Does this Explain Why the Republican Establishment Supports Common Core?

Maybe the "C" label doesn't really stand for "Conservative".  Maybe it's "Collectivist".

The Classic Liberal has a post about the NSA issue and why some on the right support the operations of gathering data on Americans who don't have ties to terrorism supposedly in the name of protecting those same (and others) Americans. 

Take this article and substitute for the NSA: the Department of Education, public schools, the State Boards of Education, and the two consortia data mining your child's and family's information and you might start understanding why establishment Republicans (Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee) support the adoption and implementation of Common Core Standards.

I've highlighted certain parts of the article that may help to explain why the elites don't listen to the increasing calls to stop the implementation of this educational reform that is not based on research or best educational practice and circumvented Congress and state legislatures. 

Change discussing the NSA and Obama's regime with discussing Common Core standards and Obama's educational reform and you may have the answer to why the Republican establishment supports Common Core.  Substitute leaks to educational control when thinking about CCSS.  The data issue is the same for both the NSA and education: it's massive, you don't know what information is being gathered on you and your child, you don't know where it's going, who is using it and for what purpose.  You also never gave permission for these actions to occur. 

Are establishment Republicans really collectivists? 

From Collectivism on the Right:

*****************************

Discussing the NSA and Obama regime's "conservative" Amen Corner, I said:

Underlying all of these various "they hate America" outbursts is the collectivist theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who following Plato, identified the State and society as one. Contra America's individualist origins, this notion does not regard the State as an external force, nor a form of political association, the State is the very pith of civil society itself. Only the Messianic State can emancipate the individuals "latent germs of goodness heretofore frustrated by a hostile society."

Writing in defense of Uncle Sam's Glorious Panopticon over on the "left wing" Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall illustrates my point:

It's led me to try to think through what those different assumptions and values are that makes people react to this so differently. I think the key issue is how different people understand their relationship with the state (in this case the US government) and the national political community as a whole and the relationship between the two.
Here is I think the essential difference … a basic difference in one's idea about the state and the larger political community. If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing … opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it. It forces change on any number of levels.
On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. They're attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf. [emphasis added]

As you can see, from their point of view, "the country" and "the state," and/or "society" and "the state," are indistinguishable from one another. So criticizing the NSA's mass surveillance of millions of people without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or even worse, questioning their motives for doing so, are "attacks on something [they] fundamentally believe in." Thus, the apologists lash out at the whistleblowers instead of those in government recklessly seizing power.  (MEW note: see how elitist Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee preach to those who disagree with them).

Contra Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke, "the country" and "society" are now one — a unitary political community of shared values and "national purpose." Expressing (more like imposing) the General Will, the sovereign State requires "the unqualified obedience of every individual in the community, and implies the obligation of each citizen to render to the state all that the state sees fit to demand."

Ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington. — David Brooks and William Kristol

Partisan bickering may be one thing, but "punks like Snowden mucking up the work of war and the sacralized state" is simply too much to bear … "something you fundamentally believe in, identify with" … Don't they know the proper hierarchical structure of society for crying out loud?
The "thinkers" (see Plato) have already determined what is best for us — to keep us safe™ — and the "guardians" are simply fulfilling their role by seizing, storing and fishing through every last piece of data about you they can get their grubby little hands on. Innocent? Well, bully for you. How dare anyone, let alone a lowly "high school dropout," attempt to "decide what secrets the U.S. government is permitted to keep."

"Obama was elected, twice, by the American people," says Ann Althouse. "We studied him. We listened to him. He is surrounded by advisers and checked by Congress and the press" … Well, there you go then … The collective has spoken.

Off with Snowden's head!

James Bovard on early Americans:

Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen

The British claimed that the Americans were free because they were permitted to petition members of Parliament with their grievances, even though their petitions were routinely not accepted or read.

"Slavery by Parliament" was the phrase commonly used to denounce British legislative power grabs. Americans believed that the power of representatives was strictly limited by the rights of the governed, a doctrine later enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Pamphleteer John Cartwright in 1776 derided "that poor consolatory word, representation, with the mere sound of which we have so long contented ourselves."

James Otis, an influential Massachusetts lawyer, asked, "Will any man's calling himself my agent, representative, or trustee make him so in fact? At this rate a House of Commons in one of the colonies have but to conceive an opinion that they represent all the common people of Great Britain, and … they would in fact represent them." One New York critic declared in 1775 that it was inconceivable that Americans' liberty should depend "upon nothing more permanent or established than the vague, rapacious, or interested inclination of a majority of five hundred and fifty eight men, open to the insidious attacks of a weak or designing Prince, and his ministers."

Just TARP, ObamaCare, and the fact that a majority are against arming radical Islamists in Syria, provides more than enough evidence for any sane person to understand we're not "represented" by Washington, DC, in any realistic, real world way. (MEW note: add Common Core to this list). It's a joke! Yet the sycophants of power and other various gatekeepers of the narrative expect us to believe we're so well represented in fact, that it's our duty to defer to governmental secrecy? To paraphrase Orwell, "Freedom is Slavery by Congress!"

As Franz Oppenheimer brilliantly argued, "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others." Work and the equivalent exchange thereof, is the "economic means," while seizing the labor of others is the "political means."

The collectivist right, dedicated to establishing a Rousseauian "reign of virtue," relies solely on the political means to do so. They also love Medicare, defend Socialized Security, and bitch that too many people get "credits, deductions and exemptions" on their taxes. Heck, they even support the Soviet-style bureaucracy commonly referred to as the Federal Reserve.

Oh, and let's not forget the extreme amount wealth seized from the labor of others to pay for their Trotskyite democratic global revolution.

A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him — Alexis de Tocqueville

In the end, there are only two political philosophies — individualist and collectivist.
Collectivism "states that the will of the people is omnipotent, an individual must obey; that society as a whole, not the individual, is the unit of moral value."

Individualism says "that each person has moral significance and certain rights that are either of divine origin or inherent in human nature … Individualism denies that a community or a society has an existence apart from the individuals that constitute it … There is no such thing as the general will, collective reason, or group welfare; there are only the will, reason, and welfare of each individual in a group."

When you hear "conservatives" defending the Stalinization of Amerika while mindlessly demonizing whistleblowers, stop and think about it. Is it the individualist tradition of America that they wish to conserve? Or, more likely, do they wish to conserve the Ancien Régime?

**********************

Add to the list of Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee of collectivists: Chris Christie. But of course we knew that back years ago when he fired his Education Commissioner for not getting Race to the Top funding.   Is he just another Republican who loves collectivism?

Writing in defense of Uncle Sam's Glorious Panopticon over on the "left wing" Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall illustrates my point: - See more at: http://the-classic-liberal.com/collectivism-right/#sthash.mzvRojKQ.dpuf

Writing in defense of Uncle Sam's Glorious Panopticon over on the "left wing" Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall illustrates my point: - See more at: http://the-classic-liberal.com/collectivism-right/#sthash.mzvRojKQ.dpuf

Collectivism on the RightC

Collectivism on the Right

Discussing the NSA and Obama regime's "conservative" Amen Corner, I said:

Underlying all of these various "they hate America" outbursts is the collectivist theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who following Plato, identified the State and society as one. Contra America's individualist origins, this notion does not regard the State as an external force, nor a form of political association, the State is the very pith of civil society itself. Only the Messianic State can emancipate the individuals "latent germs of goodness heretofore frustrated by a hostile society."

Writing in defense of Uncle Sam's Glorious Panopticon over on the "left wing" Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall illustrates my point:

It's led me to try to think through what those different assumptions and values are that makes people react to this so differently. I think the key issue is how different people understand their relationship with the state (in this case the US government) and the national political community as a whole and the relationship between the two.
Here is I think the essential difference … a basic difference in one's idea about the state and the larger political community. If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing … opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it. It forces change on any number of levels.
On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. They're attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf. [emphasis added]

As you can see, from their point of view, "the country" and "the state," and/or "society" and "the state," are indistinguishable from one another. So criticizing the NSA's mass surveillance of millions of people without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or even worse, questioning their motives for doing so, are "attacks on something [they] fundamentally believe in." Thus, the apologists lash out at the whistleblowers instead of those in government recklessly seizing power.
Contra Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke, "the country" and "society" are now one — a unitary political community of shared values and "national purpose." Expressing (more like imposing) the General Will, the sovereign State requires "the unqualified obedience of every individual in the community, and implies the obligation of each citizen to render to the state all that the state sees fit to demand."

Ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington. — David Brooks and William Kristol

Partisan bickering may be one thing, but "punks like Snowden mucking up the work of war and the sacralized state" is simply too much to bear … "something you fundamentally believe in, identify with" … Don't they know the proper hierarchical structure of society for crying out loud?
The "thinkers" (see Plato) have already determined what is best for us — to keep us safe™ — and the "guardians" are simply fulfilling their role by seizing, storing and fishing through every last piece of data about you they can get their grubby little hands on. Innocent? Well, bully for you. How dare anyone, let alone a lowly "high school dropout," attempt to "decide what secrets the U.S. government is permitted to keep."
"Obama was elected, twice, by the American people," says Ann Althouse. "We studied him. We listened to him. He is surrounded by advisers and checked by Congress and the press" … Well, there you go then … The collective has spoken.
Off with Snowden's head!
James Bovard on early Americans:
Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen

The British claimed that the Americans were free because they were permitted to petition members of Parliament with their grievances, even though their petitions were routinely not accepted or read.
"Slavery by Parliament" was the phrase commonly used to denounce British legislative power grabs. Americans believed that the power of representatives was strictly limited by the rights of the governed, a doctrine later enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Pamphleteer John Cartwright in 1776 derided "that poor consolatory word, representation, with the mere sound of which we have so long contented ourselves." James Otis, an influential Massachusetts lawyer, asked, "Will any man's calling himself my agent, representative, or trustee make him so in fact? At this rate a House of Commons in one of the colonies have but to conceive an opinion that they represent all the common people of Great Britain, and … they would in fact represent them." One New York critic declared in 1775 that it was inconceivable that Americans' liberty should depend "upon nothing more permanent or established than the vague, rapacious, or interested inclination of a majority of five hundred and fifty eight men, open to the insidious attacks of a weak or designing Prince, and his ministers."

Just TARP, ObamaCare, and the fact that a majority are against arming radical Islamists in Syria, provides more than enough evidence for any sane person to understand we're not "represented" by Washington, DC, in any realistic, real world way. It's a joke! Yet the sycophants of power and other various gatekeepers of the narrative expect us to believe we're so well represented in fact, that it's our duty to defer to governmental secrecy? To paraphrase Orwell, "Freedom is Slavery by Congress!"
As Franz Oppenheimer brilliantly argued, "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others." Work and the equivalent exchange thereof, is the "economic means," while seizing the labor of others is the "political means."
The collectivist right, dedicated to establishing a Rousseauian "reign of virtue," relies solely on the political means to do so. They also love Medicare, defend Socialized Security, and bitch that too many people get "credits, deductions and exemptions" on their taxes. Heck, they even support the Soviet-style bureaucracy commonly referred to as the Federal Reserve.
Oh, and let's not forget the extreme amount wealth seized from the labor of others to pay for their Trotskyite democratic global revolution.

A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him — Alexis de Tocqueville

In the end, there are only two political philosophies — individualist and collectivist.
Collectivism "states that the will of the people is omnipotent, an individual must obey; that society as a whole, not the individual, is the unit of moral value."
Individualism says "that each person has moral significance and certain rights that are either of divine origin or inherent in human nature … Individualism denies that a community or a society has an existence apart from the individuals that constitute it … There is no such thing as the general will, collective reason, or group welfare; there are only the will, reason, and welfare of each individual in a group."
When you hear "conservatives" defending the Stalinization of Amerika while mindlessly demonizing whistleblowers, stop and think about it. Is it the individualist tradition of America that they wish to conserve? Or, more likely, do they wish to conserve the Ancien Régime?
- See more at: http://the-classic-liberal.com/collectivism-right/#sthash.mzvRojKQ.dpuf

Discussing the NSA and Obama regime's "conservative" Amen Corner, I said:

Underlying all of these various "they hate America" outbursts is the collectivist theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who following Plato, identified the State and society as one. Contra America's individualist origins, this notion does not regard the State as an external force, nor a form of political association, the State is the very pith of civil society itself. Only the Messianic State can emancipate the individuals "latent germs of goodness heretofore frustrated by a hostile society."

Writing in defense of Uncle Sam's Glorious Panopticon over on the "left wing" Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall illustrates my point:

It's led me to try to think through what those different assumptions and values are that makes people react to this so differently. I think the key issue is how different people understand their relationship with the state (in this case the US government) and the national political community as a whole and the relationship between the two.
Here is I think the essential difference … a basic difference in one's idea about the state and the larger political community. If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing … opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it. It forces change on any number of levels.
On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. They're attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf. [emphasis added]

As you can see, from their point of view, "the country" and "the state," and/or "society" and "the state," are indistinguishable from one another. So criticizing the NSA's mass surveillance of millions of people without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or even worse, questioning their motives for doing so, are "attacks on something [they] fundamentally believe in." Thus, the apologists lash out at the whistleblowers instead of those in government recklessly seizing power.
Contra Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke, "the country" and "society" are now one — a unitary political community of shared values and "national purpose." Expressing (more like imposing) the General Will, the sovereign State requires "the unqualified obedience of every individual in the community, and implies the obligation of each citizen to render to the state all that the state sees fit to demand."

Ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington. — David Brooks and William Kristol

Partisan bickering may be one thing, but "punks like Snowden mucking up the work of war and the sacralized state" is simply too much to bear … "something you fundamentally believe in, identify with" … Don't they know the proper hierarchical structure of society for crying out loud?
The "thinkers" (see Plato) have already determined what is best for us — to keep us safe™ — and the "guardians" are simply fulfilling their role by seizing, storing and fishing through every last piece of data about you they can get their grubby little hands on. Innocent? Well, bully for you. How dare anyone, let alone a lowly "high school dropout," attempt to "decide what secrets the U.S. government is permitted to keep."
"Obama was elected, twice, by the American people," says Ann Althouse. "We studied him. We listened to him. He is surrounded by advisers and checked by Congress and the press" … Well, there you go then … The collective has spoken.
Off with Snowden's head!
James Bovard on early Americans:
Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen

The British claimed that the Americans were free because they were permitted to petition members of Parliament with their grievances, even though their petitions were routinely not accepted or read.
"Slavery by Parliament" was the phrase commonly used to denounce British legislative power grabs. Americans believed that the power of representatives was strictly limited by the rights of the governed, a doctrine later enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Pamphleteer John Cartwright in 1776 derided "that poor consolatory word, representation, with the mere sound of which we have so long contented ourselves." James Otis, an influential Massachusetts lawyer, asked, "Will any man's calling himself my agent, representative, or trustee make him so in fact? At this rate a House of Commons in one of the colonies have but to conceive an opinion that they represent all the common people of Great Britain, and … they would in fact represent them." One New York critic declared in 1775 that it was inconceivable that Americans' liberty should depend "upon nothing more permanent or established than the vague, rapacious, or interested inclination of a majority of five hundred and fifty eight men, open to the insidious attacks of a weak or designing Prince, and his ministers."

Just TARP, ObamaCare, and the fact that a majority are against arming radical Islamists in Syria, provides more than enough evidence for any sane person to understand we're not "represented" by Washington, DC, in any realistic, real world way. It's a joke! Yet the sycophants of power and other various gatekeepers of the narrative expect us to believe we're so well represented in fact, that it's our duty to defer to governmental secrecy? To paraphrase Orwell, "Freedom is Slavery by Congress!"
As Franz Oppenheimer brilliantly argued, "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others." Work and the equivalent exchange thereof, is the "economic means," while seizing the labor of others is the "political means."
The collectivist right, dedicated to establishing a Rousseauian "reign of virtue," relies solely on the political means to do so. They also love Medicare, defend Socialized Security, and bitch that too many people get "credits, deductions and exemptions" on their taxes. Heck, they even support the Soviet-style bureaucracy commonly referred to as the Federal Reserve.
Oh, and let's not forget the extreme amount wealth seized from the labor of others to pay for their Trotskyite democratic global revolution.

A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him — Alexis de Tocqueville

In the end, there are only two political philosophies — individualist and collectivist.
Collectivism "states that the will of the people is omnipotent, an individual must obey; that society as a whole, not the individual, is the unit of moral value."
Individualism says "that each person has moral significance and certain rights that are either of divine origin or inherent in human nature … Individualism denies that a community or a society has an existence apart from the individuals that constitute it … There is no such thing as the general will, collective reason, or group welfare; there are only the will, reason, and welfare of each individual in a group."
When you hear "conservatives" defending the Stalinization of Amerika while mindlessly demonizing whistleblowers, stop and think about it. Is it the individualist tradition of America that they wish to conserve? Or, more likely, do they wish to conserve the Ancien Régime?
- See more at: http://the-classic-liberal.com/collectivism-right/#sthash.mzvRojKQ.dpuf

Discussing the NSA and Obama regime's "conservative" Amen Corner, I said:

Underlying all of these various "they hate America" outbursts is the collectivist theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who following Plato, identified the State and society as one. Contra America's individualist origins, this notion does not regard the State as an external force, nor a form of political association, the State is the very pith of civil society itself. Only the Messianic State can emancipate the individuals "latent germs of goodness heretofore frustrated by a hostile society."

Writing in defense of Uncle Sam's Glorious Panopticon over on the "left wing" Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall illustrates my point:

It's led me to try to think through what those different assumptions and values are that makes people react to this so differently. I think the key issue is how different people understand their relationship with the state (in this case the US government) and the national political community as a whole and the relationship between the two.
Here is I think the essential difference … a basic difference in one's idea about the state and the larger political community. If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing … opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it. It forces change on any number of levels.
On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. They're attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf. [emphasis added]

As you can see, from their point of view, "the country" and "the state," and/or "society" and "the state," are indistinguishable from one another. So criticizing the NSA's mass surveillance of millions of people without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or even worse, questioning their motives for doing so, are "attacks on something [they] fundamentally believe in." Thus, the apologists lash out at the whistleblowers instead of those in government recklessly seizing power.
Contra Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke, "the country" and "society" are now one — a unitary political community of shared values and "national purpose." Expressing (more like imposing) the General Will, the sovereign State requires "the unqualified obedience of every individual in the community, and implies the obligation of each citizen to render to the state all that the state sees fit to demand."

Ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington. — David Brooks and William Kristol

Partisan bickering may be one thing, but "punks like Snowden mucking up the work of war and the sacralized state" is simply too much to bear … "something you fundamentally believe in, identify with" … Don't they know the proper hierarchical structure of society for crying out loud?
The "thinkers" (see Plato) have already determined what is best for us — to keep us safe™ — and the "guardians" are simply fulfilling their role by seizing, storing and fishing through every last piece of data about you they can get their grubby little hands on. Innocent? Well, bully for you. How dare anyone, let alone a lowly "high school dropout," attempt to "decide what secrets the U.S. government is permitted to keep."
"Obama was elected, twice, by the American people," says Ann Althouse. "We studied him. We listened to him. He is surrounded by advisers and checked by Congress and the press" … Well, there you go then … The collective has spoken.
Off with Snowden's head!
James Bovard on early Americans:
Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen

The British claimed that the Americans were free because they were permitted to petition members of Parliament with their grievances, even though their petitions were routinely not accepted or read.
"Slavery by Parliament" was the phrase commonly used to denounce British legislative power grabs. Americans believed that the power of representatives was strictly limited by the rights of the governed, a doctrine later enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Pamphleteer John Cartwright in 1776 derided "that poor consolatory word, representation, with the mere sound of which we have so long contented ourselves." James Otis, an influential Massachusetts lawyer, asked, "Will any man's calling himself my agent, representative, or trustee make him so in fact? At this rate a House of Commons in one of the colonies have but to conceive an opinion that they represent all the common people of Great Britain, and … they would in fact represent them." One New York critic declared in 1775 that it was inconceivable that Americans' liberty should depend "upon nothing more permanent or established than the vague, rapacious, or interested inclination of a majority of five hundred and fifty eight men, open to the insidious attacks of a weak or designing Prince, and his ministers."

Just TARP, ObamaCare, and the fact that a majority are against arming radical Islamists in Syria, provides more than enough evidence for any sane person to understand we're not "represented" by Washington, DC, in any realistic, real world way. It's a joke! Yet the sycophants of power and other various gatekeepers of the narrative expect us to believe we're so well represented in fact, that it's our duty to defer to governmental secrecy? To paraphrase Orwell, "Freedom is Slavery by Congress!"
As Franz Oppenheimer brilliantly argued, "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others." Work and the equivalent exchange thereof, is the "economic means," while seizing the labor of others is the "political means."
The collectivist right, dedicated to establishing a Rousseauian "reign of virtue," relies solely on the political means to do so. They also love Medicare, defend Socialized Security, and bitch that too many people get "credits, deductions and exemptions" on their taxes. Heck, they even support the Soviet-style bureaucracy commonly referred to as the Federal Reserve.
Oh, and let's not forget the extreme amount wealth seized from the labor of others to pay for their Trotskyite democratic global revolution.

A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him — Alexis de Tocqueville

In the end, there are only two political philosophies — individualist and collectivist.
Collectivism "states that the will of the people is omnipotent, an individual must obey; that society as a whole, not the individual, is the unit of moral value."
Individualism says "that each person has moral significance and certain rights that are either of divine origin or inherent in human nature … Individualism denies that a community or a society has an existence apart from the individuals that constitute it … There is no such thing as the general will, collective reason, or group welfare; there are only the will, reason, and welfare of each individual in a group."
When you hear "conservatives" defending the Stalinization of Amerika while mindlessly demonizing whistleblowers, stop and think about it. Is it the individualist tradition of America that they wish to conserve? Or, more likely, do they wish to conserve the Ancien Régime?
- See more at: http://the-classic-liberal.com/collectivism-right/#sthash.mzvRojKQ.dpuf

Discussing the NSA and Obama regime's "conservative" Amen Corner, I said:

Underlying all of these various "they hate America" outbursts is the collectivist theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who following Plato, identified the State and society as one. Contra America's individualist origins, this notion does not regard the State as an external force, nor a form of political association, the State is the very pith of civil society itself. Only the Messianic State can emancipate the individuals "latent germs of goodness heretofore frustrated by a hostile society."

Writing in defense of Uncle Sam's Glorious Panopticon over on the "left wing" Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall illustrates my point:

It's led me to try to think through what those different assumptions and values are that makes people react to this so differently. I think the key issue is how different people understand their relationship with the state (in this case the US government) and the national political community as a whole and the relationship between the two.
Here is I think the essential difference … a basic difference in one's idea about the state and the larger political community. If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing … opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it. It forces change on any number of levels.
On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. They're attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf. [emphasis added]

As you can see, from their point of view, "the country" and "the state," and/or "society" and "the state," are indistinguishable from one another. So criticizing the NSA's mass surveillance of millions of people without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or even worse, questioning their motives for doing so, are "attacks on something [they] fundamentally believe in." Thus, the apologists lash out at the whistleblowers instead of those in government recklessly seizing power.
Contra Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke, "the country" and "society" are now one — a unitary political community of shared values and "national purpose." Expressing (more like imposing) the General Will, the sovereign State requires "the unqualified obedience of every individual in the community, and implies the obligation of each citizen to render to the state all that the state sees fit to demand."

Ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington. — David Brooks and William Kristol

Partisan bickering may be one thing, but "punks like Snowden mucking up the work of war and the sacralized state" is simply too much to bear … "something you fundamentally believe in, identify with" … Don't they know the proper hierarchical structure of society for crying out loud?
The "thinkers" (see Plato) have already determined what is best for us — to keep us safe™ — and the "guardians" are simply fulfilling their role by seizing, storing and fishing through every last piece of data about you they can get their grubby little hands on. Innocent? Well, bully for you. How dare anyone, let alone a lowly "high school dropout," attempt to "decide what secrets the U.S. government is permitted to keep."
"Obama was elected, twice, by the American people," says Ann Althouse. "We studied him. We listened to him. He is surrounded by advisers and checked by Congress and the press" … Well, there you go then … The collective has spoken.
Off with Snowden's head!
James Bovard on early Americans:
Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen

The British claimed that the Americans were free because they were permitted to petition members of Parliament with their grievances, even though their petitions were routinely not accepted or read.
"Slavery by Parliament" was the phrase commonly used to denounce British legislative power grabs. Americans believed that the power of representatives was strictly limited by the rights of the governed, a doctrine later enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Pamphleteer John Cartwright in 1776 derided "that poor consolatory word, representation, with the mere sound of which we have so long contented ourselves." James Otis, an influential Massachusetts lawyer, asked, "Will any man's calling himself my agent, representative, or trustee make him so in fact? At this rate a House of Commons in one of the colonies have but to conceive an opinion that they represent all the common people of Great Britain, and … they would in fact represent them." One New York critic declared in 1775 that it was inconceivable that Americans' liberty should depend "upon nothing more permanent or established than the vague, rapacious, or interested inclination of a majority of five hundred and fifty eight men, open to the insidious attacks of a weak or designing Prince, and his ministers."

Just TARP, ObamaCare, and the fact that a majority are against arming radical Islamists in Syria, provides more than enough evidence for any sane person to understand we're not "represented" by Washington, DC, in any realistic, real world way. It's a joke! Yet the sycophants of power and other various gatekeepers of the narrative expect us to believe we're so well represented in fact, that it's our duty to defer to governmental secrecy? To paraphrase Orwell, "Freedom is Slavery by Congress!"
As Franz Oppenheimer brilliantly argued, "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others." Work and the equivalent exchange thereof, is the "economic means," while seizing the labor of others is the "political means."
The collectivist right, dedicated to establishing a Rousseauian "reign of virtue," relies solely on the political means to do so. They also love Medicare, defend Socialized Security, and bitch that too many people get "credits, deductions and exemptions" on their taxes. Heck, they even support the Soviet-style bureaucracy commonly referred to as the Federal Reserve.
Oh, and let's not forget the extreme amount wealth seized from the labor of others to pay for their Trotskyite democratic global revolution.

A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him — Alexis de Tocqueville

In the end, there are only two political philosophies — individualist and collectivist.
Collectivism "states that the will of the people is omnipotent, an individual must obey; that society as a whole, not the individual, is the unit of moral value."
Individualism says "that each person has moral significance and certain rights that are either of divine origin or inherent in human nature … Individualism denies that a community or a society has an existence apart from the individuals that constitute it … There is no such thing as the general will, collective reason, or group welfare; there are only the will, reason, and welfare of each individual in a group."
When you hear "conservatives" defending the Stalinization of Amerika while mindlessly demonizing whistleblowers, stop and think about it. Is it the individualist tradition of America that they wish to conserve? Or, more likely, do they wish to conserve the Ancien Régime?
- See more at: http://the-classic-liberal.com/collectivism-right/#sthash.mzvRojKQ.dpuf

Why Believe The Lies of Common Core

A couple months ago Dr. Sandra Stotsky, who was a member of the CCSSI validation committee, participated in a panel discussion on common core in Chesterfield Missouri. Recently, she wrote a piece for Pioneer Institute asking the question we have been asking ourselves for a while now - Why are people so willing to believe the lies or misrepresentations put forth by the proponents of common core, even when those claims have been proven false?  Here is some of that piece.

One of the most puzzling phenomena in recent years is the unquestioned acceptance by seemingly rational people of the many claims made by the proponents of Common Core’s standards. The claims have been made repeatedly despite the fact that they have been shown to be either lies or simply utopian hopes. So, what are the lies or the utopian hopes? And why do others repeat these lies or pie-in-the-sky claims about what these standards will achieve?

First, we are regularly told that Common Core’s standards are internationally benchmarked. Joel Klein, former head of the New York City schools, most recently repeated this myth in an interview with Paul Gigot, the Wall Street Journal editor, during the first week in June. Not mentioned at all in the interview or the op-ed he co-authored in the WSJ a week later is Klein’s current position in a company that does a lot of business with Common Core. An Exxon ad, repeated multiple times during a recently televised national tennis match, also suggested that Common Core’s standards were internationally benchmarked. We don’t know who influenced Exxon’s education director.

Gigot never asked Klein what countries we were supposedly benchmarked to. Nor did the Exxon ad name a country to which these standards were supposedly benchmarked. Klein wouldn’t have been able to answer, nor could Exxon have named a country because Common Core’s standards are not internationally benchmarked. Neither the methodologically flawed study by William Schmidt of Michigan State University, nor the post-Common Core studies by David Conley of the University of Oregon, all funded by the Gates Foundation, have shown that Common Core’s content is close to, never mind equal to, the level of the academic content of the mathematics and English standards in high-achieving countries. Moreover, Conley’s studies actually contradict the findings of his much earlier pre-Common Core study showing what college faculty in this country expect of entering freshmen in mathematics and English.

Second, we are frequently told that Common Core is about standards and testing, not curriculum. For example, Harvard University economist Edward Glaeser claimed, in an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Friday, June 14, that Common Core’s standards are simply “a matter of testing, not curriculum.” Why, then, is the Bay State’s department of elementary and secondary education running teacher workshops to redesign classroom curriculum for Common Core? Especially when the curricula that were based on the state’s own, first-class standards and own, first-class tests helped to propel the Bay State to first place on NAEP reading and mathematics tests, in both grade 4 and grade 8, and to a tie for first place in grade 8 on an international test. Glaeser did admit he is on the Gates Foundation’s advisory board. Is he obligated to repeat its party line?

 Please read the story in it's entirety here.

I suspect that the reason so many believe them comes right out of Rahm Emmanuel's playbook which states "Never let a good crisis go to waste."  First they create a false crisis in American education. Our education system has its problems, but there is no new "crisis" here. The same problems that plague us now: poverty, the breakdown of the family, the rise of the entitlement state, have been with us for a very long time. The reformers have simply used these conditions to paint a picture of crisis which is then, typically, met with cries to "save us." Anyone who comes and offers something to save us is met with cheers and quickly ushered in. It's not like they would take advantage of the "crisis" like oh, I don't know, roofing companies who magically appear after a particularly bad storm, ask for your money up front promising to fix damage they see on your roof, only to fail to complete the job or never to be seen again.  People believe in common core because they desperately want to believe this will fix the crisis that someone else told them exists. It conveniently addresses two things government can readily change, standards and assessments, leaving teachers to absorb most of the blame if the supposed fixes don't work, while never dirtying the hands of bureaucrats with addressing the real, but politically untouchable, underlying causes of poor education already mentioned.

Your silly facts just confuse the public Dr. Stostky. Why should we listen to you? It's not like you turned around an entire state's education system launching them to the top of the NAEP scores. Oh wait, you did, but then those reformers rode in on their white horse and rescued Massachusetts with Common Core. I hope the Bay State can survive their cure.

A Search Engine that Doesn't Capture Your Personal Data

Reclaim your power to keep your personal information.  That's our mantra for parents and taxpayers.  If you reclaim your power from Google and Facebook by not using those sites,  we should have the right to send our kids to public schools that don't individually track them and send their data to various federal agencies and private companies.  

Can we put DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg in charge of the Department of Education instead of Arne Duncan?  Weinberg understands aggregate data can be helpful but has no interest in personal data retrieval.  We need a Secretary of Education who agrees with that belief.

From cnbc.com and DuckDuckGo Search Engine Gets Boost After PRISM Scandal:

The 'anonymous' search engine DuckDuckGo is getting a boost off the PRISM scandal that is putting big tech companies like Google and Apple to shame.

(Read More: How Prism Might Work, and Why That Matters to Congress and You )

DuckDuckGo, a search engine that claims it gives its users complete anonymity, has seen a 33 percent increase in users since the NSA news broke over a week ago, said founder and CEO Gabriel Weinberg on CNBC's Closing Bell Tuesday.

"We always knew people didn't want to be tracked, but what hadn't happened was reporting on the private alternatives and so it's no surprise that people are making a choice to switch to things that that will give them great results and also have real privacy," Weinberg said.

Basically, most tech companies store user information—like searches, email account data, searches on social platforms—in data warehouses, so that it can be accessed again. But DuckDuckGo opts to throw any of that information away and not to save it, Weinberg said.

While the default settings on the search engine are set to not track users' searches or any personal information, if a user changes these settings, information about the user could still leak out, according to the company's privacy policy.


(Read More: Leaker's Employer Became Wealthy Through Government Secrets )

The policy states:
"We also save searches, but again, not in a personally identifiable way, as we do not store IP addresses or unique User agent strings. We use aggregate, non-personal search data to improve things like misspellings...If you turn redirects off in the settings and you don't either turn POST on or use our encrypted site, then your search could leak to sites you click on. Yet as explained above, this does not happen by default."
 
Big tech companies—like Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple—all were subject to thousands of government inquiries about user information. DuckDuckGo, though, didn't have the government knocking on their door. 

"We had zero inquiries and the reason for that is because we don't store any data," Weinberg said. "So if they come to us—which they know because it's in our privacy policy—we have nothing to hand over, it's all anonymous data."


But that doesn't mean the government can't come after any information that the user has chosen to share by changing their default settings.

The privacy policy clearly states that "... like anyone else, we will comply with court ordered legal requests. However, in our case, we don't expect any because there is nothing useful to give them since we don't collect any personal information.
 
_ By CNBC's Cadie Thompson. Follow her on Twitter

@CadieThompson

Watch an interview with Weinberg here.  Now if only people would be as proactive in demanding no personal information being shared on their children.....

.

Twitter Bomb Education Time for Governor Mike Huckabee on Common Core

Tell Mike Huckabee what you think about his support of Common Core standards.  This is your chance to let Governor Huckabee know the FACTS  about Common Core, not the talking points from special interest groups.

This is a repost of an email I received:

************************************

We have seen over and over again that former Governor Mike Huckabee has been championing the Common Core Standards, see below.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/11/common-core-standards-editorials-debates/2413555/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/5/huckabee-urges-states-back-common-core/

We are going to do a project to get Mike Huckabee educated on what hundreds of thousands of parents, teachers and administrators think about Common Core. Huckabee has a national voice and is misleading parents and his circle of influence on this issue. We must stop him in his tracks by alerting him to how much this issue means to you.

We are going to use the “Twitter Bomb” tool  to make sure he gets the message of how YOU feel about this, not his crony political buddies like Jeb Bush. Please send to all of your contacts and please post on all of your Facebook pages.

Starting at 8 am pdt/ 11am edt June 20, 2013 and we are doing it for 72 hours leading up to his show on Saturday June 22, 2013, we are asking you to Tweet and put on Mike Huckabee’s  Facebook pages facts about Common Core .

We will be using three hashtags for this project, #educateHuckabee#stopcommoncore#CURENat

Below you will find all of the social media sources for Mike Huckabee:

Mike Huckabee For America(Facebook page): https://www.facebook.com/HuckabeeforAmerica?fref=ts

Mike Huckabee (Facebook page) –Politician: https://www.facebook.com/mikehuckabee?fref=ts

Huckabee Twitter Accounts: Find him on Twitter and Follow him so you can send him Tweets.

@GovMikeHuckabee

@huckabeenews

So for those new to Twitter here is an example of the kinds of Tweets we can do:

@GovMikeHuckabee Common Core gets rid of parental rights #educateHuckabee#stopcommoncore,#CURENat

@huckabeenews  http://catholicexchange.com/two-moms-vs-common-core/ #educate Huckabee#stopcommoncore#CURENat

I would use his “news” Twitter to show all of the news going against CCS.

***********************************

Remember, give Huckabee the FACTS about Common Core.  Just the FACTS should stop the implementation of a grand theory not backed up by any research or data.  Ask him why he supports educational reform crafted by two private trade organizations.    Ask him if this educational reform reduces federal power/cost to local districts.  If it doesn't, then ask him why he supports Common Core?

Pushback on Common Core Grows

"It's just a set of standards. What's the big deal?" (St. Louis County teacher) "This is an historic national event." (National Council of Teachers of English)

"Notwithstanding this, a state may supplement the common standards with additional standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15% of the State's total standards for that content area." (Federal Register July 29, 2009)   "We can change or add to the standards any time we want." (MO DESE)

These kinds of conflicting statements about common core standards are typical these days. It is a confusing time for the public in particular, but even for education officials who don't seem to know what the big picture is for common core. School board members, district curriculum directors and chief financial officers have large holes in their knowledge base about common core; how much it will cost and who is paying for what, what is a district's real flexibility, what will its impact on district performance be, how it is going to affect literature selection, ideology in the classroom and teacher performance evaluations. So far, common core appears to be mostly marketing hype, like the buzz created for the Gabbo tv show on the FOX sitcom The Simpson's. No one was exactly sure what it was, but they were pretty sure they wanted to watch it.

Perhaps the best analogy is to the introduction of many cell phones. A lot of money and marketing energy goes into the introduction of the newest edition of X. Plenty of people will sign up to be early adopters, believing with faith often lacking in modern religious devotees, that the product will live up to the hype. Many times that faith turned out to be misplaced as the product was rushed to market with more bugs than the NSA placed in James Rosen's office. Just ask the people who bough Samsung's Craft phone, dubbed the worst cell phone ever by Slate magazine.

Similar hype and touting of technological superiority accompany the implementation of common core yet, as with other technology promotion, there is little field experience to support such claims. That is one of the biggest weaknesses of common core. There is little to no pilot data on the effectiveness of these standards to produce the outcomes of college and career readiness claimed. Yet 90% of the students in the United States will be taught these untested standards in just over a year. Perhaps that could explain the push back against the standards found in so many states.

Most recently New York filed bill Bill A07994 that would stop the full scale implementation of common core.  They follow in the footsteps of Michigan and Indiana in passing legislation halting the implementation of common core. Texas went so far as to ban the adoption of Common Core. And in Pennsylvania the push back on common core has created strange bedfellows of Tea Party activists and the AFT Pennsylvania. Many have asked Catholic schools to similarly take a wait and see attitude, allowing the public schools to be the test cases for the efficacy of the standards. Other states continue their similar efforts to take a step back and examine the bluster of common core, in light of conflicting statements like those given above and the lack of concrete details or support documentation. If Missouri is successful in passing such legislation this next session, we would be in the company of a growing number of states who are finally employing prudence in education policy.  Not all of us are comfortable early adopters, and experience has proven us to be wiser for it.

Common Core Proponents Follow a Mahatma Gandhi Quote. Are the Common Core Opponents Winning?

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

  Mahatma Gandhi

Read the blog below from NewSchools Venture Funds, Common Core-spiracy and make your own conclusions about the proponents of Common Core and how they are now responding to CCSS opponents.  Are the proponents at the ridicule/fighting stage as described by Gandhi?  It's hard to ignore the increasing voices of those against Common Core.  It's obvious anti-CCSS folks can't be ignored, so they are now being ridiculed and fought by those loving the core.

Just a bit of background, here's "our core values" page from NewSchools Venture Funds:

Our mission is to transform public education through powerful ideas and passionate entrepreneurs so that all children – especially those in underserved communities – have the opportunity to succeed. We are guided in our actions by the following core values. 

Entrepreneurship

We seize opportunities and overcome obstacles by being resourceful, creative, and embracing the Art of the Possible.

Results-Oriented

We focus on measurable outcomes and the discipline to improve continuously.

Integrity

We strive to be ethical and honest in both actions and words, in the moment and over time.

Stewardship

We conscientiously use the resources with which we have been entrusted.

Collaboration

We work collectively, inclusively, and respectfully to accomplish more than what is possible alone.

Passion

We act with commitment and zeal in all aspects of our work.

I guess working collectively, inclusively, respectfully (collaboration) and being ethical and honest (integrity) in actions and words holds true with only those you agree with.  Common Core opponents must be ridiculed and demeaned.  And these are people who want to transform public education?  Are they elected officials?  Or are they David Coleman wannabes trying to structure public education with your tax money and your children and they don't bother to ask your opinion?  

NewSchools Venture Funds is really not interested in your opinion: it's funded heavily by Bill Gates and Silicon Valley and has an intense financial interest for Common Core to be implemented.  Why listen to concerned taxpayers and parents when the company has received millions in private funding?

I wonder why the blog doesn't mention the organization's ties to special interests?  From Common Core-spiracy:

*********************************************

April 19, 2013

Common Core-spiracy

Common Core, Policy and Politics

By Benjamin Riley

3 comments

***EMERGENCY ACTION ALERT***
 

TO:           All members of the Illuminati Common Core-spiracy
 

FROM:   Benjamin Riley, NewSchools Venture Front
 

CC:           Governors of 45 US states; NEA & AFT leadership; Scholastic, Pearson and McGraw Hill; US Chamber of Commerce; Gates Foundation; Aspen Institute; ExxonMobil; Trilateral Commission; Council on Foreign Relations; All European Heads of State;  Professor Bill Ayers; the Rothschilds; the Rockefellers; Parallax Corporation; Fair Play for Cuba Committee; [REDACTED BY CHENEY]; Dennis Rodman
 

RE:           Discovery of our plot to destroy the American way of life through the raising of academic standards
 

Gentlemen (and Condi), I write with great urgency. Despite our best efforts to conceal our true aims behind the development and adoption of the Common Core State Standards, our plot is on the verge of unraveling.  (Reminder: our plan is to “dumb down schoolchildren so they will be obedient servants of the government and probably to indoctrinate them to accept the leftwing view of America and its history,” even though most of us are wealthy capitalists.) We did not anticipate that a small, select band of truth seeking American patriots would see through our ruse and reveal our true intentions. 

As you know, we intend to shred this country’s fabric of freedom through a complex, multi-pronged assault on everything this nation holds sacred – starting with cursive handwriting. We intentionally removed cursive from the Common Core because we broadly agreed that the ability to write in round letters that flow together is a key skill for all freethinking persons to possess in 2013. The Declaration of Independence, after all, was written in cursive – coincidence?  Unfortunately for us, however, state legislators in North Carolina have already passed legislation to again mandate that cursive writing be taught in school, and other states seem poised to follow North Carolina’s lead. So much for our hope that principles of “small government conservatism” would mitigate against this meddling into what schools teach.

But other problems loom larger for us than our war on penmanship. Although the Common Core was created by state-based groups, and adopted by 45 state legislatures with broad bipartisan support, we all know that eventually we were going to build one giant federal database, housed within the National Security Agency (or News Corp), to track the thoughts of every student in the country. What we did not anticipate is Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – usually our reliable puppet – would discover our plan and rally forces against our “Big Brother privacy invasion.” Although there is little we can do to stop her directly, I’ve instructed the Gifts Department to cancel the Daytona 500 tickets we promised Clarence for the Citizens United decision.

We also, as you know, plan to brainwash the American citizenry into believing fringe scientific theories outside the mainstream of scientific thought. I refer of course to “evolution” and “climate change.” According to an education “expert” at Cato Institute (another usually reliable puppet), “there’s nothing wrong with talking about climate change in science classrooms, but this opens up the huge possibility that interpretations of climate change or analysis that a lot of people disagree with will still be taught.” Of course, some people might equate teaching “interpretations” and “analysis” of “what’s happening to the planet” as what we commonly refer to as “science,” but apparently the road to serfdom is paved with Darwin’s monkey theories.

Likewise, we are in real trouble with our plan to create a single, national curriculum that will turn America’s freedom-loving children into France-admiring cheese-eating surrender monkeys. To be sure, on their face the Common Core State Standards are academic standards that define what students are expected to know and learn, and do not mandate any particular material (or “curriculum”) that educators must use. Nonetheless, for reasons that remain opaque we have made it a priority to teach “seventh-graders about J. Edgar Hoover’s sexuality.” (Similarly, David H. and Charles G. feel VERY strongly that Atlas Shrugged should be required reading in the third grade – let’s take this up at our next meeting in Davos.)

You will also recall our hope that, once the Common Core was firmly entrenched in the American education system and our youth fully indoctrinated, we would provide “unfettered access of our educational system by the United Nations.” Unfortunately, a rogue outfit in Arizona has gotten wind of our plan and published our org chart for all to see. As I’ve asked you before, PLEASE stop circulating our internal documents to Fox News – Sean H. has an unfortunate tendency to leave documents lying around in the men’s room.

But our most daunting challenge stems from an adversary as intelligent as he is fearless. I refer of course to Glenn Beck. Using the keen insight for which he is well admired, Beck rightly perceives that the Common Core effort is not about our education system per se. Rather, Beck understands the Common Core is merely prelude to our much bigger ambition to eliminate all parental rights. Beck knows that soon, using “Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging [and a] pressure-sensitive computer mouse,” we will be able to directly manipulate the minds of American citizens. This plan will only work, however, if we’ve successfully eliminated any rights parents have to make any decisions for their children, including (importantly) whether they wear tinfoil hats.

Gentlemen, we must act quickly. I hereby propose an emergency action plan to revive the Common Core before these truth-tellers capture the hearts and minds of the worker-bee drones we are so intent on manufacturing:

1. Massive advertising buy in support of Common Core in all major golf tournaments
2. Federal legislation to require purchase of all Common Core curriculum materials in bitcoins
3. Kidnap Senator Rand Paul, demand his fealty to Common Core through appeal to the Aqua Buddha
4. Develop series of colorful children’s books in support of the Common Core loosely tied to known defenders of freedom, including Adam Smith (“The Invisible Hand…of Your Education!”), Ayn Rand (“Goin’ Galt with the Common Core”), and Charles Murray (“Bending the Bell Curve”)
5. Triple production of black helicopters

Please deposit 5% of your net wealth forthwith into our Cayman Islands account so that we may maintain our control over the American education system, Wall Street, Hollywood, the International Baccalaureate program, and other global systems of power.

Novus ordo seclorum.

*************************************

 Okee dokee folks.  If you don't like Common Core, you have been sufficiently schooled by an elite much smarter than you so stop being silly with your questions and concerns about the direction of public education.   Jim Stergios had a respectful response to an extraordinarily disrespectful article:

Jim Stergios says:

April 25, 2013 at 11:50 am

Hi Ben:
An argument that is below you. Review the five studies we have done on Common Core’s quality (mediocre at best), legal dimensions, and cost. There are very good reasons to oppose Common Core. You’re smarter than this silliness, at least that is what I have heard from friends.