I AM FURIOUS WITH THE NEW COMMON CORE BASED MATH WORKBOOKS
In my daughter’s homework a few weeks ago, she had to do addition and subtraction of four-digit numbers. Part of her assignment (per the workbook) was to CHECK her work. The workbook said it was OK to use rounding to determine if her answers were REASONABLE. The workbook did not say to check to make sure her answers were CORRECT.
Here’s an example: If you add 1,111 and 7,777 you get 8,8888. According to the workbook, to check your work, you round to the thousands. So, you add 1,000 and 8,000 to get 9,000. Since 8,888 rounds to 9,000 it’s good enough. Any answer from 8,500 to 9,499 would be considered reasonable according to the workbook.
I told my daughter, in our house we check our work the old fashioned way. We make sure the answer is CORRECT. I made her go back and check her work using the real method to make sure her answers were CORRECT. Making sure your answer is REASONABLE is what will get you fired in the real world. I can’t wait until we get bridge engineers doing truss calculations and being happy when the calculations are REASONABLE instead of CORRECT.
I am perfectly fine with kids being taught how to estimate by rounding. I am not OK with my daughter being told rounding is an acceptable way to check your work. REASONABLE IS NOT OK. This “feel good” math is a disaster.
Here’s a photo of the same crap in my son’s math workbook.
P.S. Let me reiterate. I am 100% in favor of teaching kids to round numbers (preferably the common way most of us learned and not they way they taught my daughter to do it for checking her work). I just don’t think rounding to check your work is acceptable. I’m sorry, but “reasonable” is not correct and that doesn’t constitute a check in my world. Rounding is a great way to estimate mow much money you need to take to the grocery store. Rounding is not a great way to make sure your answer is correct.
Annoy all the world, Obama’s come!
Let libs receive their king;
Let bleeding hearts preach doom and gloom,
As takers and leeches sing,
As takers and leeches sing,
As takers and takers and leeches sing,
Annoy all the world, Obama reigns!
Let men their lies employ;
While thugs with clubs, spread hate and blame,
Deceit kowtow destroy,
Deceit kowtow destroy,
Deceit, deceit, kowtow destroy,
He views our world with brute disgrace,
And makes our nations lose,
The stories of his libelousness,
And blunders hurt our gov,
And blunders hurt our gov,
And blunders, his blunders hurt our gov,
You need to read this blog: Barack Obama : Most Ignorant Leader Of All Time?.
I run into people, liberals and (perhaps most regrettably) conservatives, who shrug their shoulders when I my voice concern over unconstitutional government spying on things such as email, Facebook accounts, Twitter accounts, phone calls, text messages, Skype interactions, and other electronic forms of communications. For some inexplicable reason, they don’t seem very concerned since it’s all based upon electronics.
However, when I ask them if they’d be OK with a federal agent demanding to sit down with them and their best friend as they share coffee and conversation at a Panera restaurant, they all say it would not be acceptable.
If I ask them if they’d be OK with a federal agent opening every piece of mail they send just to see if there’s anything interesting written inside, they all say it would not be acceptable.
When I ask if it would be ok to have federal agents barge into their houses and listen to every conversation between the members of their family, they all say it would not be acceptable.
After asking if they would be offended to find a federal agent in the back seat of their car, listening to their cell phone conversations, they all say it would not be acceptable.
When I ask the same individuals to explain how those three examples are different from the current invasions of privacy we are experiencing, they all wake up and realize there really isn’t any difference. But when I then ask them what they’re going to do about it, the typical responses are things like, “there’s nothing I can do about”, “it is what it is”, and “it’s not right but I can’t give up my cell phone or my Internet”.
The Constitution memorializes our inherent rights. The Constitution does not carve out unwritten exceptions to those rights. The Constitution does not have waivers for certain types of technologies.
Tell me in your comments . . . what makes so many people not care when the government spying is done “electronically” and not “in person”?
First of all, I can’t believe Americans are even discussing the right to bear arms. If people are too thick-skulled to read the Constitution in a rational manner, that’s their problem. I don’t have a reading problem but I do have limited tolerance for liberal idiocy.
I love liberals who claim the Second Amendment only pertains to hunting guns. Um, no. Our founders wouldn’t have wasted their time protecting our rights to hunting guns. That was a given. Plus, if they wanted to protect hunting, they would have said something like, “the right to have a gun to shoot dinner shouldn’t be restricted”. I don’t think the inclusion of the words “Militia”, “free State”, “keep and bear Arms”, and “shall not be infringed” is accidental in any way. I have a law degree and a law license but it doesn’t require either of them to read the simple and plain meaning of the Second Amendment. And for my liberal friends who shout “no means no” when it comes to rape, “not means not” when it comes to infringing on my Second Amendment rights.
I also love liberals who say the Second Amendment only applies to muskets and other “period” firearms. If that’s their logic, then the First Amendment only applies to hand written documents penned with a feather dipped in an inkwell or documents printed on old-school printing presses. If you liberals truly believe the Second Amendment only applies to black powder and other old-school guns, I don’t want to hear a single one of you yapping about your First Amendment rights when it comes to email, documents written on computer, or anything you publish on the Internet. Same goes for anything you say over the telephone.
The final liberal idiocy I will mention here is the idea that “Militia” only applies to government run millitaries. Seriously? Do liberals truly believe that? I guess they skipped out on their high school government classes. Our founders wanted to escape tyrannical government – they didn’t want to create one themselves. Again, if they meant only the government run military would be armed, I am relatively certain they would have written it that way. Our founders knew darn well the average citizen deserved the opportunity to protect themselves. I also think the founders wanted it loud and clear, the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers by choosing who should and should not be armed.
I think, bottom line, we’re facing a standoff between those who believe rights are inherent simply by being alive. I’m one of those people. I don’t believe the Constitution grants us rights. I believe the Constitution simply memorializes those rights and then protects them from infringement and encroachment by the government or others. Liberals, on the other hand, believe it is the Constitution document itself which grants rights. Rights which they believe can be taken away simply by editing the document.
I don’t think our founders planned on the liberal interpretation. Our Constitution was signed not long after our Declaration of Independence. Reflect a moment on these words found in the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .
That is not the mindset of a group of people saying, “if it ain’t in the document, it doesn’t exist”.
It’s not hard to understand what the Second Amendment means. Our Constitution was written by founders inspired by earlier documents and philosophies. Peruse the Magna Carta and the intent of that document to see the stance against tyranny. Consider the writings of John Locke. Contemplate why the authors of the Constitution opted for a President instead of a King. Reflect on why they established a republic instead of a pure democracy. Look at the Constitution itself and it’s emphasis on federalism. It’s not hard. Seriously, you people should have paid more attention in class when your teacher taught you about our Constitution.
Liberals want to take away or (at a minimum) restrict inherent rights. Conservatives recognize the inherent flaw in the liberal desire to do so. I side with the Conservatives on this issue. I will never understand why liberals want to voluntarily forfeit their own rights and infringe on mine, against my will, for a false sense of security – a modern day 30 pieces of silver.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Gun laws don’t prevent crime. They just constrain and infringe on the rights of the lawful citizens. Criminals will always find a route to obtain guns whether those guns are legally owned or illegally owned. If they can’t find guns, they find other weapons. I highly doubt there will soon be a movement to outlaw knives, baseball bats, pencils, cars, rope, and fists . . . but who knows how far liberals are willing to go in eviscerating our inherent rights and simultaneously converting a huge number law abiding citizens into criminals with nothing more than a stroke of the pen.
Dear Esteemed Member of the Criminal Community:
We want to assure you. Many of us in Washington, D.C. are working quickly and expeditiously to improve the safety of your work places. We are working every day to make sure you can do your jobs safely and without concern. Those 23 executive orders are just the start. We have individuals throughout our agencies and in our legislature actively putting together more and more regulations and laws which will keep you happy and healthy.
For those of you who perform your jobs in or around public schools, we are pleased to confirm they are working very closely with us to assure you the safest possible work environments through the implementation of “Gun Free Zones”. We are hopeful this progress will result in an ongoing reduction of the number of on the job injuries you receive.
As you are aware, we are thwarted at every turn by hateful members of the vast right-wing conspiracy who want nothing more than to assure you encounter armed resistance resulting in damage to your person. Do not worry. We will stop at nothing to end their heartless attempts to derail our efforts. Like our dear leaders before us, we have even used sweet, innocent children to further our cause. Do not be concerned. We promise you we will not do anything to actually improve their safety because that would mean a potential increase in your work place injuries. The media is on our side. Nothing can go wrong.
We take inspiration from Chicago, the shining beacon on the hill, as the example of how gun control makes your lives easier. We know many of you have already moved there because of the safety you experience when performing your criminal endeavours. We have a dream that one day every city, suburb, and rural area of the USSA will offer you the same protections.
Do not be discouraged by the states, localities, and law enforcement officials who will do everything in their power to stop us in our tracks. We will not be halted. We will not be dissuaded. We are a force to be reckoned with. We won’t even let the Constitution stop our efforts.
We also intend to improve your work place safety through a few key pieces of legislation and regulation. By restricting gun ownership and usage, these laws and regulations will immediately convert millions of law abiding citizens into criminals. By spending more time finding and prosecuting those individuals, our government paid law enforcement personnel will have less time to interfere with your work. Yes, it is true, nothing is too good for you, dear criminal. All we ask in return is that you continue to elect us to these powerful positions and make large cash donations to our cause. We are here for you.
Very truly yours,
Your liberal, progressive, socialist, communist and fascist friends in Washington, D.C.
In my heart of hearts I am a Libertarian. I believe the government has one purpose and that purpose is to govern. My definition of govern means to make sure the people are protected from each other (that does not mean to protect them from themselves) and to make sure there are adequate government resources to achieve that goal. I support a military focused on protecting us. I support protecting our borders. I support fire departments. I support laws against murder, robbery, rape and other things. In general, I support the things which help us maintain calm and order.
I do not support government telling me what to eat, forcing me to get a license to marry the person of my dreams, telling me whether or not I can own a firearm, or preventing me from finishing my basement b/c the new building code regulations are too expensive to fulfill.
Do I believe the Democrats have gone way too far in meddling in our lives? Yes. Do I think the Republicans have gone way too far in meddling in our lives? Yes. Do I think we need a lot less “two party” and a lot more Libertarianism? Yes.
Does that mean I am going to vote for a third party candidate on election day? NO.
Here is why. Right now our country is more or less divided when it comes to elections. Divided means split into two halves. Those halves aren’t necessarily equal, but our country is more or less split down the middle. You have Republicans and Democrats. The problem is we’re not really divided. We’re actually broken down further. In between the two big slices of the pie, there is a “third party” which is actually a collection of other political parties which make up a smaller portion of the whole. There are well known political parties in the “third party” such as Independent, Libertarian, Environmental, Tea Party, Communist, and Socialist. There are also less common parties such as Justice, Prohibition, and Labor. The problem with this “third party” is it makes up too small of a fraction of our population to get the traction needed to beat one of the big two.
Note: Before you start sending me emails about my “division” comment . . . depending upon how you look at parties (by registration or by voting) you get difference percentages. In “dividing” the country I based it primarily on the election outcomes for POTUS races which is arguably “divided” in most election years. Yes, I recognize in 1992 Ross Perot had enough votes to make it not a true “division” between the two major parties.
That’s not to say people from other parties can’t win an election. They do win. There just isn’t anyone from any of those other parties who gets the air time necessary to get the required votes in a POTUS election to win. It’s a unfortunate fact.
I have lots of Libertarian friends who are adamant about voting for their candidate. I applaud them for wanting to stand proud and send a message. They are correct. If they don’t vote for their candidate, they’ll never get traction.
After contemplating the options in this particular POTUS election, I have decided, no matter how much I believe in the Libertarian ideals, I cannot bring myself to vote for that candidate in this election.
SHOCKING. I KNOW.
Let me tell you why. This election has the potential to tip of the scales in America one way or the other. Not only are we split between Republicans and Democrats; we are also split between makers and takers. We used to be a nation of mostly makers. Now we are a nation where almost half are takers. We are becoming a welfare state. I honestly and sincerely believe, after this election, if the wrong person makes it back into the White House (and you know who I’m talking about) there will be nothing standing in the way of takers overtaking the makers.
Once the amount of people taking becomes more than 50% of our country, the takers will be empowered to take more and more from the makers. The takers will be the majority and they will win every future election we hold. People living off the government have will have no incentive to vote for smaller government or less government intrusion in their lives. We are already a country riddled with socialist programs which are failing. Imagine that administration, with no need to worry about reelection, going for broke (both figuratively and literally). Imagine a minority of makers having to support a majority of takers. We’re almost there.
Romney was correct. How can a candidate who believes in smaller government and cutting programs garner the vote of individuals who are fully or even partially living off the government? The number of people willing to put the needs of the country ahead of the needs of themselves is shrinking rapidly. I feel like I’m one of a dying breed.
Why am I telling you this? Because I ardently want every Libertarian to get behind Romney. Not because I support everything he stands for or agree with everything he has done in the past. I want every Libertarian to vote for Romney because I honestly believe if Romney doesn’t win, the scales will tip and there will never be a chance to put a Libertarian in the White House. Libertarians believe in smaller government. Libertarians have the same challenges getting the “takers” to support their candidates for the same reasons Romney has challenges getting the “takers” to support him.
If this election results in the current administration returning to the White House, it will be “game over” for those of use who are makers and those of us who support smaller government. Libertarians and Conservatives will never have another bite at the White House because too many votes will have been bought with our tax dollars via entitlement programs. Just look at the food stamp numbers and unemployment under the current administration. Just look at the growing infringement on our individual liberties.
As much as I love Libertarian ideals, there is no Libertarian candidate for POTUS who has the votes necessary to win the race. I’d rather see Libertarians vote for Romney if for no other reason than to (hopefully) have a chance in the future to run a candidate who can garner the votes necessary to be the man or woman to make it to the top.
Until that time, I don’t want to see the opportunity for the election of a true small government Libertarian forever sidelined by the takers. That is why I am voting for Romney and that is why I think you should vote for him, too.