Summer is winding down, fall is in the air, and parents are frantically finishing up their kid's clothes shopping. Teachers are busy tidying up their classroom for yet another year of battle to stem the tide of teenage hormones long enough for their students to learn. If you breath in deeply, you can almost smell the crisp lead shrapnel being exfoliated from the millions of pencils being sharpened across the country.Yet all is not well in American educationland. Although America still continues to have the most dynamic economy and the most creative minds in the world, its students continue mired in the middle of the international pack . In typical American fashion there are literally millions of people out there that claim to know all the solutions. Buzz phrases for how to "fix" American school abound. These include: charter schools, homeschooling, balanced grading, proficiency based standards, merit pay, small schools initiative, courageous conversations, narrowing the achievement gap. The list goes on and on and on. And on.
In a future article I plan on laying out a comprehensive ten point plan that would fix education. It is unlike any plan seriously being proposed at the national or state level and shockingly it would work. Unfortunately I'm not yet making money off of this blog, so I will just have to give you, my dear reader, a snippet of the plan. Fasten your seatbelts, here we go...
We need to taking grading out of teacher's hands. Go ahead, blink a couple of times and re-read that first sentence; better yet, let me just rewrite it for you in italics so that it looks more important. We need to take grading out of teacher's hands. Still confused? Let me put it in bold and add an exclamation mark. We need to take grading out of teacher's hands! This simple yet elegant solution would solve many problems. It would make classes considerably more rigorous. It would make students want to work harder. It would make the relationship between students and teachers less adversarial and more collaborative. It would give students and parents much more information about the ability of their child's teacher. It would allow teachers to gauge their progress and let administrators know which of their teachers are improving, which are in neutral, and which are in reverse.
Okay so by now you're probably wondering, how could this possibly work? If a teacher doesn't give a student a grade, what's their role? Simple: to teach. A student would spend an entire semester or year with a teacher learning a subject. At the end of the class, the student would take a test. Their score on the test would determine their grade in the class. A high score on the test would equal a high grade. A low score would be a low grade. You get the picture. Historically Americans have been averse to this model. They've railed against standardized testing as being biased, or inaccurate, or racist, or just judging one type of learning. Images of faceless drone children filling out scantrons in dark depressing rooms comes to mind for many when it comes to standardized testing. Yet it doesn't have to be this way. In today's day in age, with today's technology and advanced educational research, a comprehensive final test can be so much more than a multiple-choice exam involving nothing more than wrote memorization. Let me give you an example.
Lets pretend that our imaginary class using this model is 20th century American history. The students would spend the first 7 to 8 months learning and preparing for their final. Along the way they would have lots of assessments--called formulative assessment because they aren't for a grade, but rather to let students know if they are "getting it"). They would get plenty of constant feedback from their teacher, but no grade.
At the end of that time they would take a national final. For decades students have been taking finals created by each state, which has led to a huge varience in expectations. For example, many Oregon parents in 2009 were probably estatic to learn that their student passed the state reading exam. Yet they probably would have been a bit less happy, had they known that in 2009, Oregon had the 49th easiest reading test for 4th graders. A national standardized test would ensure accurate and consistent data.
The national final in our mythical U.S. history class would consist of four parts. The first part would be simple comprehension in the form of a standardized multiple-choice test. Multiple-choice tests aren't perfect but they are the fastest and most economical way to analyze student comprehension. Grading a multiple-choice test can be done in literally less than a second (depending on the software). So, a student would take the comprehensive multiple-choice test and get an immediate score. If they like their score, then great, its locked in. Its theirs to keep. If they don't like their score, here is where the teacher comes back into the picture. The student would take the test back to their teacher. The two of them would analyze the test, find out where the student went wrong and assign an action plan to improve the student's score. In a few weeks the student would go back and retake the test. The test, by the way, would cover the same content but would involve a different set of multiple-choice questions. With today's technology, creating a unique randomized multiple-choice test from a bank of say 20,000 possible questions is very easy to accomplish. This would also eliminate cheating. If the student once again did not like the results he/she could try again. Once the student acheived a result they were happy with they could "lock it in." Since all students would have the option to retest this would not give any one student an advantage over another. Hard work and perseverence would win the day. (I'm sure there are some out there that would argue about equity and access of this model--I will get to that in a later article).
Part two would involve a written final. The process would be similar to the multiple-choice exam, except that students would make a copy of their written final and take it back to their teacher. The teacher would look over their essay and tell the student what grade they probably earned. If a student was happy they would "lock in" their essay grade. If they were unhappy they would cancel their first written essay final and do a retake. Once again this process would repeat itself until the student was happy. To ensure that the written test was graded fairly and accurately two things would have to happen. First off, the essay test would be shipped (or sent in cyber space) to two different graders. Both graders would be well trained in grading the essays and would use a standardized rubric that gave guidance for accurate scoring. Lets say that the essay test was graded on a 9 point scale. If one grader gave the test a 7 and the other gave it a 9 the essay would receive an 8. If however, one grader gave it a 6 and one gave it a 9, it would be flagged for a third "master" grader to look at. (A master grader would have a track record of excellence; a veritable grading black belt, if you will). The grade furthest from the master grader's would be cancelled out and the score would be based on the new average. So lets pretend the master grader gave it an 8, the score would be combined and averaged with the nine, giving the student a score of an 8.5. Consequently the graders would be receving carrots and sticks along the way. The grader that was aligned with the master grader would recieve positive marks in their portfolio, and the grader that "whiffed" would receive a negative mark. Bonuses and/or some type of reward/punishment system could be used to motivate accurate grading.
The third part would involve the student giving an extemporaneous speech about a topic in American history. They would would be given three questions, of which they would pick one. They would be given a limited amount of to prepare. Once they were ready, they would give the speech in front of a video camera. The purpose of the speech would be for the student to demonstrate that they understood American history, that they could think critically, and that they could articulate a point of view. Pretty advanced stuff! When they were finished they would get a copy of the speech and show it to their teacher. As with the written final, the teacher would give feedback and the student would have multiple opportunities to retry the speech. Consequently each speech would involve three new unique questions to pick from. The speech would ultimately be graded with a rubric in the same format as the essay final.
The last part of the final would involve a graded discussion. Students would sign up to participate in a group discussion. The discussion would be moderated by an adult and would be based on a list of possible topics given to the students in advance. All students would be expected to actively participate multiple times. High performing students would be able to demonstrate they understood the topic, argue persuasively for or against a point of view articulated by another student, demonstrate an ability to make connections, etc. Again, all very advanced stuff. At the end of the session each student would get a copy of the discussion and they would seek feedback from their teacher to determine whether or not they needed a redo.
So ultimately what would this type of test prove? It would demonstrate that the student understood the content, could analyze and write about the content, could articulate and argue persuasively about the content, and in a group setting could participate and collaborate in a group discussion about the content. That's pretty darn advanced stuff and allows for a ton of creativity and originality. Imagine that, a national standardized test that is rigorous and allows for creativity. And they said it couldn't be done! This is exactly the type of skillset that workers in the 21st century need.
The benefits to American education would be vast and multifacited. First off, gone would be the days where students in droves would sign up for the easy teacher that gave out A's like clowns give out balloons at a circus. Students wouldn't want to waste their time in a classroom with a teacher that didn't teach. There would be no incentive for the student. They would want to sign up to take classes from teachers that worked hard to get them prepared and had a proven track record. Students would want honest, constructive feedback and helecopter parents would quit sending teachers e-mails every five minutes asking them how come their brilliant son/daughter isn't getting an A. By the way, if you want to understand the problem with some parents these days, you've got to read this article: "How to Land Your Kid in Therapy".
The days of schools having 32 valedictorians would be long gone as well. Traditional grades could still exist, but in addition to each grade, students would have an overall score with much more precise results about what was learned. This would give better and more accurate information to colleges about each applicant, making the system more fair. (By the way, there are so many 4.0 students across the country that many of the Ivy League and upper echelon schools literally reject thousands of them every year).
So what about the teacher? How would this make him/her better in the classroom? Simple: every year they would get specific feedback about how effective they were based on the success or failure of their students. I imagine that many teachers, especially those at low performing schools, would worry that the system would be unfair and that they would be judged based off of the results of low performing students. Fortunately, educational analyticial data has continued to become more sophisticated, which has by in large alleviated much of this concern. "Value added" test results show improvement over the course of a year. So, if a student performed poorly the previous year yet improved to average the next year, the data would show positive growth. (Possibly even strong growth). Thus teachers working in chronically low performing schools would not be penalized; in fact, they would have more room to improve over their peers in education powerhouses. Educational analytical data is becoming more sophisticated every year and should be embraced by the teaching establishment.
The information gleaned from comprehensive, national standardized tests would be a goldmine for educational researchers. Over time they would be able to identify which methods got the best results, what type of teaching schedules were most effective (trimester, block, traditional), what teacher training got the best improvement, what type of administrators were most effective, which teacher colleges were producing the best and the brightests...The list is endless.
Would there be some kinks? You betcha! A few come to mind. The first, of course, being cost. How would we pay all of these professional graders? My best guess is that in the short run the state and federal government would have to cough up 10% in additional monies. Over time, however, I am convinced that the voluminous amount of data from the tests--and its defacto effect on teaching practices--would show where money could be saved. (Data is the key to life for social scientists!). A second kink would be the possiblity of instutional cheating. This past year America saw its biggest public school cheating scandal in Atlanta. The lesson from that scandal is that teachers are human, and when their performance is being evaluated by a standardized test, given the opportunity, some will cheat. And here you thought only Wall Street traders were corrupt. The key to avoiding this problem is to make sure that the tests are taken at a site off campus, with independant proctors. This would be costly and it would not eliminate cheating altogether, but it would significantly reduce it.
American education isn't broken. There are millions of success stories around the country, and this country is full of great teachers, with sharp minds and soft hearts. I've always believed that if a school has just one first generation college student from a broken home on the college track, then all students in that school have no excuse but to succeed. Yet the world is becoming more competitive and globalization has ensured that our students are no longer just competing against each other, or other kids in the state, or other kids in the country for that matter. American school children are in a fight to maintain the worldwide intellectual marketshare that has ensured American supremacy and greatness for well over a century. If we can learn to identify effective teachers, give them every reason to be rigorous, reward them for their effort, celebrate their victories, and give them constant feedback, they will ensure that the children of the 21st century are our greatest generation yet. Taking the grading out of their hands and allowing them to teach is one major step in this direction.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Next Big Blog Article - Reader's Choice
Dear Blog Followers,
First off I want to give you a hearty thanks for joining and/or reading my blog. I am committed to giving a unique perspective of the world of politics and writing with a bit of humor from time to time. I appreciate the fact that what I have to say interests you enough for your continued viewage of How to Fix the America. The Evolution of the Revolution truly has begun!
I was hoping to receive a phone call from some random person that read this blog offering me $100,000 per year to either write for them, join their think tank, or analyze the world of politics for them. No such luck. Long story short, I have to go back into the teaching world again tomorrow. Never fear, dear reader, I plan on keeping up the blogging but I fear I will probably be restricted to a few entries per week. Many of this entries will be "quick hits", short musings on politics or economics or any other topic related to the social sciences. I do, however, plan on writing some longer pieces that involve plenty of original research that take lots of time to create and that's where you, dear reader, come in to play. Today I am setting up a poll to let you pick my first long in-depth article. You can vote on the main page towards the upper right hand section. Here are the options:
1) How to fix the Senate before it completely destroys our country.
2) How to massively improve the American education model.
3) Why I think President Obama will be a one-term president.
4) What it takes to be a great president in the 21st century.
Anyways, I'm equally excited about all four options and I will let you, dear reader, chose. Of course, if nobody votes I will have to pick, in which case I will probably flip a four sided coin.
The Evolution of the Revolution has begun! Enjoy the week!
First off I want to give you a hearty thanks for joining and/or reading my blog. I am committed to giving a unique perspective of the world of politics and writing with a bit of humor from time to time. I appreciate the fact that what I have to say interests you enough for your continued viewage of How to Fix the America. The Evolution of the Revolution truly has begun!
I was hoping to receive a phone call from some random person that read this blog offering me $100,000 per year to either write for them, join their think tank, or analyze the world of politics for them. No such luck. Long story short, I have to go back into the teaching world again tomorrow. Never fear, dear reader, I plan on keeping up the blogging but I fear I will probably be restricted to a few entries per week. Many of this entries will be "quick hits", short musings on politics or economics or any other topic related to the social sciences. I do, however, plan on writing some longer pieces that involve plenty of original research that take lots of time to create and that's where you, dear reader, come in to play. Today I am setting up a poll to let you pick my first long in-depth article. You can vote on the main page towards the upper right hand section. Here are the options:
1) How to fix the Senate before it completely destroys our country.
2) How to massively improve the American education model.
3) Why I think President Obama will be a one-term president.
4) What it takes to be a great president in the 21st century.
Anyways, I'm equally excited about all four options and I will let you, dear reader, chose. Of course, if nobody votes I will have to pick, in which case I will probably flip a four sided coin.
The Evolution of the Revolution has begun! Enjoy the week!
Friday, August 26, 2011
What I Want this Blog To Accomplish
First off, I need to acknowledge a huge mistake on my part. I meant to call this blog "How to Fix the American Government!" yet somehow left the word government out of the title. It actually took me 24 hours before I discovered my mistake, at which point I head butted my $30 Goodwill computer monitor half a dozen times while bellowing, "for the love of God, why have you forsaken me!" An occasional typo is a part of life, but a typo for the title of a blog? That's like mispronouncing your fiance's name while taking your wedding vows. That's like coming home from a tattoo parlor to discover that your tattoo artist accidentally wrote "sex machete" instead of "sex machine" right above your groin.That's like commenting on the beautiful contours of a girl's butt from a half mile away, only to discover when you pass her in your car that "she" is actually a sixty year old "he." Sigh. Yet at this point history has been made. There is no turning back. My blog has gone public; I've already posted four articles. I am committed. Just like a man who starts to realize that his evening wasn't as rosy as he thought once his beer goggles begin to wear off, I need to acknowledge the my blog title is not entirely perfect. For all intents and purposes it is a syntactical monstrosity. If Borat ever wrote a blog this would be his title. I'm not sure when or where or how this happened, but it did, and I am acknowledging my incompetence so that you, my dear reader, can forgive me and together we can move on.
So what do I hope to accomplish with this blog? Just like 99% of the blowhards that live and breath politics, I am convinced that I am always right and everybody that disagrees with me is always wrong. And I hope to prove time and time again with elegant prose, meticulous research and well crafted arguments that I am indeed a political genius of epic proportions. Niccolo Machiavelli's seminal work "The Prince" will look like "The Cat in the Hat" once my body of work for this blog is finished. Of course, anybody that knows me, knows that this is not breaking news. I practically have genius tattooed on my forehead and every time that I open my mouth even God stops what he's doing so that he can listen. (Years ago when I was a football coach, I once screamed at my team that I couldn't understand why we didn't win more football game since I was "almost mensa". One of my players blinked and asked, "what's a mena?") So aside from convincing you, my dear reader, on a daily basis that I am a genius, what I really want to do is open your eyes to the structural problems that are destroying our government. I want to convince you, my dear reader, that the American government is broken and that all of the political bickering, fighting and corruption that is going on in Washington is really a result of systemic flaws in our government that need to be fixed, rather than the character flaws of our politicians. Over the course of this blog I hope to prove that:
So what do I hope to accomplish with this blog? Just like 99% of the blowhards that live and breath politics, I am convinced that I am always right and everybody that disagrees with me is always wrong. And I hope to prove time and time again with elegant prose, meticulous research and well crafted arguments that I am indeed a political genius of epic proportions. Niccolo Machiavelli's seminal work "The Prince" will look like "The Cat in the Hat" once my body of work for this blog is finished. Of course, anybody that knows me, knows that this is not breaking news. I practically have genius tattooed on my forehead and every time that I open my mouth even God stops what he's doing so that he can listen. (Years ago when I was a football coach, I once screamed at my team that I couldn't understand why we didn't win more football game since I was "almost mensa". One of my players blinked and asked, "what's a mena?") So aside from convincing you, my dear reader, on a daily basis that I am a genius, what I really want to do is open your eyes to the structural problems that are destroying our government. I want to convince you, my dear reader, that the American government is broken and that all of the political bickering, fighting and corruption that is going on in Washington is really a result of systemic flaws in our government that need to be fixed, rather than the character flaws of our politicians. Over the course of this blog I hope to prove that:
- in a democracy that fault is first and foremost with the voters, not the politicians they elect. Before we point fingers at them, we should point fingers at ourselves
- if we ever want to eliminate the deficit that we must first get rid of the filibuster in the Senate.
- political gerrymandering has practically ruined national and state politics and must be stopped at all costs.
- we will have to either MASSIVELY cut entitlement spending or MASSIVELY increase taxes (or do a STRONG dose of both) within the next ten years if we want to remain a relevant world power with a stable government.
- the American president is not a dictator, and other than in areas of foreign policy he/she is actually much weaker than traditional heads of state, and the second the American voter becomes aware of that fact, the sooner we can start fixing government.
- George H.W. Bush will go down as one of the great presidents of the 20th century and Dwight D. Eisenhower might very well go down as the greatest.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Musings from Talk Radio and Recent Editorials
Normally I boycott listening to angry political talk radio but I had to do a five hour round trip drive today to drop off my girls in Springfield, so that they can be watched by their Grandma Julie while my wife and I run the Hood to Coast this weekend.
First up on the BBC I learned that Great Britain is home to the nude activist Steven Gough, nicknamed the "Naked Rambler". He was just jailed for the 20th time after being arrested for trying to leave the prison where he was staying for being nude in public. Why was he arrested? He refused to put any clothes on when he left the prison. He has spent 657 days in jail already for public nudity. The estimated cost of the court cases and incarceration for him is in the "hundreds of thousands of pounds." Ouch!
On the Ed Schultz show I learned that Moammar Gaddafi apparently had a big time crush of former Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice. No news yet on whether or not the feelings by Ms. Rice are reciprocal.
On the Dan Patrick show a poll was taken asking which of the following three sports teams from the 1990s was the most dominate: New York Yankees, Dallas Cowboy or Chicago Bulls. I think that one is a no brainer--its the Chicago Bulls by a long shot.
On the Lars Larson show it was revealed that the government is ready to move forward on building a pipeline from the Alberta Oil Sand Pits to the United States. The process for granting permits has lasted almost three years, when typically the process takes 18-24 months. Barack Obama and the state department both support the move. Some environmentalists are opposed to the move because of the huge CO2 emissions created when oil sands are refined. The expert that appeared on the show briefly mentioned that she believed that global warming is completely overblown. Ironically enough, the U.S. is in the middle of the hottest summer on record. Yet it was revealed that if the U.S. did not build a pipeline, the Chinese were prepared to partner with the Canadians. In other words, the oil sands are going to be developed no matter what. Which demonstrates that if global warming is real, the economic incentives to create it are too high to be stopped. Hopefully the skeptics are correct. The pipeline is expected to create 20,000 new jobs in the U.S and Canada.
A few interesting articles in the news lately. Billionaire Warren Buffet pointed out that last year that he paid just over 17% in taxes. He wrote an op-ed asking taxes on millionaires to be raised. I listened to a few conservatives argue that if he wants higher taxes he should just write a check to the federal government and leave everybody else alone. Its worth pointing out that when the U.S. was governed under the Articles of Confederation that states all agreed to pay a certain level of taxes to the federal government, but the agreement was voluntary, and there was no mechanism in place for the federal government to force states to pay. None of the states hit their revenue targets and under the Articles of Confederation the federal government was pretty much broke. Oregon Democratic Congressman Kurt Schrader laid out the road map for how to tackle the deficit and his plan involves no new taxes. Its worth noting that he is in the most competitive congressional district in the state. Last year only 46.4% of households paid federal income taxes. Liberal national syndicated columnist, Ruth Markus made a strong yet unconvincing argument as to why this isn't a problem. Finally, Robert Samuelson wrote a thought provoking and insightful op-ed piece about 10 Ways to Fix the Federal Budget.
That's it for now folks. Enjoy the weather.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Ten Things I'd Like to Change About This County
1) I'd get rid of the pledge of allegiance. It's not that I'm not patriotic, but I think its lame to have a bunch of people stand and stare at a flag and simply repeat something they memorized. Reminds me too much of jihadists praying to Mecca with a bomb strapped to them. (God that sounds xenophobic: sorry). Seeing as how I'm agnostic and all, I don't really believe in rote chanting for anything including: patriotism, religion, marriage, yoga, boy scout oaths, campfire songs, commercials...So in its place I would rather have a daily session in which everybody that wanted too stood up and looked at the flag and took turns saying, "I think this country seriously kicks butt because....," and then every person individually would say why. That way we could still show our appreciation for our country, the sacrifices of our forefathers and vets, and yet be creative at the same time.
2) I'd let Texas secede from the union as long as they promised not to have any of their governors run for president ever again.
3) I'd make any person that gave controversial unsolicited opinions without any evidence to back up their claims wear a shirt that said "Uneducated Blowhard". They'd have to wear the shirt for an entire week. For their second offense they would get a tattoo on their bicep that said "uneducated blowhard". For their third offense they'd have to get the tattoo put on their forehead. For their fourth offense they'd have to run for Congress.
4) Jerry Seinfeld would be arrested and put in prison until he and the rest of his crew agreed to start filming another season of Seinfeld. Ditto Jason Bateman and Arrested Development.
5) I'm sick of people saying that we need simple, plain spoken, down to earth politicians. The world is way too complex for hillbilly simpletons to run the country. So as a compromise I would require that every politician had two translators on hand at all times. One person would know sign language for the hearing impaired. The other person would know "simpleton language." For example a politician might say: "The financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of the bond market, predatory lending, rating agencies asleep at the wheel, pressure from the federal government to provide loans for those that couldn't afford them, etc..." His simpleton language interpreter would say: "The financial crisis was caused by a bunch of stupid, greedy pigheads..." Although even that might be a bit too complex.
6) Entertainers at sporting events would be required to sing the Star Spangled Banner in 60 seconds or less. Period. Or we could just have freestyle rappers rap about why our country kicks butt. (See #1).
7) Professional soccer teams would be required to have at least three players on the field at all times that weighed at least 300 pounds. Ties would be decided by an arm wrestling match between the biggest players on each team. As we all know, soccer is the most discriminatory sport on the planet and this would help end the sport's shameless quest to ban any people with a bodyfat level above .000001% from participating in the sport at the professional level.
8) Everybody that says that we should get rid of ALL unions would be put in a time machine and sent back to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory on March 25th, 1911 right around closing time.
9) People that treat pets like little humans would be sent to "reeducation camps". I love my dog as much as anybody but I don't put a damn sweater vest on him, I don't speak to him like a baby and hand feed him, and I realize that all things being equal his perfect day would involve laying on the couch and licking himself in hygienically inappropriate places for six straight hours. Dogs are great but they aren't little humans. They want their space, they want their tummy scratched, and they want to smell people's crotches. Period.
10) Yoga would be banned and Starbucks would have to start calling Venti Lattes, "Large Overpriced Cups of Pseudo-Coffee for People that Either Drive Priuses or Wished they Drove Them."
2) I'd let Texas secede from the union as long as they promised not to have any of their governors run for president ever again.
3) I'd make any person that gave controversial unsolicited opinions without any evidence to back up their claims wear a shirt that said "Uneducated Blowhard". They'd have to wear the shirt for an entire week. For their second offense they would get a tattoo on their bicep that said "uneducated blowhard". For their third offense they'd have to get the tattoo put on their forehead. For their fourth offense they'd have to run for Congress.
4) Jerry Seinfeld would be arrested and put in prison until he and the rest of his crew agreed to start filming another season of Seinfeld. Ditto Jason Bateman and Arrested Development.
5) I'm sick of people saying that we need simple, plain spoken, down to earth politicians. The world is way too complex for hillbilly simpletons to run the country. So as a compromise I would require that every politician had two translators on hand at all times. One person would know sign language for the hearing impaired. The other person would know "simpleton language." For example a politician might say: "The financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of the bond market, predatory lending, rating agencies asleep at the wheel, pressure from the federal government to provide loans for those that couldn't afford them, etc..." His simpleton language interpreter would say: "The financial crisis was caused by a bunch of stupid, greedy pigheads..." Although even that might be a bit too complex.
6) Entertainers at sporting events would be required to sing the Star Spangled Banner in 60 seconds or less. Period. Or we could just have freestyle rappers rap about why our country kicks butt. (See #1).
7) Professional soccer teams would be required to have at least three players on the field at all times that weighed at least 300 pounds. Ties would be decided by an arm wrestling match between the biggest players on each team. As we all know, soccer is the most discriminatory sport on the planet and this would help end the sport's shameless quest to ban any people with a bodyfat level above .000001% from participating in the sport at the professional level.
8) Everybody that says that we should get rid of ALL unions would be put in a time machine and sent back to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory on March 25th, 1911 right around closing time.
9) People that treat pets like little humans would be sent to "reeducation camps". I love my dog as much as anybody but I don't put a damn sweater vest on him, I don't speak to him like a baby and hand feed him, and I realize that all things being equal his perfect day would involve laying on the couch and licking himself in hygienically inappropriate places for six straight hours. Dogs are great but they aren't little humans. They want their space, they want their tummy scratched, and they want to smell people's crotches. Period.
10) Yoga would be banned and Starbucks would have to start calling Venti Lattes, "Large Overpriced Cups of Pseudo-Coffee for People that Either Drive Priuses or Wished they Drove Them."
Ten Political Translations to Help You Understand Our Government
As we all know politicians are full of crap. The ones that aren't full of crap don't get elected. The following is a list of current political translations.
1) Now is not the time to raise taxes.
Translation: Never is the time to raise taxes. The last idiot in a presidential election that said that he wanted to raise taxes was Walter Mondale. Yeah, he lost 49 out of 50 states.
2) The American people have spoken.
Translation: We just had a mid-term election and as usual turn-out was low. Less than 91 million people voted and of that 91 million about 48 million voted Republican. In a country of our size that means that about 1 in 7 people supported us and our platform. We clearly have a mandate.
3) Barack Obama is the most liberal president in our nation's history.
Translation: President Obama has not raised taxes once and has actually had 25 different (mostly minor) tax cuts. Ronald Reagen raised taxes seven times in two terms, which means that by today's definition he would be considered politically somewhere to the left of a communist.
4) Yes we can!
Translation Provided by Barack Obama: Oops, I thought we could. Didn't realize that I was going to lose my filibuster proof majority in the Senate barely a year into my term. I also forgot that young people don't vote in mid-term elections , which means the Republicans will win back the House and I'll be screwed by November of 2010.
5) Change we can believe in!
Translation Provided by Barack Obama: Who doesn't like change! What a wonderful slogan. I actually wanted to be more specific but the pollsters in my campaign convinced me that the only way to get elected is to be vague. People love vague candidates! We almost went with the slogan "Happy, Fluffy Puppy Dogs" but changed our minds at the last minute. People that actually promote transformative concrete ideas have to play defense against us vague guys.
6) Obamacare is unconstitutional
Translation: We know that four "conservative justices," Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito are going to vote to nullify the law. And we know that the "liberals," Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are going to vote to uphold the law. Therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional if Anthony Kennedy says that its unconstitutional! What a democracy!
7) I don't trust the federal government to do anything right!
Translation: Well, except for pay for my Medicare, send me my Social Security checks, and pay the military to defend my country. I guess I also think that the federal court system and a few other programs are necessary. So in conclusion I don't trust about 14% of the federal government to do anything right! Take that you communists!
8) The stimulus package was a complete and utter failure.
Translation: Considering the fact that the 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts at most all I can call it is a 60% failure...but that won't get me reelected, so I'll just say the whole thing is a failure.
9) We are willing to compromise with the Democrats, but we aren't willing to allow any tax increases.
Translation: Well heck! They're not going to allow any cuts to entitlements so I guess we're stuck. There's no way we're actually going to actually solve this deficit problem. Oh well, the next generation (the ones that don't vote) are totally and completely screwed, but since they don't vote why do I care?
10) I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mrs. Lewinsky
Translation: I hope to God that she didn't keep that blue dress!
1) Now is not the time to raise taxes.
Translation: Never is the time to raise taxes. The last idiot in a presidential election that said that he wanted to raise taxes was Walter Mondale. Yeah, he lost 49 out of 50 states.
2) The American people have spoken.
Translation: We just had a mid-term election and as usual turn-out was low. Less than 91 million people voted and of that 91 million about 48 million voted Republican. In a country of our size that means that about 1 in 7 people supported us and our platform. We clearly have a mandate.
3) Barack Obama is the most liberal president in our nation's history.
Translation: President Obama has not raised taxes once and has actually had 25 different (mostly minor) tax cuts. Ronald Reagen raised taxes seven times in two terms, which means that by today's definition he would be considered politically somewhere to the left of a communist.
4) Yes we can!
Translation Provided by Barack Obama: Oops, I thought we could. Didn't realize that I was going to lose my filibuster proof majority in the Senate barely a year into my term. I also forgot that young people don't vote in mid-term elections , which means the Republicans will win back the House and I'll be screwed by November of 2010.
5) Change we can believe in!
Translation Provided by Barack Obama: Who doesn't like change! What a wonderful slogan. I actually wanted to be more specific but the pollsters in my campaign convinced me that the only way to get elected is to be vague. People love vague candidates! We almost went with the slogan "Happy, Fluffy Puppy Dogs" but changed our minds at the last minute. People that actually promote transformative concrete ideas have to play defense against us vague guys.
6) Obamacare is unconstitutional
Translation: We know that four "conservative justices," Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito are going to vote to nullify the law. And we know that the "liberals," Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are going to vote to uphold the law. Therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional if Anthony Kennedy says that its unconstitutional! What a democracy!
7) I don't trust the federal government to do anything right!
Translation: Well, except for pay for my Medicare, send me my Social Security checks, and pay the military to defend my country. I guess I also think that the federal court system and a few other programs are necessary. So in conclusion I don't trust about 14% of the federal government to do anything right! Take that you communists!
8) The stimulus package was a complete and utter failure.
Translation: Considering the fact that the 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts at most all I can call it is a 60% failure...but that won't get me reelected, so I'll just say the whole thing is a failure.
9) We are willing to compromise with the Democrats, but we aren't willing to allow any tax increases.
Translation: Well heck! They're not going to allow any cuts to entitlements so I guess we're stuck. There's no way we're actually going to actually solve this deficit problem. Oh well, the next generation (the ones that don't vote) are totally and completely screwed, but since they don't vote why do I care?
10) I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mrs. Lewinsky
Translation: I hope to God that she didn't keep that blue dress!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)