WONDERING ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS?

Here’s some information (from The New York Times - More Scrutiny for Charter Schools in Debate Over Expansion by NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and JENNIFER MEDINA, May 25, 2010) that might help shed light on the issue:

Charter school advocates argue that the freedom from traditional rules enables them to make major improvements. But that same freedom can present problems: a review of public documents shows that many charter schools in New York have spent money in questionable ways and have experienced significant conflicts of interest.

The documents, including New York state Education Department reports, federal tax filings and audits of charter schools prepared by outside firms, were obtained by the state teachers union, and provided to The New York Times, which corroborated the data. Teachers unions have traditionally been sharply critical of charter schools, whose teachers usually are not unionized.

The problems underscore what many critics say is a weak system in New York for policing spending by charter schools, which are publicly financed but

privately run.

Furthermore...

Even as the Obama administration promotes charter schools as integral to its education agenda, the inspector general in the federal Education Department has raised concern about growing accusations of financial fraud at schools around the country. In some cases officials in charge of overseeing charters have reauthorized schools even after finding significant evidence of financial mismanagement.

(Schools) could not explain to investigators’ satisfaction how the board had determined the salary of its chief executives.

.....officials have found, charters entered into complex and eyebrow-raising transactions to secure space, which most charters, unlike traditional schools, must obtain on their own.

AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS

I believe after school programs can provide the answer to improving, even fixing, our poor public education system. Teachers do not have the resources to teach our children well during the regular school day. They cannot teach all that they must to twenty plus students. In after school programs we are able to finish what the teachers begin. We enhance the student’s experience with learning. Sometimes we can even save children from falling behind in their grade.

Children learn at different rates and in different ways. In elementary school some learn to read quickly and some don’t. Teachers don’t have the time to tailor lessons or homework for each child. Teachers cannot even pay extra attention many times to a child that needs it. Often a child just doesn’t understand something fundamental to the lesson but the teacher cannot address them personally.

After school programs can address these issues. After school programs can boost the children lagging behind by making sure they understand the teacher’s lesson of the day, make sure the student stays caught up to the rest of the class and the grade. We can also identify children who should be held back because they are too young or immature in their development to go to the next grade.

In this way after school programs could become the solutions to public educations woes. We could ensure that all children achieve their best, that schools can manage their resources more effectively and that our school system can begin to repair its severe failings.

I would like to be a part of this very important and possibly pivotal mechanism, After School Education, by which we can repair our public education system.

Supreme D'Orange

To supreme an orange is to experience the fruit in its totality. The fruit is a beautiful, fragrant and uniquely taste-full creation.

Pick up an orange and cup it in your palm. Wrap your fingers around it. It should be firm with a very little give. It should not have blemishes and should be darker orange. The outside should be clean and waxy smooth as you run your fingers over the pores. Pick an orange that will have a thin to medium thickness of skin.

As a child I was always handed a whole orange. Peeling the hard round fruit hurt my hand and stung my bitten finger nails. Sometimes I succeeded in removing the outside but it would be covered in pith that I had to pick off, bit by bit, endlessly. The tasteless roughage spoiled the experience. It I got a section free and intact there was a membrane to chew and seeds to spit out. The sweet clear flavor and delicious pockets of juice were mingled with this annoying material.

The return was not worth the work in my opinion. I gave up on oranges.

To supreme an orange is a soothing meditative study in patience. It is the process of removing all but the inside of that section you've been eating all your life. No more tinge of disappointment because you've always had to chew past the pesky membranes. Now it can be only those little teardrops of juice exploding like sunbursts in your mouth.

You are holding the orange on a cutting board now and a good sharp knife in the other hand. Cut the top and bottoms off so you can see the flesh and sections. The key is not to be afraid to cut into the orange sections as you peel. Slice downward along the sections removing skin, pith and membrane all around. You'll notice you aren't really removing much of the actual orange, especially as you get more experienced. This does take practice.

Now you have a naked orange and juice dripping off your hand. You should hold it above a bowl that catches the juice as you peel. With another, perhaps smaller, sharp serrated knife, you hold the orange and cut surgically close along a membrane as you would filet a fish. Proceed on each side of each section, removing the slice of flesh as you go and dropping it into the bowl. In the end you will be holding only the core and the membranes. Give them a parting squeeze to get all the juices.

At this point I often just gobble up the orange and delight in the purity of it all. You may want to put it in a salad or something. Make sure you savor the delicacy thoroughly though!

I'M JUST SAYIN'.

Do Democrats suffer from “minority mentality”? Have they been the underdogs for so long they can’t find the spine to fight for us in government? Are they like a brow beaten wife who has lost all confidence to stand up for herself? Are Democrats scared to be “politically” incorrect and fight for jobs and businesses? Do we have to eternally be the nice guy? Is a moderate politician a weak one? Could we all see that there are importantant issues on both sides and come towards the center where there are the crucial issues that are no brainers? Is being a Centrist like being a dirt bag?

Hello out there, maybe a Centrist is an average American who is only vouching for the most basic and important issues that face "middle America," another dirty term. What if we say the "middle" in middle America is the core (as an old radical this is hard for me too but bare with me) of our society that worries about core issues like housing, food, education, health insurance, crime, jobs, etc. Maybe Centrists are the new Independents, or visa versa. I'm just sayin'.

A Response to Senator Evan Bayh and America

My head aches trying to figure out how progress in Congress has occurred in the past. There is so much discord and attack now in Washington that it seems President Obama is paralyzed at every attempt to get something done to help this country (except when he approves large sums of money to bail out corporations!). In the back of my mind I have thought, “Our representatives are bickering and so intransigent that no one can proceed with useful business.” The filibuster has stopped our governing bodies like a game of chess that runs out of moves. No one wins, either. It seems to me so childish and sad that our great nation could be stuck with two stubborn toddlers (our political parties) pulling on the same toy. I have dismissed my thoughts as those of an ignorant lay person. Our people in Washington have got to be better than spoiled children.

Unfortunately, Senator Bayh writes this today in the Opinion section of the New York Times. The title is WHY I’M LEAVING THE SENATE :

“My father, Birch Bayh, represented Indiana in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. A progressive, he nonetheless enjoyed many friendships with moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats.”

Evan Bayh continues;

“When I was a boy, members of Congress from both parties, along with their

families, would routinely visit our home for dinner or the holidays. This type of social interaction hardly ever happens today and we are the poorer for it. It is much harder to demonize someone when you know his family or have visited his home.”

I want to go to Washington and work as the “liaison” (read “party planner”) who organizes these social gatherings for the political parties. Perhaps Mrs. Obama should consider Mr. Bayh’s suggestion.

“Any improvement must begin by changing the personal chemistry among senators. More interaction in a non-adversarial atmosphere would help.

I’m beginning my 12th year in the Senate and only twice have all the senators gathered for something other than purely ceremonial occasions. The first was during my initial week in office. President Bill Clinton had been impeached and the Senate had to conduct his trial. This hadn’t happened since 1868, and there were no rules in place for conducting the proceedings.”

He says further,

“...after Sept. 11... Every senator who could make it to Washington gathered in the Senate dining room to discuss the American response. The nation had been attacked. The building in which we sat had been among the targets, and only the heroism of the passengers prevented

the plane from reaching its destination. We had to respond to protect the country. There were no Republicans or Democrats in the room that day, just Americans. The spirit of patriotism and togetherness was palpable. That atmosphere prevailed for only two or three weeks before politics once again intervened.”

Ms. Obama, I think this could be your calling, to entertain and foster communication and personal interaction among our representatives. What an opportunity, Ms. Obama, and I am not

being facetious!

Mr. Bayh continues,

“The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election

Commission, allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on ads explicitly supporting

or opposing political candidates, will worsen matters.”

I thought so too, but, IF the candidates receive “blind money” from corporations - lets

say the companies can only donate “anonymously” to a candidate or, even better, to a general

“pot”, devided equally, then our representatives wouldn’t have to spend so much time worrying about garnering funds to compete in the next election and could govern more freely and responsibly.

We could even ban certain types of television advertising. No more negative attacks

about opposing candidates. Those running for office can only put up ads about themselves on

television, we could say. Written or print press could do “investigative” reporting about every

candidate revealing information for the public to vote as informed citizens. A side benefit of this would be a huge amount of money for newspapers to write about candidates honestly and

extensively. Senator Bayh offers some ideas too:

“Congress should consider ways to lessen the impact of the Citizens United decision

through legislation to enhance disclosure requirements, require corporate donors to appear in

the political ads they finance and prohibit government contractors or bailout beneficiaries from spending money on political campaigns.

Our most strident partisans must learn to occasionally sacrifice short-term tactical political advantage for the sake of the nation (what a concept!). Otherwise, Congress will remain stuck in an endless cycle of recrimination and revenge. The minority seeks to frustrate the majority, and when the majority is displaced it returns the favor. Power is constantly sought through the use of means which render its effective use, once acquired, impossible.”

It is sad that a man like Evan Bayh has to give up his work on behalf of the American

people. He is telling us why and we must listen. Our country is deteriorating on every front; social services, education, health care, even science and research. We are slipping constantly down a cliff of backwardness and pettiness and we will not remain globally competitive in many areas very soon. Even the almighty dollar is weak. Listen to this brave man and his convictions. Take heed,

or descend into the darkness of ignorance.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Brady

Fashion in Paris

Wow. This is a very strange year in high fashion. I get the buckles and the utilitarian themes, but Adam Kimmel's outfits, well admittedly, the parts above the neck are way beyond style, except in art circles. Comic book art and cartoon characters are alive! If you are afraid of clowns - a Coulrophobic (I didn't know I was until now!), it is very hard to find the outfits below the masks. See if you can.

Adam Kimmel's casino clown crapshoot hits the jackpot

January 22, 2010 | 7:00 pm

Now this movie I want to see!

The State of the Dis-Union of the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party is in disarray. The "learned timidity"(New York Times-1-20-2010) and lack of attack instinct is definitely plaguing the current party and perhaps we Dems have forgotten how to push through our agenda after so many years of being out of power. That is a weak excuse and makes me embarrassed to be a Democrat for the first time in my life.

The Democratic Party itself is not only weak but mired in the past. The Obama administration has been baffling us with its failures, not only domestically but abroad at war. We have been patiently (and stupidly) scratching our heads wondering what happened to the Obama we elected, what happened to the promises he made and the followthrough, why did he go for the bailouts, etc. What happened to the Democratic dreams we had for this new young administration that was finally going to do all those wonderful things to help the American people? Why does the Obama administration look and smell like all the others?
The answer is the Democratic party is guilty of living in a bygone era and using stale old tactics to shore up the economy and wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even with Obama at the helm, the administration is using ancient models for warfare, domestic policies and has lost it's ear to the people.
The election yesterday of Mr. Brown to the Senate is another huge blunder we can blame on antiquated thinking. Why were we trying to replace Kennedy with a ghost of a Kennedy and such a poor one at that? The Democrats need to let go of the Kennedy legacy and move on. They are history, literally, and from a bygone era. The Democratic party needs to look at Barack Obama and move forward with him and his new ideas..
The President must have the reins. The Democratic party is either advising and controlling him in ways that are holding him back from following through on his policies, or, he isn't strong enough to push them through. Which is it, we are all asking. Is Obama a weak puppet or in a straight jacket?