On October 09 2012 04:00 oneofthem wrote: whether the outcome of a revolution will 'turn out well for us' is not the overriding consideration. these countries are not jailkeepers for america.
Whether the outcome of a revolution turns out well for us reflects on whether our foreign policy was successful, because part of the goal of foreign policy is tangible benefits for us.
In the long term, America might be better off if we had a benevolent rather than malevolent foreign policy. We wouldn't have to worry about things like 9/11 at least.
"Benevolent" and "malevolent" depends on the point of view. The policy that got us into 9/11 was "benevolent" to Israel. A better argument is that we might be better off if we had a more isolationist foreign policy, and kept our noses out of the beehive that's the Middle East.
On October 09 2012 04:00 oneofthem wrote: whether the outcome of a revolution will 'turn out well for us' is not the overriding consideration. these countries are not jailkeepers for america.
Whether the outcome of a revolution turns out well for us reflects on whether our foreign policy was successful, because part of the goal of foreign policy is tangible benefits for us.
i thought the point of our foreign policy was to spread democracy? not all democracy is going to like is (egypt) but if country that were under dictators now get to deiced with free elections who leads them i think the US is doing fine
Spreading democracy is a means to an end with the tangible benefit of security for us. You may have noticed that we selectively support dictators when it benefits us.
On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote: But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis.
People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies.
As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure.
Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive...
I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be.
Who said anything about moving? And 20 dollars a day in gas to drive to a school? I've got probably 10 schools within 20 minutes driving distance. Forcing parents to go to a failing one because of their address is more immoral in my opinion than giving them the OPTION to drive somewhere else.
So because of your subjective circumstances that would make the possible transition easier the rest of the people who live outside of that "10 schools within 20 minutes of driving" should move into larger cities? Or maybe there should be more schools built to fit that demand but then that's funding on education :O
Also your position is rather ridiculous... "X school gets such good grades!" So 5000 people in that area apply the next year... The reason they're region based is because of the fact you can't just "go to the best school" if it's beside you along with another 5k kids. Over population is a big deal in schools, exaggerated population would be even worse.
Nothing you've said makes any relevant sense on a realistic basis... Either you live in a county where there are 10 schoolls in a 20 minute distance such that you choose to go to the best school, but what if everyone chooses that? Doesn't work. Or you live far away and are forced to move because now your school isn't getting adequate funding.
On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote: But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis.
People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies.
As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure.
Leave it up to the parents? The same ones who are "disengaged and could care less about their kids"? Remember, an educated society benefits all in many ways.. not the least of which is fewer hobos that will stab you and eat your eyeballs after a hit of pcp.
I know what you are saying though. Unfortunately I think in many (especially rural) places there are just not enough kids for this sort of competition to occur.
On October 10 2012 06:35 sunprince wrote: Spreading democracy is a means to an end with the tangible benefit of security for us. You may have noticed that we selectively support dictators when it benefits us.
Um
you may have noticed that we overthrow democratically elected rulers and install dictators when it benefits us
On October 10 2012 06:35 sunprince wrote: Spreading democracy is a means to an end with the tangible benefit of security for us. You may have noticed that we selectively support dictators when it benefits us.
Um
you may have noticed that we overthrow democratically elected rulers and install dictators when it benefits us
there is really no need to argue for such things anyway. when you do not respond to very basic principles like respecting other people on a grand scale, what's there to do. i have no interest in convincing the guy.
On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote: But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis.
People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies.
As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure.
Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive...
I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be.
The choice parents have NOW is: Deal with your school or pick up and move. Vouchers would actually allow parents to change schools without changing their address. The current system is the one that forces a greater economic burden on parents looking for a better school.
On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote: But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis.
People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies.
As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure.
Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive...
I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be.
Who said anything about moving? And 20 dollars a day in gas to drive to a school? I've got probably 10 schools within 20 minutes driving distance. Forcing parents to go to a failing one because of their address is more immoral in my opinion than giving them the OPTION to drive somewhere else.
So because of your subjective circumstances that would make the possible transition easier the rest of the people who live outside of that "10 schools within 20 minutes of driving" should move into larger cities? Or maybe there should be more schools built to fit that demand but then that's funding on education :O
Also your position is rather ridiculous... "X school gets such good grades!" So 5000 people in that area apply the next year... The reason they're region based is because of the fact you can't just "go to the best school" if it's beside you along with another 5k kids. Over population is a big deal in schools, exaggerated population would be even worse.
Nothing you've said makes any relevant sense on a realistic basis... Either you live in a county where there are 10 schoolls in a 20 minute distance such that you choose to go to the best school, but what if everyone chooses that? Doesn't work. Or you live far away and are forced to move because now your school isn't getting adequate funding.
Your argument is that one that doesn't make sense. It boils down to "Not everyone has a perfect choice so we should eliminate choice altogether and enforce a monopoly."
I get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy.
Vouchers are not going to solve all our problems, the point is it will be an improvement over the existing system, in which we already have failing schools and corrupt administrations and wasted money. And in the meantime, we won't make the immoral decision of forcing kids into schools that people know are bad against the will of the parents.
On October 09 2012 16:01 sam!zdat wrote: See? You think Romney's gonna listen to that? His buddies are in the defense industry.
This cranky Marxist is more on your side than he is!
edit: which is to say, if I gotta live in the empire, I'd rather live in an empire with a small, efficient military than this military-industrial complex bullshit
I'd like to know an example of the military-friendly Marxist. We can skip over the obvious embarrassments of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung because everyone knows when things go bad it wasn't really Marxism but something else.
Just because I do not support increasing defense spending does not mean I flat out oppose it either. It isn't the most important issue to me anyway, I oppose higher taxes, abortion, among many other issues that I simply disagree with the President's position on.
Well why are you voting for Romney? He supports and opposes abortion at the same time.
EDIT: It was funny because at first I didn't even know Romney flipflopped, I just googled "Flip flop on abortion" and little surprise Romney is going not pro-choice or pro-life but multi choice :D Feeds the idiots whatever they want to hear.
oh noes!!! he supported a position 20 years ago that he doesn't support now!?! how will we ever know what he really believes then!!!
On October 10 2012 05:31 ZeaL. wrote: I'm pretty liberal on a number of things but I'm not "liberal" when it comes to education. It would be nice to see some support of these ideas from Obama...
1) Pay teachers by performance. I think unions can be useful, in this case teachers unions have really fucked our students. It doesn't make sense to have teachers pay be dictated by seniority. It really pained me, as a student of the public school system, to see young bright teachers come in and do a great job teaching while they got paid less than half of what some old fogey was getting paid for doing a terrible job. The bright ones leave when they realize that it will bet least 15-20 years before they get paid what they're worth leaving only terrible or old teachers.
2) Pay teachers more. I hate the term, if you can't do, teach. There are so many who can do quite well but can't teach for shit. Teaching is an incredibly difficult (and important job) to do well and the amount of money we pay (good) teachers is just not enough to attract the kind of intellect required for a good education system. We pay so much per student in the US yet still get such poor outcomes, there are definitely places where funding can be cut to pay for better teachers.
3) My mother is an accounting supervisor for a school district in CA. The one thing that is absolutely absurd with draining money is taking care of mentally retarded kids. One ridiculous example, a mom has this kind with autism and this kid basically can't interact with anyone because he has gotten violent with other kids in the past. The district's solution is to send him to a special school in Florida where he is taken care of 1 on 1. The cost is astronomical, ~20k a month. For ONE kid. There is no single criminal in this situation, its just that the system is fucked up. The mom can't stay home to take care of the kid and earn an income, the school is legally obligated to the kids care during school hours, and the kid can't be at a normal school. Of course this is just one example but the system is fucked. Kids who have no business being in special ed get thrown in when they shouldn't be and kids who will never learn anything are given a dumbed down version of the normal curriculum, as if that will help them in life. I have no solutions here, the problems are myriad and manifold, but someone needs to at least acknowledge that special ed needs a ton of work.
4) Stop treating everyone the same. Seriously. Not everyone needs to go to college. That doesn't mean you don't need to be educated but that there are many technical jobs that pay well and are needed in our society. We can learn about how to do this from countries in Europe. In Switzerland for example, people can choose whether or not they wish to continue an academic career to college or enter a vocational school after which they are linked up with local businesses. The obsession in the US with delaying making any sort of career choice until the last second really hurts most people as they're forced to learn stuff that they don't care about, won't use, and isn't helpful to them in gaining employment. For those who are aiming to be well educated in general, this system works okay but classes are pulled down by those who don't care, harming both types of students. A number of experimental vocational schools have popped up but its in no way a common thing yet.
The difference on #1 is how do you measure their performance. Most of the time it's based on test scores, and lets be honest that is really unfair to the teachers. Think back to when you went to school and just imagine some of your classes, some of your classes were filled with a ton of super bright attentive students who put forth their best effort, and some were filled with kids who just dicked around and didn't give a shit, look to your fourth paragraph where you say these students pull you down. This is completely random (other than the fact the more remedial classes will have a higher concentration of the second). So tell me then, how we are supposed to evaluate performance. Teachers are already evaluated by their principal and their peers on their actual teaching methods etc. They might not be paid according to the results though.
I agree teachers should be paid more, but nothing too outrageous(I don't know what the magic number is but it's more than it is now)because we can't forget the kids need school supplies etc, we need the budget to help the teachers, but also remember the schools need to run. It really comes down to how much schools cost to run, and how much we are giving them, and I think there are some areas in this that really need improving. I have never seen the accounting books, so maybe you can give us a better picture for where the hell the money goes.
The problem with special ed in a lot of places is that they are held to the same standards on tests that other students are at least for No Child Left Behind was concerned when I was in school, my high school in particular several years ago, because test scores = money, trying to get rid of students and put them in other places, despite the costs too others, might actually be a legitimate strategy, I don't know. I also don't know if Race to the Top holds special ed students to the same standards NCLB did or does would need to do research.
I completely one hundred percent agree that college is not for everyone, and it really sucks for a lot of peoples bank accounts and lives that they have to go through a year or two or three to find that out. I think quicker paths to careers would be great, I wish that the system worked where you applied for a job or field you really wanted after maybe 2 year(FREE) college where you take all sorts of core classes + a special focus on what your interested in, then you showed your willingness to learn the appropriate skills etc in the interviews for the job/field then you go to work for them as an apprentice with a decent wage and your company supplies you with the proper training, additional classes/schooling etc that you need to work the trade, after completing the training etc then you get paid big time!(not discarded for more apprentices, they invested in you by paying for this training, schooling, so they have a reason to give you good benefits and stick around, if they pay for it, it's really hard to lose you to another company, so more competition). For instance my grandfather worked as an engineer for Raytheon, and they sent him back to school fully paid for to get his masters(he had a four year) because they liked him and his work and wanted him to do more than he was doing for them.
I'm going to respond to this part because I think its the most contentious. In my view the way to do it: Students are tested each year, you can place each student on the distribution of all students who took the test. Given enough data, you can pretty much expect on average how much a student is going to learn the next year. If a teacher does a good job, the students should outperform expectations, the opposite if not. This makes it so that even those students who have the best students can have poor performance if they don't improve their students enough that year. The sticky part is obviously the test. It can't be as easy as the standardized tests that are provided right now as the information for the high aptitude students will be lost. The content will also require scrutiny as it should be representative of the school curriculum and test stuff that is actually worth knowing. I think this method would work well for K-8 as there are generally standardized curriculum students receive until high school. There are a lot of ways this can go wrong, bad modeling of expectations, poorly designed tests, but I think the payoff would be that teachers actually have an incentive to think about how to improve their students.
See we are back to basing it on tests, and honestly I just don't care about test scores at all, it causes teaching to the test. I don't like teaching to the test
I want teachers who want to improve their students, because that is the name of the job. I think we do need to be critical of our teachers, and i understand that there are bad teachers, I've taken their classes before, but I feel like making pay based on any kind of test or evaluation of the teachers by the public is really bad. Also how much variance in pay are we talking, is it a small bonus or can it be a huge variance. I don't want a teachers pay to be really inconsistent because then it would be hard to make plans to have a child or to buy a house. We don't want to distract great potential teachers from taking up the career because they won't have financial security. Remember one of the arguments for higher pay for teachers is too attract better teachers to the teaching world, we don't want to scare them away .
I've experienced first hand a few years ago, the teaching to the test that NCLB brought in my school, and supposedly race to the top has similar issues.
My mom's elementary school, she's former first grade teacher was told she had to teach to the test, my mom got warned when she did a fun activity for Fall holidays(it was either halloween or thanksgiving) because it didn't include any of the stuff on the test . Every single lesson had to be applicable to the test, so for example if your doing a lesson on science, it HAD to have some form of math/english(Math/English was all that was on the second grade taste that they were being judged by) that was applicable on the test as the core of it. So instead of teaching science like how a tree is grown, let's look at this apple and find the seeds(this is not her lesson it's just me making one up ), your teaching how to write a sentence about that apple. Also as time went on in her school, it ended up being that every first grade class had the same lesson plan handed out by administration(by the way the lady making the lesson plans had never taught a class in her life, and her job was to make lessons to teach children the test...), every second grade class had the same lesson plan as every other second grade class etc.
If I had a six year old I would much prefer them to have an all around education from a great teacher, then four hours of reading/writing, and two hours of math, every day.
If you want to know, test results did improve, and the school was not overhauled(they were told they had to improve over 5 years by edison, or they would completely restructure the staff, including the teachers)
I want our school system to have good results, I want our teachers and schools to improve, and hell, I even want test scores to be higher because why not, I feel like everyone actually has the same goal when it comes to education, it really comes down to how to do it.
On October 10 2012 04:18 sam!zdat wrote: Am I happy about the state of education in this country? Absolutely not. Do I think your "tangible improvement" means a rat's ass? Fuck no. You obviously don't know the first thing about education. Your attitude about education is the problem, not the solution.
Do we need to gut our educational system from the bottom up and rebuild it? Yes. Should we take money away from education because the line on your stupid fucking graph? No! (edit: education is the second most important thing a civilization can spend effort on, so you are never going to convince me than an education budget is "too much," only that it's badly spent, which I agree on)
My attitude is that the system has to be changed and more money into the current setup is a waste so if my attitude is a problem, so is yours. Complaints about "teaching the test" fail to appreciate the need for a foundation to the higher skills of reason and critical thought.
Yes. There is an enormous difference between someone with a BA in anything (mine happens to be from a top school - the one Steve Jobs dropped out of in fact, but that's neither here nor there) and someone with a high school diploma. A (real) college education MATTERS, and is a very different thing from a high school diploma. I can't believe you are suggesting an equivalence here. What is your level of education?
English BA with a minor in PoliSci. But that's neither here nor there. I can't help but notice you felt a need to insert "(real)" in your statement. I certainly agree a (real) college education makes quite a bit of difference but I think you've already let slip the acknowledgement that recently college is really more about 1. learning stuff you didn't get taught properly in high school, 2. connections, 3. celebrating for as many years as possible the end of life without real responsibility. The 4. Learning specific advanced skills for a career does come around eventually but that doesn't really get to anything about acquired skill as an educator unless you are getting a teaching degree.
(To be clear on the prior point I'm not suggesting anyone with a high school diploma can be a teacher especially since so many don't deserve the diploma in the first place. But whatever I think of Jobs' overpriced products, I have no doubt he'd do better than at least 90% of my high school teachers.)
Wanting oil IS against our self-interest. We can't think about the long term,
People who think long term favor using oil and nuclear power now and using solar and whatever will replace solar when they become viable in the future. People who don't think about the long term give billions to solar power companies now which then go broke because solar in the short term isn't economically viable just like it wasn't when Carter put solar panels on the White House.
That is why the US will not outlast the 21st century in its present form.
How so? You mean like joining the USSR on the ash heap of history?
If you want to be some sort of obtuse wade giles hipster, at least spell the pinyin you aren't using correctly. It's "Zedong," one word.
Ze Dong. Ask me again and I'll tell you the same. If you still don't get it, find a kid who I'm sure will have no problem explaining.
edit: what is "rule number 1"
It's at the start of the thread.
and what do you know about Marxism in the West? Have you read Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Eagleton, Jameson, Harvey or anybody even remotely like that?
I have more interest in the latest Black Eyes Peas album than in the thoughts of modern Marxism. I did read some of Marx himself along with cliff notes and critiques plus the other big names (Locke, Burke, Hobbes, Mr. Therefore I am, etc) but even then I found the Ancients more interesting. I even referenced one in the post that got me banned last month.
What do you think "Marxism" is? Attribute to me a belief as a "Marxist" and we'll see if you know what you're talking about.
I don't care about the distinctions without difference between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, and so on. Chavez can have his Bolivarian revolution and Occupy Wall Street can have their petty insurrection and people can complain about Capitalism vs Corporatism. Labels matter less than the basic question of state vs individual and who has control. The government has too much control in the US already and the only reason people on the Left are unhappy is because they never stop demanding more. Never.
edit: Marxism can't "fail" because Marxism isn't a political programme, it's a theory (of capitalism). What failed are political programmes based on a very bad version of Marxism which has as little to do with Marx as American "christians" have to do with Jesus. (also, to the extent we are talking about this, China can hardly be considered a "failure")
Theories can and more often than not do fail. But hey, feel free to continue the mantra of We'll get it right this time!
And certainly China can be considered a failure. I mean, I understand having a hundred million of your citizens die can be argued as helping to alleviating population issues but come on. If it helps you can think of China as education spending so all those wonderful stats become meaningless and beside the point.
On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote: But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis.
People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies.
As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure.
Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive...
I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be.
The choice parents have NOW is: Deal with your school or pick up and move. Vouchers would actually allow parents to change schools without changing their address. The current system is the one that forces a greater economic burden on parents looking for a better school.
On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote: But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis.
People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies.
As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure.
Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive...
I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be.
Who said anything about moving? And 20 dollars a day in gas to drive to a school? I've got probably 10 schools within 20 minutes driving distance. Forcing parents to go to a failing one because of their address is more immoral in my opinion than giving them the OPTION to drive somewhere else.
So because of your subjective circumstances that would make the possible transition easier the rest of the people who live outside of that "10 schools within 20 minutes of driving" should move into larger cities? Or maybe there should be more schools built to fit that demand but then that's funding on education :O
Also your position is rather ridiculous... "X school gets such good grades!" So 5000 people in that area apply the next year... The reason they're region based is because of the fact you can't just "go to the best school" if it's beside you along with another 5k kids. Over population is a big deal in schools, exaggerated population would be even worse.
Nothing you've said makes any relevant sense on a realistic basis... Either you live in a county where there are 10 schoolls in a 20 minute distance such that you choose to go to the best school, but what if everyone chooses that? Doesn't work. Or you live far away and are forced to move because now your school isn't getting adequate funding.
Your argument is that one that doesn't make sense. It boils down to "Not everyone has a perfect choice so we should eliminate choice altogether and enforce a monopoly."
I get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy.
Vouchers are not going to solve all our problems, the point is it will be an improvement over the existing system, in which we already have failing schools and corrupt administrations and wasted money. And in the meantime, we won't make the immoral decision of forcing kids into schools that people know are bad against the will of the parents.
get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy.
I decided to take this tid bit out. It's not about "increasing spending" in America, it's about equal spending. It's no coincidence that America has one of the absolute worst education system in any of the main countries around the world when it comes to public schooling while also using a system that gives cash on grades. You don't "throw more money at failing schools"... What you're arguing is that someone should pick up and find a better school, how do we do this? How does someone just pick up and find a better school when MILLIONS of people will follow that ideology if that's what the case is. Obviously you want your kid in the school getting more spending.
Let's have a system that gives 10x the amount of money to one school and then question why the other one is doing so poorly.
Also again you didn't answer the aspect of kids going to all the best schools, how would all the parents have a fair and equal ability to go to the schools in this hypothetical situation? First come first serve? Who has the biggest pay? Biggest dick? This is a ridiculous system. You either have people in moving distance being denied for x reasons and you're stuck in the same position or you're asking people to move closer to a better school that again will be over populated because the "worse schools" are worse.
On October 10 2012 03:40 Zaqwert wrote: Why are Obama supporters in such denial?
"Romney is a big liar!"
Agreed, so is Obama
"Romney is a flip flopper, he'll say anything to get elected!"
Agree, so is Obama and so will Obama.
Obama supporters and the media have deified the dude so much over the years they can't see that he's every bit as slimy and corrupt as Romney or any other politician, always has been, always will be.
Ok, I'll bite. I've seen plenty of stories and videos on Romeny flopping around like a fish out of water but can't say I've seen any articles or videos that Obama has directly said one thing and switched it afterwards? Could you offer up some sources too this, I would like to read/watch them, please!
Gay marriage, cut the deficit in half, drone strikes. There was a really good one from the 2007 video of Obama at the black church rabble-rousing (that's not racist is it? I mean, aside from not praising the glory of Obama racism) about the government not making funding exceptions following Katrina when in fact the government had AND Obama had voted against it. Source is Google it, I spent too much time on that last post and I want to have fun with the list of romney flipflops whoever that was provided.
On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote: But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis.
People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies.
As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure.
Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive...
I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be.
The choice parents have NOW is: Deal with your school or pick up and move. Vouchers would actually allow parents to change schools without changing their address. The current system is the one that forces a greater economic burden on parents looking for a better school.
On October 10 2012 06:35 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On October 10 2012 06:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 10 2012 06:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On October 10 2012 06:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote: But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis.
People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies.
As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure.
Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive...
I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be.
Who said anything about moving? And 20 dollars a day in gas to drive to a school? I've got probably 10 schools within 20 minutes driving distance. Forcing parents to go to a failing one because of their address is more immoral in my opinion than giving them the OPTION to drive somewhere else.
So because of your subjective circumstances that would make the possible transition easier the rest of the people who live outside of that "10 schools within 20 minutes of driving" should move into larger cities? Or maybe there should be more schools built to fit that demand but then that's funding on education :O
Also your position is rather ridiculous... "X school gets such good grades!" So 5000 people in that area apply the next year... The reason they're region based is because of the fact you can't just "go to the best school" if it's beside you along with another 5k kids. Over population is a big deal in schools, exaggerated population would be even worse.
Nothing you've said makes any relevant sense on a realistic basis... Either you live in a county where there are 10 schoolls in a 20 minute distance such that you choose to go to the best school, but what if everyone chooses that? Doesn't work. Or you live far away and are forced to move because now your school isn't getting adequate funding.
Your argument is that one that doesn't make sense. It boils down to "Not everyone has a perfect choice so we should eliminate choice altogether and enforce a monopoly."
I get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy.
Vouchers are not going to solve all our problems, the point is it will be an improvement over the existing system, in which we already have failing schools and corrupt administrations and wasted money. And in the meantime, we won't make the immoral decision of forcing kids into schools that people know are bad against the will of the parents.
get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy.
I decided to take this tid bit out. It's not about "increasing spending" in America, it's about equal spending. It's no coincidence that America has one of the absolute worst education system in any of the main countries around the world when it comes to public schooling while also using a system that gives cash on grades. You don't "throw more money at failing schools"... What you're arguing is that someone should pick up and find a better school, how do we do this? How does someone just pick up and find a better school when MILLIONS of people will follow that ideology if that's what the case is. Obviously you want your kid in the school getting more spending.
Let's have a system that gives 10x the amount of money to one school and then question why the other one is doing so poorly.
Also again you didn't answer the aspect of kids going to all the best schools, how would all the parents have a fair and equal ability to go to the schools in this hypothetical situation? First come first serve? Who has the biggest pay? Biggest dick? This is a ridiculous system. You either have people in moving distance being denied for x reasons and you're stuck in the same position or you're asking people to move closer to a better school that again will be over populated because the "worse schools" are worse.
Again, the current system is the one that forces parents to move if they want to change schools, which places a greater economic burden than a voucher system would.
Your claim that all the worst performing schools are the one's receiving the least funding is way off. In fact, often the opposite is true. Any idea which part of the country is highest in per pupil spending? Washington DC. New York and New Jersey are second and third. Hopefully I don't have to tell you how these areas score. Hint: They score terribly.
This system is not about shifting people around to avoid bad schools, it's to enforce accountability on bad schools to turn them into better schools.
On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote: it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays.
You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP.
As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails.
Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do.
Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate.
Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping.
But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked.
That's not correct. There are, in fact, enough tax expenditures available to make the 20% cut revenue neutral.
On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote: it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays.
You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP.
As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails.
Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do.
Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate.
Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping.
But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked.
xDaunt is merely doing his part as he shamelessly imitates the Romney campaigning strategy; deny everything, say nothing of substance, and pile on the assertive fortune telling mixed with sophomoric pejoration. I mean, come on, we got his debate score; all of this hot air falls pretty neatly in line with the Republican platform this cycle.
My debate score was pretty damned accurate. If anything, I was generous to Obama compared to what many liberals are saying about his performance.
I have offered plenty of substantive commentary. Hell, I even talked about the tax thing. All these studies that democrats keep pushing on Romney's tax plan (like the TPC) are based upon flawed assumptions. This has been discussed ad nauseum already.
Again, what all you liberals seem to have forgotten is that this election is referendum on Obama, not Romney. Unsurprisingly, you aren't even really bothering to defend him.
On October 10 2012 05:26 Deathmanbob wrote: I wonder if Xdaunt is happy, but RCP now has romney ahead in national polls by .7. While i still think it has a lot to do with post debate bump there is no denying that this race is VERY VERY close and i romney now has a good chance of winning if he next three debates are anything like the first
Pew Research has a new poll out showing Romney +4 among likely voters. This has been getting a lot of press today since the same pollster showed Obama +8 before the debates.
The crosstabs show 36% Republicans, 33% Democrats. Remember, in the wave year of 2010, the partisan identification was 36% each.
Where are the poll unskew-ers now?
For the record, I maintain my view that partisan identification is a measured attitude -- not something that pollsters should be doing any reweighting upon. The first debate performance may be causing more conservatives to claim the Republican label and pushing center-left types to call themselves Independent. Basically the opposite of what was happening after the party conventions, when the Democrats had the momentum.
It's just amusing to hear all these voices for partisan reweighting fall silent once that highly dynamic variable starts leaning in their favor.
It is kind of funny, I bet those same people who were saying Romney is done, its a blow-out, because of polling data are probably playing down the data now and saying it doesn't mean that much.
Who is playing down the polls?
It's the other way around. Republicans here were calling the previous polls bullshit, and now that they've swung their way, it's suddenly all accurate.
On October 10 2012 04:18 sam!zdat wrote: Am I happy about the state of education in this country? Absolutely not. Do I think your "tangible improvement" means a rat's ass? Fuck no. You obviously don't know the first thing about education. Your attitude about education is the problem, not the solution.
Do we need to gut our educational system from the bottom up and rebuild it? Yes. Should we take money away from education because the line on your stupid fucking graph? No! (edit: education is the second most important thing a civilization can spend effort on, so you are never going to convince me than an education budget is "too much," only that it's badly spent, which I agree on)
My attitude is that the system has to be changed and more money into the current setup is a waste so if my attitude is a problem, so is yours. Complaints about "teaching the test" fail to appreciate the need for a foundation to the higher skills of reason and critical thought.
Because the test can't test higher skills of reason and critical thought.
Yes. There is an enormous difference between someone with a BA in anything (mine happens to be from a top school - the one Steve Jobs dropped out of in fact, but that's neither here nor there) and someone with a high school diploma. A (real) college education MATTERS, and is a very different thing from a high school diploma. I can't believe you are suggesting an equivalence here. What is your level of education?
English BA with a minor in PoliSci. But that's neither here nor there. I can't help but notice you felt a need to insert "(real)" in your statement. I certainly agree a (real) college education makes quite a bit of difference but I think you've already let slip the acknowledgement that recently college is really more about 1. learning stuff you didn't get taught properly in high school, 2. connections, 3. celebrating for as many years as possible the end of life without real responsibility. The 4. Learning specific advanced skills for a career does come around eventually but that doesn't really get to anything about acquired skill as an educator unless you are getting a teaching degree.
I don't think we disagree about any of this. Yes, I put the (real) in there because I think a lot of colleges give joke degrees. Call me an elitist if you want, got no problem with that, I'm certainly an elitist in some ways.
Wanting oil IS against our self-interest. We can't think about the long term,
People who think long term favor using oil and nuclear power now and using solar and whatever will replace solar when they become viable in the future. People who don't think about the long term give billions to solar power companies now which then go broke because solar in the short term isn't economically viable just like it wasn't when Carter put solar panels on the White House.
I'm not saying stop using oil now, I'm talking formulating a long-term strategy that involves heavy investment into developing clean energy technologies and into making our existing energy usage more efficient. We're not doing that. I recognize that we will need to use fossil fuels in the mid term future, I'm may be idealistic and arrogant but I'm not an idiot.
and what do you know about Marxism in the West? Have you read Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Eagleton, Jameson, Harvey or anybody even remotely like that?
I have more interest in the latest Black Eyes Peas album than in the thoughts of modern Marxism. I did read some of Marx himself along with cliff notes and critiques plus the other big names (Locke, Burke, Hobbes, Mr. Therefore I am, etc) but even then I found the Ancients more interesting. I even referenced one in the post that got me banned last month.
By "some of Marx himself" do you mean the Manifesto? Doesn't count. that's fine, though, you don't have to know about it, just don't go telling people who do know about it a bunch of uninformed stuff like "no difference between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism" then I wouldn't have to get my panties all in a knot
What do you think "Marxism" is? Attribute to me a belief as a "Marxist" and we'll see if you know what you're talking about.
I don't care about the distinctions without difference between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, and so on. Chavez can have his Bolivarian revolution and Occupy Wall Street can have their petty insurrection and people can complain about Capitalism vs Corporatism. Labels matter less than the basic question of state vs individual and who has control. The government has too much control in the US already and the only reason people on the Left are unhappy is because they never stop demanding more. Never.
Apart from your ambivalence to the distinctions in ideology among the entire Left (again, it's like calling Episcopalians Lutherans and Mormons Catholics), I agree that the US is far too large and too ideologically heterogenous to be governable. It will be a disaster if you make government bigger, it will be a disaster if you make it smaller without other structural reforms, and it will be a disaster if it stays the same.
edit: Marxism can't "fail" because Marxism isn't a political programme, it's a theory (of capitalism). What failed are political programmes based on a very bad version of Marxism which has as little to do with Marx as American "christians" have to do with Jesus. (also, to the extent we are talking about this, China can hardly be considered a "failure")
Theories can and more often than not do fail. But hey, feel free to continue the mantra of We'll get it right this time!
I got as much interest in YouTube videos as you have in contemporary Marxism.
And certainly China can be considered a failure. I mean, I understand having a hundred million of your citizens die can be argued as helping to alleviating population issues but come on. If it helps you can think of China as education spending so all those wonderful stats become meaningless and beside the point.
Yes, I'm obviously giving a blanket endorsement to all of Chinese history of the last 80 years. The fact remains, though, they're about to eat our collective lunch and we're letting them. I greatly admire the Chinese, I think they have a better chance of fixing their problems than we do. (edit: I'll point out that I just finished the MacFarquhar book on the cultural revolution, so while I'm hardly an expert on Chinese history I'm not whitewashing it or anything)
EPT
.
