1+1=3?

The No Child Left Behind Act was an attempt at making schools and educators more “accountable” for student improvement throughout the school year and as an aid to what the government considers disadvantaged children. All that it ended up accomplishing was an amplified amount of pressure for schools to benchmark to ensure their survival and that pressure trickled down to the students. I agree with the following blog, The Isn't Mayberry ,that the act resulted in ridiculous school environments, having begun with good intention. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Teachers being allowed to teach the fundamentals and even create a more challenging curriculum should be priority. If the kids can pass the curriculum, then by logic be able to pass the annual standardized exams. Instead anxiety, stress of being able to meet the expectations and keep their school afloat is the curriculum of the day.

No bilingual education? I agree that our young ones lack a firm grasp of the English language as a whole. It is evident in social media postings, and the same standardized testing that was meant to reflect improvement. I do not advocate for a one specific language or another, but recent studies in neuroscience reveal that bilingualism actually improves cognitive function.  Studies as recent as March 2012 are revealing bilingual activity actually improves cognitive function, and not only in language skills alone. It improves the brain’s executive functioning, or our command system that directs our attention processes for planning, solving, and preforming mentally demanding tasks. Research is also reflecting a potential to delay dementia. Aside from the cognitive improvements, it allows exposure to other cultures not otherwise introduced at home or perhaps only reflected to the student through methods such as TV or social media. The U.S. need not acknowledge our home field language of English, but dismissing the benefits of bilingualism need not be abolished as well.

I opted for alternative learning with my own offspring because I did not feel that the current established curriculum and expectations from the public school districts were sufficient for the skills that they will need when it is time for them to burst into the adult world. They have benefitted greatly from the smaller class size and above average curriculum of a charter school while still receiving benefit of the ever important socialization. The blog is very matter of fact and has a good flow from one point to another. Citing case studies or introducing specific solutions as an alternative to improve the situation would have lent to a more solid argument.

Red Rover, Red Rover....You'd better not come over!

Growing up I heard my share of, “Don’t you dare touch that….don’t you…no!” As a parent I've probably said it twice as much. Recently I heard the grown up version from our President, aimed at the president of Syria. A scolding ensued after evidence of small scale sarin use was uncovered. President Obama warned Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad of a U.S. military response if he dared cross a “red line” by using or moving any chemical or biological weapons. A red line for the U.S. is defined as beginning to witness a “whole bunch” of chemical weapons being moved around or used. Michael Eisenstadt, Director of Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for the Near East (whew!), makes the claim that Syria probably has the biggest and most advanced of all chemical warfare programs. So with a quizzical look on my face I am sure, they are just now being warned of crossing a red line I did not even know was a real term?!

Obama’s warning came on the second of three feasting days to honor the end of Ramadan whose holiday message is of tolerance and amity. Is this interesting political irony or purposeful timing on the heels of a recent domestic tragedy for which the public is crying out for justice? President Obama assured the listening citizens of contingency plans while warning Syria and any other country with similar intentions of the U.S. stance on the matter.

Our legislative bodies fear these chemical weapons falling into the wrong hands. Who really is what can be considered the “right” hands? Even our home teams fumbles. In 1985, our own biological Guru- the CDC “misplaced” a purified sample of a hemorrhagic fever, named the Crimean Congo strain. It was allegedly mailed with dilute samples for research to a U.S. Army lab but only the dilute samples arrived. After an allegedly extensive search, it was concluded that the original purified virus had inadvertently been destroyed in a “routine” cleaning. What is routine about cleaning hemorrhagic fever causing viruses? Through dumb luck, if you can call it that, the virus cannot sustain itself outside a living host for more than an hour. As in human nature, history repeats itself….March 23, 2013 a routine inspection of a locked freezer unit revealed a missing sample of a very virulent, highly contagious virus known as Guanarito. This too is a hemorrhagic fever, native to central Venezuela, and was being held in the UTMB-Houston laboratory for “research” due to the virus’ high potential for use as a biochemical weapon. Foul play was doubted and again, routine cleaning was blamed for having destroyed the virus sample. The U.S. government states that we are not hoarding, storing, nor do we advocate any such activities related to biological warfare. Yet we have laboratories storing only mere samples in the name of “defensive biological research?” President Obama, our entire legislation as well as our nation as a hole worry about these microscopic weapons falling into the wrong hands, but exactly how do you define who the wrong hands belong to? Countries are standing united in support of not crossing these ‘red lines’ and ready themselves against countries like Syria who are making test runs amongst their own populations. My best advice is, that as the leaders of each country stand who plan to stand shoulder to shoulder in a line waiting for Red Rover to come over, before holding hands to form the chain-wash them first.

Suit Up....

There comes a time when we have to put on big girl panties do some uncomfortable things in life-criticizing a colleague's work is one of mine, well in the school setting anyhow. Ribbit...Ribbit... I do not fancy myself well versed in the least in the arena of politics. Now, if we were argue medicine...challenge accepted....

 

 

Jack and Jill.....or Jack and Bill?

With baited breath, citizens of every state await a decision on the headlining topic of same sex marriage. The constitutionality of gay marriage is under fire again. DOMA, the defense of marriage act, technically established marriage to be between two individuals of opposite sex. Enacted in 1996, this is simply the attempt to dictate the definition of “normal” and flailing attempt to reassure themselves of protection of traditional family values. Same sex couples enjoy the commitment, love, intimacy and companionship as much as any opposite sex couple. Our culture has come to accept diversity-why is this any different?

The constitution is a shield of protection for many debates. The holy political bible of our country does not define marriage-gay or straight. It was left to the states to include and establish in their own constitution. It seems to me it leans more heavily on the side of social, moral and most of all personal, conflict.

Same sex couples are in the hot seat for wanting, and deserving, the same rights and responsibilities of a “traditional” marital union. Couples who are “living in sin”, AKA cohabitation, are afforded more privileges and acknowledgement than a gay couple willing to seek a legal one. In 1976, a California gay activist Tom Brougham proposed and won a new term of relationship-Domestic Partnership. This was defined as a legal or interpersonal relationship between individuals who live together and share domestic life but not joined in marriage or civil union. It continued to evolve to include and hold the partners accountable for joint property, children, alimony, palimony, etc.-all involved in a heterosexual divorce. Progress? Yes. Then straight couples argued-this applies to us too! Well, isn’t that only fair? In all fairness, since we took the concept and ran with it to afford cohabitating opposite sex couples that ability to obtain insurance benefits, stakes in personal property and rights to their offspring, then we need to reciprocate and make legal marriage for same sex couples. What’s good for a goose is good for two ganders.

Oh, what will become of our family values? The real question is what hasn’t?! America’s divorce rate amongst officially recognized marriage is at an average 50 percent. I personally know more single parents or divorced couples than those successfully married for an appreciable length of time. Turn on MTV- 16 & pregnant, Teen Mom, and Engaged & underage glamourized unconventional family archetypes. These are better examples of “normal” or healthy than a happily married gay couple holding full time employment, paying their taxes, and attending church every Sunday? I won’t even elaborate on Honey Boo-Boo, whose own mother sits sinfully in gluttony and whelped her offspring from three different fathers-none of whom she has ever been married to.

What about the children? (Gasp). Families are founded in love, commitment and security-all values any couple can deliver, regardless of sexuality. The American Academy of Pediatrics released their new policy on March 13, 2013 citing research that has revealed parental sexual orientation has no effect on a child’s development. It states that two parent homes best provide a nurturing, financially and emotionally stable environment-the recipe for successful childrearing. This group of distinguished professionals align themselves with the already pro-gay marriage group AMA (American Medical Association). The definition of family has already evolved from the 1950’s Good Housekeeping version of the nuclear family to one that includes single parents or grandparents raising their own grandchildren.

Denying same sex marriage removes not only the perks but responsibilities granted through the legally acknowledged marriage. Marital right is human-not straight or gay. Marriage makes each spouse accountable to the other. Children of a gay marriage could be afforded child support while protecting the non-custodial parent's right to visitation. Let’s even out the playing field.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often referred to as the key vote, refers to this situation as “unchartered waters.” Haven’t we been there before and it not be the ultimate demise of our society (segregation/integration, women’s rights)? So when asked who takes these two women/men to lawfully wedded wives/husbands…..I DO.

There must be a mirror in my pants cuz Congress can see themselves in them....

Contrary to popular belief, it is an African proverb that says, “It takes a village to raise a child.” (Not an original work by Hillary.) Birth control=Government shutdown?This blog addresses the reduction and or elimination of funding for family planning and reproductive services using the guise saving the nation from financial meltdown. It began state by state and with changes already emerging from Obamacare, bills are creeping in on a congressional level. It is no secret that certain religiously affiliated health care systems already restrict coverage for family planning and sterilization to their own employees and families. Taking away funds from low cost or free services will result in a Federal and State village raising more than one child. The author doesn’t argue morality or pro-anything-the blog speaks in terms the government and a lot of Americans do-money.

Too many women do not seek reproductive care as it is, with no free or affordable options-even less will. I suppose in a skewed way $35.00 a month for birth control and a free or sliding-scale priced preventative pap smear at the local clinic will save our nation from financial disaster. The USDA estimated $20,000 a year PER child average it is costing me alone (and I have two teens-no diapers, formula, ect.) for basics is far more fiscally logical….right? At the risk of sounding a snob, I do not represent the majority of those who will be most affected by these cuts. With less education, less earning potential and lower socioeconomical status- these affected women often end up on the Federal payroll-aka TANF. Again, cheaper? In seeking methods of family planning, female patients open themselves up for even broader education on their body and how to care for it. Clinics who will reel from their budgets being cut or even eliminated, offer more than just abortions and birth control, they provide information on women’s health issues, sexually transmitted diseases and in some cases counseling. If I sit and think too much-my own government would rather that I be gun-less, with the rise in unemployment expected with sequestration, barefoot and now pregnant all the time too? I’ll make Congress a deal-they stay outta my uterus and I’ll stay out of theirs

Oooooo.....shiny object!

The argument over arms is a hot topic, yet AGAIN. This isn’t a new battle, just like a latent disease. It most often rears its ugly head unfortunately following a sensationalized event. A Washington Times editorial author puts misrepresentation of gun issues and examples into the hot seat. I agree in most respects. Reports pop up of gun toting citizens trying to prove their point by publicly carrying around the exact type of weapon they fear will be banned. Sensationalism sells-point blank. Who wants an example of a supporter of her right to bear arms reflecting a 38 year old mother of two, full time nurse who just spoon fed your ailing mother carrying a concealed weapon(with license to) that  you've walked past a hundred times on the street.....or better yet is seated next to you in government class. At the risk of sounding hypocritical, I believe the authors intended audience would be a reader with an ability to think critically or at the very least, one with an open enough mind to consider the points made. As much as it would be all sh*** & giggles to believe the news is delivered simply to educate and inform us of current happenings in our world, news is a business. There have been incidences in which the visual or verbal report delivered in braodcasts I have noted it purposefully focusing on a particular detail-such as race, or socioeconomic status. One section of the article brings forth an example that the race of a single anonymous citizen carrying an assault aka semi-automatic rifle at an Obama town hall meeting was obscured. The network blacked out the face of a black man? I recall seeing not long ago the visual of a completely identifiable white male paying for an item at a counter with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder. Both were attempting to prove a point for whatever reason. Even if unintentional, this type of  oversight will evoke a response in some that turn the issue into a racial one versus the actual one-gun control.  The current issues will be initially presented and then there may come an equally sensitive non related issue with the potential of sending the original point being made reeling off onto a tangent. The public may believe that the news networks have and abide by a moral or ethical responsibility to report information fairly and equally-without intentional bias, but the one that makes the difference to the networks is the legal one and the same amendments that protect our munitions ownership protects their subjective reporting.  I can only advise fellow citizens of the advice I have given my own future gun owning offspring-always consider your source of information. This author falls under the guise of "staff members" of the Washington Post. I can validate the general idea but without someone willing to take either the credit or blame and lend their credentials to it, it can definitely be filed away under the above basic parenting principle I mentioned.

Its for my glaucoma, I swear.....

Reefer madness!!!....or is really? The short article touches briefly on national government's blossoming interest in marijuana. It briefly mentions a few bills that propose taxes on marijuana and removing the plant from the list of banned substances. This is a debatable "layer cake" form of federalism.  Legalization has been argued on a state level for years, now I seem to be reading more about the feds wanting to be dealt in too. Realistically America will never be drug free, but if there is a deterrant for anything in our culture-slap a tax on it! Regulation of marijuana and a taxing system will be difficult to organize and establish. I have faith in the fact that if there is a dollar to be made-our legislature will find it.http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/pot-legalization-goes-federal/