Source: 2016-18 Big Chill – NASA Confirms Global Cooling? | Armstrong Economics

BACKFIRE: Probe Of Manafort Leads To Possible Federal Charges For Lawyer With Ties To Obama And Clinton

Greg Craig is a lawyer who served in the Obama and Clinton administrations. He is now likely to face federal charges for failing to register as a foreign agent. The irony is that this probably would never have come up without the investigation of Paul Manafort.

FOX News reports:

Lawyer with Obama, Clinton ties may face federal charges: report

A lawyer with ties to the Obama and Clinton administrations may face federal charges for failing to register as a foreign agent, according to a report.

Greg Craig, 73, a former White House counsel during the Obama presidency, is under investigation regarding whether he improperly worked as a lobbyist for a group associated with Ukraine, without first registering with the Justice Department, CNN reported, citing unnamed sources.

Craig was a partner in the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, which may face charges as well, according to the report. Craig left the firm in April, the report said.

An attorney for Craig told CNN his client “was not required to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.”

Previously, Craig held several posts in the Clinton administration, including helping to coordinate former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense, NBC News reported.

The probes of Craig and the Skadden firm are linked to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the sources told CNN.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit asks: Will Greg Craig flip on Obama?

(Image:Source)

New project will name names and feature Deep State operatives in their own words

The undercover all-stars at Project Veritas have put the Deep State on notice, warning their next series of investigations aim to unmask the shadowy figures working against the Trump administration.

In a trailer released Friday, Veritas founder James O’Keefe revealed his team is working on a project which will name names and include video and audio of Deep State operatives in their own words.

A tweet sent out by Project Veritas Friday noted that “Unlike the author of Fear, we won’t quote anonymous sources in the administration relaying “what happened.” We’re going to put anonymous Deep State players on the record.”

Elaborating on his next targets, O’Keefe partially described the Deep State as a ”vast administrative bureaucracy, unaccountable to anyone; in fact, an ‘extralegal state within a state.’”

“This unelected cabal of federal government employees—the Deep Staters—are getting away with subverting the will of the people. In fact, the Constitution is being stomped upon by the actions of the members of the Deep State. They are in all branches of government and they are hiding among two million other federal employees,” O’Keefe wrote at the Project Veritas website.

“The actions of the Deep State fly in the face of the consent part of the governance equation. They seek to subvert the ‘democratic’ process, and through those actions are creating inequality in the application of the Rule of Law.”

Continuing, O’Keefe says he won’t anonymize names like the New York Times did with a recent op-ed written by a member of the Deep State. In fact, he says their next video will feature “an employee in the Executive Branch caught on film saying, “Resist everything. Every level.”

“[Y]ou’ll be able to see his name and his face. You’ll also see his title, direct employer, the movement of his lips, the cadence in his voice, his demeanor, his arrogance, his lack of introspection, and ultimately, him bragging about how nobody will ever hold his comrades nor him accountable,” says O’Keefe.

The next Veritas investigation will appear online next week, ahead of the midterms.

Project Veritas’ methods were extremely effective during the 2016 US presidential election campaign when they exposed the Hillary Clinton campaign hiring paid operatives to instigate violence at Trump rallies. Veritas’ videos, which depicted operatives orchestrating a tactic known as “bird dogging,” led to the resignations of Democrat consultants Scott Foval and Robert Creamer.

Veritas’ undercover videos have also been instrumental in shedding light on social media censorship, with insiders from various tech firms openly admitting to manipulating their algorithms to demote conservative content.

Infowars has been banned by Facebook. Please help by sharing this article on your own Facebook page.

---

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735

John Dewey is such a big name in the educational world that it can seem like there is no way to push back against his work. But Dorothy Sayers offers a way for the Liberal Arts not only to push back on Dewey but also to steal his thunder…

As we look back at the last century, it can seem that the Liberal Arts model deteriorated through factors like neglect, laziness, or mission creep. But the reality was strikingly different. This older model of education was not misplaced; it suffered a planned and deliberate attack. The leading educators of the last century turned on the Liberal Arts program and tried to gut it. The central voice in this attack was John Dewey, but other educators, like the Developmentalists, joined him in that work. Their primary criticism was that the older Liberal Arts model could not accommodate new research done in child development. Into the middle of this pedagogical revolution, Dorothy Sayers stepped up in 1947 and defended the Liberal Arts program in her work The Lost Tools of Learning. In her defense of the liberal arts, Sayers both acknowledged the factor of childhood development and offered a way for Classical education to deal with these criticisms. In this way, Sayers did not merely defend the Liberal Arts program but also, and more importantly, offered a way for Classical education to disarm Dewey’s project.

In the early twentieth century, many students found the conditions at school to be slave-like. In 1913, Helen M. Todd, a factory inspector in Chicago, asked five hundred children about their experience in school and in the factory. She proposed a scenario in which their families were well off and did not need the kids to work: Given that scenario, would the children want to work in a factory or go to school? Four hundred of the kids said that “they preferred factory labor to the monotony, humiliation, and even sheer cruelty that they experienced in school.”[i] These children feared the situation in the schools more than the factories. One American humorist satirized the educational philosophy of the day like this: “It makes no difference what you teach a boy so long as he doesn’t like it.”[ii] While this comment is a parody, schools of that day did emphasize rigorous schoolwork, subscribing to an educational philosophy popular at the time called the Mental Disciplinarian theory.

The Mental Disciplinarian theory rested on the claim that the mind is a muscle that gains strength and endurance through exercise in various subjects. This position argued that subjects, like the classical languages in the Liberal Arts program, build a student’s mental strength so that he is a better thinker in other subjects and tasks. This theory suggested that if a student was given enough work and practice, he could grow to match the demands of the school work. This theory urged the student to be conformed to the program rather than the program to be conformed to the student. Given this model, if a student could not learn a lesson, then it was generally considered a weakness in the student rather than in the curriculum.

In 1890, William James conducted tests that focused on the area of memory and the question of whether more memory work helped to improve one’s memory. In his report, James found that the faculty of memory was not improved by more memorizing.[iii] In 1901, Edward L. Thorndike conducted an experiment in which students were taught a variety of mental operations, like estimating the area of a rectangle, until the student had a high degree of proficiency in that single task. Then he gave the student a similar task like finding the area of a smaller rectangle. Thorndike then examined how much skill could be transferred from the first task to the second one. He concluded: “Improvement in any single mental function need not improve the ability in functions commonly called by the same name.”[iv] This research cast major doubt on the Mental Disciplinarian theory, primarily questioning the value of studying the classical languages, since the skills and abilities learned in those classes could not be transferred to other work or tasks.

A key group of educators, called the Developmentalists, also carried out research in the area of child development. One of these was G. Stanley Hall who wrote a work in 1883 called The Contents of the Child’s Mind,in which he argued against the idea that all students should be taught the same material and with the same method. In his investigation of the children of Boston, he concluded that “[the child] does not want a standardized, overpeptonized mental diet. It palls on his appetite.”[v] Hall argued that the child’s appetites and interests must be accommodated in the formation of the curriculum. Later in 1904, Hall wrote about his appreciation for a popular theory of child development called the Culture-Epoch theory, which “posited the notion that the child recapitulates in his or her individual development the stages that the whole human race traversed throughout the course of history.”[vi] This theory suggested that a child grew up through various stages that roughly followed the course of human history. During the “savage” stage of development, the child was interested in topics and material that pertained to that historical epoch, such as ancient mythology and fables. This theory, although considered absurd now, illustrates how important the study of child development was in educational models at that time.

While John Dewey was not part of this Developmentalist group, he shared many of the same concerns in his educational theories. In his work, Democracy and Education from 1916, Dewey argues that a student’s interest in the material is paramount. A student will learn most when he is most interested. Dewey writes, “The remedy is not in finding fault with the doctrine of interest, any more than it is to search for some pleasant bait that may be hitched to the alien material. It is to discover objects and modes of action, which are connected with present powers.”[vii]The key then is for the teacher to secure the interest that is present in the child and use that natural desire to build the lesson. In this way, the curriculum is not forcing the child against his will to learn; rather the program is drawing the child into something which the child naturally wants.

Dewey also felt the order of the curriculum was of key importance. For a curriculum to harness the natural interests and abilities of the student, it must be designed to progress in such a way that it adapts to the changing interests of the child as he grows up. In Dewey’s last book, Experience and Education (1938) he writes: “It is a ground for legitimate criticism, when the ongoing movement of progressive education fails to recognize that the problem of selection and organization of subject-matter for study and learning is fundamental.”[viii] A key focus of reform for Dewey is to understand how a child changes over the years so that subjects of study can be organized to match the child’s developing interests.

Dewey also focused on creating a program that did not treat education as merely preparation for adult life, but actually had lessons that applied to the student’s life directly. In his mind, if education is only preparing children for a life to come that means children “are looked upon as candidates; they are placed on the waiting list.”[ix] This, in turn, removes any incentive for the child to study because the lesson doesn’t really apply to the child right now. Dewey explains that this leads to discipline issues because the child’s natural interest in the lesson is destroyed: “The future having no stimulating and directing power when severed from the possibilities of the present, something must be hitched on to it to make it work. Promises of rewards and threats of pain are employed.”[x] Threats and rewards were often employed in educational models like the Mental Disciplinarian theory. Instead, Dewey emphasizes the importance of matching the curriculum to a student’s interest and abilities in order to ensure that the material is immediately applicable to the student’s life. If the child’s development is ignored, then the educational system is working against the abilities of the child and is making the educational process harder than it should be.

This leads to Dorothy Sayers and her work from 1947, The Lost Tools of Learning. While Sayers was not responding directly to Dewey and the Developmentalists, she did incorporate the educational elements they emphasized: student interest and development. In this short work, Sayers describes a program which follows three stages of development in the child and also harnesses the child’s natural interest and abilities at each level. The three stages of development are the Poll-Parrot, the Pert, and the Poetic. She explains that students in the youngest stage, about ages nine to eleven, have the natural desire to learn things by memory. She describes memory work as a pleasure to them. On the other hand, she says that “reasoning is difficult and, on the whole, little relished.” The next stage is the Pert stage which covers ages twelve to fourteen. She says this stage is one in which the student likes to contradict and “catch people out” especially one’s elders. This stage also likes “the propounding of conundrums (especially the kind with a nasty verbal catch in them).” She suggests that students in this stage are interested in reasoning and logic. The last stage is the Poetic stage, which covers ages fifteen to sixteen (and later years). She says this stage “yearns to express itself” and “it is restless and tries to achieve independence.”[xi]This stage is interested in self-image and in presenting one’s self in a persuasive and thoughtful way. Based on the natural desires of the student at each of these three stages, Sayers builds a curriculum that incorporates student development.

It is striking to see that Sayers then looks back at the Medieval world for her program of study: the Trivium. The three subjects of this model are Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. Sayers maps these three subjects on top of the three stages: Grammar goes with Poll Parrot, Logic goes with Pert, and Rhetoric goes with Poetic. Sayers suggests that Medieval educators were concerned with the very same things that she is. She argues: “What matters is the light it throws upon what the men of the Middle Ages supposed to be the object and the right order of the educative process.”[xii] In this way, Sayers is employing this older system in order to address the concerns that educational reformers had about child development.

Sayers, like Dewey, is also interested in creating practical lessons that the student can use immediately. The tools of learning in her program line up with the stages of the student’s growth and development: memory and observation for the Poll Parrot stage, discursive reasoning and critical analysis for the Pert stage, and finally, eloquent and persuasive communication in the Poetic stage. It is important to point out that these tools are practical and match the natural interests of the child at that level, so he can see the immediate application of the tools. In this way, the student is growing up with the program and the program is mapped to match the way he grows.

It is important to point out that the student doesn’t leave the tool behind when he advances to the next stage, but instead he takes it with him into successive stages. This is true of child development in general: a child doesn’t forget how to walk when he learns to run. Walking is a skill that enables the child to run. In a similar way, Sayers builds a program that is applicable to the student at that stage and then also grows with the student as he develops. In this way, the curriculum is both immediately applicable to the student and also useful later when the child has graduated out of the program. Sayers concludes: “For the tools of learning are the same, in any and every subject; and the person who knows how to use them will, at any age, get the mastery of a new subject in half of the time and with a quarter of the effort expended by the person who has not the tools at his command.”[xiii] In this three-step model, Sayers has built a program that both meets the student where he is and then also accompanies him in the years after school.

John Dewey is such a big name in the educational world that it can seem like there is no way to push back against his work, but Dorothy Sayers offers a way for the Liberal Arts not only to push back on Dewey but also to steal his thunder. Sayers takes much of Dewey’s power away because she offers a program that deals honestly with the reality of child development. In this way, we see that Sayers does not merely offer an education program based on the Trivium; rather she offers a way for Classical educators to answer many of the trends in the educational world today. This, in turn, suggests why Classical education has experienced such a revival in recent years. The true power of Sayers is that she harnessed the truths of child development and then built them into the older curriculum of the Liberal Arts. This integration of method and material is a powerful recipe that has yet to be surpassed by other educational theories.

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

Notes:

[i] Kliebard, Herbert M., The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1995, 6.

[ii] Quoted in Dewey, Democracy and Education, 134.

[iii] Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 91.

[iv] Quoted in Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 92.

[v] Quoted in Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 12.

[vi] Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 38.

[vii] Dewey, Democracy and Education, 127.

[viii] Quoted in Kliebard, 203.

[ix] Dewey, Democracy and Education, 54.

[x] Dewey, Democracy and Education, 55.

[xi] Sayers, Dorothy, “The Lost Tools of Learning,” Appendix A in Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning, Douglas Wilson, 154.

[xii] Sayers, “The Lost Tools of Learning,” Appendix A in Wilson Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning, 149.

[xiii] Sayers, “The Lost Tools of Learning,” Appendix A in Wilson, Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning, 162.

Collapse of Outsourcing Giant Carillion May Have Silver Lining

by Don Quijones • Sep 15, 2018 • 19 Comments

“Cash retentions” by large companies come under attack in the UK.

By Don Quijones, Spain, UK, & Mexico, editor at WOLF STREET.

The bankruptcy of UK outsourcing behemoth Carillion in January has left in its wake a trail of financial destruction and mayhem, but it may end up having a positive legacy. More than 200 British MPs (out of a total of 650) have backed a campaign to crack down on construction firms which, like Carillion, routinely pay their suppliers late to spruce up their own balance sheets. The Aldous Bill, named after the MP who is leading the campaign, Peter Aldous, is intended to put an end to this practice.

Late payment of suppliers and subcontractors is a widespread problem in the UK, and many other countries. Perversely, the worst offenders are often large companies that claim to comply with official payment codes.

“It’s a bitter irony that while Carillion were fully signed up to the government’s prompt payment code, they were making their suppliers hang on for 120 days or more to be paid,” said Rachel Reeves, chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

One of the common ways payment is delayed in the UK is through the use of so-called “retentions”. These are monies — often between 5-10% of a contract’s total value — that are held back by contractors until a sub-contractor has completed its job satisfactorily. The cash is held to provide some semblance of protection against late completion and defects arising during the rectification period. However, in practice, it is often withheld to bolster the working capital of the group withholding the cash.

This is a common occurrence in the UK, often with brutal cash-flow effects for smaller firms lower down the supply chain, says Peter Aldous in the preamble to his bill:

“Under standard industry contracts, retentions should be returned within 12 months of the handover of the works in question, but there are regular delays of upwards of three years. According to Government figures, almost £8 billion of cash retentions has remained unpaid over the last three years and, in one case, 12 years. Most of that cash has been provided by SMEs.”

The smaller a company is, the longer it has to wait to receive cash retentions. Tier 1 (i.e. very large) contractors suffer average delays of three months, tier 2 (mid-sized companies), seven months, and tier 3 (the smallest companies), over nine months.

“It seems that the smaller the business is, the harder it is hit,” says Aldous. “The abuse of retentions has a negative knock-on domino effect that cascades through the construction industry. It restricts investment in new equipment and facilities. It prevents firms from taking on more work, and discourages them from employing more people and investing in apprenticeships.”

Some £3 billion of retentions remain outstanding in the UK construction industry at any one time. When Carillion collapsed in January, it owed some £800 million to thousands of sub-contractors, some of which have since fallen into insolvency as a result. Construction News reported that one subcontractor working on a Carillion PFI project was awaiting retention payments of around £200,000, while another firm was owed more than £150,000 on a long-term housing maintenance deal Carillion signed with a government body.

Almost half of construction businesses that have had retentions held in the last three years have experienced non-payment due to upstream insolvency, with the average amount lost per contract being £79,900, according to research carried out by the Building Engineering Services Association. The average cost of taking legal action to recover unpaid retentions in the last three years was £16,300 per contract.

With his proposed legislation, Aldous hopes to remedy these problems. But as he admits, his bill is merely the latest in a long line of litigious attempts to put an end to the abuse of retentions. For example, the Construction Act of 1996 omitted any mention of retentions reform, despite the fact the report on which it was based included a recommendation to place cash retentions in a secure trust fund. That recommendation “remains outstanding,” says Aldous.

If the Aldous bill is passed in October, that oversight may finally be rectified. The bill proposes securing and ring fencing retention money in a deposit system, so that the money can be “released on time, rather than be subject to the current wait of two or more years.” The party to whom the retention is due will still be incentivized to complete on time and remedy any defects, but if the retention holder enters insolvency, the cash retention, held in a Government approved deposit system, would fall outside the insolvency process.

Many other countries already have similar such procedures in place to ring-fence cash retentions and/or provide security for construction payments as a whole, saysAldous:

“In Canada and the United States, a system of charges can be placed on a building or structure by a firm that has not received its payment. Australia and New Zealand have legislated to ring-fence moneys. France has a statutory framework that requires bank guarantees to be used as security for payment in the construction industries.”

For subcontractors in the UK, no such protections against upstream insolvency currently exist. But that could be set to change. If the Aldous Bill passes in the Fall, small suppliers may finally enjoy greater protection from the financial fallout of Carillion-like bankruptcies. If that happens, perhaps something positive may actually be salvaged from the wreck of Carillion’s collapse. By Don Quijones.

Use of this financial instrument has ballooned. No one knows to what extent because there’s no disclosure. But it was a “key contributor” to the sudden collapse of outsourcing giant Carillion. Read…  “Hidden Debt Loophole Could be Widespread”: Fitch

Would you like to be notified via email when WOLF STREET publishes a new article? Sign up here.

Emergency Response Centre International (ERCI) describes itself as a ‘Greek nonprofit organization that provides emergency response and humanitarian aid in times of crisis….’ It has reportedly abetted the illegal entry into Greece of 70,000 immigrants

Source: Greece: “Humanitarian Aid” Organization’s People-Smuggling

Source: Update: The Evergreen State College

Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, BfV, has dismissed claims that right-wing gangs chased non-Germans during the late August demonstrations in Chemnitz after the fatal stabbing of a German by a group of migrants. That

Source: Germany: Stifling Dissent to Mass Migration

Source: Hungary Defiant in the Face of EU Censure

Can we stop crooks laundering money in London?