U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 29, 2009 02:53 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 104 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The liberty of the press is most generally approved when it takes liberties with the other fellow, and leaves us alone.”

–Edgar Watson Howe

Tweet
Share

Comments

104 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  1. will be postponed 30 minutes this morning because Mr. Rockefeller is coming to hand out dimes and give a little talk about Let’s Get Together to Solve Problems without Addressing Root Causes. While we’re waiting, let’s all sit and think of something nice to say. Stevie, show us those nice smiley-faces you drew yesterday…

    1. Former Superintendent Bennet left a 30% dropout rate in his wake at DPS [note: its a 50% drop out rate if you are a minority].

      We know he walked into DPS with this 50% drop out problem facing him and the CEA/NEA have been working for decades to structure public education policy to be “just right”.

      What I want to know are your thoughts on the root cause. Is it the CSAP, lack of year round school, low pay [don’t try to compare states this problem is nationwide], drug addicted parents who don’t give a shit, cultural issues, lack of parental values …?

      I have to give Superintendent Bennet at hand, he apparently used brass knuckles on the CEA during contract negotiations. But is that the root cause – the CEA?

      What place do private schools, charter schools and other alternative methods play in correcting one of the worlds highest HS dropout rates. What can be done to assure we are not creating more GEDers?

      1. Are you familiar with the HBO series “The Wire”? If not, I urge you to rush out and rent it on DVD–it runs 5 seasons, 60 hours altogether. The fourth season in particular focuses on schools (the entire series is centered on Baltimore, and in particular life in the black ghetto there in the current day). It’s not a cop show; it is an amazing, eye-popping look at everyday life on the wrong side of the tracks. The point, I guess, is that issues within education, such as dropout rates, cannot be understood or addressed just within the context of the schools.  The education offered is simply not relevant to many of the students in the larger context of the society/sub-societies from which they come. [Condensed version: do you need to know algebra if the only job on offer is cutting grass?] The portrait of the bureaucratic games played to achieve “stats”–in education as well as in crime–struck me as devastating, and the first honest appraisal I had yet seen, albeit presented in the mode of entertainment to make it palatable. I found the entire series utterly compelling, although it may take a few hours to adjust to the patois and the rapid cutaway style of story-telling.

        Short version: the problem ain’t in the schools; they are a symptom of an economic system/society that treats workers as commodities akin to raw materials. What makes today’s news shocking — Shocking, I tell you!–is that this core philosophy is seeping upwards into the heretofore comfortable, college-educated “middle class.”  

        2. now what solutions you pose after encapsulating the 50% DPS dropout rate root causes in a complete understanding of the HBO Series: “The Wire”?

          I hate to admit it, but I stopped watching The Wire when that councilman became mayor.

          1. but we could consider starting by

            –raising the minimum wage to $25. per hour immediately.

            –guaranteeing every family a house that passes municipal inspection, enough rooms so that not more than two children need share a bedroom, plus vouchers for enough food for the entire family.

            –providing meaningful job training from age 15 and a guaranteed job for the first 3 (5?) years after graduation at age 18.

            –increasing the tax on incomes over $250k to 90%

            –taxing all estates (less the primary residence, including 1,500 acres of farmland and associated equipment, and less $50,000 cash assets) at 95%.

            –ordering every self-proclaimed Republican to drop his pants, bend over, and grab his ankles until further instructed.

            –requiring every schoolchild to sing Kumbaya six times before lunch and seven times after.

        1. Basically, the entire body of institutional economics is the core of the model. Some good places to start are Oliver Williamson, “Markets and Hierarchies,” and Elinor Ostron, “Governing the Commons.” Doug Heckathorn at Cornell has a great deal of work using mathematical models to generate insights into various potential social institutional regimes. Nobel prize winning economist Douglass North has written some excellent work on the topic, including “Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance” (part of Cambridge University Press series by several authors called “Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions”).

          Layered over this core, I would add in a chapter from the book “The Selfish Gene,” by British biologist Richard Dawkins, which introduces and explains meme theory, and MIT psycholinguist Stephen Pinker’s book “How The Mind Works,” which outlines the discipline of evolutionary psychology (the mature version of what used to be called cognitive science).

          It is constructed around historical and empirical analyses of the underlying dynamics of social institutions.

          If by “soft bigotry of low expectations” you mean the unwillingness to indulge in the utterly discredited and insane assumption that everyone will act in a harmonious and mutually accommodating way if left unrestrained by the primary enforcer of social contracts (ie, government), in line with the unrealistic fantasy that Rousseau favored, then, yes, certainly, it is based on what you call “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Personally, I call it reality, but you’re free to call it what you like.

          Of course, don’t you rely on a similar “soft bigotry of low expectations” in your support of American military assertiveness?

          1. James Coleman, “Foundations of Social Theory” (unfortunately named, because it sounds like a social theory text book, instead of the brilliant tome on social institutional analysis that it is); Mancur Olsen, “The Rise and Decline of Nations;” Robert Frank, “Passions Within Reason;” and, to get at how to frame this in terms of complex dynamical systems analysis, James Gleich, “Chaos: Making a New Science;” Fritjov Capra, “The Web of Life;” James Lovelock, “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth;” and Douglas Hoffstadter, “Goedel, Escher, Bach.”

            There are, of course, numerous academic articles that flesh out various aspects of in various ways (I have only listed the books). Two by Mark Grannavetter deserve a mention: “The Strength of Weak Links” (or something like that), and one on threshold effects (can’t remember the title), illustrating how seemingly insignificant variables can be decisive in complex dynamical systems such as human societies (what later became termed “the butterfly effect”).

        2. the model is in no way based on “bigotry” in the conventional sense of the word of looking down on some group of people considered inferior. For most purposes, it takes human beings as being identical entities, acting according to identical algorithms (a simplification necessary to much social institutional modeling). When it differentiates among people, it does so in one of two ways: Either by recognizing a generic distribution of predisposed tendencies (e.g., more or less prone to respond violently, such as was used in the Grannovetter article on threshold effects I mentioned), without reference to or in any way pegged to existing social categories; or by recognizing and taking into account some of the artifacts of those existing social categories, such as ideological differences.

    3. my point about being a sociologist, and particularly the kind of sociologist I was, was that I have actually gone to the trouble of comparing all of these competing models. I used the Frankfurt School Weberian-marxist-freudian synthesis that analyzed how class conflict played out through institutionalized repression helped to produce and maintain “the iron cage” of societal rationalization. I read much of Marx’s writings (no, not “Capital” in its entirety, but hundreds of pages of excerpts, as well as his earlier, more “idealist” writings). I studied Durkheim, and Weber, and the Functionalists, and the Post-modernist theoriests. And I eventually turned to, and helped develop, a synthesis of epistemology and game theory which most usefully and precisely models the actual systemic dynamics of human social interaction and human social institutions.

      There is nothing “smiley faced” about it. My own underlying, slightly simplifying assumption, is that humans are selfish greedy bastards. In other words, I take the smiley face out of the picture altogether, rather than apply it selectively at the convenience of my ideological preferences. I don’t just recognize that the “capitalists” are selfish greedy bastards, but that the workers are too. And, given a world of selfish greedy bastards (or, as economists say, “rational utility maximizers”), what policies are likely to improve the quantity, distribution, and sustainability of human welfare, and how they can be implemented, are the challenges to which I address myself.

      No smiley faces, just realism dedicated to the improvement of the human condition by refining our social institutions, and an appeal to those who want to participate in that enterprise (which, in the long run, serves the individual interests of each of us selfish greedy bastards) to do so with as much analytical precision as possible.

      I’ve taught this body of social theory. I’ve implemented this body of social theory (in particular, in an outreach program dedicated to reducing HIV infection among heroin addicts). Now, I’d like to participate in legislating legislation informed by this body of social theory.

      Because after a lifetime of studying everything even vaguely related to the issues of the underlying dynamics of social institutions (inlcuding world history and world mythology, evolutionary ecology), I personally am convinced that it’s the most useful set of analytical and political tools we have at our disposal.

      You disagree. I get it. I accept it. I am comfortable with it. So, what’s the problem?

        1. Nor has my path through life been such that I have been socially and institutionally positioned to be selected for such a role. I never put myself on the path that would lead to that destination, until, perhaps, entering law school less than two years ago. Drifting around the world for about five years, living in a cabin in the mountains for a year and on the Mexican coast for two more to write a novel, are not choices and background experiences that are valued and sought for in filling such posts, probably for good reason.

          Was there a purpose to your question, or are you just taking bizarre and meaningless pot-shots?

      2. If you “used the Frankfurt School Weberian-marxist-freudian synthesis that analyzed how class conflict played out through institutionalized repression helped to produce and maintain “the iron cage” of societal rationalization,” then our problems are over! I’m relieved, having relieved myself, so to speak.

        Meantime, allow me to submit my own slogan: Fuck the Republicans.

        1. It’s been awhile since I’ve been so eloquently reminded that there are plenty of complete and utter assholes on the Left as well as on the Right.

          You go ahead and raise your fist in righteous indignation against all of those enemies out there. Be a part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution. Meanwhile, rational people of good will will continue to do our best to clean up the mess you create.

          1. I luv the Weberian-marxist-freudian synthesis. Didn’t I just say so? Order it every time I can. Ever tried it with Cholula sauce? Great… especially if you mix in a glob of societal rationalization. (Great emetic, too, and said to help guard against swine flu, although I don’t think the latter is proven beyond a doubt.)

            1. what your point is, and whether you have achieved some nirvana of perfect obnoxiousness or just have some bizarre version of virtual Turrets Syndrome. But, like I said before, in either case, I give up. Whatever it is you’re trying to win, consider it won. You are clearly someone to be humored rather than engaged.

        2. along with a very academic sounding description of what it is, was to point out the error of your assumption that I don’t understand the conceptual framework you are relying on: I have studied it, and every permutation of it, to the nth degree. I’m glad you found an opportunity in that to express your oh-so-class-conscious belligerence. Maybe you should throw a molatov cocktail or two while you’re at it, or, hell, just fly a plane into a skyscraper. That’ll sure show those bastards!

          People throughout history have found excuses and rationalizations for our often viscious inclinations, rationalizations all based on the ability to delude oneself into thinking that their particular hatreds are noble and justified. If you take pride in that, such is life. But maybe you could crow about your noble hatred just a little bit less? It’s offensive and counterproductive.

  2. while psychoanalyzing the Democratic “mindset” of the past 100 days.  From the DS.

    “‘We won. It’s our time to lead.’ They use same rhetoric here. It definitely trickles down into the leadership’s mindset in the Legislature,” Penry said. “There’s no sign that they’ve learned from Republican mistakes” when the GOP had the majority.”

    Damnit, Josh!  Don’t you understand that learning from “Republican mistakes” is an ongoing process and hard to keep up with?  If you’d slow down on your own mistakes, we might be able to study them in more depth.

  3. FRINGE LAKE, Colorado… I am writing this morning during a break in my lessons in how to attack marshmallows. I’ve never actually done this before–never thought it especially fun or interesting or having any particular point to it except to watch the  launch of more electrons in around the globe at high speed, after which they land in big fresh globs of…, well, in big fresh globs of raw Shinola shoe polish. But having handed over the dime that Mr. Rockefeller gave me, I feel obligated.

    My instructor insists that there is no there there in the marshmallow jousting pit here on the lefthand side of Camp Pretension, but he cannot answer this question: how come the big balloon keeps going up, up, up every time the man in the basket speaks into it?

    This afternoon we’re going to practice mixing metaphors again, after which we’ll thumb through our Thesaurus of Latinate Forms.

    2. ROFL JO.

      Catch you at the navel gazing sustainability workshop/salon. 2pm sharp – bring all of your overly verbose paradigms and constructs.  They’ll be serving word salad for snack today.

        1. Truth be said I really do like your posts, but the academic tone you use is so vague and foggy sometimes . That’s just one mans opinion and I was just having a little fun with it.  Its not your bad its my bad – sorry if I offended you.  

          1. I’m just getting worn down by some posters whose mission in life is to take me down a peg.

            But, to get to the substance of the matter, an “academic tone,” when used in earnest, is really just mathematical thought rendered into a spoken language. It defines the variables, and the logical relations among them, in order to avoid making vague and slippery assertions. For instance, I got into that whole thing with JO because JO relies on a form of thought that completely ignores agency: It reduces the social world to some reified abstractions, instead of to human beings making choices and engaging in behaviors. Taking an academic tone helps to nail that kind of thing down.

            I don’t use the academese in order to impress (Jeez, believe me, I wish I had the skill to say the same things in really, really simple terms, but I don’t), I use it because it is the most efficient way to say what I am trying to say.

            Okay. I pulled the knife out of my back. Do you want it as a souvenir?  🙂

      2. “Verbosity” isn’t a function of number of words (“volume”), but rather the ration of noise-to-signal (“low density”). IMAO (“in my arrogant opinion”), my posts (particularly the ones most panned for verbosity) rank among the “densest” (yeah, yeah, I get the irony) of any on this blog. They are almost all signal, no noise. In fact, they would probably be more warmly received, in some ways, if they were longer and less dense, b/c then they wouldn’t offend so many people’s sensibilities about avoiding academic-sounding language (which can be used either to disguise ignorance or reduce volume, in my case always the latter).

        Paradigms and constucts, the notion of “sustainability” (along with justice and efficiency), are very useful central tenets when discussing public policy: A policy has basically three fundamental criteria it must meet: that it is efficient, that it is fair, and that it is sustainable. That’s called “getting right to the heart of the matter.” And it’s a construct, and part of a paradigm.

        1. Is the soul of wit.  And I can think of a lot of policies that aren’t efficient, fair or sustainable.

          Our tax policy and code is inefficient, if it were created solely in terms of efficiency in mind it wouldn’t tax a corporation one red cent.  Innocent until proven guilty is not an efficient policy.

          Don’t ask don’t tell is not a fair policy.  The death penalty is not a fair policy.

          Republican energy policy a la “drill, baby, drill” is not a sustainable policy.

          Efficiency, fairness and sustainability are all relative value judgements depending on the standards of the individual.

          1. I didn’t define my terms, because I’m used to using them with others who know and share the definitions I am using.

            Efficiency refers to how well the policy accomplishes what it purports to accomplish, at the best possible cost-to-benefit ratio. To discuss a policy’s efficiency, you must first identify what it is purporting to accomplish, and if it is not efficient for that purpose, then that is a legitimate strike against it.

            But efficiency is often in tension with fairness and/or sustainability, which I also named. So it is not sufficient to consider any one of these parameters in isolation, but rather they must all be considered simultaneously, in balance with one another. When one can be maximized at another’s expense, the calculation becomes one of dediding on optimal balances, something that is not made explicit just by naming the three values being simultaneously maximized. Many of the inefficiencies in the tax code are due to an attempt to increase fairness.

            Of course, many are not. Some are even undoubtedly designed to increase unfairness. But then, I never said that existing statutes are optimal. Identifying those flaws, and seeking to remedy them, are worthwhile goals.

            I don’t defend either “don’t ask don’t tell” or the death penalty. Nor “drill, baby, drill.” Again, I didn’t say that existing policies have maximized efficiency, fairness, and sustainability (far, far from it), but rather that the goal is to maximize efficiency, fairness, and sustainability.

            Once defined, efficiency, fairness, and sustainability are far less amenable to motivated and fractured interpretations than most concepts bandied about in political discourse. Efficiency is a well-developed concept in economics, with a very precise definition. Fairness, in the context of a market system, can similarly be mathematically measured (it’s called “the gini coefficient”). More generally, it is not a highly ambiguous concept: It refers to equality of opportunity (though there are some intractable free will/determinism issues, and issues of how much opportunity should be equalized to compensate for situational misfortunes, involved). Sustainability involves a projection of future impacts based on mathematical models which use a combination of empirical data and theoretical constructs. All of these can be debated. Everything can be debated. But they are very, very far from arbitrary.

            1. ” I didn’t define my terms, because I’m used to using them with others who know and share the definitions I am using. ”

              I rather think you should have mentioned from the beginning that efficiency, fairness and sustainability are all worthy goals for any policy, however these goals are not always met.  However, when you get to that point, is that really saying much ?  OF COURSE E,F and S are desirous – who’s going to argue with that ?  It’s like saying candy is sweet.  

              The words themselves are not arbitrary, but the way they are construed and interpreted often can be given the dynamics of power.  Strange how lofty policy values are never for the powerless to decide.

              And finally, I get as fed up with the anti- intellectualism running rampant in this country as much as anyone else.  Bush just flat out thought his ignorance was cool or funny somehow, and Sarah Palin is following in his footsteps.  Just close your ears and keep screaming – often we don’t pay attention to the person who has something useful to say but the one who yells the loudest.

              1. is mostly a function of the obvious implications of obvious observations that someone(s) simply took the trouble to formalize.

                If you asked people, even people who give these matters some thought, “what are the goals of social policy,” most would not come up with “some optimizing balance of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability.” It’s obvious once it’s stated. That’s why I state it.

                  1. relevance?

                    Actually, there’s some debate over that. But I’m not big on semantics: The bottom line is that mathematics is a tool of rational thought, and a very powerful one. Many discoveries have made mathematically, before they have made empirically, because the implications of what is already known can lead to the discovery of what was not yet known. And that tool is based on formalizing often very simple observations, and then deducing their implications.

                    Mathematics is not a language like other languages, because it is not culturally specific: It is an amalgam of symbolic logic developed in many cultures over several milenia, and additions to it from one culture blend easily with developments made in others. In that way, it is more like a science than a language. But since it is symbolic logic, it is, essentially, the language of logic.

                    But it is also unlike other languages in its absence of ambiguity. Mathematical terms must be precisely defined for the system to function, whereas linguistic terms often rely on their ambiguity to achieve greater and more flexible expressive power.

                    And it is “like” science in being the home of a concept strongly associated with science, but belonging entirely to mathematics: Proof. (In that sense, it is more like science than science is!)

                    You see? Sometimes brevity misses the point (“mathematics is a language, not a science”). In reality, mathematics occupies a unique position that is neither quite language nor quite science, and to reduce it to one or the other is to misidentify it in some essential ways.

          2. but its place isn’t everywhere. When discussing complex and subtle ideas, regarding complex and subtle challenges, maximizing brevity does not serve the goal at hand. Laws are thousands of pages long, multiplied several times by the regulations they generate. Case law adds to each law thousands of pages more. Sure, one can criticize the lack of brevity involved, but it is really much more due to the need of specificity than to any defect of gratuitous verbosity.

            Political discussions are, at root, discussions of the relative merits of those millions of pages of statute, regulation, and case law, and the millions of pages more that have not been passed or drafted but that are imaginable. For the most part, tackling that task with a couple of hundred words a pop, is not really overkill.

            1. Steve, you are truly a political scholar with incredible language skills. Some of your posts are worth reading, just for the construct of logic and prose.

              But Ike really hit it on the head with the above quote…sometimes, you need to score some hits on the target, move, communicate and engage the next one.

              1. The military metaphor is apt, and wise. I’m glad that there are people who adhere to it. I’m glad that there are people who don’t. A diversity of approaches yields a diversity of resources. I don’t consider it optimal that everyone discuss everything according to exactly the same standards, following exactly the same rules of construction, adhering to exactly the same compositional values. There are plenty of people here committed to brevity. There are plenty of people here trying to score a quick “hit” on the target before moving on. What we need least is just one more.

                I provide an alternative, one that can be scrolled past at will, or read when so desired.

                And I deeply lament the thought of a potential world devoid of “aristocratic explanations in Harvard words,” which is really just a villification of scholarly thought. There is more than enough (way, way more than enough) anti-intellectualism in America. I have absolutely no shame in my unwillingness to yield to it.

              3. I value Steve’s posts precisely because they provide explanation.  If people want to read headlines and bullet-points only, I don’t begrudge that luxury.  But must you find it everywhere?!

    1. to “teach to the test” and otherwise play statistics games instead of addressing the needs of students–especially the one-third to one-half, depending on your sample, who drop out — who don’t really see a clear path after school (not after 3:15, after 12th grade). It brings the word “pandering” to mind. Is nationalizing education standards to the point? Unclear to me how.

        1. Performance is, at least thus far, measured by performance on standardized tests, and the phenomenon of teaching-to-the-test is a real and growing problem, undermining much of what education, at least post-elementary, is best suited to do (to inspire curiousity, catalyze the desire to learn, and open up young minds to a universe of possibilities). I am not at all against pay-for-performance in principle, but how it is operationalized and implemented is an issue of legitimate concern.

          1. So teaching to the tests does teach what we want them to know.

            If the test, at the appropiate grade level, asks them for “8 * 7” – we definitely want them teaching to that test.

            As to how do you get them to teach students to think, imagine, etc – you test for it. The main questions I ask programmers we interview are ones that test if they can think and imagine.

            1. One is that there is enormous and non-trivial debate over what the purpose of education is, and what it should be testing for. Is it supposed to prepare people to fulfil functional roles in society, or prepare them to be imaginative and innovative people? Anticipating your response, no, those are not always the same thing. Many (most) functional roles (jobs)

              still require little imagination.

              Two is that the designers of tests are apparently much less ingenious than you, because the tests *ALWAYS& test rote skills rather than analytical and imaginative abilities.

              Three is, that music, arts, and creative writing are marginalized by this process, no matter what the tests test. None of them will be testing ability in artistic electives, and to the extent that ability in artistic electives assists students in doing well on tests, there will always be more efficient and less costly ways for schools and teachers to get there. Thus, such programs are rapidly disappearing from our public schools, especially the lower performing ones (where they would probably do the most good).

              Four, you identify one skill (multiplying 8 by 7) and act as though that sums up what we want kids at that level to know. We also want them to know how to get to that answer, how to think through problems, how to reason, how to think critically, how to analyze historical and literary narratives, how to apply knowledge learned in one class to challenges encountered in another, and so on, and so on, and so on.

              Don’t get me wrong: I think there is a place for standardized testing in our education system. But it has displaced all other modes of evaluation, and has thus displaced those forms of education which are hardest to measure. One of the greatest possible successes of an education is to plant seeds that don’t germinate for years to come. Teaching to ANY test will relegate that goal to an incidental benefit no longer consciously pursued.

              1. Most anything can be tested. For example, music is tested all the time when people audition for an orchestra. I think you are giving up too easily.

                As to just teaching to the test, my kids went to public schools here in Boulder that score very highly and there would be a focus on test prep for the 2 – 3 weeks before CSAPs, but that was it.

                1. Just because they’re cramming for the test (which, BTW, is not a good way to retain knowledge long-term) 2-3 weeks before the CSAPs doesn’t mean they’re not “teaching to the test” before-hand.

                  I’m glad you brought up orchestra tryouts, David.  An orchestra tryout is a subjective thing, administered by the teacher.  And one’s results of the tryout shouldn’t be used as a judge of the student’s grade in orchestra – not everyone has the talent to be first chair.  It exemplifies the shortcomings in scoring teachers (and students) solely against other students on standardized tests.

                2. (which is far more limited than you acknowledge), the politics of how tests are designed, what is designated as essential knowledge, and what is managable in large scale standardized testing, militate against you. Music programs are being cut, non-basic-skills aren’t being tested (and won’t soon be included in standardized tests), Boulder is very atypical, the lowest performing schools are the one’s most in danger of being killed by the doctor, and the most important of educational goals are, in fact, difficult or impossible to test and measure.

                  Once again, I am not against including standardized testing in a more comprehensive approach to public education. I am just against surrendering to the illusion that education is an assembly-line production factory churning out a mechanically measurable standardized product. It isn’t, and to the extent that we try to reduce it to that, we will be doing our children and our society more harm than good.

  5. Republicans in the 4th CD can breathe easy. Your representative voted against the president’s budget, one of 17 “Democrats” to do so.

    NO Republicans broke ranks.

    Come to think of it, did any Democrats? Well, one, anyway, Dennis Kucinich of OH.

    2. New York Post: Newspaper of Record (record what we’ll refrain from saying on a family blog). Raises an interesting question: can there be a “good article” in, say, National Enquirer, much less the New York Post?

      Update: Sorry, just looked up “good article” in Fitzgibbon and Fritzelhauf’s Dictionary of Barnyard Objects and Nouns and realize its meaning: “article I agree with.” Still, when people have to resort to quoting the NYPost, well….

      [Lest you think I jumped to judgment, here’s Mistake #12: “Hugo Chavez gave him the anti-American screed “The Open Veins of Latin America.” Obama didn’t remark upon it.” Hey, can I change my vote at this late date? Devastating! Didn’t remark on it? Holy Cow, Batman.]

  7. I especially love how he kisses up to our former enemies.  If only we got in touch with our feminine side and kissed Chavez’s ass and bowed really low to the Kings in arab countries.  Maybe they will like us.

    My analysis is that Obama is just a big pussy.

    3. Your ego leads me to believe that if you are, you are a surgeon.

      More likely your ego and poor analytical skills have caused you to voluntarily give up your license because of the raft of malpractice claims that have chased you from BME to BME.

      On second thought, from the misogynist and racist subtext to your post, you probably lost your license due to “boundary issues” or some other character issue–no one actually loses their license for substandard practice of medicine.

      1. is drawn from some play about multiple personalities. This person is also Ruthie, Sybil, and a few others, with sockpuppet identities drawn from the same play.

    4. I don’t remember the details. But, yes, we are fortunate to have such measured wisdom among our ranks. Message to presidents and world leaders: Don’t be pussies! Bomb first, ask questions later. If you don’t yet have an excuse to bomb, do everything you can to escalate tensions so that such an excuse will be forthcoming. Don’t ignore the “screeds” of other world leaders: Try to incite mutual hostilities in defense of national pride.

      Thanks, Maximal-Dumbshit-squared. We appreciate your in-put, but next time it comes-out, flush before posting, and save us the trouble of having to open the windows.

    5. Ye gods, the HORROR! That American President is shaking the hand of a COMMUNIST! Who imprisoned his own people, ordered the assassination of dissidents in other countries, and authorized the brutal and bloody invasion of Afghanistan!

      I am SHOCKED! I say SHOCKED the brave Republican Party has not started impeachment proceedings!

    7. Oh, and did you hear? According to Faux News, John McCain isn’t qualified to offer an opinion on torture because he can’t be objective due to the fact that he was himself tortured in Vietnam. Pussy.

  8. I can’t imagine that I’m the only person to notice this, but am I reading the Roll Call correctly?

    Was Mike Coffman really one of the 17 Repubs to vote in favor of The Hate Crime Prevention Act?

    I’m thrilled, don’t get me wrong. But color me surprised.

    Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin…

      1. Contrary to the Big Line on the left, there is a great Dem candidate running against whoever the Flat Earth Party eventually drags out.

        LtCol Flerlage is going to beat the shit out of any GOP candidate on a number of defense and vets issues, and will bascially get a free ride to do so while the other party tries to exterminate itself.

        Unless, of course, Coffman decides to reverse the tread the GOP has followed when it comes to Vets and Military….which I doubt.  

      1. Did Progress Now not pay attention, or is there an error in the official house roll call? I would have to imagine its Progress Now that got it wrong, but who knows. Anyone know for sure?

        1. I just updated our post with the following.

          Editor’s note: the roll-call vote shows that GOP Rep. Mike Coffman did in fact vote for the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We regret the error and thank Rep. Coffman for his support.

          We authentically do thank him for this surprising and heartening vote.

    1. You know, this Neil Horsley:

      If you call yourself a person of God and refuse to help arrest faggots, you belie yourself and prove you do not belong to the God who is committed to burning faggots.

      If you refuse to help arrest faggots, you really should expect to be left behind when God comes to collect His people.

      About which the SPLC has this to say…

    3. we should consider the soft bigotry of low expectations, meaning the unwillingness to indulge in the utterly discredited and insane assumption that everyone will act in a harmonious and mutually accommodating way if left unrestrained by the primary enforcer of social contracts in line with the unrealistic fantasy that Rousseau favored. Personally, I call it reality, but you’re free to call it what you like.

      In the case of humans mating with mules, for most purposes it takes human beings acting according to identical algorithms (a simplification necessary to much social institutional modeling), either by recognizing a generic distribution of predisposed tendencies (e.g., more or less prone to respond violently, such as was used in the Grannovetter article on threshold effects), without reference to or in any way pegged to existing social categories; or by recognizing and taking into account some of the artifacts of those existing social categories, such as ideological differences.

      After a lifetime of studying everything even vaguely related to the issues of the underlying dynamics of social institutions (inlcuding world history and world mythology, evolutionary ecology), I personally am convinced that it’s the most useful set of analytical and political tools we have at our disposal.

      More later.  

      3. Oh, gee, what a relief. I was worried you would eventually get tired of harrassing another poster (whose critiques of your arguments you apparently did not like) with your otherwise substanceless ridicule, instead of persisting until you succeed in driving a voice you resent from the site altogether. How very dedicated you are to your “noble” cause.

        Another one bites the dust….

        1. and/or sustainability. So it is not sufficient to consider any one of these parameters in isolation, but rather they must all be considered simultaneously, in balance with one another. When one can be maximized at another’s expense, the calculation becomes one of deciding on optimal balances, something that is not made explicit just by naming the three values being simultaneously maximized.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

183 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!