Richard,
Wheeeeeee!!! Continuing on...
>When I talk to people, like many others, you can go >wandering off on tangents. I don't want to argue with >anyone...just lookin' for `healthy debate`.
True. If I come off as combative, please let me know and I'll try to tone things down. Our debate seems pretty healthy though. Tangents are fun, I know, but I just get frustrated sometimes when the tangent leads to something interesting but I feel like the old subject was left undiscussed.
>On the subject of being "just not that mean" what was the >intention of the writer who suggested Mr Bush could be >dyslexic? Was she just trying to be ironic?
I haven't seen that article, but I'd be interested to see in what spirit it was written. Dyslexia is far more common than many people admit, and a great deal of the most intelligent people in history suffered from it. See the book "The Gift of Dyslexia" for more info; it in fact shows correlation between creativity and dyslexia. But difficulty in reading aloud (no jab intended) is a classic sign. It isn't a bad thing, just an interesting possibility. Now maybe that article was mean-spirited; as I said, I haven't read it. But dyslexia is a very tame charge as compared to, say, sleazeball womanizer.
>Truthfully, I don't know the criteria of the tests. Is the >phrase "doing poorly on meaningless standardized tests" >the Gore-esque comeback to the Bush-ian soundbite "the >schools were not performing"? So at the end of the day, >neither side does anything by way of changing the teaching >standards of Texas, the same phrases keep being repeated.
The big problem with the tests is not that they don't have some usefulness. It's that they force schools to teach test-taking skills and concentrate on the specific topics that those tests tend to cover, as opposed to teaching the students to be intelligent, well-rounded, thoughtful members of society.
>To deviate, as great as the country of America might be, >there still is an inherant smalltown mentality that shies >away from the thought of a national curriculum (and a >national health service for that matter...
Well, being a big fan of socialized medicine, I'll agree with you on the second assertion. But the resistance to national curricula is not, I think, a smalltown mentality. The problem is much more complicated. Many many studies have shown that intelligence and the capacity to learn are developed at an incredibly young age- almost entirely before the age of 4. In other words, before the children enter school. It would be unfair and cruel to expect children who grew up (for example) in city slums and poor farming communities to get the same test scores as children who grew up in rich educated families. I can't quite articulate this point as well as I'd like to, but I strongly feel that it isn't and never will be possible to have national standards of education unless we have national standards of living.
>If standards are dropping with *some* of the teachers - >why don't you just take the case of the money you think >the schools `deserve`, find a pot hole and throw all the >money down there.
Because it's far better to have teachers who only do a half-decent job than to have no teachers at all. We just don't have the money in our education budget to support a nation of good teachers, so we have to do the best we can and get as many good teachers as possible in the national pool.
>I think I'll reach that point when portions of the left >twig on that we aren't living under the Third Reich, and I >know that I'll fully cross the line when Christian >students are no longer bullied from praying at ball-games >and facists of *ALL* color's and religions are kept from >the "oxygen of the media".
The portions of the left twig that say we're living under the Third Reich are microscopic and ignorant. Christian students can pray as much as they want at ball-games, but they can't force non-Christian students to participate. The freedom not to practice someone else's religion is just as important as the freedom to practice one's own religion.
But these are just small points. What I'd really like to say is this: Of course there is ignorance in parts of the left-wing. There is ignorance everywhere. But why should the existence of left-wing ignorance force someone to take up an equally ignorant position on the right-wing? Just because there are leftists with obnoxious ideas, that shouldn't compel you to respond with equally obnoxious ideas. If you call me stupid, I won't respond with "you're stupider," but I'll try to prove that I'm not stupid. Similarly, if some leftist nut calls you a fascist, instead of calling them a fascist, wouldn't the best response be to prove that you're not a fascist?
That didn't come out too clearly, but what I mean to say is this: To hold on to conspiracy-based notions of a liberal media bias because there are some ignorant liberals out there is silly and counterproductive. There are ignorant liberals just as there are ignorant conservatives, but to use that as an excuse to be biased is to shoot yourself in the foot.
all for now, and peace to you as well,
Scott
I'll try to keep this one short
Scott
location: Canada
listening to: Brooks Williams
registered: 2009.07.04
posts: 89
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
S
Scott
(view)
Richard,
Wheeeeeee!!! Continuing on...
>When I talk to people, like many others, you can go >wandering off on tangents. I don't want to argue with >anyone...just lookin' for `healthy debate`.
True. If I come off as combative, please let me know and I'll try to tone things down. Our debate seems pretty healthy though. Tangents are fun, I know, but I just get frustrated sometimes when the tangent leads to something interesting but I feel like the old subject was left undiscussed.
>On the subject of being "just not that mean" what was the >intention of the writer who suggested Mr Bush could be >dyslexic? Was she just trying to be ironic?
I haven't seen that article, but I'd be interested to see in what spirit it was written. Dyslexia is far more common than many people admit, and a great deal of the most intelligent people in history suffered from it. See the book "The Gift of Dyslexia" for more info; it in fact shows correlation between creativity and dyslexia. But difficulty in reading aloud (no jab intended) is a classic sign. It isn't a bad thing, just an interesting possibility. Now maybe that article was mean-spirited; as I said, I haven't read it. But dyslexia is a very tame charge as compared to, say, sleazeball womanizer.
>Truthfully, I don't know the criteria of the tests. Is the >phrase "doing poorly on meaningless standardized tests" >the Gore-esque comeback to the Bush-ian soundbite "the >schools were not performing"? So at the end of the day, >neither side does anything by way of changing the teaching >standards of Texas, the same phrases keep being repeated.
The big problem with the tests is not that they don't have some usefulness. It's that they force schools to teach test-taking skills and concentrate on the specific topics that those tests tend to cover, as opposed to teaching the students to be intelligent, well-rounded, thoughtful members of society.
>To deviate, as great as the country of America might be, >there still is an inherant smalltown mentality that shies >away from the thought of a national curriculum (and a >national health service for that matter...
Well, being a big fan of socialized medicine, I'll agree with you on the second assertion. But the resistance to national curricula is not, I think, a smalltown mentality. The problem is much more complicated. Many many studies have shown that intelligence and the capacity to learn are developed at an incredibly young age- almost entirely before the age of 4. In other words, before the children enter school. It would be unfair and cruel to expect children who grew up (for example) in city slums and poor farming communities to get the same test scores as children who grew up in rich educated families. I can't quite articulate this point as well as I'd like to, but I strongly feel that it isn't and never will be possible to have national standards of education unless we have national standards of living.
>If standards are dropping with *some* of the teachers - >why don't you just take the case of the money you think >the schools `deserve`, find a pot hole and throw all the >money down there.
Because it's far better to have teachers who only do a half-decent job than to have no teachers at all. We just don't have the money in our education budget to support a nation of good teachers, so we have to do the best we can and get as many good teachers as possible in the national pool.
>I think I'll reach that point when portions of the left >twig on that we aren't living under the Third Reich, and I >know that I'll fully cross the line when Christian >students are no longer bullied from praying at ball-games >and facists of *ALL* color's and religions are kept from >the "oxygen of the media".
The portions of the left twig that say we're living under the Third Reich are microscopic and ignorant. Christian students can pray as much as they want at ball-games, but they can't force non-Christian students to participate. The freedom not to practice someone else's religion is just as important as the freedom to practice one's own religion.
But these are just small points. What I'd really like to say is this: Of course there is ignorance in parts of the left-wing. There is ignorance everywhere. But why should the existence of left-wing ignorance force someone to take up an equally ignorant position on the right-wing? Just because there are leftists with obnoxious ideas, that shouldn't compel you to respond with equally obnoxious ideas. If you call me stupid, I won't respond with "you're stupider," but I'll try to prove that I'm not stupid. Similarly, if some leftist nut calls you a fascist, instead of calling them a fascist, wouldn't the best response be to prove that you're not a fascist?
That didn't come out too clearly, but what I mean to say is this: To hold on to conspiracy-based notions of a liberal media bias because there are some ignorant liberals out there is silly and counterproductive. There are ignorant liberals just as there are ignorant conservatives, but to use that as an excuse to be biased is to shoot yourself in the foot.
all for now, and peace to you as well,
Scott
Wheeeeeee!!! Continuing on...
>When I talk to people, like many others, you can go >wandering off on tangents. I don't want to argue with >anyone...just lookin' for `healthy debate`.
True. If I come off as combative, please let me know and I'll try to tone things down. Our debate seems pretty healthy though. Tangents are fun, I know, but I just get frustrated sometimes when the tangent leads to something interesting but I feel like the old subject was left undiscussed.
>On the subject of being "just not that mean" what was the >intention of the writer who suggested Mr Bush could be >dyslexic? Was she just trying to be ironic?
I haven't seen that article, but I'd be interested to see in what spirit it was written. Dyslexia is far more common than many people admit, and a great deal of the most intelligent people in history suffered from it. See the book "The Gift of Dyslexia" for more info; it in fact shows correlation between creativity and dyslexia. But difficulty in reading aloud (no jab intended) is a classic sign. It isn't a bad thing, just an interesting possibility. Now maybe that article was mean-spirited; as I said, I haven't read it. But dyslexia is a very tame charge as compared to, say, sleazeball womanizer.
>Truthfully, I don't know the criteria of the tests. Is the >phrase "doing poorly on meaningless standardized tests" >the Gore-esque comeback to the Bush-ian soundbite "the >schools were not performing"? So at the end of the day, >neither side does anything by way of changing the teaching >standards of Texas, the same phrases keep being repeated.
The big problem with the tests is not that they don't have some usefulness. It's that they force schools to teach test-taking skills and concentrate on the specific topics that those tests tend to cover, as opposed to teaching the students to be intelligent, well-rounded, thoughtful members of society.
>To deviate, as great as the country of America might be, >there still is an inherant smalltown mentality that shies >away from the thought of a national curriculum (and a >national health service for that matter...
Well, being a big fan of socialized medicine, I'll agree with you on the second assertion. But the resistance to national curricula is not, I think, a smalltown mentality. The problem is much more complicated. Many many studies have shown that intelligence and the capacity to learn are developed at an incredibly young age- almost entirely before the age of 4. In other words, before the children enter school. It would be unfair and cruel to expect children who grew up (for example) in city slums and poor farming communities to get the same test scores as children who grew up in rich educated families. I can't quite articulate this point as well as I'd like to, but I strongly feel that it isn't and never will be possible to have national standards of education unless we have national standards of living.
>If standards are dropping with *some* of the teachers - >why don't you just take the case of the money you think >the schools `deserve`, find a pot hole and throw all the >money down there.
Because it's far better to have teachers who only do a half-decent job than to have no teachers at all. We just don't have the money in our education budget to support a nation of good teachers, so we have to do the best we can and get as many good teachers as possible in the national pool.
>I think I'll reach that point when portions of the left >twig on that we aren't living under the Third Reich, and I >know that I'll fully cross the line when Christian >students are no longer bullied from praying at ball-games >and facists of *ALL* color's and religions are kept from >the "oxygen of the media".
The portions of the left twig that say we're living under the Third Reich are microscopic and ignorant. Christian students can pray as much as they want at ball-games, but they can't force non-Christian students to participate. The freedom not to practice someone else's religion is just as important as the freedom to practice one's own religion.
But these are just small points. What I'd really like to say is this: Of course there is ignorance in parts of the left-wing. There is ignorance everywhere. But why should the existence of left-wing ignorance force someone to take up an equally ignorant position on the right-wing? Just because there are leftists with obnoxious ideas, that shouldn't compel you to respond with equally obnoxious ideas. If you call me stupid, I won't respond with "you're stupider," but I'll try to prove that I'm not stupid. Similarly, if some leftist nut calls you a fascist, instead of calling them a fascist, wouldn't the best response be to prove that you're not a fascist?
That didn't come out too clearly, but what I mean to say is this: To hold on to conspiracy-based notions of a liberal media bias because there are some ignorant liberals out there is silly and counterproductive. There are ignorant liberals just as there are ignorant conservatives, but to use that as an excuse to be biased is to shoot yourself in the foot.
all for now, and peace to you as well,
Scott
