Wikipedia

Search results

Showing posts with label Credibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Credibility. Show all posts

18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

On the Use of Chloroform

It is perhaps unfortunate that James Y. Simpson stressed the ease with which chloroform could be used to produce unconsciousness without resort to specialised equipment [1]. The potential advantages were not lost on the criminal fraternity who were quick to attempt a variety of crimes including rape and robbery under its influence. Unlike the use of the cudgel, the garrotte and the pistol it was not a felony in English Law to administer chloroform to another unless the purpose was murder or abortion!.

As early as 1851 it was public knowledge that chloroform had been used for various criminal purposes as witnessed by a well-known cartoon in Punch magazine of that year [2].

Influence Matters Not Position

When was the last time you thought about how you influence others — how you change minds, shape opinions, move others to act? Have you thought about it at all? Perhaps you have been under the impression that Influence is not a skill?

The ability to influence is one of the essential skills for leaders at all levels. It’s more art than science, and it can be tough to get your arms around. But the bottom line is that influence matters. And as we continue to morph (at breakneck speed) into an interconnected, interdependent, increasingly global workplace, it will matter more.

Debunk from F.E.E. on the Common Core Deniers


The Foundation for Excellence in Education, states --below in the Background area of their article -- that they respect much of the work of the American Principles Project and the work of Ms. Gallagher.

I don't.

First off, why is a 501.(c)(3) Non-Profit commenting on and campaigning against Government Policy in the first place?

So far every claim they have made against Common Core has been (dis)Information. There is a very important difference between "misinformation" and "disinformation".  Misinformation means that you didn't know what you were propagating was inaccurate. It means that you had no other agenda other than attempting to provide the best information you had available, and that what you knew was of importance.

DisInformation is something else entirely,

Stotsky's Thoughts
on Stotsky's Criteria

Professor Sandra Stotsky loves to play the tune that the Common Core State Standards were not Benchmarked against International Standards.

As shown several times on many posts, this isn't true -- and not even close to being true for that matter, as the Common Core was Benchmarked against International Standards a recorded four separate times by over 100 people, and then the Validation team (29 individuals) benchmarked them again during that process over the period of six months. Since Stotsky really didn't participate in that process I guess she couldn't have known the extent of effort which went into it -- which brings up a few interesting questions:

  • Does Stotsky reference and utilize International Standards when she is evaluating or researching Standards? 
  • Does she even ask for the opinion or advice of others in the field? 
  • Does Stotsky see anyone else's advice or opinion more valuable than her own? 
  • Does Stotsky see anyone else's advice or opinion as equal to her own?
I have discovered a document that I personally feel, will give insight into the answers to these questions. I base this on the expansiveness and wide-range of investigation the project demands. The project is  covering many different beliefs and educational methods.  Being unfamiliar with that system and the method beliefs behind it, simply coming in cold and judging it -- disregarding the methods behind it completely -- would be highly unprofessional. If you were so crass as to do that, you would, of course,  be very careful to cite sources to qualify your disagreement with their methods. So one person tasked with such a project would, without question, start calling people to help out, and begin building a team of experts -- probably with a bit of panic in their voice as well.

Performing a review of the different standards of 50 States would seem to be such a project. Obviously your first task would be to gather a team of collaboration. As a point of reference to give an idea of the kind of task you are looking at here: evaluating the Common Core was assigned to a team of 29 highly skilled people, and took over six months to complete. That is the evaluation of ONE standard. Surely no single person could be such a megalomaniac as to feel that their experience could possibly cover such a wide range of belief systems and educational viewpoints.

Stotsky, Sandra. "The State of State English Standards, 2005." Thomas B Fordham Foundation and Institute (2005).
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED485523.pdf

"In 1996, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation asked me to do a detailed review of the state standards that existed at the time. Developing a review form with 34 criteria organized in five major sections, I reviewed almost all of the available state E/LA/R standards documents. The standards in 21 of the 28 states I reviewed had been tentatively judged by the AFT to be clear and specific enough to meet its “common core” criterion. My own review, however,published by Fordham in 1997, found few of these state standards capable of serving the intended purposes.

"Two years later, the number of states with approved E/LA/R standards had jumped to 49 (including the District of Columbia). At Fordham’s invitation, I under took a second round of reviews in 1999, using the same criteria. Published in January 2000, the completed report highlighted areas of strength and weakness in these 49 sets of standards and compared the changes since 1997 on 11 criteria. To my knowledge, there has been no detailed review of state standards for English language arts and reading since then."
*please to ignore the misspelling of the great and powerful English god - mine you may point out and ridicule at your pleasure, but not to make pointed humor at the Stotsky

This document covering all 50 states is written solely by Sandra Stotsky with no mention of anyone else helping in any fashion at all. There are zero citations. There are zero references. There are no validations of criteria. Her methods are not cited as being based on any other method at all, by anyone else. They are totally original work. It is enough, Stotsky believes, that Stotsky wrote the criteria, and the methods, therefore, are all unquestionably correct.

What she does have are Footnotes... which are publications she refers to in her "asides", little areas she is giving thoughts about. Of these seven Footnotes, (yes, only seven of her aside-commentary refer to other publications) she references herself twice, her company twice and the three that are left do not have anything to do with the development of standards, or the evaluation of standards.

AND -- I would laugh at this point but I'm too shaken up by the pure audacity of what I'm reading, which I would describe as bordering on psychosis except that she laughed and waved as the border flew by --

These footnotes and asides are not, in anyway, part of the massive study - they are part of a section she puts in at the end as sort of a hint that another study should be done on the Criteria for Hiring New Teachers for each State -- which, of course, Only Stotsky is capable or qualified to do. So, not only is she qualified to judge the Methodology and Educational Values of Every state in the Union, she understands the needs of every state so clearly, that she can evaluate their teachers as well.

So, Answer? -- No. (This answer covers all questions proposed) In fact, Stotsky deems no person or institution up to par except herself. The only time she brings up the standards created by others, is to ridicule them and demonstrate how they do not measure up to... Stotsky. Only Stotsky knows how to teach English. Only Stotsky can review with any accuracy at all, the Standards for teaching English.

All Hail Stotsky! 

Stotsky doesn't object to a National Common Core of Education Standards -- What she objects to is the fact that you didn't hire Stotsky to create it -- which she could have done over the weekend, and shown you how far advanced they were on Monday morning that the idea of benchmarking them against international losers was ridiculous.

Tools for World Domination -- and a couple of Writer places too

If you are interested in being part of the Internet, or using it ... to advance your professional life, these are some places you should know about. There are also a few that will add a bit of quality to your personal life as well.

1. Trello

Trello helps you manage all your ideas and due dates and keeps track of
what you’re in the process of completing. Plus, it looks nice—it’s like the Pinterest of to-do lists.

2. Hackpad

Think Google Docs—only better for collaboration. Invite as many people as you want to contribute to your docs, or set them to private so they’re just yours.

3. Coffitivity

What is it about a coffee shop that gives you such laser focus? Coffitivity streams the background noises of a coffee shop so you can get your creativity A-game on.

4. FaxZero

FaxZero lets you send and receive faxes through your email—because nobody likes the fax machine.

5. RescueTime

RescueTime lets you monitor how you spend your time on your computer and mobile devices. (The truth is sometimes ugly, but necessary.)

6. Unroll.me

You know all those email newsletters that you accidentally opted into, but don’t really read? Use this site to clear out your inbox.

7. Remember the Milk

A to-do list manager with several key bonuses: You can sync it with your all your devices, share tasks with others, and get email or text reminders of things you need to get done.

8. Springpad


Springpad lets you organize all of your notes, favorite websites, and online inspiration into different folders. It gets bonus points for looking nice, too.

9. HabitForge

Forming a new habit isn’t easy, so HabitForge keeps track of how well you’re doing with simple reminders and check-ins.

10. Evernote

Evernote helps you remember everything using text, photo or audio notes, and clippings of websites.

11. Hemingway

How does that email (or any of your writing!) come off to readers? Plug it into this ingenious app to get the breakdown.




Streamline Your Life

12. Feedly

The greatest RSS reader on the market right now, Feedly is the place to keep up with all the latest from your favorite blogs and publications.

13. Pocket

Don’t have time to read that great post your friend just put on Twitter? Send it to Pocket where you’ll be able to read it later—even offline on your phone while you’re commuting home!

14. TaskRabbit

TaskRabbit helps you open up time in your schedule by making it easy to outsource any task you really don’t want to do, from running errands to planning the details of your next vacay.

15. IFTTT

Standing for “if this then that,” IFTTT helps different apps, online programs, and services work together to make your life way easier. Think getting the weather texted to you every morning or having your photos automatically save to Dropbox.

16. Lifehacker

Lifehacker is always coming up with solutions to problems you didn’t even know you had. From how to handle tech woes to the most pro productivity tips, you’re sure to find it here.

17. ZocDoc

Scheduling doctor’s appointments is one of those things that seems to never quite get done. ZocDoc makes it simple to stay healthy by allowing you to schedule and manage your appointments online.

18. Handybook

Need some help around the house? Handybook makes it easy for you to book cleaners, plumbers, movers, and the like—all online.

19. Seamless

Whether you’re stuck late at the office or just don’t feel like cooking when you get home, Seamless is there for you with super-streamlined online takeout ordering.

7 countries where Americans can study at universities, in English, for free

From the Washington Post this morning --

Since 1985, U.S. college costs have surged by about 500 percent, and tuition fees keep rising. In Germany, they've done the opposite.

The country's universities have been tuition-free since the beginning of October, when Lower Saxony became the last state to scrap the fees. Tuition rates were always low in Germany, but now the German government fully funds the education of its citizens -- and even of foreigners.

Explaining the change, Dorothee Stapelfeldt, a senator in the northern city of Hamburg, said tuition fees "discourage young people who do not have a traditional academic family background from taking up study. It is a core task of politics to ensure that young women and men can study with a high quality standard free of charge in Germany."
It is no wonder that we are something like 25 on the list of "Educated Countries" These countries take the education of their citizens seriously, almost sacredly. For us it is little more than a political bargaining chip, and a place where slush money can be taken from when needed. 
A 2009 study found that U.S. students ranked 25th among 34 countries in math and science, behind nations like China, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Finland. Figures like these have groups like StudentsFirst, headed by former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, concerned and calling for reforms to "our education system [that] can't compete with the rest of the world." 
Just 6 percent of U.S. students performed at the advanced level on an international exam administered in 56 countries in 2006. That proportion is lower than those achieved by students in 30 other countries. American students' low performance and slow progress in math could also threaten the country's economic growth, experts have said. -- Huffington Post

Basically News isn't News Anymore

Wish they would have done the Daily Show
I think most of us, who do research on the Internet and look for hints and trails in the news sources for leads into deeper areas to mine with research, understand that there is a lot of nonsense out there on the web. For example, anything coming out of the mouths of the latest Americans for Prosperity blurb, or Breitbart.com or CounterPunch.com needs to be read as 'fiction' with perhaps a smidgen of truth. Seriously, I've even caught Breitbart.com blatantly lying about quotes people have said (those people shocked to discover Breitbart proclaimed they talked to them at all.)

It is going to get Fakey this Year

This is a quote I found, I want to do some verification:  " On 7/31/2019 Trump has private meeting with Putin. On 8/3/2019, just three ...