|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 29 2016 06:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:00 cLutZ wrote:Sometimes, you forget how insane people really are: Kids are failing, so lets lower standards!NEW YORK (AP) — Who needs algebra?
That question muttered by many a frustrated student over the years has become a vigorous debate among American educators, sparked by a provocative new book that argues required algebra has become an unnecessary stumbling block that forces millions to drop out of high school or college.
"One out of 5 young Americans does not graduate from high school. This is one of the worst records in the developed world. Why? The chief academic reason is they failed ninth-grade algebra," said political scientist Andrew Hacker, author of "The Math Myth and Other STEM Delusions."
Hacker, a professor emeritus at Queens College, argues that, at most, only 5 percent of jobs make use of algebra and other advanced math courses. He favors a curriculum that focuses more on statistics and basic numbers sense and less on (y - 3)2 = 4y - 12.
"Will algebra help you understand the federal budget?" he asked.
Many U.S. educators, including the architects of the Common Core standards, disagree, saying math just needs to be taught more effectively. It's fine for students to have quantitative skills, they say, but algebra is important, too.
"Every study I've ever seen of workers in whole bunches of fields shows that you have to understand formulas, you have to understand relationships," said Philip Uri Treisman, a professor of mathematics and of public affairs at the University of Texas. "Algebra is the tool for consolidating your knowledge of arithmetic."
Bill McCallum, a professor at the University of Arizona who played a lead role in developing the Common Core standards for math, said he would oppose any division of K-12 students into an algebra track and a non-algebra track.
"You might say only a certain percentage of kids will go on to use algebra, but we don't know which kids those are," he said.
In New York City, home to the nation's largest public school system with 1.1 million pupils, just 52 percent of the students who took last year's statewide Regents test in Algebra I passed, mirroring statistics elsewhere in the country.
Rather than scaling back on algebra, New York City educators have announced an "Algebra for All" initiative that aims to keep students on track by providing specialized math teachers in fifth grade, before algebra is introduced.
"We believe in high standards," said Carol Mosesson-Teig, director of mathematics for the city Department of Education. "And we believe that the best way to serve the students is to strengthen the instruction."
Eighteen-year-old Isaiah Aristy took the algebra Regents test twice and failed it both times.
Aristy, now a freshman at the Borough of Manhattan Community College who is hoping for a career in law enforcement, said he was good at math until he hit algebra.
"When it came to x and y and graphing, that's when I started dropping, and it made me feel low," he said. "But we don't need to learn what x and y is. When in life are we going to write on paper, 'X and y needs to be this?'"
Like millions of community college students across the U.S., Aristy must pass a remedial math class with no college credit, and then pass at least one college-level math class, if he wants to get an associate's degree.
But Aristy isn't just repeating Algebra I again. BMCC is one of about 50 community colleges in 14 state that offer an alternative track called Quantway, developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, that seeks to develop quantitative literacy.
"It includes some basic algebra concepts, but you don't learn how to factor polynomials or solve complex equations," said math department Chairman Fred Peskoff.
Project director Karon Klipple said the foundation devised Quantway and a statistics track called Statway in 2011 because of the sheer numbers of students dropping out of community college due to algebra. Sixty to 80 percent of community college students nationwide test into remedial math, and most don't pass it, she said.
"This is where their hopes and aspirations go to die," Klipple said. "They're in college to try to make a better life for themselves, and they're stopped by mathematics." You really misrepresented that book. It's not "set the bar lower", but "set the bar somewhere else, because what people are failing on is completely useless in everyday life". Not that I agree, mind you. Algebra as such is maybe not the most useful in day-to-day life, but the ways algebra makes you think about problems is invaluable. Algebra isn't about knowing an algorithm for solving 3x^2 + 4x = 2, it's about learning how to think about problems in a way so that the algorithm for solving that problem makes sense. If all you're getting from algebra is rote methods to follow to solve silly problems, then I agree with the book: it's utterly useless (even, or maybe even especially, for those 5% of the jobs where algebra is necessary). Note also, that statistics is hardly simpler than algebra. It is in many ways even more counterintuitive and difficult to comprehend. It is also increasingly important in day-to-day issues, so the author has a good point when advocating for more statistics education. I just don't think algebra is useless.
The thing is, if its a sorting mechanism in schools, removing it is setting the bar lower. Also, so long as we don't adopt the European "2 track" system for our K-12, so called "hard" classes need to remain mandatory so people can actually look at a high school GPA and compare two kids so we don't have to continue financing 10 different directional schools with student debt for that purpose. Failing students in high school is a very cheap solution, as would be re-introducing pre-employment testing ala the Wunderlich (except not that, that is outdated for basically everything, its just fun for making fun of NFL players who get a 10).
|
On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 29 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides the public hearing exposing willful violations of state election law by the SoS (and that many ballots are yet to be counted), we also got Hillary saying Bernie is too mean to her for her to debate him... And she's supposed to be ready for Trump? Laughable.
And of course no one contradicts Hillary as well as Hillary does.
I think I finally found a picture of GH on the internets: ![[image loading]](http://galeri.uludagsozluk.com/29/kalimero_36910.gif) Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now. On March 29 2016 05:52 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:
Only in the world of GH could a public request for Sanders to stop running negative ads in exchange for another debate be seen as “he is to mean.”
That is politics. Sanders wants another debate, which means he is asking for something. He needs to offer something in return.
He's only asking that it be in NY. Everyone involved agreed to the debate a long time ago. But go on desperately spinning the story by misrepresenting the truth. You are correct, I thought it was a new debate. But now he wants it in NYC and that wasn't agreed to yet. So he publicly asks for it and he gets the public response. That is how the process works. If he wants to set the place and time to exactly what he wants, he needs to offer Clinton a reason to agree to that. You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders. He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/
So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads.
You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return.
|
If you only teach kids "what matters" and "what excites them", they will never learn discipline. No matter what you do for a living, there is stuff that you hate and stuff you don't enjoy at all. You still need to get it done. Kids SHOULD be learning "useless" stuff and becoming well rounded. If nothing else, if only for the experience of learning something you don't care about.
|
On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 29 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Besides the public hearing exposing willful violations of state election law by the SoS (and that many ballots are yet to be counted), we also got Hillary saying Bernie is too mean to her for her to debate him... And she's supposed to be ready for Trump? Laughable. And of course no one contradicts Hillary as well as Hillary does. https://twitter.com/PittsBern/status/714535203125985281 I think I finally found a picture of GH on the internets: Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now. On March 29 2016 05:52 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:
Only in the world of GH could a public request for Sanders to stop running negative ads in exchange for another debate be seen as “he is to mean.”
That is politics. Sanders wants another debate, which means he is asking for something. He needs to offer something in return.
He's only asking that it be in NY. Everyone involved agreed to the debate a long time ago. But go on desperately spinning the story by misrepresenting the truth. You are correct, I thought it was a new debate. But now he wants it in NYC and that wasn't agreed to yet. So he publicly asks for it and he gets the public response. That is how the process works. If he wants to set the place and time to exactly what he wants, he needs to offer Clinton a reason to agree to that. You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders. He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return.
He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented"...that will vote soon) it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself.
|
On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 29 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Besides the public hearing exposing willful violations of state election law by the SoS (and that many ballots are yet to be counted), we also got Hillary saying Bernie is too mean to her for her to debate him... And she's supposed to be ready for Trump? Laughable. And of course no one contradicts Hillary as well as Hillary does. https://twitter.com/PittsBern/status/714535203125985281 I think I finally found a picture of GH on the internets: Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now. On March 29 2016 05:52 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:
Only in the world of GH could a public request for Sanders to stop running negative ads in exchange for another debate be seen as “he is to mean.”
That is politics. Sanders wants another debate, which means he is asking for something. He needs to offer something in return.
He's only asking that it be in NY. Everyone involved agreed to the debate a long time ago. But go on desperately spinning the story by misrepresenting the truth. You are correct, I thought it was a new debate. But now he wants it in NYC and that wasn't agreed to yet. So he publicly asks for it and he gets the public response. That is how the process works. If he wants to set the place and time to exactly what he wants, he needs to offer Clinton a reason to agree to that. You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders. He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself.
If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it.
|
On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 29 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Besides the public hearing exposing willful violations of state election law by the SoS (and that many ballots are yet to be counted), we also got Hillary saying Bernie is too mean to her for her to debate him... And she's supposed to be ready for Trump? Laughable. And of course no one contradicts Hillary as well as Hillary does. https://twitter.com/PittsBern/status/714535203125985281 I think I finally found a picture of GH on the internets: Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now. On March 29 2016 05:52 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:
Only in the world of GH could a public request for Sanders to stop running negative ads in exchange for another debate be seen as “he is to mean.”
That is politics. Sanders wants another debate, which means he is asking for something. He needs to offer something in return.
He's only asking that it be in NY. Everyone involved agreed to the debate a long time ago. But go on desperately spinning the story by misrepresenting the truth. You are correct, I thought it was a new debate. But now he wants it in NYC and that wasn't agreed to yet. So he publicly asks for it and he gets the public response. That is how the process works. If he wants to set the place and time to exactly what he wants, he needs to offer Clinton a reason to agree to that. You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders. He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it.
How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation?
If not NY where and why?
Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate, completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now.
|
Earthquakes are a natural hazard — except when they're man-made. The oil and gas industry has aggressively adopted the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to shatter subsurface shale rock and liberate the oil and gas lurking there. But the process results in tremendous amounts of chemical-laden wastewater. Horizontal drilling for oil can also produce massive amount of natural, unwanted salt water. The industry disposes of this wastewater by pumping it into deep wells.
And the Earth moves.
On Monday, the U.S. Geological Survey published for the first time an earthquake hazard map covering both natural and "induced" quakes. The map and an accompanying report indicate that parts of the central United States now face a ground-shaking hazard equal to the famously unstable terrain of California.
Some 7 million people live in places vulnerable to these induced tremors, the USGS concluded. The list of places at highest risk of man-made earthquakes includes Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio and Alabama. Most of these earthquakes are relatively small, in the range of magnitude 3, but some have been more powerful, including a magnitude 5.6 earthquake in 2011 in Oklahoma that was linked to wastewater injection.
Scientists said Monday they do not know if there is an upper limit on the magnitude of induced earthquakes; this is an area of active research. Oklahoma has had prehistoric earthquakes as powerful as magnitude 7.
It's not immediately clear whether this new research will change industry practices, or even whether it will surprise anyone in the areas of newly estimated risk. In Oklahoma, for example, the natural rate of earthquakes is only one or two a year, but there have been hundreds since fracking and horizontal drilling, with the associated wastewater injection, became commonplace in the last decade.
Source
|
On March 29 2016 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 29 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Besides the public hearing exposing willful violations of state election law by the SoS (and that many ballots are yet to be counted), we also got Hillary saying Bernie is too mean to her for her to debate him... And she's supposed to be ready for Trump? Laughable. And of course no one contradicts Hillary as well as Hillary does. https://twitter.com/PittsBern/status/714535203125985281 I think I finally found a picture of GH on the internets: Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now. On March 29 2016 05:52 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:
Only in the world of GH could a public request for Sanders to stop running negative ads in exchange for another debate be seen as “he is to mean.”
That is politics. Sanders wants another debate, which means he is asking for something. He needs to offer something in return.
He's only asking that it be in NY. Everyone involved agreed to the debate a long time ago. But go on desperately spinning the story by misrepresenting the truth. You are correct, I thought it was a new debate. But now he wants it in NYC and that wasn't agreed to yet. So he publicly asks for it and he gets the public response. That is how the process works. If he wants to set the place and time to exactly what he wants, he needs to offer Clinton a reason to agree to that. You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders. He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it. How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation? If not NY where and why? Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now.
Why NY and not MA? I want the debate in my state. Fuck NY, its stupid and the people there don't care. I want it here for reasons.
There are 50 states. Maybe Sanders should provide a more compelling reason NY than "why not?"
And lets cut through the bullshit, its because of the upcoming primary that is critical to him standing a chance. There is no reason for Clinton to accept beyond "I am really dumb and don't understand how viewership works." Sanders can have his debate as soon as he is a political grown up and is willing to negotiate for it.
|
On March 29 2016 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 29 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Besides the public hearing exposing willful violations of state election law by the SoS (and that many ballots are yet to be counted), we also got Hillary saying Bernie is too mean to her for her to debate him... And she's supposed to be ready for Trump? Laughable. And of course no one contradicts Hillary as well as Hillary does. https://twitter.com/PittsBern/status/714535203125985281 I think I finally found a picture of GH on the internets: Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now. On March 29 2016 05:52 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote:
Only in the world of GH could a public request for Sanders to stop running negative ads in exchange for another debate be seen as “he is to mean.”
That is politics. Sanders wants another debate, which means he is asking for something. He needs to offer something in return.
He's only asking that it be in NY. Everyone involved agreed to the debate a long time ago. But go on desperately spinning the story by misrepresenting the truth. You are correct, I thought it was a new debate. But now he wants it in NYC and that wasn't agreed to yet. So he publicly asks for it and he gets the public response. That is how the process works. If he wants to set the place and time to exactly what he wants, he needs to offer Clinton a reason to agree to that. You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders. He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it. How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation? If not NY where and why? Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate, completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now.
Bernie hates on people who deny global warming. Then he advocates for labeling gmos. He likes scientific consensus (and brings it up often when dissing the gop) when it agrees with him and then stops once it's about gmos. Hypocrisy! It's just how this works.
|
On March 29 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 29 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Besides the public hearing exposing willful violations of state election law by the SoS (and that many ballots are yet to be counted), we also got Hillary saying Bernie is too mean to her for her to debate him... And she's supposed to be ready for Trump? Laughable. And of course no one contradicts Hillary as well as Hillary does. https://twitter.com/PittsBern/status/714535203125985281 I think I finally found a picture of GH on the internets: Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now. On March 29 2016 05:52 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
He's only asking that it be in NY. Everyone involved agreed to the debate a long time ago. But go on desperately spinning the story by misrepresenting the truth. You are correct, I thought it was a new debate. But now he wants it in NYC and that wasn't agreed to yet. So he publicly asks for it and he gets the public response. That is how the process works. If he wants to set the place and time to exactly what he wants, he needs to offer Clinton a reason to agree to that. You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders. He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it. How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation? If not NY where and why? Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now. Why NY and not MA? I want the debate in my state. Fuck NY, its stupid and the people there don't care. I want it here for reasons. There are 50 states. Maybe Sanders should provide a more compelling reason NY than "why not?" And lets cut through the bullshit, its because of the upcoming primary that is critical to him standing a chance. There is no reason for Clinton to accept beyond "I am really dumb and don't understand how viewership works." Sanders can have his debate as soon as he is a political grown up and is willing to negotiate for it.
Obviously all of the debates have been in upcoming states so bringing up MA is just stupid.
What exactly is he supposed to negotiate away in exchange for her debating in the state she represented?
|
On March 29 2016 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
If you only teach kids "what matters" and "what excites them", they will never learn discipline. No matter what you do for a living, there is stuff that you hate and stuff you don't enjoy at all. You still need to get it done. Kids SHOULD be learning "useless" stuff and becoming well rounded. If nothing else, if only for the experience of learning something you don't care about.
Also, how the fuck is basic algebra not something students need? If you ever want to do any critical thinking about numbers, you are going to need an understanding of functional relationships.
I am amazed by the fact that some people think what people need to know is only and exactly as much as they require to perform a very specific job, which for some reason they already know what it is going to be when they are 15. Is it really an accepted position that "workerdrone" is what people should aspire to be? And why are the students themselves happy with that?
An important part of school is teaching people how to understand the world around them, and if they are utterly incapable of understanding even simple maths, they will always be scared when numbers and mathematical relationships appear, and will just be pawns for whichever smarter person they tend to listen to, because they can not critically analyze what they are told, and are only capable of blind faith.
In the article, someone asked "How is algebra going to help them understand a federal budget". My question is how they would ever hope to understand the relationships between different parts of such a budget when they can't even understand a linear equation.
It makes me sad when young people have no ambition to become sentient members of the public only because that would be a small amount of effort. Try to be the best that you can be, as opposed of trying to do the absolute minimum you need to do to not get fired as a worker drone.
|
On March 29 2016 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:51 Acrofales wrote:[quote] I think I finally found a picture of GH on the internets: Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now. On March 29 2016 05:52 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You are correct, I thought it was a new debate. But now he wants it in NYC and that wasn't agreed to yet. So he publicly asks for it and he gets the public response. That is how the process works. If he wants to set the place and time to exactly what he wants, he needs to offer Clinton a reason to agree to that. You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders. He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it. How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation? If not NY where and why? Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now. Why NY and not MA? I want the debate in my state. Fuck NY, its stupid and the people there don't care. I want it here for reasons. There are 50 states. Maybe Sanders should provide a more compelling reason NY than "why not?" And lets cut through the bullshit, its because of the upcoming primary that is critical to him standing a chance. There is no reason for Clinton to accept beyond "I am really dumb and don't understand how viewership works." Sanders can have his debate as soon as he is a political grown up and is willing to negotiate for it. Obviously all of the debates have been in upcoming states so bringing up MA is just stupid. What exactly is he supposed to negotiate away in exchange for her debating in the state she represented?
Because that is what you do when you want something from someone. You ask "how can I have this thing I want?" and then they tell you what you need to give them for it.
And why is MA stupid. The voters here matter for the general election. Are we to be ignored until we are of value? Is this how Sander's deals with us? We are only get his attention when we have something to offer.
You see. I can make indignant, disingenuous arguments too. Of course I know why MA isn't on the docket.
|
On March 29 2016 07:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now.
[quote]
You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders.
He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it. How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation? If not NY where and why? Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now. Why NY and not MA? I want the debate in my state. Fuck NY, its stupid and the people there don't care. I want it here for reasons. There are 50 states. Maybe Sanders should provide a more compelling reason NY than "why not?" And lets cut through the bullshit, its because of the upcoming primary that is critical to him standing a chance. There is no reason for Clinton to accept beyond "I am really dumb and don't understand how viewership works." Sanders can have his debate as soon as he is a political grown up and is willing to negotiate for it. Obviously all of the debates have been in upcoming states so bringing up MA is just stupid. What exactly is he supposed to negotiate away in exchange for her debating in the state she represented? Because that is what you do when you want something from someone. You ask "how can I have this thing I want?" and then they tell you what you need to give them for it. And why is MA stupid. The voters here matter for the general election. Are we to be ignored until we are of value? Is this how Sander's deals with us? We are only get his attention when we have something to offer. You see. I can make indignant, disingenuous arguments too. Of course I know why MA isn't on the docket.
Your beef wouldn't be with Sanders, I'm sure he'd have a debate in MA and every other state too, your beef would be with Hillary.
I'm asking what is Sanders supposed to give her? Besides ask why she doesn't want to debate in NY?
|
On March 29 2016 06:00 cLutZ wrote:Sometimes, you forget how insane people really are: Kids are failing, so lets lower standards!Show nested quote +NEW YORK (AP) — Who needs algebra?
That question muttered by many a frustrated student over the years has become a vigorous debate among American educators, sparked by a provocative new book that argues required algebra has become an unnecessary stumbling block that forces millions to drop out of high school or college.
"One out of 5 young Americans does not graduate from high school. This is one of the worst records in the developed world. Why? The chief academic reason is they failed ninth-grade algebra," said political scientist Andrew Hacker, author of "The Math Myth and Other STEM Delusions."
Hacker, a professor emeritus at Queens College, argues that, at most, only 5 percent of jobs make use of algebra and other advanced math courses. He favors a curriculum that focuses more on statistics and basic numbers sense and less on (y - 3)2 = 4y - 12.
"Will algebra help you understand the federal budget?" he asked.
Many U.S. educators, including the architects of the Common Core standards, disagree, saying math just needs to be taught more effectively. It's fine for students to have quantitative skills, they say, but algebra is important, too.
"Every study I've ever seen of workers in whole bunches of fields shows that you have to understand formulas, you have to understand relationships," said Philip Uri Treisman, a professor of mathematics and of public affairs at the University of Texas. "Algebra is the tool for consolidating your knowledge of arithmetic."
Bill McCallum, a professor at the University of Arizona who played a lead role in developing the Common Core standards for math, said he would oppose any division of K-12 students into an algebra track and a non-algebra track.
"You might say only a certain percentage of kids will go on to use algebra, but we don't know which kids those are," he said.
In New York City, home to the nation's largest public school system with 1.1 million pupils, just 52 percent of the students who took last year's statewide Regents test in Algebra I passed, mirroring statistics elsewhere in the country.
Rather than scaling back on algebra, New York City educators have announced an "Algebra for All" initiative that aims to keep students on track by providing specialized math teachers in fifth grade, before algebra is introduced.
"We believe in high standards," said Carol Mosesson-Teig, director of mathematics for the city Department of Education. "And we believe that the best way to serve the students is to strengthen the instruction."
Eighteen-year-old Isaiah Aristy took the algebra Regents test twice and failed it both times.
Aristy, now a freshman at the Borough of Manhattan Community College who is hoping for a career in law enforcement, said he was good at math until he hit algebra.
"When it came to x and y and graphing, that's when I started dropping, and it made me feel low," he said. "But we don't need to learn what x and y is. When in life are we going to write on paper, 'X and y needs to be this?'"
Like millions of community college students across the U.S., Aristy must pass a remedial math class with no college credit, and then pass at least one college-level math class, if he wants to get an associate's degree.
But Aristy isn't just repeating Algebra I again. BMCC is one of about 50 community colleges in 14 state that offer an alternative track called Quantway, developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, that seeks to develop quantitative literacy.
"It includes some basic algebra concepts, but you don't learn how to factor polynomials or solve complex equations," said math department Chairman Fred Peskoff.
Project director Karon Klipple said the foundation devised Quantway and a statistics track called Statway in 2011 because of the sheer numbers of students dropping out of community college due to algebra. Sixty to 80 percent of community college students nationwide test into remedial math, and most don't pass it, she said.
"This is where their hopes and aspirations go to die," Klipple said. "They're in college to try to make a better life for themselves, and they're stopped by mathematics."
I've read a lot of Andrew Hacker and his views on mathematics education, and he's just basically 30 years behind our current understanding of math education. Focusing on quantitative reasoning instead of only content is something we've been explicitly focusing more and more on over the past three decades. Heck, even the ACT and SAT have that part right! So he's not wrong, but his ideas aren't radical or revolutionary either. Rumor has it he's also working on a new gaming console called the SNES...
|
On March 29 2016 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 05:51 Acrofales wrote:[quote] I think I finally found a picture of GH on the internets: Really, this is what you've resorted to? I suppose with no legitimate contention, posting random pictures is what we're doing here now. On March 29 2016 05:52 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You are correct, I thought it was a new debate. But now he wants it in NYC and that wasn't agreed to yet. So he publicly asks for it and he gets the public response. That is how the process works. If he wants to set the place and time to exactly what he wants, he needs to offer Clinton a reason to agree to that. You can't even be honest when you're admitting you're wrong... The "time" was set by the DNC not a demand of Sanders. He's saying he doesn't see a good reason for it not to be in NY and Hillary hasn't provided that or an alternative location. I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location. I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security. And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it. How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation? If not NY where and why? Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now. Why NY and not MA? I want the debate in my state. Fuck NY, its stupid and the people there don't care. I want it here for reasons. There are 50 states. Maybe Sanders should provide a more compelling reason NY than "why not?" And lets cut through the bullshit, its because of the upcoming primary that is critical to him standing a chance. There is no reason for Clinton to accept beyond "I am really dumb and don't understand how viewership works." Sanders can have his debate as soon as he is a political grown up and is willing to negotiate for it. Obviously all of the debates have been in upcoming states so bringing up MA is just stupid. What exactly is he supposed to negotiate away in exchange for her debating in the state she represented?
I would say dispel with the fiction he's been running a positive campaign. He's having Devine, Weaver and a lot of his supporters fling the shit (though he's been tossing boo-lines in his speeches and making all sort of insinuations). Maybe you don't see the shit and the media is willing to overlook it to help preserve their precious horse race narrative, but a lot of other people do. It's a disgusting, low tactic and had greatly eroded my respect for Sanders. This pretension of sainthood makes him look more like Pontius Pilate.
|
On March 29 2016 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 07:00 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:03 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I said I was wrong and you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t enough for you. Sanders want something. He can either make it worth Clinton’s time or not. That is how politics work. You seem to be confused on the process, but when people make public requests like this, its to back the other side into responding. Normally this stuff is set up via agreement, away from the spot light. Sanders doing this is a clear play for him to try to get a favorable venue and there is no reason for Clinton to agree when the DNC normally sets the location.
I can think of a boat load of reasons for it not to be in NYC, including, traffic and security. Mostly security.
And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too. You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it. How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation? If not NY where and why? Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now. Why NY and not MA? I want the debate in my state. Fuck NY, its stupid and the people there don't care. I want it here for reasons. There are 50 states. Maybe Sanders should provide a more compelling reason NY than "why not?" And lets cut through the bullshit, its because of the upcoming primary that is critical to him standing a chance. There is no reason for Clinton to accept beyond "I am really dumb and don't understand how viewership works." Sanders can have his debate as soon as he is a political grown up and is willing to negotiate for it. Obviously all of the debates have been in upcoming states so bringing up MA is just stupid. What exactly is he supposed to negotiate away in exchange for her debating in the state she represented? Because that is what you do when you want something from someone. You ask "how can I have this thing I want?" and then they tell you what you need to give them for it. And why is MA stupid. The voters here matter for the general election. Are we to be ignored until we are of value? Is this how Sander's deals with us? We are only get his attention when we have something to offer. You see. I can make indignant, disingenuous arguments too. Of course I know why MA isn't on the docket. Your beef wouldn't be with Sanders, I'm sure he'd have a debate in MA and every other state too, your beef would be with Hillary. I'm asking what is Sanders supposed to give her? Besides ask why she doesn't want to debate in NY?
Clinton said they want a promise from him to tone down his attack ads for the next few states. To make them be less negative. That is what she wants.
|
On March 29 2016 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
If you only teach kids "what matters" and "what excites them", they will never learn discipline. No matter what you do for a living, there is stuff that you hate and stuff you don't enjoy at all. You still need to get it done. Kids SHOULD be learning "useless" stuff and becoming well rounded. If nothing else, if only for the experience of learning something you don't care about.
Why should you teach kids stuff that doesn't matter...that is incredibly stupid.
If humans reached the age of adulthood at 180 instead of 18 and had IQ equivalents of 1000 instead of 100, then it might be worthwhile teaching them something pointless for the sake of discipline.
There is plenty of stuff that "matters" that will not excite them for teaching discipline.
Teach them rhetoric and propaganda, teach them statistics and scientific method, etc.
Teach them algebra if the only jobs that exist are STEM jobs... or if they want those jobs.
If you want them to think critically, don't teach them algebra with critical thinking as a side effect, teach them critical thinking.
If you need something to teach them critical thinking with, teach it to them with statistics and rhetoric something all members of a modern society will deal with.
On March 29 2016 06:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
If you only teach kids "what matters" and "what excites them", they will never learn discipline. No matter what you do for a living, there is stuff that you hate and stuff you don't enjoy at all. You still need to get it done. Kids SHOULD be learning "useless" stuff and becoming well rounded. If nothing else, if only for the experience of learning something you don't care about. Also, how the fuck is basic algebra not something students need? If you ever want to do any critical thinking about numbers, you are going to need an understanding of functional relationships. I am amazed by the fact that some people think what people need to know is only and exactly as much as they require to perform a very specific job, which for some reason they already know what it is going to be when they are 15. Is it really an accepted position that "workerdrone" is what people should aspire to be? And why are the students themselves happy with that? An important part of school is teaching people how to understand the world around them, and if they are utterly incapable of understanding even simple maths, they will always be scared when numbers and mathematical relationships appear, and will just be pawns for whichever smarter person they tend to listen to, because they can not critically analyze what they are told, and are only capable of blind faith. In the article, someone asked "How is algebra going to help them understand a federal budget". My question is how they would ever hope to understand the relationships between different parts of such a budget when they can't even understand a linear equation. It makes me sad when young people have no ambition to become sentient members of the public only because that would be a small amount of effort. Try to be the best that you can be, as opposed of trying to do the absolute minimum you need to do to not get fired as a worker drone.
Algebra is not required for thinking critically about numbers. And I would disagree that this is 'trying to make better workdrones'. Algebra is likely only to be used as part of your work droning, unless you do math for fun. Other things are far more likely to be of universal use.
Of course the bigger problem is not that algebra is not the ideal ninth grade math class in preparing well rounded citizens.
The bigger problem is the students are failing algebra, because they didn't get proper preparation in arithmetic earlier (they would fail a ninth grade statistics course as well... at least if it was any good)
The problem isn't really that students are failing ninth grade algebra, its that they are "passing" third, fourth, fifth, etc. grade math while actually failing it.
also... if we want something from high school to provide a 'sorting mechanism' then
-list your classes + GPA
or
-post standardized test score
|
On March 29 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 07:00 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
And still can't be honest... You said Sanders wants to set a specific time and place. We covered why the time part isn't honest, now the place. Sanders isn't demanding it be in NYC just requesting it be in NY state somewhere. This isn't new either he's been saying this since voting started it was part of the previous negotiations on Flint/NH too.
You're spinning hard still by pointing at traffic/security as being a potential reason Hillary is trying to dodge this debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it. How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation? If not NY where and why? Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now. Why NY and not MA? I want the debate in my state. Fuck NY, its stupid and the people there don't care. I want it here for reasons. There are 50 states. Maybe Sanders should provide a more compelling reason NY than "why not?" And lets cut through the bullshit, its because of the upcoming primary that is critical to him standing a chance. There is no reason for Clinton to accept beyond "I am really dumb and don't understand how viewership works." Sanders can have his debate as soon as he is a political grown up and is willing to negotiate for it. Obviously all of the debates have been in upcoming states so bringing up MA is just stupid. What exactly is he supposed to negotiate away in exchange for her debating in the state she represented? Because that is what you do when you want something from someone. You ask "how can I have this thing I want?" and then they tell you what you need to give them for it. And why is MA stupid. The voters here matter for the general election. Are we to be ignored until we are of value? Is this how Sander's deals with us? We are only get his attention when we have something to offer. You see. I can make indignant, disingenuous arguments too. Of course I know why MA isn't on the docket. Your beef wouldn't be with Sanders, I'm sure he'd have a debate in MA and every other state too, your beef would be with Hillary. I'm asking what is Sanders supposed to give her? Besides ask why she doesn't want to debate in NY? Clinton said they want a promise from him to tone down his attack ads for the next few states. To make them be less negative. That is what she wants.
What ads, and what tone?
|
On March 29 2016 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 07:00 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2016 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:37 Mohdoo wrote:On March 29 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 29 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:[quote] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-agree-more-debates-election-2016-dnc/So when this happened and he said they wouldn’t have them set by Clinton, it was really just saying he would set them instead? And its not the Clinton has said she is unwilling, but wants him to tone down the negative ads. You spin is in full effect GH. Sanders in the saint, Clinton trying to dodge. But in effect, Sanders wants the debate in NY state/NYC/where in the state and Clinton wants something in return. He isn't setting it in NY he's asking Hillary to give him a good reason it shouldn't be. Because there isn't one (the best you could come up with is "she should get something for debating in the state she represented") it does have the effect of tying her hands, but that's something different than him setting the location himself. If Bernie's campaign wants the debate in NY, it benefits Bernie. If something benefits Bernie, it does not benefit Clinton. That's the end of it, really. It's so stupid to expect her to go along with it. How about what benefits the American people/ voters of New York? Or has Hillary&co just completely left that out of the calculation? If not NY where and why? Not to mention all this is ignoring Hillary herself saying candidates like herself should be willing to debate completely dismissing the argument being pushed by her camp now. Why NY and not MA? I want the debate in my state. Fuck NY, its stupid and the people there don't care. I want it here for reasons. There are 50 states. Maybe Sanders should provide a more compelling reason NY than "why not?" And lets cut through the bullshit, its because of the upcoming primary that is critical to him standing a chance. There is no reason for Clinton to accept beyond "I am really dumb and don't understand how viewership works." Sanders can have his debate as soon as he is a political grown up and is willing to negotiate for it. Obviously all of the debates have been in upcoming states so bringing up MA is just stupid. What exactly is he supposed to negotiate away in exchange for her debating in the state she represented? Because that is what you do when you want something from someone. You ask "how can I have this thing I want?" and then they tell you what you need to give them for it. And why is MA stupid. The voters here matter for the general election. Are we to be ignored until we are of value? Is this how Sander's deals with us? We are only get his attention when we have something to offer. You see. I can make indignant, disingenuous arguments too. Of course I know why MA isn't on the docket. Your beef wouldn't be with Sanders, I'm sure he'd have a debate in MA and every other state too, your beef would be with Hillary. I'm asking what is Sanders supposed to give her? Besides ask why she doesn't want to debate in NY? Clinton said they want a promise from him to tone down his attack ads for the next few states. To make them be less negative. That is what she wants. What ads, and what tone?
I don't know dude. That is the quote coming out of Clinton's camp on the subject and I have zero desire to dig up a bunch of ads for your approval if they are negative. Clearly if Sanders wants that debate, his camp will need to dig into it and find out what ads Clinton thinks are attack ads.
|
chaos in the arizona house of reps due to demonstrators disrupting the process
there is some irony here
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
