullshit on this corrupt policy will get my vote in the primary and likely the vote of every teacher suffering under this.

THIS MODERN WORLD TOON: If Terrorists poisoned 300,000 people's water supply

This is kind of the flip side of the other question that makes the "War on Terror" look absurd: "What's more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack?"

VIDEO: War & Deodorant

They should play this ad whenever Washington is trying to whip up war fever.

Since Kerry demands Assad must go, we don't support any dictators as bad or worse do we?

Obviously in our history we have our Pinochet, Papa & Baby Doc, Suharto, Marcos, Rios Montt, the Shah, China during Tiananmen Square...

But we don't support any dictators who oppress their own people and actively prevent democracy anymore, do we?

It's not like we support Saudi, a theocracy that makes Iran look like Sweden, or the guy in Uzbekistan who boils political opponents ALIVE, right?

We haven't recently backed any military coups against democratically elected governments like the one against Zelaya in Honduras in 2009, have we? Or the multiple coup attempts against Hugo Chavez during the Bush years?

Because if any of that was true, people might suspect that all the tears about Syria's human rights abuses and dictatorship, even if true, are the excuse not the reason for trying to remove Assad.

Why is our government trying so hard to get rid of Assad?

Since Dems finally are acknowledging Republican political crimes, what about Rove & Siegelman?

If Obama pardoned Siegelman and let the AG investigate and indict Karl Rove for his various crimes to cripple the democratic process, and instead of doing it quietly, giving a speech about it, it could make it a lot harder for Republicans to do these dirty tricks in the future.

And to give it the Obama touch, he could leave the words "Republican" and "Democrat" completely out of it.

Democrats unwillingness to act on this kind of stuff has been surreal. It is as if zombies were eating their children and their response is to say, "I have some policies differences with them."

THIS MODERN WORLD TOON on Chris Christie: A Typical Day

This pretty much removes all doubt of where this scandal will end up.

If you were Edward Snowden and were offered a pardon or clemency by the US would you come home?

RAVITCH: Why Aren’t Elite Prep Schools Following Corporate Reforms?

This is the most obvious evidence that corporate education reform has more to do with corporate profits than educating our kids: the best prep schools, where the "reformers" send their kids, don't do it.

Why do we continue to let the sociopaths on Wall Street commodify our kids and almost literally chase teachers out of the classroom?

Isn't it time to call bullshit to politicians faces and chase them out of office if they keep backing this.

A lot of Obama's policies can be defended as the best he good do given the opposition, but on education "reform," he can't blame Republicans for twisting his arm, and it will be a stain on his presidency that will be fully his responsibility.

This is a terrific article about the elite prep schools and the fact that they do not follow the "reforms" that are now pushed by the U.S. Department of Education, the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and other corporate reformers.

Here are some quotes from the article:

Go ahead and do an online search of the country’s top prep schools, or check out this list from Forbes. Peruse some of the school websites and do a search for anything that mainstream education reformers suggest we implement in your neighborhood public school. Try, for example, common core state standards. How about data-driven instruction? Or, what about two weeks worth of mandated high-stakes, standardized state tests, preceded by weeks, if not months, of benchmarks, short-cyles, and pre-assessments?

Are they likely to hire teachers without advanced degrees?

Check out the proportion of teachers at those schools who possess advanced degrees. At Horace Mann in the Bronx—where 36 percent of students are accepted at an Ivy League school, Stanford, or MIT—94 percent of the teachers have advanced degrees. Now, who was it that said rewarding teachers with advanced degrees is a waste of money? Ah yes, our Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. How far do you think Mr. Duncan’s argument would get with parents who examine a potential school's "Ivy/MIT/Stanford pipeline" percentage score? Not very far.

So why are the prep schools avoiding Duncan's great ideas?

If the reforms mandated by Departments of Education and fawned over by upstart think-tankers were as fantastic as advised again and again, then you can bet that every single one of the country's best prep schools would be implementing them as rapidly as possible.They're not, and you shouldn't accept them either.


Go to Page: 1