Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gromit
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I’m interested in the powerful military argument.
Does a powerful military go on wars and adventures. Or does a powerful military stay home and defend the country?
The thing about power… you have to show it in parades and wars so that people know you’re badass. Badass people are never badass in silence and obscurity.[/quote]
So true. Like driving a Corvette, touting your assets shows you’ve TRULY got the goods, and KNOW it, and you’re NOT compensating for ANY weaknesses.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=flu]you really think there is a massive blue wave?
Stats say that when then economy is humming along, incumbent party stays in control.[/quote]
My confidence in any kind of blue wave, even a small one, is waning. And it’s got nothing to do with the economy.
Many intelligent and (I had previously thought) reasonable people I know are actually truly afraid of the migrant caravan and immigrants in general (and will therefore be voting republican). Not in a, “they’re taking our jobs and we’re spending money on their welfare” way, which would be ignorant and stupid enough all by itself. But in a much more visceral, fearful of physical violence way. Which, when you consider the actual amount of danger they pose (especially compared to the many dangers that are actually out there), is unfathomably ridiculous.
It really is hard to believe that people are that stupid. But clearly they are.
I guess it really shouldn’t be that hard to believe, though. Kinda my bad for ever thinking otherwise. In truth, we’re just animals whose brains are wired for discerning threats to our immediate physical survival, and not for discerning the larger truth or truth in general or any specific truth in particular. That may have been an advantage in the natural world. But now that we’ve built a civilization, it seems to me that it’s a shortcoming.
It seems to me that a bigger, more important movement than the movements for equality for women, minorities, LGBTQ+, etc. would be a movement that acknowledges that shortcoming and teaches people how to recognize when that shortcoming is causing them to see as “the truth” something that is not the truth. I think that if people could see when that shortcoming is causing them to not think clearly, then there’s a good chance we wouldn’t even need those other movements.
Not that there’s a chance in hell that such a movement will ever happen. And it probably wouldn’t work anyway (because people are idiots). In reality, it’s just a silly dream of mine.[/quote]
There has been such a movement. It’s pretty old, and actually fairly popular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
🙂
October 19, 2018 at 9:35 AM in reply to: Off Topic: How much home can you afford-not what you think #811083Participant[quote=TeCKis300][quote=scaredyclassic]i was just discussing with my kid how every time you acquire a possession it’s kind of got a n accompanying maintenance/insurance/care factor. there is nothing you can get that is not a pain in some way to keep. he kind of got it, although i suppose he is thinking more along the line of consumables which aren’t really keeping things.
what is there one can get that is not a chore to keep?
good health? not a “thing”…
we did yesteday buy some very old industrial style styeel and wood pallets from an old envelope factory, heavy and very beat up, for a coffee table, which ianticipate will have a very low maintenance factor.
kind of the opposite of the fancy new european car my wife acquired.
even a rental home just seem s like a pain in the ass[/quote]
What about the acquired wife? I assume the european car was maintenance for said wife.
Of course, I’m realizing this for my own situation…[/quote]
And the wife is maintenance for the self.
Even your health is a chore to maintain.
It’s the law of entropy: nothing can be maintained without effort.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Yeah, I’m not getting pregnant. And I’m not getting married so the issues don’t affect me. But that would sure suck for the people affected.[/quote]
I meant to quote this before. I’ll say it again – I guess if you lack empathy, then if “the issues don’t affect me,” they don’t matter.
ParticipantI guess if you lack empathy, if “the issues don’t affect me,” they don’t matter.
ParticipantTo quote Steve Martin: “First: get a million dollars.”
ParticipantTo quote Steve Martin: “First: get a million dollars.”
ParticipantTo quote Steve Martin: “First: get a million dollars.”
ParticipantTo quote Steve Martin: “First: get a million dollars.”
ParticipantTo quote Steve Martin: “First: get a million dollars.”
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=eavesdropper][quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.
Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.
This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.
For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.
As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.
What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.[/quote]
Excellent post, Eaves.[/quote]
Hear, hear, Eaves. You were far more diplomatic than I could have been in the face of such assholery.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=eavesdropper][quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.
Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.
This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.
For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.
As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.
What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.[/quote]
Excellent post, Eaves.[/quote]
Hear, hear, Eaves. You were far more diplomatic than I could have been in the face of such assholery.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=eavesdropper][quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.
Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.
This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.
For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.
As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.
What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.[/quote]
Excellent post, Eaves.[/quote]
Hear, hear, Eaves. You were far more diplomatic than I could have been in the face of such assholery.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=eavesdropper][quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.
Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.
This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.
For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.
As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.
What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.[/quote]
Excellent post, Eaves.[/quote]
Hear, hear, Eaves. You were far more diplomatic than I could have been in the face of such assholery.
-
AuthorPosts