If Obama could have written the bill himself he probably would have done that. Unfortunately it was Congress and Republican obstruction was and is still trying to scuttle Obamacare.
Democrats had drafting errors in the Affordable Care Act, and asked Republicans for years to enable fixes. Republicans refused, instead taking dozens of repeal votes and doing everything they could to undermine Obamacare. They even took some of these glitches to the Supreme Court, in an attempt to throw out large parts of the law because of a typo.
You mean back during Obama's first two years, when the Democrats had a majority in both Houses of Congress and could have passed the ACA in any form they wanted...yet chose not to? They didn't *need* Republican support during those first two years.
*************
I see that Kim Jong-Un was summoned to decided to travel to Beijing to be lectured to to discuss denuclearization with his controller Xi Jinping. Apparently, KJU was told to is willing to give up nuclear weapons and even invited Mr. Xi (surnames in front of given names, thank you) to Pyongyang for another meeting. KJU is slated to meet with Moon Jae-in next month and reportedly both he and Trump are planning a face-to-face at some point in the near future.
We are probably still a decade away from reunification, but joining the athletes into one team at the Olympics and face-to-face meetings is a start.
*************
The Bureau of the Census is moving ahead with its plans to include a question about citizenship on its 2020 form; several States are going to sue over the move, claiming that it will intimidate immigrants from filling out the Census. hrm...okay. Quick question: any guesses on how many illegal immigrants fill out a Census form? Probably not that many--some of them don't have mailing addresses and won't receive a form at all. How many legal immigrants are going to fill out a Census form? Probably quite a few--they are already complying with immigration laws so this is just another stupid form to fill out. How many naturalized citizens are going to fill out a Census? Probably all of them--they worked hard to attain their citizenship, so I suspect they are proud of it.
Although a question about citizenship status has not been on the actual Census form since the 1950s, it *is* included on the American Community Survey which the BotC sends out every year. I guess no one cares about that form because no one complains about it. That being said, that form isn't used for the official count, either, the number which determines representation and Federal funding for a lot of programs.
*************
erm...why is Trump wanting to bring back Rob Porter? Weird.
*************
Finally, Orange County is defying the rest of California and has decided that it will publish information on when inmates are to be released from custody in order to assist ICE agents in apprehending undocumented people as they are freed its jail system. That is going to be an interesting in-house fight between Sacramento and Santa Ana (the county seat, in case you were wondering).
In this case, "Republican obstruction" refers to the GOP's attempts to repeal the ACA and to prevent enforcement of its provisions, not just the GOP's numerous demands during the process of writing the bill (some of which were granted but still resulted in no Republican votes for the bill). It's possible for the GOP to oppose the ACA during the drafting process and also oppose it after it was already passed.
How does that have anything to do with the minimal coverage requirements in the ACA, which is what Obama claimed would not result in people losing their plans or having to change doctors? If you can find me even one example of a Republican calling for minimal coverage requirements in 2009-2010 I'd be impressed.
If Republican obstruction had actually prevented enforcement of that provision, then Obama's claims would actually have been true. Alas, they were a bald-faced lie. He knew what he said in his reelection campaign was untrue, yet he repeated it consistently.
@Mathsorcerer: I think you're overestimating Xi's influence over Kim. The Kim regime is fickle even in the eyes of Beijing, and while Beijing is very much committed to keeping North Korea stable and therefore out of America's hands, Pyongyang has no sense of loyalty or affection for China. North Korea is indeed dependent on China for various reasons, but North Korea also knows that China can't withhold their support for the North without risking the Kim regime's collapse, at which point the U.S. will move right in, unify the peninsula with South Korea's help, and probably put American soldiers right on the border with China. North Korea can get away with snubbing China, but China can't get away with cutting off their support for North Korea.
North Korea doesn't just have missiles aimed at South Korea or Japan. It also has missiles aimed at China.
@semiticgod I have long held the opinion that Beijing keeps Pyongyang on a short leash--in their eyes the DPRK is their proxy they use against the South, which they see as our proxy. Ultimately, of course, China wants *stability* in the region, which is why I am of the opinion that Beijing is the one who quietly reins in Pyongyang when its leaders get...weird.
Their facial language at the photo op handshake seems to say a lot.
A survey of results of over 0.5m pupils has concluded that grammar schools (selective) don't get better exam results than other schools.
That study is consistent with previous research I've seen over many years, so why is it that the Department for Education (DfE) response is "Research shows that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds make better progress across core subjects in selective schools, and attain better results"?
The answer is it depends on how you look at the results: - the above study looks at how pupils would be expected to perform based on a range of factors, e.g. prior attainment, poverty, language ability and age within their peer group. Taking those factors into account selective schools don't improve expected results. - the DfE response is based on looking at the performance of pupils against their cohort. A pupil who has high prior attainment will be likely to do better in future than one with low prior attainment. Selective schools take pupils with high prior attainment and those pupils will (on average) perform better than other pupils in their cohort.
Many years ago I produced the first set of what are now called "value-added" exam results in my local authority - looking at the improvement in individual pupil performances compared to their prior results. At that stage doing that was difficult because pupils' results did not use unique identifiers, so matching results from different years was very time-consuming. Not long after that though the government introduced unique pupil numbers and there has been a steady move over time towards making more use of value added information. Assessing the performance of grammar schools is one of the few areas where this is not done at the government level - as to do so would undercut the political views of the current government.
Exam performance is strongly linked to social status, so grammar schools are not just academically selective, but socially selective as well - taking a much lower proportion of pupils who receive free school meals than non-selective schools in their area. Whether that's good or bad depends on your point of view, but I would like it if people that support the idea of grammar schools would come clean about the fact that they're really interested in social engineering rather than academic achievement.
There are only a few areas in the UK that still use grammar schools, but the same basic patterns can be seen in other types of schools as well. Some years ago the government allowed Free Schools to be set up, which are not bound by many of the normal school regulations. Those schools are very varied in nature, but some of them are at least partially selective. In such schools there is a clear trend to take better performing pupils over time, which makes their unadjusted exam results look better in the same way as at grammar schools.
I'm much less familiar with US schooling, but the information I have seen on that over the years suggests that exactly the same situation applies, i.e. that once you control for other factors the improved exam performance in selective schools disappears. The argument for selection thus becomes essentially a social one, e.g. does attending a more socially homogeneous school better equip you for future life?
Does anybody care, i.e employers, about "value added" exam results? I would have thought nobody outside the education system gives a damn whether a pupil obtains a "C" rather than an "A" but is then told that the "C" is just as good because of the "added value".
It's not social enginnering to try and do the best you can as a parent for your child.
It's social engineering when the state turns round and says parental influence has to be cancelled out by the state to make things "fair".
And it's so short term. Every country needs the brightest, the most intelligent to do the best they can. And part of that is allowing those parents that can provide the best enviroment for their children to be part of the process. Long term that will earn the money for the state to spend.
The UK has a very dishonest attitude towards what the "elite" with all their privelidge, all their advantages (private/selective schools ect.) has provided historically and up to now, to the country.
We have the top ranking Universities not because it's fair, but because we have enough of a very well educated "elite" of our own to make them world beaters. Nothing whatsoever to do with equality or fairness.
We have a ridiculously high ratio of Nobel Prize winners to population because we have an "elite" and all of us benefit from that. Nothing to do with fairness or equality.
The mantra for equality in education never, ever looks at what happens when what actually does so well for the country gets replaced, long term. It never tackles the very thorny problem that children grow up in large part outside of education and that has the biggest impact. Short of removing children at birth from goddam awful parents, equality in education will always mean holding the brightest back when you look at outcomes. And the current equality mantra is to look at "outcomes", from the effing gender pay gap to the effing "diversity" quotas.
Other countries would give their eye teeth to have so many obtaining the top strata of achievers world wide. And perhaps might be a little bit more honest about how that's achieved. And which ultimately keeps the country functioning on all levels.
Value added results are not about measuring individual performance, but that of schools. In traditional league tables grammar schools are normally placed high, but that reflects the quality of their intake rather than the quality of the schools.
For a large majority of their pupils the evidence has been clear for many years that grammar schools do not help them achieve academically any better than comprehensives - and it's their lack of effectiveness that's my main objection to grammar schools, though I do also think they're expensive and divisive.
Where I have a bit of sympathy with your argument is for the exceptional students - say the top 1-2%. The state school system as a whole has never been much good at realizing the potential of this group, but I agree that grammar schools have probably done a marginally better job. I think one reason for that is that there has been too much concentration in many state schools on concentrating resources on trying to bring as many students as possible up to a minimum mark rather than trying to get the maximum improvement for all students. Another good reason to use value added measures to assess schools is to get away from this tendency to concentrate on pushing as many students as possible into the 5 A-C bracket or whatever other benchmarks are being used to construct league tables.
I'm not against the idea of elite academic institutions at all. Oxford and Cambridge take about 7,500 undergraduates out of getting on for 0.5m going to university education as a whole and that's a small enough proportion to make describing them as elite reasonable. I agree that the sort of concentration of talent that allows has lots of benefits for wider society and I wouldn't object to that type of idea being used at secondary school (it already is at sixth form level). Grammar schools are not elite institutions in that sense though - they take perhaps 30% of the total pupil cohort.
However, I do believe that if you want elite public institutions they should be academically elite, rather than socially elite. If parents and students want the latter, that's available in the private sector. I can see potential reasons why a parent would want to send children to a socially elite school, but I don't think those are reasons that the state should be paying for.
As a family we fall into the lower end of income, I mean really low. My son has never been on a family holiday, he's 18 in August, because of the cost. He goes with the school on trips, as did my other children, because we can manage to pay for one at a time when they come up.
However, comparing the Grammar and the local comp, it's nothing to do with money, it's attitude. In the grammar the teachers care, they go above and beyond for the pupils because they believe in the pupils. In the comp, you are fighting constantly to simply get anybody to do anything beyond the narrow prescriptive job parameters. But then I can't blame them, they know that a percentage of children and their parents using the school couldn't give two monkeys about education. So why should they?
And the reason is that as a society we don't have the guts to kick children out of school, we don't have the guts to come down like a ton of hot bricks on bloody awful parents. Education is a priviledge not a right, and until the UK starts trumpeting that loud and clear, nothing is going to get better.
So let's keep the private and the grammar schools going because somebody in the future is going to have to earn enough to pay those tax bills.
And laughably, the comp has outstanding reports. It's a great school people say. Well as far as I can see, that really says a lot for what other parents are having to put up with in the schools they have to use.
@UnderstandMouseMagic I can certainly believe there's a difference in attitude between the schools. I have no recent experience of grammar schools, but there were certainly major differences in attitudes in the past between grammar schools and secondary moderns - and that's not surprising given the different messages about success and failure that were given to the pupils that go to one or the other type of school.
Without knowing the schools you're referring to I obviously can't say which is more academically successful. However, as I said previously if you adjust for differences in intake then comprehensive schools as a group are just as successful academically as grammar schools. There are of course lots of other reasons for choosing a particular school and it sounds like a more formal approach to discipline suits you and your children. That's fine, but there's no particular reason why you need grammar schools in order to adopt that sort of approach.
So uh Chaos Trump fired the VA secretary and has nominated the last military physician he talked to, his personal physician Dr. Rony Jackson, to head the VA. Trump had just last month, after meeting him once apparently recommended Jackson for a military promotion. So he might be a good doctor to the president but what makes him qualified to run the VA? Maybe a general or fleet admiral or somebody not the last guy you talked to idiot.
Not even close to the best people. A cabinet of unqualifieds.
@smeagolheart What do you think the issue is with Jackson? It looks like he's doctor and a high ranking member of the military. Seems like he could bring something to the table for the VA. He was even the appointed physician to Obama as well. Of course if his administration skills are not good it would not help, but on the outside, so far does not look to bad. Personally I'd like have an officer of the USPHS in there, but maybe he can be of some help to the service members he has had a role with. I see has experience in logistics as well. Course maybe I am missing something, as it seems there are always things to be missed these days.
smeagolheart What do you think the issue is with Jackson? It looks like he's doctor and a high ranking member of the military. Seems like he could bring something to the table for the VA. He was even the appointed physician to Obama as well. Of course if his administration skills are not good it would not help, but on the outside, so far does not look to bad. Personally I'd like have an officer of the USPHS in there, but maybe he can be of some help to the service members he has had a role with. I see has experience in logistics as well. Course maybe I am missing something, as it seems there are always things to be missed these days.
How about, "pass me and I'll make you Secretary of VA?"
@UnderstandMouseMagic I can certainly believe there's a difference in attitude between the schools. I have no recent experience of grammar schools, but there were certainly major differences in attitudes in the past between grammar schools and secondary moderns - and that's not surprising given the different messages about success and failure that were given to the pupils that go to one or the other type of school.
Without knowing the schools you're referring to I obviously can't say which is more academically successful. However, as I said previously if you adjust for differences in intake then comprehensive schools as a group are just as successful academically as grammar schools. There are of course lots of other reasons for choosing a particular school and it sounds like a more formal approach to discipline suits you and your children. That's fine, but there's no particular reason why you need grammar schools in order to adopt that sort of approach.
The comp is harder on pupils when it comes to discipline. They do not trust the children and to some extent, with good reason.
The thing is, I don't let and have never let my children hang around with certain types of children. And I doubt there is a parent who has not taken the decision to not allow their child to play with somebody who they know is a bad influence. Why should schools, the goverment, society decide for people who they "must" mix with?
Adults, every single day, decide for themselves that there are certain types who are trouble makers and it's not a good idea to have them in their social circle. And when they are employed, hopefully, they have recourse to complain when there are adults who are making it impossible for them to work. Of course sometimes that doesn't work, the systems are not perfect and neither is society.
But show me the adult who is forced to work somewhere where some of their co workers only aim in life is to do as little as possible and stop them working as well. And then when the day is over or when unsupervised, cause trouble for those who do work.
Impossible to imagine, yet that's the enviroment the education system, especially if on the left politically, demands children put up with.
@smeagolheart What do you think the issue is with Jackson? It looks like he's doctor and a high ranking member of the military. Seems like he could bring something to the table for the VA. He was even the appointed physician to Obama as well. Of course if his administration skills are not good it would not help, but on the outside, so far does not look to bad. Personally I'd like have an officer of the USPHS in there, but maybe he can be of some help to the service members he has had a role with. I see has experience in logistics as well. Course maybe I am missing something, as it seems there are always things to be missed these days.
Honestly I don't know anything about Jackson other than hearing him slightly exaggerate some results of Trumps physical. I am concerned that Trump did not do a thorough search for the best person. It seems like he just picked the military doctor he talked to last. Jackson does physicals for presidents, not sure that qualifies him to run the vast bureaucracy of the VA.
As we've seen with Trump again and again, he wants to install people who are loyal to him personally and not necessarily the best person to do the job.
@smeagolheart What do you think the issue is with Jackson? It looks like he's doctor and a high ranking member of the military. Seems like he could bring something to the table for the VA. He was even the appointed physician to Obama as well. Of course if his administration skills are not good it would not help, but on the outside, so far does not look to bad. Personally I'd like have an officer of the USPHS in there, but maybe he can be of some help to the service members he has had a role with. I see has experience in logistics as well. Course maybe I am missing something, as it seems there are always things to be missed these days.
Being a doctor doesn't make one qualifed to run the VA, which is responsible for 9 million veterans, and is one of the largest governmental organizations. And it has been marred with problems recently. While being run by people WITH Administrative experience. Trump seems to have simply picked the person closest to him in the medical field and said "here, you run it." No thought could have possibly been put into this. Being a physician doesn't mean that person can effectively, or even competently run an organization of this size. How about finding 3 or 4 of the best hospital Administrators in the country and interviewing each one of them extensively to find the right fit?? Nope, too much work. I guarantee Trump didn't even put 5 minutes of thought into this.
I'm sure the fight to get Jackson in the VA and pass muster by the senate will interesting to say the least. I'll be interesting in hearing what questions they bring up and how Jackson presents himself as qualified for the job.
I'm sure the fight to get Jackson in the VA and pass muster by the senate will interesting to say the least. I'll be interesting in hearing what questions they bring up and how Jackson presents himself as qualified for the job.
There will be no fight, as long as he doesn't have a tape of him saying Trumps a moron (pretty much the only disqualifing thing) Republicans will rubber stamp him into the job with simple majority vote. This is why we need more Democrats in office.
I mean they've rubber stamped Betsy Devos, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, and Scott Pruitt without a sweat. This seemingly average non crazy person won't have a problem. Being unqualified isn't a disqualifing factor for Republicans.
Really, it needs one with at least an MPH and and an MBA/MPA with good administrative experience in the past. Yeah, more than just being a Dr. would be helpful.
I had the pleasure of meeting Jeb Bush today! His gave a very thoughtful speech on the future of conservativism, and he spoke a lot about immigration and free trade.
What a stark contrast between Jeb's mannerly and good-natured personality and Trump's sophomoric machismo. I've admired and disliked many politicians in my time, but Jeb Bush is the only one I've ever found relatable.
Get this: I introduced myself saying "Its a pleasure to meet you, I'm 'Boo'". He goes "Hi, I'm Jeb"... as if anyone in the room who came to see him speak somehow didn't know his name.
Never change, Jeb, you adorable, socially-awkward dork. I will always clap for you.
I had the pleasure of meeting Jeb Bush today! His gave a very thoughtful speech on the future of conservativism, and he spoke a lot about immigration and free trade.
What a stark contrast between Jeb's mannerly and good-natured personality and Trump's sophomoric machismo. I've admired and disliked many politicians in my time, but Jeb Bush is the only one I've ever found relatable.
Get this: I introduced myself saying "Its a pleasure to meet you, I'm 'Boo'". He goes "Hi, I'm Jeb"... as if anyone in the room who came to see him speak somehow didn't know his name.
Never change, Jeb, you adorable, socially-awkward dork. I will always clap for you.
Makes me want to introduce myself as "Hi, I'm Jeb" and seeing what his response would be. I'd snicker for a "Me Too!"
Jeb does seem like the best Bush. W looks good in comparison to Trump but he was pretty much a terrible President. HW wasn't the worst, I thought Clinton did a better job though what with balancing the budget and America was respected around the world. That went downhill fast when we got W in office.
Our president ladies and gentlemen, the Fox News President featuring conspiracy theories, lunacy, racism and all.
Vietnam Veterans of America president John Rowan told said he was disappointed that the President had removed Shulkin, but he also expressed some relief at the pick, adding that it could have been worse. Because he's seen Trump's other picks.
Since the formula is so reliable, let's get @booinyoureyes to be the next Attorney General! It's a two-step plan: 1) Go on Fox and Friends (using your TV and right-wing political connections) and say that Trump has won every legal case he's ever been involved in, and that you'll kick anyone who says otherwise right in their filthy mouth. 2) Hope Jeff Sessions can hang in there until you pass the bar.
...there's at least like an 8% chance that would work, right?
Since the formula is so reliable, let's get @booinyoureyes to be the next Attorney General! It's a two-step plan: 1) Go on Fox and Friends (using your TV and right-wing political connections) and say that Trump has won every legal case he's ever been involved in, and that you'll kick anyone who says otherwise right in their filthy mouth. 2) Hope Jeff Sessions can hang in there until you pass the bar.
...there's at least like an 8% chance that would work, right?
I just graduated in December, took the bar in February, and my entire legal work experience includes being a summer associate and a fill-in clerk on a district court for three months.
.... so in other words, I'm totally qualified by Trump standards :P
If only I knew someone on right-wing TV. Let me email Sean Hannity and we'll make this happen.
@UnderstandMouseMagic I can certainly believe there's a difference in attitude between the schools. I have no recent experience of grammar schools, but there were certainly major differences in attitudes in the past between grammar schools and secondary moderns - and that's not surprising given the different messages about success and failure that were given to the pupils that go to one or the other type of school.
Without knowing the schools you're referring to I obviously can't say which is more academically successful. However, as I said previously if you adjust for differences in intake then comprehensive schools as a group are just as successful academically as grammar schools. There are of course lots of other reasons for choosing a particular school and it sounds like a more formal approach to discipline suits you and your children. That's fine, but there's no particular reason why you need grammar schools in order to adopt that sort of approach.
The comp is harder on pupils when it comes to discipline. They do not trust the children and to some extent, with good reason.
The thing is, I don't let and have never let my children hang around with certain types of children. And I doubt there is a parent who has not taken the decision to not allow their child to play with somebody who they know is a bad influence. Why should schools, the goverment, society decide for people who they "must" mix with?
Adults, every single day, decide for themselves that there are certain types who are trouble makers and it's not a good idea to have them in their social circle. And when they are employed, hopefully, they have recourse to complain when there are adults who are making it impossible for them to work. Of course sometimes that doesn't work, the systems are not perfect and neither is society.
But show me the adult who is forced to work somewhere where some of their co workers only aim in life is to do as little as possible and stop them working as well. And then when the day is over or when unsupervised, cause trouble for those who do work.
Impossible to imagine, yet that's the enviroment the education system, especially if on the left politically, demands children put up with.
In terms of arguing academic results with you I find myself in a difficult position. I know that, overall, comprehensives do as well as grammars, but I also know there are big differences between individual schools. It's thus possible that your local comprehensive does poorly, as a result of low expectations from pupils and staff. Would you like to give me the school names so that I can check if there really is the sort of difference you suggest in results?
In terms of the issue of choice, that's a big topic. At the individual level I can absolutely understand your position, but the results of a series of individual choices may result in self-segregation - and personally I'm uncomfortable with the idea of children growing up without being exposed to wider viewpoints and cultures. The result of that can be the almost entirely separate cultures you get in places like Bradford and I don't think that's healthy for society as a whole. This short article provides a good summary of the issues, though I don't think anyone has come up with really good answers.
My son is disabled and we had him educated in mainstream schools. It's arguable whether that was the best solution for him and I'm still not sure about that now. What does seem very clear to me though is that there was a benefit to society as a whole as a result of the other pupils at his schools interacting with him. If you believe (and I do) that disabled people should be able to fully participate in society rather than leading hidden lives, then providing some shared experience of disability to children is a helpful step to making that happen.
Apparently, one of Turmp's lawyers suggested at some point last year that Manafort and Flynn could receive pardons. This news story is neither relevant nor newsworthy, unless it is somehow illegal to propose pardoning someone (which it isn't). The fact that neither one actually received a pardon makes this another case of "not only is there no fire, there isn't even any smoke". Trump doesn't have to fire Mueller; instead, he could just start handing out pardons every time someone gets indicted for something, which would have the net effect of making all of the Mueller Team's efforts null and void. Sure, they can try to file State charges but you can't file a State charge against someone in New York (chosen at random) if the crime did not happen in New York State. Besides, the charges which have actually been made are for things like "lying to Federal investigators", "bank fraud", and "conspiracy to commit bank fraud", all of which are Federal charges and thus pardonable.
In the long run, the Mueller Investigation is not going to nail Trump over allegations that his campaign colluded with Russian operatives to rig or fix the outcome of the election. Instead, what will actually bring Trump to the risk of indictment and/or impeachment will be the lawsuit over the payments foreign officials have made to the Trump International Hotel because those payments might violate the emoluments clause...even though, technically, it should be referenced under the Title of Nobility Clause. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Trump's way out here, though, would be for Congress to approve those payments. What are the odds that a Republican majority Congress will make such an approval, though?
*************
Just out of curiosity, why would Ms. Clifford choose to have an affair with Trump? Was she enamored with his rugged, handsome features or his physique? Her reasons are her own, of course, but if I were female he would not be my first choice.
Just out of curiosity, why would Ms. Clifford choose to have an affair with Trump? Was she enamored with his rugged, handsome features or his physique? Her reasons are her own, of course, but if I were female he would not be my first choice.
It may have been monetary, though that would be illegal. If not, some women just have a thing for men with high status or power. It need not be someone with a brilliant mind or great personality. It might have even just been curiosity.
Just out of curiosity, why would Ms. Clifford choose to have an affair with Trump? Was she enamored with his rugged, handsome features or his physique? Her reasons are her own, of course, but if I were female he would not be my first choice.
It may have been monetary, though that would be illegal. If not, some women just have a thing for men with high status or power. It need not be someone with a brilliant mind or great personality. It might have even just been curiosity.
True. I was not attacking her character and she certainly doesn't have to explain her actions to anyone (well, with the exception of Melania).
As far as the illegal portion is concerned...well, that's just ridiculous. If I take a woman to a hotel room, we have sex, and then I pay her for it, that is prostitution and therefore a crime. If I take a woman to a hotel room, we have sex, film it, and then I pay her for it, that is "making an amateur porn film" and is perfectly legal.
Comments
*************
I see that Kim Jong-Un
was summoned todecided to travel to Beijingto be lectured toto discuss denuclearization withhis controllerXi Jinping. Apparently, KJUwas told tois willing to give up nuclear weapons and even invited Mr. Xi (surnames in front of given names, thank you) to Pyongyang for another meeting. KJU is slated to meet with Moon Jae-in next month and reportedly both he and Trump are planning a face-to-face at some point in the near future.We are probably still a decade away from reunification, but joining the athletes into one team at the Olympics and face-to-face meetings is a start.
*************
The Bureau of the Census is moving ahead with its plans to include a question about citizenship on its 2020 form; several States are going to sue over the move, claiming that it will intimidate immigrants from filling out the Census. hrm...okay. Quick question: any guesses on how many illegal immigrants fill out a Census form? Probably not that many--some of them don't have mailing addresses and won't receive a form at all. How many legal immigrants are going to fill out a Census form? Probably quite a few--they are already complying with immigration laws so this is just another stupid form to fill out. How many naturalized citizens are going to fill out a Census? Probably all of them--they worked hard to attain their citizenship, so I suspect they are proud of it.
Although a question about citizenship status has not been on the actual Census form since the 1950s, it *is* included on the American Community Survey which the BotC sends out every year. I guess no one cares about that form because no one complains about it. That being said, that form isn't used for the official count, either, the number which determines representation and Federal funding for a lot of programs.
*************
erm...why is Trump wanting to bring back Rob Porter? Weird.
*************
Finally, Orange County is defying the rest of California and has decided that it will publish information on when inmates are to be released from custody in order to assist ICE agents in apprehending undocumented people as they are freed its jail system. That is going to be an interesting in-house fight between Sacramento and Santa Ana (the county seat, in case you were wondering).
If Republican obstruction had actually prevented enforcement of that provision, then Obama's claims would actually have been true. Alas, they were a bald-faced lie. He knew what he said in his reelection campaign was untrue, yet he repeated it consistently.
Keep in mind he was saying this in 2012, two years after the passage of the ACA.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
North Korea doesn't just have missiles aimed at South Korea or Japan. It also has missiles aimed at China.
Their facial language at the photo op handshake seems to say a lot.
For a large majority of their pupils the evidence has been clear for many years that grammar schools do not help them achieve academically any better than comprehensives - and it's their lack of effectiveness that's my main objection to grammar schools, though I do also think they're expensive and divisive.
Where I have a bit of sympathy with your argument is for the exceptional students - say the top 1-2%. The state school system as a whole has never been much good at realizing the potential of this group, but I agree that grammar schools have probably done a marginally better job. I think one reason for that is that there has been too much concentration in many state schools on concentrating resources on trying to bring as many students as possible up to a minimum mark rather than trying to get the maximum improvement for all students. Another good reason to use value added measures to assess schools is to get away from this tendency to concentrate on pushing as many students as possible into the 5 A-C bracket or whatever other benchmarks are being used to construct league tables.
I'm not against the idea of elite academic institutions at all. Oxford and Cambridge take about 7,500 undergraduates out of getting on for 0.5m going to university education as a whole and that's a small enough proportion to make describing them as elite reasonable. I agree that the sort of concentration of talent that allows has lots of benefits for wider society and I wouldn't object to that type of idea being used at secondary school (it already is at sixth form level). Grammar schools are not elite institutions in that sense though - they take perhaps 30% of the total pupil cohort.
However, I do believe that if you want elite public institutions they should be academically elite, rather than socially elite. If parents and students want the latter, that's available in the private sector. I can see potential reasons why a parent would want to send children to a socially elite school, but I don't think those are reasons that the state should be paying for.
Two of my children attended Grammar school.
As a family we fall into the lower end of income, I mean really low.
My son has never been on a family holiday, he's 18 in August, because of the cost. He goes with the school on trips, as did my other children, because we can manage to pay for one at a time when they come up.
However, comparing the Grammar and the local comp, it's nothing to do with money, it's attitude.
In the grammar the teachers care, they go above and beyond for the pupils because they believe in the pupils.
In the comp, you are fighting constantly to simply get anybody to do anything beyond the narrow prescriptive job parameters.
But then I can't blame them, they know that a percentage of children and their parents using the school couldn't give two monkeys about education. So why should they?
And the reason is that as a society we don't have the guts to kick children out of school, we don't have the guts to come down like a ton of hot bricks on bloody awful parents.
Education is a priviledge not a right, and until the UK starts trumpeting that loud and clear, nothing is going to get better.
So let's keep the private and the grammar schools going because somebody in the future is going to have to earn enough to pay those tax bills.
And laughably, the comp has outstanding reports. It's a great school people say.
Well as far as I can see, that really says a lot for what other parents are having to put up with in the schools they have to use.
Without knowing the schools you're referring to I obviously can't say which is more academically successful. However, as I said previously if you adjust for differences in intake then comprehensive schools as a group are just as successful academically as grammar schools. There are of course lots of other reasons for choosing a particular school and it sounds like a more formal approach to discipline suits you and your children. That's fine, but there's no particular reason why you need grammar schools in order to adopt that sort of approach.
Not even close to the best people. A cabinet of unqualifieds.
Of course if his administration skills are not good it would not help, but on the outside, so far does not look to bad. Personally I'd like have an officer of the USPHS in there, but maybe he can be of some help to the service members he has had a role with. I see has experience in logistics as well.
Course maybe I am missing something, as it seems there are always things to be missed these days.
They do not trust the children and to some extent, with good reason.
The thing is, I don't let and have never let my children hang around with certain types of children. And I doubt there is a parent who has not taken the decision to not allow their child to play with somebody who they know is a bad influence.
Why should schools, the goverment, society decide for people who they "must" mix with?
Adults, every single day, decide for themselves that there are certain types who are trouble makers and it's not a good idea to have them in their social circle.
And when they are employed, hopefully, they have recourse to complain when there are adults who are making it impossible for them to work.
Of course sometimes that doesn't work, the systems are not perfect and neither is society.
But show me the adult who is forced to work somewhere where some of their co workers only aim in life is to do as little as possible and stop them working as well. And then when the day is over or when unsupervised, cause trouble for those who do work.
Impossible to imagine, yet that's the enviroment the education system, especially if on the left politically, demands children put up with.
As we've seen with Trump again and again, he wants to install people who are loyal to him personally and not necessarily the best person to do the job.
I mean they've rubber stamped Betsy Devos, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, and Scott Pruitt without a sweat. This seemingly average non crazy person won't have a problem. Being unqualified isn't a disqualifing factor for Republicans.
What a stark contrast between Jeb's mannerly and good-natured personality and Trump's sophomoric machismo. I've admired and disliked many politicians in my time, but Jeb Bush is the only one I've ever found relatable.
Get this: I introduced myself saying "Its a pleasure to meet you, I'm 'Boo'". He goes "Hi, I'm Jeb"... as if anyone in the room who came to see him speak somehow didn't know his name.
Never change, Jeb, you adorable, socially-awkward dork. I will always clap for you.
Back about Jackson, according to White House Official (who wanted to remain anonymous because he didn't want to get fired) the reason that Jackson got the job was because Trump thought he did a good job on TV with the Press and said good things about Trump. Just like jjstraka thought. Simple as that.
Our president ladies and gentlemen, the Fox News President featuring conspiracy theories, lunacy, racism and all.
Vietnam Veterans of America president John Rowan told said he was disappointed that the President had removed Shulkin, but he also expressed some relief at the pick, adding that it could have been worse. Because he's seen Trump's other picks.
1) Go on Fox and Friends (using your TV and right-wing political connections) and say that Trump has won every legal case he's ever been involved in, and that you'll kick anyone who says otherwise right in their filthy mouth.
2) Hope Jeff Sessions can hang in there until you pass the bar.
...there's at least like an 8% chance that would work, right?
.... so in other words, I'm totally qualified by Trump standards :P
If only I knew someone on right-wing TV. Let me email Sean Hannity and we'll make this happen.
In terms of the issue of choice, that's a big topic. At the individual level I can absolutely understand your position, but the results of a series of individual choices may result in self-segregation - and personally I'm uncomfortable with the idea of children growing up without being exposed to wider viewpoints and cultures. The result of that can be the almost entirely separate cultures you get in places like Bradford and I don't think that's healthy for society as a whole. This short article provides a good summary of the issues, though I don't think anyone has come up with really good answers.
My son is disabled and we had him educated in mainstream schools. It's arguable whether that was the best solution for him and I'm still not sure about that now. What does seem very clear to me though is that there was a benefit to society as a whole as a result of the other pupils at his schools interacting with him. If you believe (and I do) that disabled people should be able to fully participate in society rather than leading hidden lives, then providing some shared experience of disability to children is a helpful step to making that happen.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/380736-jeb-bush-hits-trump-i-go-home-to-children-who-actually-love-me
Trump doesn't have to fire Mueller; instead, he could just start handing out pardons every time someone gets indicted for something, which would have the net effect of making all of the Mueller Team's efforts null and void. Sure, they can try to file State charges but you can't file a State charge against someone in New York (chosen at random) if the crime did not happen in New York State. Besides, the charges which have actually been made are for things like "lying to Federal investigators", "bank fraud", and "conspiracy to commit bank fraud", all of which are Federal charges and thus pardonable.
In the long run, the Mueller Investigation is not going to nail Trump over allegations that his campaign colluded with Russian operatives to rig or fix the outcome of the election. Instead, what will actually bring Trump to the risk of indictment and/or impeachment will be the lawsuit over the payments foreign officials have made to the Trump International Hotel because those payments might violate the emoluments clause...even though, technically, it should be referenced under the Title of Nobility Clause. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: Trump's way out here, though, would be for Congress to approve those payments. What are the odds that a Republican majority Congress will make such an approval, though?
*************
Just out of curiosity, why would Ms. Clifford choose to have an affair with Trump? Was she enamored with his rugged, handsome features or his physique? Her reasons are her own, of course, but if I were female he would not be my first choice.
As far as the illegal portion is concerned...well, that's just ridiculous. If I take a woman to a hotel room, we have sex, and then I pay her for it, that is prostitution and therefore a crime. If I take a woman to a hotel room, we have sex, film it, and then I pay her for it, that is "making an amateur porn film" and is perfectly legal.