Farmers begin planting hemp in Colorado

By Anthony Gucciardi

Natural Society / News Report

Published: Tuesday 29 January 2013

nationofchange.org

In the event that Colorado manages to generate acres of hemp without the federal government raiding the super efficient substance that is classified as a dangerous drug, it will provide a serious industry change that may spread to other states and potentially even federal law.

Many farmers in Colorado will be expanding their list of planted crops this Spring after groundbreaking legislation was passed last November that allowed not only for the legalization of marijuana, but hemp as well. Now in case you’re not familiar, hemp is actually a multi-purpose substance that does not produce the high effects of marijuana. In fact, it’s mainly used as a super cheap and highly efficient building material — at least in other nations where ridiculous bans are not enforced on the ‘high-free’ material. 

Colorado farmers like Michael Bowman will be planting 100 acres of hemp to be harvested and sold off as not only building material, but a highly nutritious superfood. While marijuana is considerably high in the substance known as THC  (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol), which of course is the compound that produces the ‘high’ effects, it’s also significantly low in what’s known as CDB (cannabidiol). That’s where hemp comes in. Both THC and CDB are known as  cannabinoids, but hemp is particularly high in CDB while lacking in THC.

Hemp as a Superfood, Industry Transformer

These cannabinoids have actually been promoted by many first hand sources as not only a health optimizing substance, but a serious solution to cancer. One popular documentary titled ‘Run from the Cure’ by Rick Simpson, which is available for free on Youtube, focuses on the use of hemp oil to conquer cancer.

  Rich in essential oils, fiber, and a close to complete amino acid profile, hemp contains beneficial ingredients such as:

• Linoleic acid (44% of the weight of hempseed is actually full of edible oils)
• Omega 3 fatty acids (shown time and time again to fight against anxiety, depression, and even inflammation)
• Omega-6
• A ‘complete’ amino profile that surpasses the profile of eggs, milk, soy, and many meats. This includes the 9 essential aminos that the human body cannot produce on its own.

It is for these reasons that hemp is utilized today in many high quality products like protein shakes, energy bars, and many more food products. Two tablespoons of shelled hemp seeds contain about 11 grams of protein and 2 grams of unsaturated omega-3 fatty acids.

Its versatility allows it to be a prime ingredient even in clothing and fabric-based industries. It could  transform the entire industry, replacing unsustainable materials with environmentally friendly hemp.

Feds: ‘We Will Come for Your Hemp’

That is if the federal government doesn’t seize it across the nation. The DEA has its sights set on confiscating all hemp planted and grown in the United States through citing the Controlled Substances Act, which doesn’t differentiate between marijuana and hemp. The agents, which will ignore state law and enforce federal law throughout any state, say that they will be going after farmers who plant non-THC hemp as if they were planting marijuana. After all, they say it doesn’t matter what it actually is.

“It really doesn’t matter whether it looks different or it looks the same,” DEA agent Paul Roach told NPR. “If it’s the cannabis plant, it’s in the Controlled Substances Act and, therefore, enforceable under federal drug law.”

In the event that Colorado manages to generate acres of hemp without the federal government raiding the super efficient substance that is classified as a dangerous drug, it will provide a serious industry change that may spread to other states and potentially even federal law. In the more likely scenario of federal agents jailing hemp farmers and raiding their ‘drug’ operations, an intellectual and legal resistance will be in order to attempt to alter the ridiculous laws surrounding the cultivation of hemp.

ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

Time to get tougher on guns

  LETTER  

  LETTER  

  LETTER  

Editor:

             In the wake of the January 8, 2011 shooting here in Tucson, and other mass shooting incidents in this country since then, culminating with the school shooting in Connecticut last month, the political climate for a constructive discussion about gun control appears to be more favorable now than ever before. If not now, when? In recognition of this, the President and Vice President are leading an effort to identify concrete steps that can be taken to help prevent mass shootings and reduce gun violence in this country. As the President said, “While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence – if even one life can be saved – we have an obligation to try.” Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly have also responded to this issue by founding Americans for Responsible Solutions to help foster this discussion and move it forward. 

 

       What are the most reasonable, widely accepted, steps that can be taken? The President outlined four areas:

1. Close background check loopholes to keep guns out of the hands of criminals;
2. Ban military-style assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets;
3. Make schools safer; and
4. Increase access to mental health services.

        The primary action is closing the background check loopholes that now allow a person legally prohibited from possessing guns to obtain them, without a background check, simply by buying them at a gun show. This is an obvious step that has little opposition. The only issue is a practical one: how to provide background checks in a private gun sale? A common sense, not overly burdensome, solution would be to require all gun sales and exchanges to go through a licensed firearms dealer that has the ability to run a background check. Dealers would be entitled to collect a modest fee for their trouble and every firearms exchange would then be subject to the same screening process to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This system would also maintain up to date and accurate gun ownership information that would assist law enforcement in tracing guns involved in crimes.

 

The second essential part of any effort to keep guns out of the hands criminals must be to get tougher on those who buy guns with the express purpose of selling them to criminals and punishing anyone who helps such “straw purchasers.” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has the primary responsibility of enforcing our gun laws, but it has been hampered in its mission by both a lack of effective law and resources, and the fact that Congress has not confirmed a director of this agency in six years.

 

          Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10 round limit for magazines. The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high capacity magazines, has one purpose: to pump out as many bullets as possible, as quickly as possible – bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage. While such a ban would not eliminate the possibility of a mass shooting, it would likely reduce the extent of the damage and loss of lives that could be inflicted in such a situation. The shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds. These high capacity magazines, which currently come standard with many handguns and rifles, enable any semiautomatic weapon to be used as an instrument of mass violence.

 

We need to make our schools safer. Each school is different and should have the flexibility to address its most pressing needs. Some school will want trained and armed police; others may prefer increased emergency training and counseling services. Either way, each community should be able to choose what is best to protect its own students and teachers. New resources should be provide to hire school psychologists, social workers, and counselors to support students struggling with mental health issues and thereby help to avert a crisis before it occurs. School security systems and safety equipment should be available, and every school should have a high-quality emergency plan in place.

 

        We need to keep guns out of the hands of people with serious mental illness, but we also need to identify mental health issues early and help individuals get the treatment they need, before dangerous situations develop. Teachers and others who regularly interact with students are in the best position to recognize young people who need help and ensure they are referred for mental health services. The President has proposed stipends and tuition reimbursements to train more than 5000 additional mental health professions to serve students and young people; he has also proposed that health insurance plans cover mental health benefits at parity with other benefits.

 

While most American believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms, they also believe that we all share a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to ensure that guns are used safely and don’t fall into the wrong hands. The President’s proposals recognize both our right and our obligations.

 

John S. Leonardo

United States Attorney

District of Arizona  

S. Korean Internet speed 100 times faster

toomuchonline.org

GREED AT A GLANCE

South Koreans enjoy Internet access today at speeds that run well over 100 times faster what most Americans can get — at half the monthly cost Americans typically pay. What do we have that South Koreans don't? We have high-tech corporate execs routinely pulling in mega millions for delivering second-rate technology. The latest sign of the immense fortunes our high-tech titans are raking in: News reports last week revealed the late November sale of a Silicon Valley home for $117.5 million, the second-highest price ever paid for a U.S. residence. The home sits in a neighborhood that hosts “a Who’s Who of Silicon Valley tech and finance,” just ten miles from the third-most-expensive home in America, a manse in Los Altos Hills that last year sold for $100 million . . .

All during World War II, to make sure that “a few do not gain from the sacrifices of many,” President Franklin Roosevelt insisted on a “steeply graduated excess-profits tax.” No such tax, notes national security analyst Walter Pincus, has been in place for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that absence has suited America’s defense industry just fine. Profits at America’s five top defense giants have soared 450 percent since 2002. One beneficiary: General Dynamics CEO Jay Johnson, a former admiral who joined GD a bit over 10 years ago. Johnson retired from his executive-suite stint last month. Details about his final year’s rewards haven’t yet surfaced. But we do know that Johnson pulled in $13.8 million in 2010 and $16.1 million more in 2011. At that year's end, Johnson held General Dynamics shares worth $41.3 million . . .

Still more proof that the recovery from the Great Recession has been a smashing success — for America’s most comfortable — has come from Scottsdale, Arizona. That city's annual Barrett-Jackson car collector auction has just collected $109 million, the same record take the auction registered in 2007, the last year before the recession hit. This year’s sale highlight: A Mercedes-Benz actor Clark Gable bought for $7,295 in 1955 — about $63,000 after adjusting for inflation — sold for $2.03 million. America’s 400 highest incomes in 1955 averaged, after federal taxes, just $846,000, about $7 million in today’s dollars. In 2009, the latest year with stats available, America’s top 400 averaged $162.1 million after taxes.

Time to expose cowardly NRA, Tea Party

By Noble Collins

Citizens of OZ, we must march over and remove the curtain hiding that cowardly wizard. He sits behind a microphone wrapped in his NRA shirt, blasting threats and murky information in a determined effort to comfort himself and manipulate others. At his feet is his little snarling dog Tea Party. Both must be exposed to the light of facts and truth.

The bedrock issue upon which NRATP (as we will call him) forms his foundation is just this: It is a given that the U.S. government is planning to confiscate all firearms from every citizen. Everything he does or says is built around that one claim.

Distractions aplenty will be put forth and false directions taken in any confrontation, but the principle from which all assumptions are made is that there can be no doubt that the U.S. government has a plan to disarm every citizen. A corollary thesis is that the U.S. is on the verge of becoming a dictatorship, thus paving the way for unilateral action from the president.

Risking a tantrum, which is frequently the defense when seeking a rational discussion with NRATP, it is high time that he (they) be called into account and face his (their) claims head on. The actual facts speak for themselves, after all, so we should be able to rely on them and not clumsy assumptions or empty claims.

Here’s a fact: There is not now, nor has there ever been an attempt by the national government to confiscate all citizen’s firearms, nor can it be shown that it has ever been a serious contemplation. There is no historical evidence to the contrary.

President Obama’s inaugural speech contains this quote: “Through it all we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.” Cynics may paint that as disingenuous, but there is no evidence that the man meant anything other than his words.

It’s traditional to be wary of central authority, he says. Our constitution is full of safeguards against any one central power gaining control over the entire government. The three independent branches of our government stand as sentinels, guarding and protecting each chamber. Unless we were to completely change our form of government, a president or even a congress is prohibited from taking actions or implementing laws which are contrary to our constitution. Confiscating all firearms would be impossible for all practical purposes. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled in Heller vs. District of Columbia in 2008 that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

If there was ever a time when this right might have been abridged, it was during the terrible civil war in the 1860’s. Even then it was never proposed. In fact, as part of the surrender agreement at Appomattox, Southern officers were allowed to retain their sidearms.

So, how would this be possible, and if somehow possible, how could it be implemented? Without ordering the military and all law enforcement agencies to search out and confiscate all firearms, how could this be implemented, and just how could the order for that monumental task be legally given and go unchallenged? NRATP will have to explain their version of possibilities, realistically.

No president has absolute power. Even our most beloved and powerful president, arguably FDR, was prohibited from placing additional members on the Supreme Court in order to make more favorable rulings. Recently, President Obama was over-ruled by a federal panel for placing members on the Labor Relations Board during what he believed to be a Senate recess, which would have been perfectly legal except for the fact that a few Republican Senators kept a skeleton session on going. Presidents are limited. Congress is limited. Even the Supreme Court has limitations. That’s the way our founding fathers wanted it, and it has always been so.

So, how, other than through dark suspicion in spite of overwhelming factual evidence, does NRATP justify the claim that a real threat exists for “taking away all firearms.”? Well informed people given the opportunity to judge for themselves and not blindly follow propaganda, are beginning to see through the bluster and noise. There are simply no facts to back this up.

While we are at it, let’s put some other false claims in their grave where they belong. Many NRATPs loudly point to their belief that Hitler, for example, came to power and became a dictator through confiscating guns. The fact is that Germany already had certain restrictions on civilian firearms before Hitler came to power, and even when he invoked confiscation it was mostly imposed on the Jews, not the entire population.

The same kind of supposed example is claimed for Stalin, who was already a dictator when he actually armed hundreds of thousands of political prisoners and conscripted them into the Red Army. These claims are baseless. They serve only to fan the flames of fearful speculation.

Those who champion the right to keep and bear arms are certainly correct that the constitution makes this guarantee. What they refuse to either recognize or discuss, however, is the first part of that single sentence. It is, after all, one whole sentence, not merely a fragment. The reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” brings up several interesting points, which must be taken into consideration. First, let’s define well regulated. It implies regulations, does it not? The history of the reason for this reference goes back to the fact that there was no permanent national army for a long time. Local uprisings such as The Whiskey Rebellion had to be met by local militias in order to restore order. It seems reasonable to assume that this was the primary thought behind the wording.

Firearms intended for self-defense, hunting or sport shooting appear to be, and probably should be protected from any confiscation by government authorities. Exceptions abound, however, such as those seized from criminals, terrorists or others intended to harm innocent people.

Intelligent discussions and exchanges of legitimate ideas and concerns would seem mandatory and quite welcome among serious people wanting to protect constitutional rights while reducing obvious threats to society. NRATP continues to hide behind a curtain, however, sulking and posing their own threats, implying harm to anyone challenging their beliefs. They don’t appear to want to know any version of reality which doesn’t fit their narrow understanding.

If you observe a person running for their life with no one actually chasing them, what does that say about them? 

How low can Republicans go?

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus rallies volunteers at a Romney campaign office in Virginia. (photo: Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images)

The GOP Plan to Steal Elections

By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

27 January 13

readersupportednews.org

'm optimistic about the Republican Party. Does that surprise you? Well, let me qualify that. When I say I'm optimistic about the Republican Party, I am referring of course to the old joke in which the pessimist says, "Geez, things sure can't get any worse," and the optimist replies, "Oh, yes they can!" When the subject is today's GOP and the conservative movement, things can always get worse. Having attempted virtually every dishonest and cynical trick in the book under existing rules, they have decided now that the problem is not their dishonesty or cynicism, but the existing rules, so the new task is to change them.

You're familiar by now with the broad contours of how the GOP wants to change the Electoral College. OK, in case you're not: They seek in six states to apportion the electoral vote according to congressional districts won instead of to the presidential candidate who won the state overall. For example, Pennsylvania has 18 congressional districts. Mitt Romney won 12 of them, and Barack Obama six. So even though Obama won the state overall by around five points, Romney would "carry" Pennsylvania, 12 electoral votes (EVs) to six (actually, 12 to eight - every state has two more EVs representing its two Senate seats, and Obama, as the overall winner, would get those; so nice of them!).

The six states, as you might guess, are not Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and the Dakotas. They are the aforementioned Keystone State along with Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia. The Virginia plan adds the clever wrinkle of giving those extra EVs not to the overall winner, but to the candidate who won the most congressional districts.

I think you can see where this is going. Obama carried fewer districts than Romney in all these states, but he won them by running up big margins in his congressional districts. This fact is in itself, to a considerable extent, a reflection of the reality that Republican state legislatures have drawn congressional district maps that pack as many Democrats into as few districts as possible. The electoral demographer Alan Abramowitz calculated that if these states had used this method last year, Romney would have won the election 271-267. He also reckoned that if every state had counted EVs this way, Romney would have won 276-262.

Obama received, remember, 5 million more votes than Romney.

There have been efforts in the past to fix or eliminate the Electoral College. It was almost eliminated - with bipartisan support - in the early 1970s. That proposal was advanced by two Democratic legislators, Senator Birch Bayh and Congressman Emmanuel Celler. It is true that they put it forward after the Republican, Nixon, won a lopsided Electoral College margin, far greater than his narrow popular vote margin. But interestingly, Nixon supported it. The vast majority of Republicans did, in the House anyway.

It died where every decent idea dies - in the Senate. But the point is that it was an honest reform, with the chips falling where they may. The same can be said of the current national popular vote effort, which would ensure that the winner of the most votes nationwide became president.

But this is just vote-rigging. Open cheating. It is astonishing, I mean absolutely jaw-dropping, that a major party chairman should openly endorse such an openly crooked scheme, as Reince Priebus has. It's so Third World 1950s, like something Sukarno might have done, probably did do, in Indonesia to make sure the competing ethnic group didn't win elections. He sure better be asked, the next time he goes on a Sunday show, how he purports to defend a plan that would have made someone president while receiving 5 million fewer votes than the other guy.

Rule-changing, as Donovan Leitch might have put it, is bound to be the very next phase, and not just on this front. The nullification craziness, mostly talk during the first Obama term, is inching toward codification. State legislators in Mississippi are pushing a bill to establish a (get this name) Joint Committee on the Neutralization of Federal Law to review federal statutes for their "constitutionality." We don't know how far this effort will get. But it is Mississippi, so who knows? But if not Ole Miss, then South Carolina or some other state will almost surely attempt to nullify some federal law in the next four years.

The D.C. Circuit Court panel decision Friday that Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional is another amazing instance of the right just changing rules it didn't like. First, Republicans in the Senate set records blocking Obama appointees to various executive positions. Then Obama makes some recess appointments. Then they get three conservative judges, led by David Sentelle, Ken Starr's favorite judge, to rule that "recess" has a very specific constitutional meaning, so that Obama can't make the appointments the Republican Senate had been denying him from making in the first place.

Adam Serwer of Mother Jones did an excellent job yesterday of detailing the potentially vast implications of this ruling, which could reach far beyond labor law (as if that weren't enough). The Obama administration will appeal this to the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito usually have an expansive view of presidential power. But will they in a high-profile case when the president is named Obama? Scalia also once took an expansive view of the commerce clause, and we all know how that ended up when it came time to decide health care.

We could toss all this information onto the ever-growing "Oh, those crazy Republicans" slag heap, have a laugh, and let it go. But this is concerted and serious. Rules, laws, customs, and norms that we have all abided by for centuries (the Electoral College and the primacy of federal law) or decades (recess appointments) have simply been producing too many outcomes conservatives don't like. Most people, and movements, would try to change themselves so that they could maybe win under the long-agreed-upon rules. But conservatives have a cleverer way. Just make new rules. You better believe things can get worse.

Project merges art and canal maintenance

Ashley Macias (right) and Isaac Caruso spray paint their temporary artwork, “Canal Creatures,” along a quarter-mile stretch of the Arizona Canal at the Scottsdale Waterfront. (Cronkite News Service Photo by Cortney Bennett)
 

The artwork, featuring colorful sea creatures, is made from a special paint that will wash away once the canal refills. (Cronkite News Service Photo by Cortney Bennett)

By CORTNEY BENNETT Cronkite News Service

SCOTTSDALE – If only for a short time, the concrete walls of the dried up Arizona Canal along the Scottsdale Waterfront will be adorned with brightly colored creepy underwater creatures.

The dry-up, not scheduled to occur for another seven years, has given a handful of artists the opportunity to create beauty during a maintenance check by Salt River Project.

Isaac Caruso and Ashley Macias, both of Phoenix, have a little more than a week to spray paint their temporary artwork, “Canal Creatures,” throughout the quarter-mile stretch. The duo are using Montana 94, a chlorofluorocarbon-free spray paint that will wash away when the canal refills on Feb. 4.

Caruso and Macias are two of the artists that Scottsdale Public Art selected to showcase in “Canal Convergence/Art + Maintenance.”

“It’ll be a bunch of imaginative, slightly abstract creatures that the public might be interested in,” Caruso said. “And the cool thing is it’ll be submerged in water when we’re done.”

Once the water begins to return, San Antonio-based artist Casey Cooper will be installing “Untitled – Floating Triangles.” The 20 to 25 inflated steel triangle sculptures will symbolize the strong foundation the canals provide to the Valley. As Caruso and Macias’ murals disappear with the rising water, the sculptures will rise and float on the surface.

“It’s almost like we take water for granted,” Cooper said. “We don’t realize where it comes from and how many hands are involved.”

Cooper said the got the source of the water, SRP, and the person taking in the water represent the three sides of the triangles.

Macias said she and Caruso took a leap of faith to do something more creative on a grander scale.

“We’re pretty excited to be part of something big, especially in Scottsdale, and incorporating our style of art into (the canal)” she said. “This isn’t something you typically see in Scottsdale or in general.”

The murals are a mix of surrealism and street art.

“It’s really exciting because I think most artists want the opportunity to work bigger and challenge themselves,” Macias said. “So we’re really excited to be challenged by something this big and be able to share it with the community.”

Sophie Hook, waterfront events manager for Scottsdale Public Art, said the effort is to help educate the community about the canal system while also bringing a waterfront festival to Scottsdale. Scottsdale Public Art has partnered with SRP before to do similar events.

“This is a much more interesting event because of the engagement about maintaining life in the desert,” she said.

Jim Duncan, principal engineering analyst at SRP, said the company’s interest is educating the public about what is required to maintain and operate a canal system, with Scottsdale Public Art helping to draw the crowd through the artists.

“All of the artwork somehow relates to the canal or what the canal has done for the development of the metro area,” Duncan said.

Duncan added that the canal system, now more than 100 years old, was part of the social fabric of Phoenix in its early stages. People would swim in it prior to air conditioning and when it was allowed.

“(Canals) were gathering spots to recreate and socialize,” he said. “These events are to remind people that water is a resource but also to regenerate that ability for people to get together, socialize and get educated as well.”

US places 4th in World Reading Rankings

By Daniel Ward
Editor
Language Magazine
Los Angeles, CA
www.languagemagazine.com 

It's been over a month since Team USA 4^th Grade did their coaches, American public school teachers, proud by coming fourth in the world’s reading rankings. Yet, there’s been very little celebrating in this country of ours so famous for making the most out of success in international competition. An Olympic Bronze in synchronized swimming would have garnered more praise.

According to the 2011 PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study), the only countries with better 4^th Grade reading levels are Russia, Finland, and Singapore. Hong Kong was also listed as outperforming us, but it’s not a country. This is a remarkable success for U.S. public education, especially when you take into account that we have 48 million public school students of which at least 10% are English Language Learners – that’s about five million students – almost equivalent to the total population of Finland.

In addition, U.S. schools and teachers have to deal with disproportionate levels of poverty, and research has proven unequivocally that poverty is the most important determining factor in educational outcomes. According to census statistics, more than 16 million American kids (nearly 25%) live in poverty, whereas Finland’s childhood poverty rate is about 5%. There are no official statistics out of Singapore but the wealthy city-state offers a relatively comprehensive social safety net for locals, borne out by the fact that 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing, the purchasing of which is subsidized, so 90% own their own homes. Reliable Russian poverty statistics are elusive but anecdotal evidence suggests that poverty levels may be high but education is prioritized.

Fourth may not be a medal spot but surely some good news about the educational achievements of our “failing” public schools warrants at least a pat on the back of our oft-maligned teachers.

Of course, the value of these international comparisons based upon standardized tests is questionable. However, when U.S. students perform poorly on such comparisons, we never hear the end of it. What happened to South Korea which the President recently hailed as having an exemplary education system? Indeed, the nation’s whole attitude to schools and teachers is based upon the presumption that our schools are overfunded and underperforming compared to their overseas counterparts.

A whole industry is based upon this presumption – Waiting for Superman’s Michelle Rhee has pledged to raise $1 billion through her lobbying organization, StudentsFirst, to overhaul the public education system according to her reform tastes. Raising that kind of cash will be tough enough without having to deal with the adverse publicity that U.S. educational success might create.

Contrary to accepted wisdom, and many reports, we’re not spending relatively more than other countries to get these results. According to a new report the Economist Intelligence Unit, the U.S. spends less than 22% of its GDP on education compared to Finland’s 30% and the UK’s 26%. Figures are unavailable for Russia or Singapore but even Hong Kong clocks in at 23.5%.

It is vital for us to recognize the successes as well as the failures of our schools. Too many people are being misled by biased reports about the condition of our educational system. In turn, this is leading to bad decisions and the misuse of public funds to fix things that ain’t broke. Of course, we should always be striving to improve our schools but we must also recognize what does work and give credit where credit’s due.