Common Core

Here’s a lol from the NYS Common Core English test…. for THIRD grade (taken from a blog commenter, from an unlocated blog) :

Instead of a question like: “What caused the character to (insert action here) in the middle of the story?” (which, mind you, is hard enough for an 8-year-old to identify as it is), there were questions like:

“In Line 8 of Paragraph 4, the character says … and in Line 17 of Paragraph 5, the character does … Which of the following lines from Paragraph 7 best supports the character’s actions?”This, followed by four choices of lines from Paragraph 7 that could all, arguably, show motivation for the character’s actions…


and yes – this is TYPICAL of the CC materials – both tests and lessons.


I hear a voice in my head asking, “What is WRONG with this question?”

Where’s a child psychologist when you need one?!? This question is fully abstract. Many adults have trouble answering completely abstract questions, much less NINE-YEAR-OLDS.

But it relates to completely concrete concepts, as referenced in the text…?”

This question only seems completely concrete… to a lawyer. Ah! you say – that’s why this seems so reasonable! And yes, that’s why the CC is filled with questions and lessons composed in this obscure manner – it’s configured to meet the requirements of LAWYERS. When the state commissioner of education…. is a LAWYER, you naturally get this sort of materials for children.

The entire question is composed of references TO SOMETHING ELSE, and there are at least 6 of these references to other material in this ONE question. That’s the Abstract quality – many back-and-forth mental exercises must be made, just to comprehend the question!

Never mind actually figuring out the answer – which in these CC tests, can be vague or uncertain – several answers may be right, but one may be seen as better than the others.

Will return with more Common Core critiques – when I have time…..


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Immigration Answers

Say, I just had an Idea (this morning)…..

Since Congress continues to threaten our security with new iterations of Immigration Reform…. why not start a New program? We could call it “Trading Places.” For every illegal immigrant we catch (– we Deport them – no ifs, ands, or buts…) – BUT for each one we toss out, we ADMIT ONE LEGAL immigrant whose application has been filed.

Okay – to appease the “we’ve got too many already” crowd – let’s make it for every TWO illegals we deport, we accept a properly-vetted, patiently-waiting-to-get-here, prospective new American. And these legal ones we accept can be from the country we deport our illegals to. This will make it more likely that those countries will accept the deportees, if they know that their other constituents are happy and Legal.

We will be getting rid of the moochers, liars, and cheats (oh – and the drug runners!) and in return we will be getting folks who persevere and follow the rules. These traits are far more likely to help immigrants thrive in their new country, than the ability to financially undercut law-abiding businesses, or being able to avoid contact with all law enforcement personnel. And people the world over will know we can be relied on to treat honest folks fairly (like it used to be!)

This would be a terrific way to end the illegal “undocumented” interlopers, because the smartest ones would start to figure that they might have a better chance of coming here, and staying here, if they go home & enter through the right channels. Their way would be paved by the dumb ones, or the sneakiest ones, who think they can still manage to hide in the U.S shadows.

As we deport, deport, deport, and responsible, viable new immigrants arrive, we will find it even more politically-correct (not to mention advantageous!) to continue the deportations. After all, deportations are how we make more room for decent folks to enter.

It’s time to contact our Congresscritters about Trading Places! It’s never too early or late for the right kind of Immigration Reform.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How To Argue A Liberal

Today we have a Guest Post by young Doom, himself. A debate-warrior with the twenty-something crowd, I’ve asked him to write down some of the tricks of the trade that make him so successful.

How to Argue A Liberal

A guide to taking on, and beating, a liberal in any arena, public or private (especially in front of the liberal media).

After becoming increasingly aggravated and ashamed with the continual losses that conservatives have been suffering, and the general direction that the country is taking, I decided to do some research, and put together my thoughts on various concepts that seem to be plaguing our debating/arguing capability.

I developed his guide to be used when confronted with, and outnumbered or outmaneuvered by a liberal opponent (or group of them) who is unwilling to see or respond to logical arguments. Or if you’re a guest on a liberal media outlet.

DISCLAIMER: Please use this guide with caution, as continued exposure to these tactics may degrade one’s sense of morality.

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get you armed! I have made this guide in sections according to what seem to be the most used techniques, and in what would be the most appropriate order to approach this style of debating/arguing.

1: “Fair Play”

This concept comes from a mutual respect for one’s opponent, their right to think as an individual, be their own unique self, and is something usually taught in kindergarten. However, a Liberal Has no respect for anyone who does not agree completely with their world/universe point-of-view. They therefore have no use for, or concept of, fair play. This gives them the ability to rationalize anything they do as necessary, and as it means they win, Necessary=Right.

Now, after watching more political crap (media) than I care to admit, and doing a considerable amount of historical research, I have come to the conclusion that the most effective way to deal with this type of arguer, is to fight on their level.

Doing this will probably make you feel a little nauseated, AND IT SHOULD; but while constrained by honor, respect, and decency, you will be coming from a position that cannot be defended. As unfortunate as it is, if you adhere to the concept of “Fair”, YOU WILL LOSE….BADLY!!

Ex: Using minutes more than allowed in debates (liberals), and then cry-assing when a conservative finishes one second late. Constant interruptions, and shouting when they don’t get their way.

2: “Pity”

While it may be in your nature to feel some sort of pity for your opponent, for using these tactics against them, your opponent will not have the same reservations, and will in fact, expect you to reciprocate. Showing pity, care for your opponents sensibilities, or shame for having to fight on this level, are all deadly mistakes. Your opponent will seize the opportunity, and exploit your weakness.

3: “Glamour Effect”

Do not go into an argument or debate thinking that your opponent will argue using any recognizable form of logic or reason. if possible, they will drag you out of the realm of what is “real”, and into their own twisted version of reality. What you need to do, is figure out how they are trying to accomplish the task, and redirect it toward an arena that is more even, or at least beneficial to you.

4: “Corruption”

This is a favorite in the liberal arsenal. Since your opponent will likely be aware that their argument cannot be won on merit, they will seek to destroy YOU by any means necessary (see rule 1). It’s basically, “if I can’t make my argument look better, then I’ll make yours look worse”. What they are counting on you not to realize, is that it works Both ways.

Now, your opponent is likely going to be better at this than you, and that’s OK, because the “facts” supporting their smear/character assassination of you, are (generally) not going to stand up to the ones used by you against them. The only way to effectively combat this in any sort of timely manner, is in kind.

To do so, you must find any kind of fault or possible source of conflicting, scandalous, or hypocritical material in their background, or the background of those around them, and present the facts with the worst possible connotations that you can manage. The goal here is to make the audience actively Hate your opponent merely for the crime of existing.

It doesn’t matter how much crap gets thrown at you; as long as you end up on top, you will have the opportunity to go into “damage-control” mode.

In order to mitigate potential damage from this type of attack, it is helpful to have rebuttals ready for all scenarios that you think your opponent may try to use against you. However, given the relatively large number of possible angles of attack, it may be simpler/more effective to just open up with both barrels, and hope for the best.

This technique has the added Bonus effect of making the target “toxic” to others of their party, since affiliation would mean being vulnerable to the same type of assault.

Ex: George Bush being mocked for being a “C-average” president. Mocking any conservative for being openly Christian. Mocking conservatives for being patriotic (or anyone for that matter).

5: “Misdirection”

Your opponent, whoever they are, is going to change the subject any time you would be able to strike at one of their key arguments. This can be used to identify what those arguments are, and then systematically destroy them. The tactic is used by both sides, but conservatives generally suck at it… hardcore.

Too many examples! Watch any presidential/congressional debate.

6: “Character Assassination”

This could be considered part of “4″, but I felt it merited its own section, on account of its widespread use, and its kill ratio. A liberal will do everything in their power Not to have to face you head-on. Instead, they will come at you indirectly, attacking your credibility, or family/community ties.

The process for dealing with this tactic, is the same as for #4. First, you must be constantly ready and able to withstand ridicule for anything and everything that someone may find offensive in any way. Next, you must be willing to go into the past of your opponent, and their friends, family, community, state, and any organizations that were even associated by proximity (socially or geographically), dig through them, and find anything that could be used to make them look bad. Even if it is something that is not directly related, it can be Made to Look relevant.

If the ammunition in question is something private, and not normally shared with the public, all-the-better, because it will cause more of a scandal. This tactic relies on the user’s ability to temporarily suppress their own morality (see disclaimer), and bring upon themselves the will to publicly damage another person for no better reason than they, at one time, didn’t actively harm your (liberal) opponent.

I said this in number 1, and I will say it again. This tactic probably makes you ill, just thinking about it, but that is normal. It just shows that you still have a functioning moral center.

Ex: Sarah Palin taking heat for opposing abortion and being Christian, while having a child with down syndrome.

7: “Logic Vs. Emotion”

Any liberal argument will by its nature be light on factual evidence, or have doctored/spun evidence to support it. To compensate for this, a liberal will instead resort to making their argument into a story intended to elicit an emotional response from their audience. This has the advantage of being able to Override the logic center of their audience’s brain, and making them more susceptible to thinking what the liberal wants them to.

When using this tactic, it is important to remember that both positive and negative emotions can work for you if used correctly; make sure that your arguments elicit the correct emotions for the situation.

Ex: Can anyone say “Global Warming”. Saying the conservative is “being mean, vindictive, a bigot, racist” when they say something that would counter a key point in a liberal argument.

8: “Argument Bombardment”

This is a favorite with liberals who have mastered the previous rules, especially #3 through #7. With this tactic, it may not be necessary for a person to lie, since it relies on throwing as many details as possible into an argument, in story form, and as quickly as possible. The only known way to combat this is to be able to systematically counter every point raised, in a similar, rapid-fire-story fashion.

This means, making an argument that tells a story, includes as many facts/ideas as possible, making sure that all of those little bits singularly and wholly elicit as strong an emotional response as possible.

This technique is only usable if one has the ability to make their voice attractive to listen to, or at the very least, impossible to ignore, without yelling. It can be a difficult skill to learn, but is a powerful weapon once mastered.

Parents: you will have a bit of an advantage in this field, assuming you figured out how to get your child/children to listen to you for an extended period of time. Liberals think like children, and their attention will be held in much the same way.

Examples of this would be too long to post here, and would not provide enough information to be useful. You will just have to learn for yourself.

9: “Flat-Out Lying”

This is NOT a recommended tactic since you will undoubtedly be called out on it; it is just something that I have noticed conservatives seem to be naively unaware of. A liberal arguer WILL LIE if they believe they may not get caught, or that it will be too late to do anything about it. They must be caught, and called on it within moments, or your chance will most likely be lost.

NOTE: This technique appears last not because of its frequency of use, but because of the ill-advised nature of using it.

Ex: “I did not have $#x with that woman”, “Global Warming”, “spend our way out of debt”, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the IRS scandal, the Benghazi incident, “Obamacare”.


While using these techniques can be useful, calling a liberal out for using them can be equally as useful. Just like that kid that burnt ants with a magnifying glass on the playground, every time they try to move to another position, move with them, keep the light cranked right up, and eventually they will get too burnt to keep going.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Parliamentary Pugilistics

Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayycip Erdogan (one of Bo’s Five Best Buds!) has been playing Risk with his own country for decades – getting into power, and then consolidating power more and more each day. Recently, the judiciary launched a wide-ranging corruption investigation – Erdogan sees this as a challenge to his rule (well, it IS – probably the only way left for his country to oppose him.)

So Erdogan gets his party to propose a bill to give him more control over the judiciary. Lawyers and judges are not so keen…

a representative of a judicial association arrived with a petition arguing the bill was anti-constitutional, but was not allowed to speak

Why is this interesting, you ask? Aside from Bo’s Best Buddoing what all dictators do (there’s a great photo of Erdogan at the link!), the opposition lawmakers did not take this lying down, according to Reuters…

Turkish parliamentarians threw punches and water bottles during a debate on Saturday about government control over the appointment of judges and prosecutors, as a feud over the ruling party’s handling of a corruption scandal intensified. One MP leapt on a table and launched a flying kick as others wrestled and punched at each other, with document folders, plastic water bottles and even an iPad flying through the air…

“Well, that’s all very nice. Is There VIDEO?” you ask……

Why, yes. Yes, there is…..

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Carter Recession, redux

I was reading along a story about Boehner and imminent Amnesty legislation, when three words leapt out at me….:

“… shoving through a mass amnesty to legalize foreigners when millions of American citizens still suffer unemployment from the lingering recession.”

A chill ran through me… a phrase from my childhood… it meant no jobs, for just about anyone, with more bad news every week, every month, and the torture of waiting, waiting, waiting… for SOMETHING to change. What changed was the surprise election of Reagan, and another four years to see results of his new approach to economics.

And it occurred to me… that’s what we are in right now! After all the talk, and all the predictions, Carter’s “malaise” has been re-created! After the Reagan turn-around, many of us felt that the Carter misery would never reappear – we had learned how to make a thriving economy, and no one would be so stupid as to mess with that… Or so we thought.

Apparently, there is a wide swath of Americans for whom the word, “stupid,” is no deterrent. Making up excuses and using outright lies to sell their ideas to Low Info Voters, their incessant propaganda drumbeat (“millions without health care [insurance!]“, “Income Inequality!!”, and my favorite, “The ‘fill-in-the-blank’ SYSTEM IS BROKEN!!!”), they have conned America into re-establishing the sucky Carter Years.

For those of you who have watched the Seventies Show – yeah, it’s like that. We don’t have Stagflation (a stagnant economy WITH increasing Inflation), but there’s apparently NO CURE.

Welcome to the Obama Malaise!

Many theorize about the inner motivations of those who promote these economy-killing ideas. Are they evil (here’s lookin’ at you, George Soros)? Are they just losers (well, yeah, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic…) The sad specter of Do-Gooders desperately trying to convince themselves that they deserve to get into Heaven? (Lots o’ Catholics in that group!… Aw, that’s unfair – there are a LOT of all sorts of “Christians” in that group – people who earnestly ignore much of what Jesus said. Again…. another post.)

It seems that the first four years of waiting have turned into eight years of waiting… for the change that will “heal” America, and solve the problems created by “do-gooder-itis”. I am one of those who refuse to let others dictate the meaning of “hope” (& Change!) to me. I will continue to hope for a way out of this malaise, and I am hoping it will be sooner, rather than later. No Hillary For Me!


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On Obama’s Girly-ness

UPDATE: Round Three added…

Whoa…. that’s an insult to Girls everywhere!

But really – wimpiness? Wussiness?

there’s nothing more potent and humorous than the ACTUAL QUOTE:

A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama told the Los Angeles Times that the White House is seeking a strike on Syria “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” the official told the paper…

Hey – are you Just Muscular Enough… not to Get Mocked? Hmm…. how muscular is that? Well… if ya gotta ask…..!

Seriously! How clueless are these guys? For cryin’ out loud! Only a very feminine hamster could even come up with a concept like “just muscular enough to NOT GET MOCKED!!!!!!!!

Okay, Round Two (right around minute 4:00):

“If, in fact, uh, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a-a-a-a long conflict; we send a shot across the bow saying, “Stop doing this”…”

Ooooohhh! That’ll tell ‘em!! Yep – that’s really gonna work to settle the MidEast right down….

Round Three:

Obama's Girly PitchObama Pitch Better View

And that’s his ALL-STAR form…..! I love that last pic – you can just about hear the “oof!”…..

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

This Says Everything…

“Part-time jobs account for 97% of 2013 job growth”

that’s not This Month…. that’s THIS YEAR. So, for all of us who were hoping to be able to pay our bills, and maybe get ahead in life…. Nope, Not Yet.

“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,” said Keith Hall, a senior researcher at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. “That is really remarkable.”

Hall is no ordinary academic. He ran the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that puts out the monthly jobs report, from 2008 to 2012.

… Hall says there has to be something driving that kind of trend, and thinks he knows what it is: “There is something going on if such a large share of the hiring is part time,” Hall said. …

Oh, gee, well, now…. what could possibly be causing such a dramatic change in employers’ policies across the country? What could make them disregard the financial security and well-being of their employees?  What could it be….?!?

Hall speculated that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, shorthanded as Obamacare, might be resulting in employers shifting workers to part-time status to avoid coming health care obligations.

Aw, WHO could have said this was gonna happen…?!? Who knew that Socialist policies weaken the economy?!? Who could have predicted THIS….?!?!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment