[Ren]

So I never actually said “if prop 30 passes, we’re leaving the state,” because that would be overly dramatic and silly. There’s a lot holding us here and 30 by itself wouldn’t do it. However, now that it has passed, it’s enough of a push in that direction that we’re putting feelers out. If I wanted a very small town with low crime and good schools, where in WA would I look?

[Ren]

I’m going to revise my bet:

Obama to win
30 yes (sigh)
32 no

[Ren]

If I had to bet, it would be Obama to win, and both 30 and 32 losing.

[Ren]

[quote=flu]Where do people get the impression that tiger parents spend 6+hrs on homework? I think that’s a stereotype in itself.
[/quote]

From the tiger moms themselves, in videos and articles attempting (and failing) to rationalize their methods. I don’t have time to link at the moment, but I was fascinated by them for a while, and I’ve seen some brutal schedules.

[quote]
They’ll probably spend some time on homework, and then split the time with things like an instrument (piano or violin) something activity like skating or soccer and some homework. It’s no different than a soccer mom that drops their kid off of some afterschool learning program for 3 hours, then have them go to Sharks soccer practice, etc.

…

So, I don’t see any difference whatsoever.[/quote]

You’re not describing tiger parents as I understand them, you’re describing what I would consider “typical” overachievers. I wouldn’t have a problem with my kids sharing classrooms with that type. I would expect mine to be the same. They will be good at sports, they will be better writers than anyone in their classes (this is my top priority), and they’ll get straight A’s. However, an occasional B will not result in retaliation from us, and they will have some free time on weekday evenings.

I don’t consider the work necessary to do any of that to be in the class of a tiger parent. Your definition is apparently different than mine, so there’s not much point in debating it.

[Ren]

[quote=flu]
Ren,

I got news for you…You go to any any top notch school, with parents from the same social/economic background, the parents end up being all the same.

It’s not just the asian immigrants that are doing this. The asian tiger mom stereotype, though exists, is very much alive in a well-do white family too.

My kid that goes to the same CarmelV elementary school that has white friends who parents are doctors and lawyers and engineers who are very much in as much a tiger-mom/dad as any other asian tiger parent.

What’s more interesting on my observation is that while among the asian families I know where both parents both a full time job, a lot of the well-to-do white families have a stay-at-home parent, which spends almost the ENTIRE DAY shuffling the kid around from school to enrichment programs to sports to everything else they possibly can cram into one day…The say stay-at-home parent are the ones that constantly volunteer as class parent (which I find admirable, frankly) because they want to know what their kids are doing. And they were the first ones that approached the teacher and told the teacher “the work you are assigning is too easy for my kid, my kid is bored. And if you don’t make the work more challenging for my kid, it’s going to be a problem.”
So I’m not sure why some folks think this entire tiger-parent thing is strictly an asian thing. If at all, it’s more of a social/economic thing.[/quote]

When I refer to tiger moms, I mean those that literally force their kids to do 6+ hours of work every night, even at the expense of sleep. Not those parents who simply want their kids to maintain a 4.0, get into a decent college, and make them do the work necessary for that. I define success as happiness – not being a Harvard med grad AND an orchestra violinist with no memory of ever flying a kite in the park, unless that’s what will make them happy. Race has nothing to do with my opinion on the subject, but since you bring it up, I don’t doubt many rich white families make their kids go through that. I will be avoiding those schools, too.

[Ren]

[quote=flu]I don’t get some of you folks. On one hand, some of you argue that the decline of the education is due to immigrants because immigrants pull the curve down. On the other hand, some of you also argue that certain immigrants are making schools overly competitive to the point that you don’t like the schools being so competitive for your own kids. So which is it?????[/quote]

Both 🙂

The former is worse, though. I don’t want my kids in the same class with kids who are incapable of learning and therefore occupy themselves with distracting the kids who do.

I also don’t want my kids surrounded by the product of tiger moms (who, IMO, are sacrificing good childhood memories for a slightly increased chance at later success, which is APPALLING), damaging their self-worth because I refuse to make them endure 6 hours of homework and music lessons every night.

The only answer is segregation! But seriously, I have an answer for myself (pick the district that suits me), but those with lesser incomes don’t always have that choice.

[Ren]

[quote=livinincali]This seems like a pretty good source of data on the various CA propositions. I like how it shows how much money has been spent on each side and who it came from.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2012_ballot_propositions
[/quote]

Great resource. I would encourage everyone in this thread to read every word of the For/Against arguments, including newspaper opinions – especially if you made your decisions based on KFI commercials 😉

[quote]
The labor union coffers are going to be bare if they lose.
[/quote]

They probably won’t, unfortunately for California.

[Ren]

[quote=zk][quote=Ren]LOL at an LA Times voter guide.[/quote]

Have you fallen for the “liberal media” myth, Ren?[/quote]

Nope – In fact I usually roll my eyes when I hear it. But suggesting the LA Times doesn’t lean left is like suggesting Fox News doesn’t lean right.

[Ren]

We only had one at the time, and that was from age 0 to 1, but considering we only had a small concrete patio, we felt he would soon be missing out. With two working grownups, weekend time is priceless for chores/projects around the house, and taking kids to the park or pool is not always practical. A grassy backyard is cheap and easy entertainment that we can use at the drop of a hat, not just when we plan a 3-hour chunk for it. They occupy themselves for hours while I work on the laptop, Guinness at hand, and we don’t have to watch every move they make. They also get plenty of playground time at school, so I don’t feel guilty for not taking them to a park every weekend.

Yeah I know this will all change with sports…

I would rather rent a house than buy a condo, if that’s what it comes down to for us, and it likely will. The plan is to rent in a neighborhood we would like to eventually buy in, even if that’s 10 years from now.

[Ren]

Think of a condo HOA as a “new roof savings account”. It’s also deductible if you ever turn it into a rental. Some are unacceptably and unnecessarily high, though.

Being a family that has done both (1,200sf condo/20-minute commute and 2,100sf sfr/1-hour commute) I can say that we will next be aiming for a small house, about 1,500sf, with a 20-30 minute commute. The neighborhood is more important to us than price – if we can’t afford to buy where we want to live, we’ll rent and invest in a rental elsewhere. Not considering a condo again unless it’s a screamin’ deal and a park-like setting, like say a golf course view. I’ve never personally had a bad experience in a condo – they can be perfectly acceptable, quiet places to live. Just gotta find the right one, which can be difficult depending on the area.

[Ren]

The glaring omission of demographic data was the first thing I noticed. I don’t doubt you could track the biggest education declines to the largest populations of recent immigrants. LA is a great example.

Other than that, there is a lot of truth to it, and it’s highly entertaining reading.

[Ren]

I think I will just try my best to make sure they know enough that they can’t be steered in one direction (or the other) by a teacher, without showing the disgust I have for our government. That can wait for junior high.

Right now my boy is obsessed with earthquakes – a much scarier thing for a 4.5yo than Obama or Romney.

[Ren]

[quote=CDMA ENG]I just told you I don’t believe. Hoping is not believing. Fix yourself.
[/quote]

You also said you don’t know. I’m not trying to convert you – I don’t care what you call yourself. But if you ever happen to look it up and apply the term you think best applies to you, chances are it’s “agnostic atheist,” as I’m an agnostic theist. Atheism by itself is an incorrect term for the vast majority of atheists. You’ll know the difference if you talk to a REAL atheist, and you’ll find a bunch of them at any James Randi conference. Religious to the core.

[quote]
Santa is more tangible than God… I see the gifts that I have received from him and overall I think he has made more people happy…. He still brings gifts if you are gay, or don’t believe in some basic tenets of a church or doctrine… He only cares if you have been good…

Personally I think he inspires more feelings of love and charity than does God.
[/quote]

Completely agree.

[Ren]

LOL at an LA Times voter guide.

[Ren]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Ren]This is a little contradictory. If you have hope, that means you don’t know, which means you’re agnostic. If you believe there is no God, you’re an atheist, which is a form of religion in itself – you don’t know that there is no God. There is no incontrovertible proof either way.
[/quote]

Atheism is not a religion. Absence of evidence is not evidence.[/quote]

The definition of “atheism” changes depending on whether you’re talking to an atheist or not, which is convenient for debates. To non-atheists, it’s “the theory or belief that there is no God” (hence religious), while to atheists it’s the “absence of belief” (which is part of being agnostic). However, taking the word “atheism” out of the equation, the facts are:

A) No one on Earth, regardless of belief, knows if there is a God or not. The evidence isn’t there.

B) Those who don’t accept A are religious, because they believe otherwise.

So, if you’re using the definition “absence of belief” and you accept the fact that you don’t know if there is a God, you’re also agnostic whether you admit it or not. Of course the word “atheist” is better for shock value.

[quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re right… I don’t know as niether do you… but none the less I don’t believe. That makes me an agnostic.
[/quote]

Fixed 😉

[Author]

Posts