Common Core

Common Core.  This is something people need to know about.  Just as there are two sides to every story there is another side to this one that is not in general mainstream media.  There is a lot of alternative information out there so rather then re-write something that others have already written I will be linking to many sources. 

First of all here is the link to the Common Core site.  According to this official site the common core standards are not yet adopted by Alaska. 

That's the official story but in the background I can see efforts to implement it.  This article is just one such example:  http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-board-approves-poorly-understood-teacher-evaluation-plan

Here is one from the Newsminer.  The point I'd like to make is Governor Parnell wants to “lead” by pushing for a large percentage of teacher evaluations to be based on students’ progress. Progress tracked in part by as yet to be determined testing (common core tests are still unknown). Teachers, rightly protest, pointing out that students’ lives outside of school are legitimate factors in testing results. Part of common core intent is to track student data in detail (religion, number of dental fillings, associations) for much of their young life. What better way to get acceptance of the intrusive tracking (another feature of common core) of our children then to say it will help protect our teachers from unfair penalties due to the fact that their evaluations are based on 50 percent student progress in achievement? 

In case your still not sure common core is on it's way to being implemented in Alaska take a gander at this article: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130323/anchorages-new-superintendent-shares-vision-area-schools

This is a common core primer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XrpjiywhSQU

This site has some informative articles: http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com/p/common-core.html

more links to come...

What You Should Know

Please read this article and watch the video links to learn more about Common Core.

The Tale of Our Quest

Aftermath: Link up

Alaska Pride is on top of things, here is a post election article.

Last Post for 2012 Election: Tips

Ran into a person who knows about this blog who asked about voting on Judges.  The tip I gave is I generally answer no to retaining judges due to the fact that a lot of legislation from the bench has been happening with them for quite some time.  It takes a lot of diligent research to see if they are legislating from the bench or not so it’s easier to just say NO.

Hints and tips re-post:

Ultimately the bond litmus test question is:
Do I have a right to force a mortgage on my neighbor?

• If you’re really not sure on an issue, try applying the Golden Rule or ask yourself if you willing to accept the costs associated with passage of the issue. Ask yourself if you have a right to compel your neighbor to accept those costs.
• It’s okay to leave a blank circle if you feel neither answer/candidate fits your view. Just fill in the circle where you have conviction that your choice is a good one.
• Look at who is sponsoring the candidates. Generally they will be in the same political classification.
• Unions tend to support bigger government legislation. Also, Unions lean toward the social freedom and economic control ideals.
• Centrist/moderates appear to be trying to get as many votes as they can, thus identify themselves as centrist/moderate to hit what they feel the majority of the population leans to. This is not necessarily desirable if you have strong ideals where you feel your representative should be unwavering.

Ultimately, no matter what a candidate classifies themselves as, it could change in actual policies they end up supporting. This can be due to a desire to compromise with the perceived “other side” or it could have been the plan to begin with. We all know some candidates will do or say whatever they feel will get them the winning vote. This is why we need to look at records, keep up on issues, and call them out if they seem to change from their running platform once they are voted in.

What do you classify yourself as and what do the candidates classify themselves as?

Basic Definitions
Classical Liberal: Juris naturalist. One who believes that the country should have a small, weak government, and free markets, and that the individual is endowed by his Creator with inalienable rights to his life, liberty, and property. Also, one who believes in Natural Law and common law, or Higher Law.

Centrist: Moderate.

Conservative: A person on the right side of the left-right political spectrum. Conservatives believe in economic freedom and social control.

Democrat: A person on the left side of the political spectrum.

Juris Naturalist: syn. Classical liberal. Believes in Higher Law or Natural Law, that right and wrong are not matters of opinion. Believes political power corrupts both morals and judgment. Wants a government that is small and growing smaller.

Liberal: A person on the left side of the left-right political spectrum. Liberals believe in social freedom and economic control.

Moderate: One who is in the middle of the left-right political spectrum. Moderates advocate both economic encroachment and social encroachment, but perhaps not to the extremes that left and right do.

Progressive: One who is on the left side of the political spectrum.

Republican: Conservative.

See my Terms Defined page for more info.

 

Alaska Pride and The Mudflats linkups

Seeing as how I don't have much time to write this year I am at least linking up to fellow Alaskans who have had time to write concerning Election 2012.  So without further adieu here they are:

Alaska Pride (the more conservative source)
Articles on Alaska Senate District J, Alaska Public Safety Coalition Endorsements, Ballot Measure 1, Bonding Proposition A...

The Mudflats (the more liberal source - includes more national info)
Articles Alaska Senate District N, Election Roundup, Alaskan First Ladies, Alaska GOP...

An Example of How to Analyze a Proposition

The following link-up is from a California voter.  Seeing as how California is often portrayed as the “political leader” for federal government legislation and recognizing that this is a great example of how to analyze a proposition I believe this to be relevant to everyone.  The full article is here.

Some excerpts:

"Now to my real concerns. While our voter guide says that "enforcement" of the law will be performed by the government {presumably the DPH}, the law specifically says that enforcement is primarily via lawsuit:

111910. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 111900 or any other provision of law, any person may bring an action in superior court pursuant to this section and the court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for cause shown, to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision of Article 6.6 (commencing with Section 110808), or Article 7 (commencing with Section 110810) of Chapter 5.

[snip]

(b) In addition to the injunctive relief provided in subdivision (a), the court may award to that person, organization, or entity reasonable attorney's fees and all reasonable costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action as determined by the court.

In my mind, this is code for license to sue. To sue wildly, as there are no real limits.

Really? Can we not just lodge a complaint somewhere? Does this really have to go through the already-overloaded courts?

Does "any person" mean even people from outside of California? Even if they never shop in California?

Because of the way the law is written, it looks to me like people {or organizations, or "entities"} can sue farmers and grocers, whomever they wish. And why? Well, because they want to:"

 

and

 

"What is the Intent of the Law?

I don't want to be cynical, but here's the deal. If the intent of the law is to properly label food, that we might know if our food has been tampered with at the genetic level, I agree with the intent.

But the enforcement side of the law makes me think that the point of this is to open a lot more people and businesses up to lawsuits. It is to make people vulnerable. The cynic in me says that the enforcement side reveals the real intent of the law, which is for lawyers and their clients to make a lot of money off of our of our culture's affection for unadulterated foods."

 

and

 

"I refuse to vote for injustice, even if the effect of the law--the proper labeling--suits me just fine."

Prosperity Alaska Website and Candidate Forum

Received the following information from IACC.

"Prosperity Alaska is an organization promoting responsible resource development and sound fiscal policies in the state."

Also:

Join the Fairbanks Alliance for a luncheon.

Join the Alliance as we ask Fairbanks area Legislative Candidates questions relevant to the resource development community.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

11:30AM - 1:00PM

Fairbanks Princess Riverside Lodge

Candidates

Click Bishop
John Coghill
David Guttenberg
Pete Higgins
Pete Kelly
David Pruhs
Anne Sudkamp
Joe Thomas
Steve Thompson
Tammie Wilson

Note: Luncheon starts 30 minutes earlier than regular Alliance Luncheons.

You can RSVP and submit questions for the candidates at (907) 563-2226 or email: rlogan@alaskaalliance.com

Alaska Family Counsil

This is another linkup to an article by Alaska Pride.

http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2012/10/alaska-family-council-awards.html

Cathy Giessel Alaska State Senate 2012

Here is the websit for Cathy Giessel who is running for re-election for Alaska State Senate Seat N.

http://www.cathygiessel.com/

Ron Devon Alaska State Senate 2012

Linking up to an article about Ron Devon who is running as a non-partisan for Alaska State Senate District N.  The article is writen by The Mudflats blogger, Jean Devon.

Also, here is his website. http://devonforalaska.com/

Judge William Morse 2012

This is a linkup to another article about Judge William Morse.

Thanks to Alaska Pride.

Presidential Debates

Ever gone to vote and seen a list of names for President longer than two and wonder who the other people are then shrug your shoulders and cast a vote for the Democrat or Republican?  I have.  Did you know that this year there are more than two people running for President on the ballots (as you'll discover when you go to vote), in all 50 states?  Ever go to vote having watched debates on TV and reading articles in the newspapers and wonder why you didn't know there were other people running?

Here's part of the reason why...

Green Party Presidential and VP candidates arrested trying to enter debate

The above linked article is the source for videos

Question:  The debates only allow the Democrat and Republican nominiees. How is that helping the public to cast an informed vote?   btw I am not for the Green Party but I am for letting all candidates debate in the public eye.

Just more food for thought.

Superior Court Judge Sen Tan

Recieved the following email (if anyone has a vote yes for this judge link put it in the comments please):

Here is a link to a new article by Alaska Pride.  (10/18/12) Main Body Judicial retention elections rarely attract much interest from the news media, or from voters. But this year we have reason to pay attention - and take action. If you live in the 3rd Judicial District - which includes Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley, the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak, Prince William Sound and Bristol Bay Communities - you have an opportunity to vote NO on one of the state's most liberal judges: Superior Court Judge Sen Tan. Judge San Tan has left his mark on Alaska - and it's not a pretty one. Subverted the rights of parents Judge Tan struck down a common-sense measure that would require a parent to consent before an abortion can be performed on their minor daughter. Thanks to Judge Tan, a girl of any age - even 12 or 13 - can have an abortion in this state without a parent's consent. The damage caused by Sen Tan's decision was only partially reversed in 2010 when Alaska voters approved a ballot measure that at least gave parents the right to be informed (not consent) before an abortion is performed on their daughter. Of course, Judge Tan's ruling was absurd. A parent's consent is already required before a minor can get a tattoo, a body piercing, or even an aspirin at school. There are 37 states with laws that require parental involvement before a minor's abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld these laws as fully constitutional in nine separate decisions. Yet Judge Sen Tan arrogantly argued that Alaska's constitution somehow prevents us from having a policy that the federal constitution and numerous other states allow. Sen Tan's decision was nothing more than an imposition of his own extremist views, masquerading as constitutional law. Forced taxpayers to pay for abortions Judge Sen Tan ruled that taxpayers have to be on the hook to pay for abortions. He overturned the Alaska Legislature's decision in 1998 to generally stop using state funds for abortions, except in cases of a threat to the mother's life, or in cases of rape and incest. Judge Tan ruled that if the state chose to pay for prenatal care for poor women and their unborn babies, then it must also pay for poor women to have abortions. In the lethal logic of Judge Sen Tan, if you're using public funds to help ensure that healthy babies are born, then you must also use public funds to ensure that some children are never born. Judge Tan's ruling completely contradicts the long-established reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court, which had previously held that since the government does not make a woman indigent in the first place, the government does not undermine that indigent woman's "right to abortion" by simply declining to give her money to pay for it. Judge Sen Tan is the "poster child" of left-wing judicial activism in Alaska. He is the kind of judge who seems incapable of separating his liberal views from the serious art of constitutional interpretation. If you run for elected office, you're free to vote your personal viewpoints. That's what we expect politicians to do. But judges are supposed to be impartially interpreting the law, not making the law. When judges start acting like politicians, there's only one appropriate response: treat them like politicians. And that means voting them out of office when they abuse their judicial authority and impose their personal beliefs on you. In the Nov. 6th election, the Alaska Family Action Board of Directors urges all voters to say NO to judicial arrogance - and vote NO on retaining Sen Tan as a judge on the Superior Court. PLEASE FORWARD THIS ALONG TO EVERYONE IN YOUR CIRCLE OF INFLUENCE !

Standing for families In His name ! Jim Minnery President

This communication was paid for by Alaska Family Action, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. I am Jim Minnery, President of Alaska Family Action, Inc. and I approve this message. This NOTICE TO VOTERS is required by Alaska law. We certify that this mailing is not authorized, paid for, or approved by the candidate.   Side Bar In 2010, we counted on YOU to help us gather petition signatures for the Alaskans for Parental Rights Campaign. Ultimately, we were able to pass a law that requires doctors to provide notification to parents or legal guardians before an abortion can be performed on a minor. Although Planned Parenthood sued, we eventually won our day in court. Click here for that story. We're now in a position to need your help again. As the attached article to the left demonstrates, Alaskans have a real opportunity to send a message loud and clear to those in the judiciary who abuse their power and dismiss the clear will of the people. Here's what we need. Because we aren't able to use mass media or send out mailers to the extent we need to, primarily because of financial limitations, we need to blanket communities in the 3rd Judicial District with flyers about why Alaskans need to vote NO on Judge Sen Tan on the November 6th ballot. Would you be willing to help distribute flyers door to door and/or organize a team of volunteers in your area to do the same ? Quite frankly, this could be the most important component of our strategy to unseat our state's "poster child" for liberal activism on the Court. If you are interested, PLEASE call or e-mail me at your earliest possible convenience. I can be reached at 907-317-7268 or at minnery@alaska.net. As an FYI, the 3rd Judicial District includes all of Southcentral Alaska from Kodiak to Glenallen to Cordova to Homer and back to Anchorage. It's a large area and we need your help. Please contact me today.

Candidates

What I have done in the past with this guide is not compensated and takes dozens of hours of research and interviews.  While some time is spent transcribing much of my time is spent constantly trying to contact candidates to get answers to self-designed surveys with questions not typically asked.  I did not have time to put that effort in this year so I apologize to any who were expecting that.  I was pleasantly surprised to discover people remembering this site even though I have not advertised it this year and all previous advertising was very limited.

I did notice I have some posts from previous years for some candidates so I'll link up to them here. 

Assembly (Seat A)

Joe Blanchard II

Van Lawrence

Proposition 3

Linking to an article on the topic.

http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/