Please take time to read this story at The Gathering Storm:
CAIR’s latest attempt at protecting our civil rights are charges against a California middle school teacher, Randy Ingram, who had the courage to state to his sixth grade class the obvious - that Iran has sworn to destroy the state of Israel.
It seems simple. Someone does a great job and he is rewarded - typically with more money in a capitalistic society. If he does a poor job; he is not rewarded. In many facets of business and society, it works brilliantly. Common sense tells us that creating a such a sytem would motivate any employee, including teachers:
Bush seeks teacher merit-pay funds
President Bush wants more money in the 2008 budget for a fund that encourages performance-based pay systems for teachers — a request that will no doubt feed into the larger debate on Capitol Hill about how best to attract, create and retain effective teachers.
The administration is asking for $199 million for its Teacher Incentive Fund, which was created in 2006. The fund provides financial incentives for teachers and principals who improve student achievement in high-poverty schools and helps to recruit top teachers to these schools. Rewards are left up to the states to decide and can include bonuses or raises.
Dangle reward. Do well. Receive reward. It’s not climatological science! We’re taught this system as very young children even before we enter school. A reward is often a motivator for good behavior, completing chores, kissing Great Aunt Ethel. For children entering school, grades become the reward; though some teachers have been known to give out candy and trinkets to motivate their students. Public school teachers are well aware of this cause and effect response.
However, public school teachers are union members and the rules of the motivation system somehow do not apply.
The top teachers union has criticized the fund.
Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, recently said the setup “is nothing more than a merit-pay system, and merit pay hasn’t worked wherever it has been tried, for the most part.”
Far from spurring teachers on to greater effectiveness, extra bonuses for some and not others simply “creates tension” between teachers and kills any teamwork, he said.
“It doesn’t work and it’s not going to do anything to attract and retain quality teachers,” Mr. Weaver said. What will work is getting teachers involved in the decision-making process, giving them a safe and orderly school and a decent salary, he said.
My question is, what does motivate our public school teachers to do their best? If it’s pride in their job and students, then why would attractive salaries be a motivator? Reg Weaver is wrong and his positing otherwise is a glaring show of the disconnection between teachers’ unions and reality.
Fresh off the Drudge Report this morning:
HOUSE HEARING ON ‘WARMING OF THE PLANET’ CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ETThe Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.
DC WEATHER REPORT:
Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph…increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.
Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.
And Al Gore reaches out to kids and explains Global Warming in terms they can understand:
Conservative UAW Guy has a few things to say too.
Sister Toldjah reminds us of Al Gore’s bad day.
And more from - Pirate’s Cove
And HotAir
Oh - and did you know that St. Valentine’s Day contributes to global warming?
Remember how she apologized. Remember how she said she didn’t mean to offend? Remember it was all in jest - satire - parody? Well, being the upstanding young gentlewoman that she is, she’s decided to step aside and allow the Edwards campaign not be tarnished by her speckled past.
She is, however, working on a new campaign!
The number of times she references Donhue, the head of the Catholic League, in her blog could lead one to wonder if she’s really attracted to the guy and has done all of this to garner his attention. Such behavior is common amongst children.
Back to her Catholicophobic blog - How will her readers take her seriously again? It was all a joke, remember? What about this latest campaign - a parody?
Oh sweet, sweet, Amanda. What a pickle you’ve gotten yourself into.
Great video here.
A fun video here!
More background info here.
It’s a matter of odds. If you spend a certain amount of time each day saying awful things about people, mocking them for laughs - odds are, your timing is really going to stink and well, you’ll pull a “Rosie.”
Is the following supposed to be apologetic in her twisted way? Instead she seems as if she’s trying to justify her drug remarks and her portrayal of a dazed and incoherent Anna Nicole Smith.
LOOSE CHANGE
Posted by ro on February 9th at 10:15am in in the newsCLAIM: SMITH CHOKED ON HER OWN VOMIT…
CBS: Investigators found illegal narcotics, prescription meds in room…
Mother Blames Drugs…
Lawyer vows no DNA sample…
Battle Over $1.6 Billion Fortune Brewing…
Autopsy to Be Performed…
She Died Like Marilyn…
Timeline…
Final Footage Sells for Over $500,000…
*VIDEO…
Rosie Rants On Anna Nicole — Hours Before Her Death…LOOSE CHANGE
No, silly me - that was no apology. She was going for the justification. Later that same day, she enters her own trascript into her blog:
Posted by ro on February 9th at 6:25pm in in the news
ME: BIG THINGS GOING ON IN THE NEWS. IF I HAVE TO SEE ANNA NICOLE SMITH ONE MORE TIME ON TELEVISION. THAT WOMAN AND HER PATERNITY TEST. .. AND SHE CAN HARDLY EVEN SPEAK NOW. SHE CAN’T EVEN SPEAK. SHE’S LIKE (I DO A BLANK AND MUMBLE INTO THE CAMERA) …YOU KNOW IT’S A TRAGEDY ALL AROUND. ..HER SON DIED. SHE HAS THIS LITTLE BABY. THERE’S OBVIOUSLY SOME KIND OF MEDICATION OR SUBSTANCE INVOLVED. I DON’T KNOW.
ELISABETH HASSELBECK: THAT’S AN ODD SITUATION.
KRISTIN CHENOWETH: OR NOT INVOLVED
ME: OR NOT INVOLVED, EVEN WORSE. BUT IT’S SORT OF LIKE DISTRACTING. THE ART OF DISTRACTION. THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE REAL.
EH:WHO DOESN’T.
ME: I THINK OUR CULTURE NOW.
EH:YOU THINK THE THE REPUBLICANS ARE PUTTING ANNA NICOLE ON THE TV ?
ME :NO.
JOY BEHAR: YOU CAN’T BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR EVERYTHING.
EH:WE WERE THERE BEFORE. JUST NEEDED TO CHECK.
(Note: Caps Lock is Rosie’s not mine)
More from the same blog entry:
i was in the air when Anna Nicole Smith died
the plane landed
my phone rang
“Anna Nicole Smith died three hours ago,” my publicist said
“Do you have a comment?” she asked.unbearably tragic
2 words only
sums it up
pretty muchsimply
to tell the truth
to speak of her suffering
2 notice 2 carefame
more toxic than crack
one hit
and ur donemore tempting than sex
the suffering of someone else
her pain
entertainmentya know
all anyone wants
r people who they know
will keep them from going over the edgefocus
breathe
keep me where the light is
we pray
E.E. Cummings without the talent?
Laughs are not so hearty when they are always at someone else’s expense. Ching Chong indeed…
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
And Cinderalla herself speaks up:
My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.
The sum of genteel Miss Marcotte’s personal writings are a testament alright. And this whole situation is a testament to a disconnection with reality.
But let’s not confuse the effect with the rationale—which is both risible and insulting. Because were it really never Marcotte’s intent to malign anyone’s faith, she probably wouldn’t have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you know—maligning anyone’s faith.
Of course it was her intent. Just as it was McEwan’s intent. And worst of all, Edwards knows it. That he has pretended to take the two at their word, in an ostentatious gesture of “trust,” is precisley the kind of staged treacle that makes people doubt the sincerity of politicians; and that both Marcotte and McEwan have assured their own personal Patriarch that they’ll behave, now that he’s promoted them to the grownups’ table, is, to put it bluntly, one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I’ve ever seen.
And they lived happily ever after…
More from one of my favorites (Allahpundit).
And another favorite. (Mary Katherine Ham)
Karl from Leaning Straight Up, hips us to a little time switcharoo at William Arkin’s blog. The post that appeared mysteriously this morning, now has a new timestamp. Instead of 5:31 AM 02/01/07 - It is now 5:31 PM. Amazing - and now all is right with the world.
Come to think of it, there is a resemblance.
Where did that come from?
The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops
New Middle East Commander Correctly Stays in His Lane
See that post tucked in the middle - it wasn’t there yesterday. In fact, The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out, only appeared on his side bar on the front page for a short time yesterday and the post itself was on the front page for a very short time.
I popped over there today and see the Arrogant post along with this new mystery post A Note to my Readers on Supporting the Troops. And the timestamps make it VERY interesting.
Arrogant timestamp: Posted at 09:39 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
Note to my Readers timestamp: Posted at 05:31 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
First comment under Note to my Readers:
You’re a jerk, Arkin.
Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 05:47 PM
First comment under Arrogant:
Being subjected to such things isn’t fun, is it?…
{snipped}
…Keep in mind how all your words affect them, not just the ones you direct at them.
Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 04:08 PM
Now, it’s not so much that the timestamp of the comment on Arrogant comes before that of the Note to my Readers first comment - it’s the question of where are all the comments that were there before 4:08 PM yesterday for Arrogant and why were they removed? Is it because they want us to think that the “apologetic” Note to my Readers came first?
Leaning Straight Up analyzes the apology more closely.
It’s become sort of a “thing” to attend Super Bowl parties at churches - I’ve never done it and because of the NFL’s decision, I guess I never will.
NFL’s lawyers sack church’s game plan
The thousands of churches across the country that want to host Super Bowl parties Sunday night had better not pull out big-screen TVs, or they could face the wrath of NFL attorneys.
The NFL is telling Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis that the church’s plans to use a wall projector to show the game at a party for church members and guests would violate copyright laws.
NFL officials spotted a promotion of Fall Creek’s “Super Bowl Bash” on the church Web site last week and sent pastor John D. Newland a letter — via FedEx overnight — demanding the party be canceled.
Initially, the league objected to the church’s plan to charge partygoers a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words “Super Bowl” in its promotions.Newland told the NFL his church would not charge partygoers — the fee had been intended only to pay for snacks — and that it would drop the use of the forbidden words.
But the NFL wouldn’t bite. It objected to the church’s plans to use a projector to show the game on what effectively was a 12-foot-wide screen. It said the law limits the church to one TV no bigger than 55 inches.
The league even took exception to the church’s plan to influence nonmembers with a video highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.
The message on Falls Creek Baptist Church website:
Fall Creek Baptist Church Family…
We regret to inform you that we have had to cancel our bash to view the Colts game this Sunday in a family friendly environment due to the fact that the NFL believes we would be in violation of the Copyright Act, because we had planned to show the game on a screen bigger than a 55 inch diagonal. We have appealed to their legal counsel and exhausted all options without success. We have been informed that the only exceptions to view the game are given to sports bars and restaurants. While we have argued that we only intend to provide a family oriented environment that will make no profit from the showing, the NFL claims that our event cannot proceed by law. Therefore, we have no choice but to challenge this in court or cancel the event. We choose to cancel the event. We deeply regret that we have been prohibited by the NFL from providing a family friendly environment for celebrating the Colts great season.
Pastor John
William Arkin is more evidence of the left’s opinion of our armed forces. He has no respect for them, though he feigns it in his own off-balanced and self-serving way. After all, he was one of them - he served from 1974 to 1978, and like John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam), he will pull it out of his ass when it’s convenient.
In his January 30th Washington Post blog entry, Arkin responded to an NBC Nightly News video of soldiers’ disheartenment at the mantra “We support the soldiers but not the war:”
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President’s handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don’t see very man “baby killer” epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
Mr. Arkin, other than nut-cases that threatened you for your views (ask Debbie Schlussel for advice on that), who is telling you to give up your right to free speech? Seriously! Yes, people will tell you to “shut up” when they don’t like your message. And in your accusatory words, you also told our men and women of the military to shut up - afterall, we’re paying those rapists and taking care of their families.
Did you attend the Dixie Chick academy of whining about supposed loss of free speech?
So who is William Arkin? Hugh Hewitt wrote this column in 2003:
For starters, he is the scribbler who launched the assault on Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin a week ago by providing NBC with tapes of Boykin speaking in churches, and then followed with a Los Angeles Times op-ed that accused the general of being “an intolerant extremist” and a man “who believes in Christian ‘jihad’” (Arkin later admitted on my radio program that Boykin never used the term “jihad”).
Arkin also wrote that “Boykin has made it clear that he takes his orders not from his Army superiors but from God–which is a worrisome line of command.” This statement, like the “jihad” quotation appears to be pure fiction.
But we can’t know for sure because Arkin hasn’t released the full transcripts of the talks Boykin gave. Arkin promised to do so when I interviewed him, but has since told my producer he won’t be providing them because I have misquoted him on my website–another lie from Arkin, to go along with his broken promise of full disclosure.
SO WHO IS ARKIN? That has proven to be a difficult thing to determine, for while Arkin is a prolific writer, his biography is hard to assemble, and maybe intentionally so.
“The war against terrorism,” he said, “if it is a war at all, is not World War II or the Cold War, and it is grasping at empty patriotism to claim that it is.” He warned of “our tendency to fall back upon secrecy and government control.” And he concluded by warning that our foreign policy “convey[s] the wrong message, which is that we have no values, that we are for sale”:
Bush and company call the war on terror open ended. Such a characterization reveals a lack of ability to foresee an outcome and betrays a muddled sense of strategy, strategy that is based on American values and our aesthetic and our way of life. It is for that reason that they need help in seeing what they are doing. They hardly have all the answers.
You can read the lengthy speech here. I was tempted to leave out the link in the hopes that Arkin would claim his quotes were taken out of context, but I’m willing to let the audience judge for itself, a courtesy that Arkin is unwilling to do for Boykin. I continue to suspect that there is much in the Boykin transcripts that would undercut Arkin’s story line, and thus that he intends to conceal. The Los Angeles Times, so much ridiculed in recent weeks, doesn’t appear in a hurry to produce the full transcripts either.
ARKIN SET OUT to damage an administration he unquestionably loathes, and found an exposed target in Boykin. The usual
suspects have gathered round to stone the general on the basis of edited reports compiled by an obvious ideologue, and despite the fact that the his talks were expressions of a deeply-felt faith delivered to audiences of fellow believers. There is no evidence that these talks had caused even a ripple of controversy until Arkin launched his well-orchestrated–and quite manipulative–campaign to bring the general down.
If the assault on General Boykin is successful, it is the beginning of the end for expressions of personal faith by public officials.
Arkin is a veteran of four years in the Army (he served from 1974 to 197
and many of his bylines from the past two decades described him as a “military intelligence analyst” during his service (his rank and units are not readily apparent). He received his BS from the University of Maryland.
His employment since leaving the service is easier to trace. Arkin cut his teeth with the lefty Institute for Policy Studies, and went from there to positions with Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Human Rights Watch. He has been a regular columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In recent years he has taken more mainstream work as a senior fellow at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (he appears to do most of his writing not from the SAIS campus, but from his home in Vermont).
He is also the regular military affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times (what a surprise that the Times employs a Greenpeace alum as its military guru) and a commentator for MSNBC.
ARKIN TOLD ME he got his tip on Boykin’s faith talks from a Pentagon source, which suggests that the general has an enemy inside the Pentagon. But if, as most of Boykin’s critics have argued, the danger presented by the general’s private talks about his faith is their effect on the Islamic world, then why did Arkin rush to publicize these private, little-noticed talks that he believes will hurt the U.S. abroad?
The answer is best found in Arkin’s own speech to an audience at the U.S. Naval War College on September 25, 2002. In this lengthy and vitriolic attack on the Bush administration, Arkin admitted to feeling “cynical about the fact that we are going to war to enhance the economic interests of the Enron class,” and declared that “the war against terrorism is overstated.” Arkin believed, in fact, that the war “is not the core United States national security interest today.” He rhetorically asked the audience: “Aren’t I just another leftist, self-hating American?” and condemned the administration for taking “enormous liberties with American freedoms.”
Hotair has enlightening audio of William Arkin.
Michelle Malkin talks about today’s whiney William Arkin blog entry.
© 2007 All Rights Reserved.
