Just tell me the gist, Will.
Whoa there! Does the mere mention of a science test have you rolling your eyes with boredom? Has your tolerance for fact-based analysis been whittled down to the eraser on your brain’s number two pencil?

Well snap out of it! Science is life, the universe, and everything. It’s used to know the who, the why, the what, the how, and all of the other interrogative words that exist. It is a way of knowing the truth of our perception. Looks can be deceiving, they say. Your car isn’t red. The chemical makeup of the paint just happens to be reflecting light at a frequency of 400-484 Terahertz with a wavelength of 620-750 nanometers. That’s right. Colors don’t exist! But I digress.

Back to Florida. This Science FCAT test is used to measure the scientific literacy of Florida 5th graders. But when Krampf began developing practice questions for students, he found some pretty alarming errors in the FCAT 2.0 Science Test Item Specifications. The FCAT2.0STIS (my abbreviation) are specifications for what kind of content the test should cover.

Will, you mentioned so-called “problems” in your very first sentence. One hundred and eighty three words later, you have yet to really tell us anything.
So I ramble! Give me a break. Background info is necessary, imaginary reader.

While I’ve been blogging on and off for nearly ten years now, I can hardly call myself a veteran blogger. As such, I may break a few rules here and there. I don’t know if this is allowed, but I am going to copy and paste some material from Krampf’s blog. I was going to rewrite in my own words, but Krampf just explains things so well. He really is a great writer. (Krampf, if you are reading this, I complimented you! Please don’t sue!)

Problems with the FCAT, as illuminated by The Happy Scientist:

1. A glossary of definitions (Appendix C) is provided for test item writers to indicate the level of understanding expected of fifth grade students. Included in that list is the following definition:
   

   Predator—An organism that obtains nutrients from other organisms.

    

   By that definition, cows are predators because they obtain nutrients from plants. The plants are predators too, since they obtain nutrients from decaying remains of other organisms. I have yet to find anyone who thinks that this is a proper definition of a predator.

2. In the same list we find:
   

   Germination—The process by which plants begin to grow from seed to spore or from seed to
   bud.

    

   There are no plants that grow from seed to spore. The mistakes in these definitions are not technicalities. They are errors that any fourth grade science teacher would catch. How did they make it past scientific review?

3. Sample Item 2 for SC.5.N.1.6 (page 32), which assesses the following benchmark.
   

   SC.5.N.1.6: Recognize and explain the difference between personal opinion/interpretation and verified observation.

    

   This sample question offers the following observations, and asks which is scientifically testable.

   1. The petals of red roses are softer than the petals of yellow roses.
   2. The song of a mockingbird is prettier than the song of a cardinal.
   3. Orange blossoms give off a sweeter smell than gardenia flowers.
   4. Sunflowers with larger petals attract more bees than sunflowers with smaller petals.

    

   The document indicates that 4 is the correct answer, but answers 1 and 3 are also scientifically testable.

   For answer 1, the Sunshine State Standards list texture as a scientifically testable property in the third grade (SC.3.P.8.3), fourth grade (SC.4.P.8.1), and fifth grade (SC.5.P.8.1), so even the State Standards say it is a scientifically correct answer.

   For answer 3, smell is a matter of chemistry. Give a decent chemist the chemical makeup of the scent of two different flowers, and she will be able to tell you which smells sweeter without ever smelling them.

   While this question has three correct answers, any student that answered 1 or 3 would be graded as getting the question wrong. Why use scientifically correct “wrong” answers instead of using responses that were actually incorrect? Surely someone on the Content Advisory Committee knew enough science to spot this problem.

4. For this one, you have to go to the document and scroll down to Sample Item 7 for SC.4.E.6.2 (page 42)There is nothing in the drawing or written information that indicates if the square object is a streak plate (to test streak) or a glass plate (to test hardness.)  Scratching a glass plate is one of the most common tests for hardness, and it appears as a graphic or photograph in most textbook units on minerals. C would be just as valid an answer as B, but a student that answered C would be graded as giving a wrong answer. This flaw could have easily been avoided by simply not listing hardness as one of the choices.

Source:
http://thehappyscientist.com/blog/problems-floridas-science-fcat-test

So there you have it, folks. How crazy is that?

- Will

Not have children? Adopt?

Oddly enough, Kolbert didn’t even discuss adoption. Would you choose to have biological children over adopting? If not, why not?

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU! As a society, we haven’t come close to the dystopian authoritative state that George Orwell predicted, but it seems we’re always inching closer. The militarization of our police and expansion of their powers of surveillance showcases the mighty power of Big Brother. But we the People have a power of our own.

A power for communication.
A power for organization.
A power for information.

“They’ve (Big Brother) seen the power of people communicating with each other to take to the streets, and they’ve seen world opinion changed in an eye blink, all due to just a handful of videos shot at street-level. Videos of massacres of crowds of peaceful, unarmed citizens; videos of police and military savagery; videos of crowded hospital hallways filled with casualties; videos of women and children running for their lives from a hail of bullets; and (worst for them) videos of triumphant throngs in the streets celebrating their deliverance from tyranny. Big Brother still has a lot of power at his disposal, but Little Brother’s cell phone video may prove to be a more powerful force, in the end. Because, now, surveillance works both ways.”

-       Chris Weigant, “Big Brother vs. Little Brother” – February 23, 2011

Chris wrote specifically to the power of Little Brother in the Libyan and Egyptian uprising. Last fall, Little Brother was present at Occupy camps across the country. Little Brother is everywhere at any time.

While Big Brother watches us, Little Brother watches right back.

But how could an average Joe/Jane compete for elected office in this age of SuperPACs, multimillionaire campaign financiers and extremely costly political advertising? The answer is they can’t. That would be like a lowly henchman trying to take out Arnold Schwarzenegger in “Commando.”

Spoiler alert….

It doesn’t happen.

But who said running for political office needed to cost so much money? The advent of social media certainly has already caused a fair share of revolutions, so why not add an electoral revolution?

Through social media, an unknown candidate could explain their positions, muster up support and get people to vote. Allowing anyone to run for office, not just the wealthy few. Given the current climate of hostility towards both political parties, they might even win.

Sounds crazy, right? But it’s actually already happening… In September, Germany’s upstart digital “Pirate Party” won 8.9% support and earned parliamentary representation. The party ran on Internet freedom issues and used primarily social media and a few dedicated people to campaign.

Clearly, it would be much more difficult in a winner take all, first past the post, type of American election, but it’s still possible….

Who’s to say all those hipsters living in Williamsburg couldn’t organize to win the New York’s 10^th Congressional District?

After all, aren’t they the (some of) ones responsible for creating a global Occupy movement using only social media?

Ad Astra Per Aspera.

After a long delay in posting, I think it’s time to write a follow up to “1% President for the 99%.” In the article, I was among the first to bring up the fact that Mitt may be out-of-touch with ordinary Americans because of his status as a multimillionaire. A fact that has only became clearer, after Romney released his tax records to show that he only paid 13.9% in taxes. And no, I’m not jealous of how ridiculously rich Romney is, I just don’t think I should pay higher taxes than somebody who has more than enough wealth to spare. *

But enough with Money-Man-Mitt, perhaps I’m giving him a hard of a time or too much focus, because the real problem is that so many of our politicians are in this esteemed 1%.

Let’s take a look at Congress:

-       Median Income of Americans: $49,000**

-       Income of Congress: $174,000 (That only amounts to how much taxpayer money they determined should be their salary and    doesn’t include other incomes.)

So, really it works out to look like this:

-       Median Net Worth of American Families (which includes home worth): $120,000

-       Median Net Worth of Congress: $912,000

Making Congress almost 8 times more wealthy than most American families.

Maybe we should say, there’s a lot of 2%ers running the country, since $912,000 is actually just shy of the 1% threshold of $1.1 million. But there’s still an awful lot of 1%ers deciding how the country should be run.

It’s important to note that this transcends political party too. Of the 50 richest members in Congress, 32 are Republican and 18 Democrat. Of the 2012 Presidential race, all are millionaires: Obama net worth $7.3 mil, Romney $190- 250 mil, Gingrich $6.7 mil, Ron Paul $2.25-5 mil.

So where does that leave most Americans? Can any politician really relate to what’s going on for most people in America? Is it any wonder why the top tax rates are so low? Is it any wonder why low income Americans don’t get the help they need? Is it any wonder why the middle class continues to shrink given the economic makeup of our country’s elected officials?

Stay tuned for part 3, when I discuss how to change the current course….

Until then.

Ad Astra Per Aspera.

*Romney’s income totaled $45 million, he paid 13.9% in taxes or $6.2 million, leaving him with $38.8 million for the year. Which is a crazy amount of money. However, if he had paid 35% rate, he would’ve paid $15.75 million and still would’ve had $30 million dollars as a yearly income. Honestly, what couldn’t you do or buy with $39 mil that you couldn’t do with $30 mil.

**This stat was taken from the January 23, 2012 Newsweek article, “Rich America, Poor America.”

All Americans should be questioning his candidacy with his status as a 1%-er. Let’s stop asking questions about the similarities and differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. Let’s ask questions like: would Romney support tax increases on the wealthiest Americans (including himself) or would he vote against it and against the 62% of Americans who want the increases?

Tougher questions would allow the people to see Romney’s true character. He presents himself well in the debates, but he gives scripted responses to expected questions. We’ve seen glimpses of the true Mitt only 2 times, both while flustered by questions and going off the script. Once in Iowa where he declared, “Corporations are people, my friend.” And once when Perry brought up that Mitt had hired a lawn care company that hired illegals and Mitt quipped that they went to the company and said, “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.”

Nevermind the illegals, Mitt probably doesn’t even realize most Americans do their own lawn-work. Sorry to say Mitt, but you’re out of touch. With the possible exception in 2 areas:

1) Like millions of Americans, Mitt has been unemployed throughout the recession. Since finishing his term as Massachusetts Governor in 2007, Mitt hasn’t had a real job. He’s just been cruising around the country campaigning for president for 2 years, fundraising and networking.

2) And like millions of Americans, Mitt lost homes during the recession. Selling off his Massachusetts colonial home worth $3.5 million and his Deer Valley ski resort home in Utah worth $5.25 million. But unlike most Americans, he purchased a new home during the recession, a $12 million beach house in San Diego.

Sorry Mitt, but the 99% will not allow another 1%-er to become President. When you’re worth $190-250 million, you can’t relate to the problems Americans are facing. You’ll never know what it’s like to be in debt because of student loans. You’ll never know what it’s like to decide between a mortgage payment and health insurance. You’ll never know what it’s like to be jobless. Worse yet, you never knew. You were born into politics, the son of the Governor of Michigan and cabinet member of Nixon. Breed into business, the son of the CEO to American Motors and close friend of the Marriott’s. Your membership in the upper class was a birthright.

I won’t say that Mitt didn’t work hard and didn’t earn his money. But I will say that if we asked tougher questions to Mitt during the debates and looked in-depth to his life’s story, it would be nearly impossible for most Americans to believe that this man will have their best interests at heart. I’m not saying that he’s not compassionate, I’m simply saying that he can’t relate, nor will he ever be able to relate to the 99%.

Ad astra per aspera.

So if you plan on not staying in your underground bunker throughout the entire weekend, heads up. After all, there is a 1 in 2,000 chance of human injury.

More info at NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/19/141522537/watch-out-more-space-debris-coming-our-way

What the article doesn’t take into account is that the Republican Party is undergoing a transformation led by strict Constitutionalists. Their mission is to take a’Merika! back to it’s roots. Back to the Founding Father’s original intent. Back to when only wealthy, white, males could vote.

Of course it all sounds extreme, but let’s not forget just how insane these Republican Party Constitutionalists are. Republicans have already ensured that the wealthy and corporations choose the candidates we can vote for.

Consider the Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney. He isn’t leading the Republican field because of support. He’s leading because he has the most wealthy friends. In July, the Romney campaign disclosed that 70% of his total fundraising of $18,383,256 came from 5,147 donors giving the maximum allowable contribution of $2,500. Which equates to approximately 0.003% of the voting electorate in the US deciding who will be the Republican nomination. As for the Republican runner up, Rick Perry certainly has his fair share of wealthy friends supporting him.

So with wealthy white male constituents picking wealthy white males as our candidates, returning to a time when only wealthy, white, males can vote isn’t too far off.

Now we all know minorities and the poor have been rightly forgotten about by these Republican Constitutionalist but women too? That’s right. The Founding Fathers never intended women to vote, so let’s assume their agenda will include taking away women’s right to vote in the near future. The Republican Party already wants to take away a woman’s right to her own body, particularly in Kansas, so are voting rights really that far off? They probably won’t push for it before the 2012 elections because Republicans will need the female vote, but mark my words: If Republicans take the Presidency, House and Senate, disenfranchising women will be a top Republican priority come 2013.

Why? Because Republicans love a’Merika! more than any of us and they’ll see to it that aMerika! gets back to the principals it was founded upon in the Constitution, especially voting rights. Nevermind the belief that the Constitution is an evolving document that has changed over time including and giving everyone  the right to vote regardless of sex, race, religion, education or social status.

Wait…. did I just say, “the Constitution is an evolving document?”

No wonder they don’t believe in our modern form of democracy.

Ad Astra Per Aspera.

The anniversary is and should be a day of remorse and sorrow for the thousands of innocent lives lost. However, it has also become a day to honor and praise our troops. Almost a 2nd Memorial Day or 2nd Veterans Day for this country. Especially as the attention naturally turns to those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. So why do we shy away from talking about the War On Terrorism?

Is it because we lost the War On Terrorism?* Is it because only now, 10 years later, do we see that it was an error? Is it because it continues on with no end in sight? Or is it because Americans are so distracted by entertainment and their own lives that they just don’t want to talk about it? What is it? Why don’t we want to talk about this War?

The attacks on 9/11 killed 2,995 US civilians. But in the 10 years since, the US Military has killed somewhere between 224,000 – 258,000** people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. 125,000 of those people were Iraqi civilians. That’s more than 40x the number of US civilians killed on 9/11. In Iraq, 9/11 civilian casualties are happening every 3 months and have been for 10 years.

Why is this not being reported on? Is it because the western media doesn’t humanize these people? Or that we don’t value the lives of civilians living in the Middle East? Are these people not husbands, wives, and children with families that love them too?

The Associated Press recently reported that the War has widowed a full 10% of Iraq’s adult female population. What will become of these children growing up fatherless? Will they be more susceptible to joining a terrorist network, similarly to how fatherless children in the US are prone to joining gangs?

The New American Foundation seems to think so. They reported that for every civilian death attributed to coalition forces, insurgent attacks increase 6x. More civilian deaths = more terrorist sympathizers = more violence. And with the civilian casualties listed above, I think it’s safe to say that in the War On Terrorism the US Military is creating more current and future generations of terrorists than there were terrorists before the war began.

But it wouldn’t be enough for the US Military to just create more terrorists. Why not fund them more as well? The US Military has lost $360 million to Afghan insurgents and criminals, according to a report by AP and HuffingtonPost.*** I guessing here, but that money is probably several hundred times more money than these terrorists could ever get on their own. It’s like the US Military is paying terrorists so they have someone to fight and can justify their bloated budget.

Really though, it’s nothing compared to the $3.7 trillion**** the US Military will end up spending on the War On Terrorism. This cost has and will continue to have a crippling effect on America. Not only is the deficit expanding faster than the universe, we have no money left for our own country. No money for education, infrastructure, Social Security, Medicare, or any of the other things our citizens need and our country should provide. Not that any of those things listed would have ever cost the US $3.7 trillion.

I guess what I’m getting at is this:
The irony of the War On Terrorism is that the US Military is more dangerous and damaging to the United States than terrorists are.

The US Military has killed more civilians than terrorist organizations. They’ve helped to swell the ranks of terrorists, giving them more members and more sympathizers. And they funded them, allowing them to do god knows what the next time they attack. And the US Military has left the US in ruins. Doing more damage to our country at home than terrorists could even dream of doing.

Still we march on America. Support those troops. Fly that flag. Put on the red, white and blue and bellow out “Proud To Be an American.” The next anniversary of 9/11 is only 11 months and 2 weeks away and the only thing that may prove to be more dangerous than the US Military is the ignorant nationalism of its citizenry.

Ad astra per aspera…

*Did we lose the war?

** NOTE: There’s been another 365,000 Iraqi civilians injured, 7.8 million displaced from their homes, and 13,900 Afghan civilians killed.

*** The lost $360 million in Afghanistan.

**** Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies has estimated that the total costs of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will cost the US between $3.7-4.4 trillion.

Two days ago, the Republican presidential candidates got together in Tampa for another debate. It was at this debate that we got the following gem from Michele Bachmann, “To have innocent little 12-year old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat-out wrong.” WHAT. HOLD THE PHONE. The government is mandating lethal injection for innocent 12-year old girls?! Oh, wait, I read that kind of fast. She didn’t say lethal. But still, what is this nonsense about government injections?

Turns out she was referencing the human papillomavirus virus (HPV) vaccine. Bachmann’s comment was aimed at Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is currently the front-runner for the GOP. As governor, he passed legislation in 2007 that forced innocent young women to receive painful shots containing the HPV vaccine. See, I can make it sound horrible too. So what’s the deal, then? What is the HPV vaccine? Is it good? Is it bad? Are there risks? Fortunately, the American Academy of Pediatrics has come through for us. They released a statement yesterday explaining everything. The PDF can be viewed here.

The gist of it:

• no scientific evidence that the vaccine is dangerous
• no scientific evidence that the vaccine causes mental retardation
• more than 35 million doses given so far
• the vaccine is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Family Physicians
• the vaccine can prevent cervical cancer, which kills 4,000 women in the U.S. every year

Michele Bachmann: HPV’s best friend since 2011.

- Will