Have you ever reviewed your kids math? Most parents may be scared away because it has been years since they looked at a math text book. They may not have been very good at algebra in the first place. I’m not in that position. I have an engineering degree. I took almost as many math courses as I did engineering courses.
Michelle Malkin (LINK) sent out a warning months back about a text book that many schools are using. Everyday Math teaches your kids in very strange ways.
My son then came home with this horrible book this year. Many of the questions are absurd. At one point, he needed help with an algebra problem. The problem is, he has no knowledge of algebra. He was in 5th grade. We contacted the teacher and she told us that he was to use trial and error to figure out the answer.
Trial and error is not math!
USA Today has an article on our teachers. (LINK)
American education schools set exceedingly low expectations for the mathematics knowledge that aspiring teachers must demonstrate
There are many statistics that point to the overall low standards for teachers and math is the bottom of the shallow barrel. Can teachers be excited about teaching a subject that they barely grasp?
It is no wonder that test grades are falling and American companies are begging for more H-1B Visas.
Will enviornmentalist ever be satisified?
“Our effort will be to produce coal-fired power stations which satisfy Greenpeace”, Colin Gubbin, chief consultant for The McCloskey Group (LINK)
I got news for you Colin…that aint gonna happen.
Â
Prince Charles has converted his Aston Martin to run on fuel from wine (LINK). Prince Charles is just what the world needs. I man born into wealth and privilege holding himself out as an example to us little people. I’m thinking about spending the college money I have saved for my kids on converting my beloved F150 so that it runs on Budweiser.
The UN sponsored IPCC report that claims Global Warming is man-made has 2,500 scientist. It is a hoax. The UN has finally released comments from the reviewers. (LINK)
A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented on more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.
So of the 2,500 scientists, most of them only commented on their area of expertise…not on global warming.
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that hundreds of IPCC scientists are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the Greenhouse gas forcing statement above, Professor McKitrick explained A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.
Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as Typical IPCC doubletalk asserting The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.
The Global Warming scare mongers are in trouble. Their main talking point (consensus) is a hoax.
The “pro-choice” is at it again. This time they will not be serving any fried food at their convention…along with a host of other mandated restrictions (LINK)
Democrats are only for choice when it is an extension of your sex life (gay marriage, abortion)
We have all heard that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atphoshere is increase…and it is. I have no quarrel here. According to measurement at Mauna Loa, atphospheric CO2 has increased from 320 ppm to 380 ppm over a perio of 40 years.
ppm = parts per million Â
10,000Â ppm = 1%
In other words, CO2 was 0.032% of the atphosphere in 1965. It now composes 0.038%. That is a total increase of 0.006% or 0.0015% per decade. CO2 is a trace element.
During that time of steadily increasing CO2, we have seen a cooling phase…followed by a warming phase….followed by a cooling phase. The latest data suggests (although it is difficult to measure), that the globe has been slightly cooling since 1998.
These are the facts as I understand them. This is just not enough for me to sign on to a huge intrusive government run cap and trade system.
�
Jim Gerlach(R) and Bob Roggio(D) are both running for the House seat for PA-6. Those who say that politicians are all the same aren’t paying attention. (LINK)
Jim Gerlach says,
It will send an immediate signal, particularly to speculators, that there will be a greater supply of domestic oil and natural gas. It will stabilize the price of fuel in the short term, and in the long term it will allow the price to come down.
Roggio says,
I don’t think we’re going to be able to drill our way out of the price problem. If you look at how demand for fuel is rising across the globe, it’s clear that demand is going to increase faster than supply whether or not we drill. The priority has to be on developing sources of alternative energy.
Roggio takes a talking point right out of the Democrats play book. Every damn democrat has been using the phrase, we can’t “drill our way out of it”. Why? They never explain it. His attempt here is lame. If demand is going up, then we need an increase in supply.
Roggio wants to a windfall profit tax on the oil companies…but Bob…I thought the problem was world demand. Taxing American oil companies will lead to more dependence on foreign sources. That’s the way int worked in the 70′s and it will likely follow the same pattern.
Roggio wants us all to rely on public transportation. He wants you to be dependent on the government to travel…to work, to the grocery store, for vacation. We all know how that goes. Crowded buses. Crowded trains. Limited schedules. The party of choice? What a joke.
The US Government has spent billions over the course of 30 years trying to bring about alternative sources…and we have next to nothing to show for it.
If it is true the speculating is the problem, then we need to send a signal that there won’t be a shortage in the future.
If it is true that world demand is the problem, then we need to increase supply
If it is true that hostile foreign entities are the problem, then we need to develop domestic sources.
We can hope and hope, but that’s not going to fill my tank. Hope is not going to defund nations that support terrorism. HOPE alone will leave with me with nothing but small CHANGE.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Free Markets on June 25th, 2008
The PA Congressional race for District 6 was one of the most highly contested races last go round. Jim Gerlach narrowly defeated Lois Murphy (for the 2nd time). Gerlach has a new opponent this year. His name is Robert Roggio.
Mr. Roggio has taken politics to a new low.
He has criticized Jim Gerlach for missing votes…votes that Mr. Roggio feels are important (LINK). It is important that our Congressman show up to represent us, but I think we can forgive Rep. Gerlach for missing a few votes while he attended his mother’s funeral.
Mr. Roggio, get a clue.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on June 25th, 2008
Senator Obama warned a crowd last week that Republicans would remind people that he has a funny name and, by the way, he’s black. His pre-emptive strike against Republican racism was not a surprise. Liberals see themselves as enlightened and Republicans as superficial and racist.
What strikes me is the comment about his name. Friends from his younger years called him Barry. I have seen quotes from old friends who referred to him this way. When he entered Chicago politics, he started going by his name to Barrack.
Apparently, Mr. Obama thinks that to win the support of blacks he needs to be more familiar to blacks. The name Barry sounds “white” and he would not be accepted with a funny sounding name.
In otherwords, Barrack Obama is predicting that white Republicans will use his name against him, and that this will be a sign of racism, yet he acquiesced to the black community need for someone whose name was acceptable.
Remind me again. Who are the racists in America?
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on June 24th, 2008
In the early 1980, the Democrats in Congress have put strict limits on any new exploration. Since 1985, the US production of crude oil has declined and dependence on foreign crude oil has increased.
The governments refusal to allow potential and known source to be tapped has led to an sharp rise in crude oil prices. The issue made worse by sudden growth of the world’s largest countries, China and India. This is Basic Economic…cut the supply; increase demand and watch the price of oil sky rocket.
The answer to this is obviously to drill in place here at home. Rep. Rahm Emanual (D-IL) says Republicans have a “one-trick pony” approach. If it is dark and someone keeps saying turn on the light…it’s that a one-trick pone approach or just common sense?
So the Democrats have a plan. They want to take over refineries so that they can better control the flow. This is wrong on so many levels
- The government does not run anything efficiently
- Politicians make decissions base on politics (what a surprise)
- This will detach the price from the free market, leading to shortages and higher prices
- It’s basic looting. The oil companies have invested billions in refineries and now the government wants to steal it.
Do Democrats ever go back to learn from history?
Didn’t we learn anything from the collapse of the Soviet Union?
According to a Rasmussen phone poll of likely voters, only 47% were opposed to nationalizing the oil inudstry. 66% of Republican oppose it.
These numbers are amazingly low.
The government already takes 10% of the economy to pay for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
The government runs our schools and spends over 7% of GDP on education
The Democrats are pushing to take another 20% in the form of Universal Health Care
If they take the oil industry, nearly 50% of the country will be run by the federal government
If these last two steps are taken, will we really that far from a socialist society?
The New York Times thinks that high fuel prices are not all bad. Not because it will finally motivate us away from Middle East oil (which would be good), but because it will finally save us from the destroying the Earth. (Hat Tip: Newsbusters)
There is much to said about the economics of global warming. There is much to be said about the ability of wealth to enable us to protect the environment. A more immediate consequence is where will the money come from.
Raising fuel prices won’t mean that we all just work a little harder to make up the difference. The consequence will be money shifted in our budgets…and not just our personal budgets. Fire Departments and ambulances must shift money from life saving equipment to the fire truck’s gas tank. School boards will fund the buses instead of computer labs. Police budget will be stretched by gas guzzling patrol cars. The maintenance of your city parks will increase leaving less money for capital improvements. I think the NY Times would suggest that all of these services are important.
The price of fuel will effect almost every aspect of our daily lives. Money diverted to fuel takes could surely be better spent. The NY Times finding a silver lining in rising fuel prices reminds me of the argument that rising seas will mean my house is closer to the beach. Of course, the second argument is a joke…but then again…so is the NY Times.
Obama says that we should follow the prosecution model used after the 1993 WTC bombing. He says that Guantanamo is a tool for recruiting terrorist. Obama said, Â
(Guantanamo has) given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’
He could have a point here. If I was in Saudi Arabia living under Wahhabi rule, I might be thinking a long Carribean visit would be nice.
All jokes aside…I think he is missing a very important point. After the 1993 bombing, we picked up the minor players and put them in jail. The masterminds stayed untouched. Eventually, they came back on 9/11. All the hijackers are dead. Who are we to prosecute?
Bush rightly concluded that the best way to stop future attacks is to go on the offensive against countries that give safe havens to those who would attack us. Obama can argue that the jury is still out on whether Bush’s approach will work long term or that Iraq was not one of those countries, but I think he is way off base suggesting that the way we handled the 1993 bombing was a success.
UPDATE: Confederate Yankee points out that Obama is “dead wrong”.
Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein’s guest in Baghdad until the invasion. He is still free, and wanted by the FBI.
John McCain is showing that he is going to totally cave to the enviornmentalist.
Tomorrow I’ll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration
Obama campaign tries to paint John McCain as a carbon copy of George Bush saying that,
John McCain’s ‘plan’ to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush …Barack Obama’s plan offers comprehensive change that makes significant investments in alternative forms of energy to secure our energy independence
The government has been promising an alternative for 30 years. They spend our money and have nothing to show for it. All of a sudden, Barack Obama will bring “change” because he has the audacity to “hope” for alternatives.
Â
Social Security was setup as a safety net for seniors. The original concept put forth by FDR forced citizens to put money into the system. If they lived past the life expectancy, the government would then give some of that money back. You were paying for you own retirement…if you lived long enough.
Thinks have changed. People are living longer and the system is going broke.
Barack Obama has proposed the most radical change ever suggested for the Social Security plan. He wants to change it from an awful retirement plan to an awful welfare plan. Obama has proposed lifting the limit on the salary that gets social security money deducted. Those rich people won’t be getting more back, they will just be funding the program for those that don’t put enough in.
Essentially, Obama is proposing wealth redistribution and he wants to use Social Security as the vehicle. That’s change alright. It’s just not a good change.
Older Posts »
Share on Facebook