You know that terrible "Common Core Math" thing?

Since you're on the internet, I'm sure you've seen some kind of post, comment, or meme that claims to show you a "Common Core Math" problem.    What you are seeing are actually problems from Everyday Math and other textbooks/curricular sources being touted as "Common Core Math". The CC are a set of standards used to guide the teacher (as well as the student and parents) to teach concepts that are developmentally appropriate for their grade level, and to a lesser extent, to measure the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

The curriculum is whatever means that a state/district/school/or teacher uses to teach those concepts.

This is analogous to your employer telling you that you and your team must attend meetings in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago, New York, and Boston, but allowing you to decide whether to take a plane, train, bus, or car. The standard is that you will meet with certain people in each of those cities. The curriculum is how you choose to get there. It is even possible that some team members will be more comfortable using a different means of transport to get between the meetings - just as different students respond to different methods of learning a skill.

While the Common Core standards are not perfect, they are an improvement over the previous standards in some states.   They also align the standards across many states, so that, if you move to a new state, your child won't be a year ahead in some areas, and a year behind in others.  This is why you might be hearing conflicting complaints that the Common Core is "too hard" and at the same time "dumbs things down".

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

The Militarization of Policing in America

Some thoughts and sources for further study about the militarization of law enforcement in America. I used to study trends in law enforcement in Criminal Justice and Sociology classes, and for professional development in my prior career. I remember reading a couple of articles in LE professional journals over a decade ago that addressed the changing attitudes in the "younger generation" of police, and how that was causing a divide between LE and the citizenry. Some of the older LE professionals were worried about the changes in equipment, tactics, training, and attitudes they were seeing in the newer additions to the profession.

That problem has continued to grow over the past decade, and now has a name - the militarization of policing. Here's some of what a quick trip to google turned up...  

What is the militarization of law enforcement? Here it is, in a nutshell:

The police have become more militarized, more soldier-like in the last generation or two," explains journalist and author Radley Balko. "It applies to the weapons they are using, the uniforms they wear...to the tactics they use, to what I think is the most pervasive problem which is the mindset that police officers take to the job."

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/08/0...itarization-of  

Why should military and LE be different?

To cast the roles of the two too closely, those in and out of law enforcement say, is to mistake the mission of each. Soldiers, after all, go to war to destroy, and kill the enemy. The police, who are supposed to maintain the peace, “are the citizens, and the citizens are the police,” according to Chief Walter A. McNeil of Quincy, Fla., the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, citing the words of Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern-day policing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/su...anted=all&_r=0  

Why can't LE have tacticool toys for use against the real badass villains? Because they end up using those toys on... everyone.

In some cases, the rationale for using military weapons and tactics on domestic soil seems obvious: look no further, proponents argue, than the recent hunt for the Tsarnaev brothers after the Boston Marathon bombings. But what’s remarkable is how routine these tactics have become as a means of pursuing nonviolent suspects and low-level investigations, particularly in the war on drugs.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...am-nation.html

 I see why citizens might be concerned, but why should this be a concern to a law enforcement professional?

Although the botched raid of my home and killing of our dogs, Payton and Chase, have received considerable attention in the media, it is important to underscore that this bill is about much more than an isolated, high-profile mistake. It is about a growing and troubling trend where law enforcement agencies are using SWAT teams to perform ordinary police work. Prince George’s County police acknowledges deploying SWAT teams between 400 and 700 a year— that’s twice a day—and other counties in the state have said that they also deploy their special tactical units hundreds of times a year. The hearings on these bills have brought to light numerous botched and ill-advised raids in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s counties that also have had devastating effects on the lives of innocent people and undermined faith in law enforcement. . . .

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/mili...next%E2%80%9D/  

What would you recommend that LE do, if not using SWAT teams for everything? Well, you old timers may remember this concept called "Community Policing", where the LEOs and the citizenry worked together to deter crime...

Community policing, actual officers walking the streets and interacting with civilians, instead of patrolling in cars or rolling-in armored response vehicles, has by far proven the most effective form of law enforcement – budgetary and statistically. The militarization of local police is inherently opposite of strategies that have shown the best results.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bradlock...-local-police/  

What should be the top priorities of any LE professional? What's wrong with "Officer Safety" being the primary focus of police work?

All of these policies have infused too many police agencies with a culture of militarism. Neill Franklin is a former narcotics cop in Maryland, who also oversaw training at the state's police academies in the early 2000s. “I think there are two critical components to policing that cops today have forgotten," he says. "Number one, you’ve signed on to a dangerous job. That means that you’ve agreed to a certain amount of risk. You don’t get to start stepping on others’ rights to minimize that risk you agreed to take on. And number two, your first priority is not to protect yourself, it’s to protect those you’ve sworn to protect. But I don’t know how you get police officers today to value those principles again. The ‘us and everybody else’ sentiment is strong today. It’s very, very difficult to change a culture.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3749272.html

The lie of "compromise" in anti-gun legislation.

It seems that whenever the anti-constitutionalist element wants to create more "gun control", they claim that their plan is a "compromise". What that really boils down to, in most cases, is "We'll let some people keep some guns". The "compromise" is always one sided, and provides no value for law abiding gun owners.

A real compromise would give something back to American citizens in return for taking away our rights. As it is, “gun control” does not reduce crime or improve public safety, and only serves to deny freedoms to the people.

How about this for a compromise – have background checks – “free”, “instant” background checks with no record of why the check is being made – and used for gun transfers, voting, employment eligibility verification, government benefits verification, etc. (because we actually do need to ensure that only law abiding citizens get access to these things). In return for us allowing such intrusions into our freedoms, we would – at a minimum – like to have the ability to buy or sell firearms in any state, and use CCW or other permits from any state in any state. This means that a Utah carry license would be valid in California, New York, Chicago, or Washington D.C..

We would also like for guns and ammunition to be exempt from sales taxes – as such taxes are an infringement in our ability to exercise our rights. To sweeten the deal, maybe we could also have a tax credit for citizens who attend firearms safety training and who can show that they practice firing their firearms a number of times each year.

When we are offered things like this in return for giving up our 2nd, and 4th amendment rights on the background check issue, then – and only then – is there any real compromise on the table.

The perceived divide between LEOs and non LEO gun owners.

There is a perception of a divide between LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers - aka "cops") and non LEO gun owners. This divide is a predictable consequence of gun laws that treat off duty LEOs differently than other citizens. It creates a disconnect between two groups in the gun owning community, breeds suspicion, and exempts LEOs from some of the laws that they enforce.

Once the initial disconnect is there, and people no longer see LEOs as standing beside the people, people give more credence to other reports they hear about LE behaving badly, and the divide grows wider. As the divide grows wider, LEOs tend to care less about what the citizens - now disdainfully referred to as "civilians" - think. And the vicious cycle continues...

The same disconnect between civilian gun owners and military gun owners doesn't exist, because military exemptions tend to only apply while on duty, and using government supplied weapons. There are also exemptions that allow non-Californians who are temporarily stationed here to keep possession of their legal and safe firearms - but these servicemembers are not Californians, don't vote here, and will most likely take those weapons with them when they leave California - so they aren't as important to the state.

While there may be good reasons for off duty and retired LEOs to have national carry rights (which are provided federally under LEOSA), there is no reasonable explanation for why they should be allowed to purchase firearms that the state deems "unsafe" (this actually creates an "officer safety" problem, if the CA handgun roster is legitimate, because now LEOs are using guns that the state claims "endanger" the LEOs), no reason that they should be allowed to personally own firearms that the state bans as "assault weapons" (this again creates "officer safety" issues, as it makes LEOs better targets for burglars who want to acquire "desirable" firearms), and no reason that they should need to have "high capacity" magazine when they are off duty (or even when they are on duty - since the party line is that LEOs are better trained with firearms, so shouldn't need more rounds to subdue a threat).

The distrust and bad feeling that we have seen developing between gun owners and civilian LEOs is working out exactly as planned by the anti-gunners. Civilian LEOs have been thrown enough crumbs that they don't speak out en masse against new gun control laws, and don't get their unions involved in fighting against gun control measures. Before antigunners included such LE exemptions in their bills, many rank and file LEOs would go on record as opposing gun control legislation, because they didn't want to have the right of the people - including themselves -to self defense infringed.

To some people, it seems that by granting LEOs privileges, the antigunners have muted LEO opposition to taking away the rights of the rest of the people.

The test of what is “reasonable”

The test of what is “reasonable” One of the tactics of those who oppose our right to keep and bear arms is to label any of their proposals as “reasonable” or “common sense” – leaving our positions to be seen as “unreasonable” and “nonsensical”. The fact is that since most Americans are in the middle ground on 2A issues, they can easily be influenced by the language used. We can’t allow our enemies to control the definitions used, or we will lose the debate before it even begins. The real test of what is “reasonable” in terms of gun control is to look at how the same policy would be viewed if applied to another aspect of life. If what seems “reasonable” for one matter that is less important to someone seems “unreasonable” for a matter that is important to them, we must expose that hypocrisy. Unfortunately, exposing the hypocrisy of the “Antis” may also cause some of us to have to examine ourselves for hypocritical thinking. ID and background checks that are reasonable for purchasing a gun are also reasonable for voting. In both cases, there is a compelling public interest in knowing that the person exercising the right is how they say they are, and is not a “prohibited person” (i.e. felon, insane, or non-citizen), so both require the same safeguards – right? If a waiting period is “reasonable” to allow a person to “cool off” and avoid “rushing into” a major decision, then it is “Common sense” for the same waiting period that applies to gun purchases should also be applied to abortion. These are both decisions where a life may end up being at stake, so both should require the same amount of deliberation – right? If a\it is “reasonable” for a citizen to be required to show ID and provide a fingerprint to buy ammunition, and must do so with a licensed seller in a face to face transaction, then it is “common sense” for the same policy needs to be applied to the sale of gasoline. After all, many traffic accidents and fatalities are caused by “prohibited persons” who are illegally operating motor vehicles without a valid license, registration, or insurance. This also applies to limits on amount of purchase in a given period. If a citizen can be restarted to purchasing only x cases of ammunition a week, then it stands to reason that a limit of x gallons of gasoline would also be appropriate. These are both instances where regulating of the supply will arguably impact public safety, so both should be treated the same (although gun ownership is an enumerated right, while car ownership comes under general property rights) – right? Personally, the ID verification and making sure that they are not a felon, insane person, or non-citizen makes sense before I want to allow anyone to vote or buy a gun. In the other two, I have to say that they are not reasonable to me – but are equivalently unreasonable. I think it’s clear that the main purpose of waiting periods is simply to create an inconvenience, and thus limit the citizen’s ability to exercise their right (gun ownership is an enumerated right, while abortion is often described as being a “right” although it is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution). Likewise the ammunition or gasoline regulation/check is simply an attempt to create an inconvenience and raise costs, so as to limit a citizen’s ability to exercise their right (the enumerated right to keep and bear arms, and the right to freedom of movement/travel).

A “Reasonable Compromise” on Universal Background Checks for Firearms Purchases

A “Reasonable Compromise” on Universal Background Checks for Firearms Purchases There has been a lot of hype in the media about the supposed “Gun show loophole” in the national background check system, and calls for universal background checks for firearms purchases. It seems that this could be accomplished in such a way that both pro 2nd Amendment rights groups and pro gun-control groups would be satisfied. Let’s start by taking a look at what each side reasonably wants to have, and then seeing if this can be accomplished in a manner that meets the needs of both sides. Both sides want to prevent “prohibited people” from acquiring firearms and other dangerous weapons. The pro 2nd Amendment rights side wants citizens to enjoy their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. They want to be able to transfer (sell, purchase, gift, or receive) firearms in a manner that does not include undue cots (taxes/fees), delays, or inconvenience. It is also reasonable that the pro 2nd Amendment side would want something in return for giving the government so much control over a basic, civil right. The gun-control side claims that universal background checks will make everyone safer, and want them to be performed in all firearms transactions, in order to advance the public good. Current laws vary from state to state, and some include waiting periods, and purchase limits, as well as background checks. I would say that, as a minimum, in order to meet the reasonable expectations of both sides, the universal background check must meet the following criteria: 1 Must be free to the buyer, and funded by the public – since it is a public safety measure. While a small fee (no more than the state Driver’s License or ID card fee) could be charged to first time buyers, no other fees or special taxes would apply. 2 Must be conducted by/through a reputable organization, such as the FBI, ATF, or other federal organization. For the purpose of transfers between two private parties, any local law enforcement office would be required to conduct the check at no cost to the private parties. Such checks would be conducted at any time during normal department business hours. If appointments are not available within three business days (or one calendar week), the LEA would be forced to pay a fine of $5,000 each to the buyer and seller for the inconvenience and for violating their civil rights. 3 Gun shops (FFLs) would be able to access the database through computer, telephone, or other communications system in order to process background checks on customers. 4 Database checks for flags must include felonies, disqualifying misdemeanors (i.e. domestic violence), citizenship status, and psychiatric information that would disqualify a potential purchaser. Since all of these conditions other than misdemeanor offenses disallow voting, the same database could also be used to screen potential voters to eliminate voter fraud, creating a cost savings to the taxpayer, since it would serve two purposes. 5 Buyers would have to provide federal or state photo ID, SSN, and biometric data (example: thumbprint or fingerprints) in order to prove identity. This would be the same requirement for positive voter ID, and could use the same system – again creating cost savings for the taxpayer. 6 Must be “instant” meaning that the entire process should take 30 minutes or less to verify or flag a potential purchaser. While a “waiting period” may be appropriate for the first purchase, allowing investigators to follow up on any irregularities or questions arising from the instant check, no state would be allowed to force such a period on people who had already successfully purchased one firearm using the system. 7 All persons flagged would be investigated by the appropriate agency, and any prohibited persons who were illegally attempting to purchase a firearm would be prosecuted. 8 Gun show organizers would be required to set up a background check booth with communications linked to the appropriate database to facilitate transfers at the show. Cost for such equipment, personnel, and connection fees would be tax deductible as a business expense. 9 Once entered into the system, returning purchasers would be able to purchase firearms via face to face transactions in any US state or territory. Such persons could be issued a special license (with photo ID and biometric information) at a cost not to exceed that of a state DL, or SSN and biometric information in the database could be used. 10 Any federal, state, or local registration requirements would be at no cost to the buyer or seller, since registration is claimed to be a “public safety” measure, it will be paid for using public funds. 11 If a firearms owner enters into the class of prohibited person, they shall be allowed to arrange the sale of their firearms (except any used in the commission of violent crimes) through a third party. 12 Names, addresses, and other personal information about gun buyers or those who register firearms would be protected under all available privacy laws, and would not be released to the public (or press) without a compelling public interest. Agencies doing so would be fined $50,000 per person whose privacy was invaded, and the officials responsible would be tried for willful violation of civil rights, with a felony term of 2 years per violation. 13 Reciprocity: Any firearm or accessory (i.e. magazine, stock, etc.) that has been legally purchased in one US state or territory may legally be possessed in any other US state or territory.

What is a "reasonable" policy to prevent prohibited people from buying ammunition?

The parallel to the idea of registration of ammunition sales is to ask how you would feel about similar restrictions being placed on the sale of gasoline. Many traffic accidents and fatalities are caused by unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured drivers ("prohibited persons"). The DMV has not been able to keep those people off the road. Since over 30,000 Americans die in traffic accidents each year, surely the "public safety" need there is much greater than the public safety need to restrict ammunition sales. That means: Only purchase from licensed dealers. ID and documents (DL, registration, insurance papers) shown to employee at time of purchase. Fingerprint at time of purchase. Limits on the amount of gasoline you can buy in a given period (2 gallons a day? 10 gallons a week?). Is this reasonable? If it is not reasonable to enact such rules to prevent prohibited persons from purchasing gasoline, then why would they be reasonable for ammunition?