jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
In your court is one thing. Having your personal pastor for 20+ years (who your praise in your book and even borrowed the title from) turns out to be a paranoid, race-baiting nutjob who hates America, that's another thing.
Do you know anything about him other than what you've seen on Youtube?
Edit: Because I don't know anything at all, other than 2 minutes of parts of speeches that he'd given in a 20+ year history with Barack Obama.
-
Deleted because it doesn't further the discussion.
-
It doesn't matter what you think they should be empowered from. These girls probably feel much different about this issue than you do, Tom, and that is what empowerment is all about. You can't tell them what to feel empowered about. It comes from them, and I don't doubt for a second that they believe what they say, and that they FEEL empowered. If they feel it, by definition, they are empowered.Which just shows how delusional she and everyone else is on the "issue". Winning a national championship would do more to empower her nappy-headed hos than bitching about Don !@#$ing Imus has. -
Asked this elsewhere, but what is it that Imus said that's any worse than what hundreds of hip-hop artists haven't already said or worse?
Yeah, I know. I just heard Ludacris' new single "Nappy Headed Rutgers Ballers" on the radio this morning. It is gonna be a #1!
-
I'm going to give this one more try.
You said:
And I responded:1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice!And it really helps further the debate to paint everyone on one side of a political spectrum with a convenient brush so as to dismiss them. As a counter-point to your example, Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as someone who could be labeled as 'far-left' who responds to arguments in a lucid manner. Now, whether or not you agree with those arguments is another story...Now, you've said:
First of all, Kucinich is not 'my boy'. Second, those 'facts' have nothing to do with the context in which Kucinich was brought up. You said something ridiculous, namely: "Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice!". I called you on it by giving one example of millions of people who respond to arguments without the typical name-calling. Your original statement is just plaing wrong. Third, the reason that this is typical of the level of debate around here is that when called on something silly you said, you spin it around and start talking about Dennis Kucinich's record as the mayor of Cleveland, which had absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand. So, yeah, you're lowering the level of debate about this particular topic.All I did was state the facts about Kucinich. Are you going to deny/disagree with these facts? How is stating fact(s) "typical of the actual level of 'debate' in our country"? I'm glad the facts about your boy Kucinich are highly entertaining to you. I'm sure they are a hysterical for people in Cleveland. The guy has demonstrated through his own actions that he is not qualified to lead a cub scout den. Moreover, when presented with Kucinich's record by me(go look it up), you start complaining? The guy bankrupted Cleveland on his own, what does that have to do with me?
Are you serious? I thought for sure that you were a 'market-based solution' kind of guy (or gal, I don't know) Our whole American way of life is based on the fact that, in general, the most talented people will advance the farthest and make the most money. This isn't even up for debate, is it? Of course it doesn't 'guarantee' success, there are plenty of people who aren't as talented as others and make it further than they should, Ken Lay (he was obviously not talented enough to be CEO, was he?)being a great example of that. Of course it doesn't disprove the point, either. I'm not suggesting that raising pay would eliminate ALL bad super's, same as sky-high CEO pay doesn't eliminate ALL bad CEO's. I'm simply saying that this may be one way in which you could eliminate most of the bad super's, along with the Board's ability to have wide discretion in firing power, as proposed in the first post of mine. This is the crux of the market-based economy. If the above isn't true, then why do people make different amounts of money?No, I understand the point your are attempting to make. My issue with it is this: it makes no sense. How much money a guy makes is no guarantee of success! Your logic defies fact!
For whatever reason, you just don't seem to get what I'm trying to say, so I'll try again. Everything you've said above, I agree with. That doesn't change the fact that this super was, obviously, not very talented. One way in which to get more talented people to become super's (and, as a consequence, eliminate more and more of the incompentent super's) is to raise the pay of super's. It is basic economics, no? Higher pay will lead to increased competition which will lead to higher competence. Just think about it. I think you own your own business, right? (I thought I read that from awhile back) What if you were looking for someone to work for you, and every person you hired, for whatever reason, just wasn't competent enough to do the job you were hiring them for. You go through this, say, 6 times over the course of 2 years. Wouldn't your next step be to raise the pay you were offering for this particular job in order to attract better candidates? Why would it be different for educators?People of all walks of life, that make all levels of money, have to be responsible for the authority they are given. Most managers take great pride in the fact that their people rely on them to do the right thing, at the right time. Money has nothing to do with that! What part of this don't you get? Perhaps you have never led? Perhaps you have not been a manager yet? I dunno? But the simple fact is: any real leader will tell you that there is always a time when everyone in their group, platoon, squad, conference room, etc., stops what they are doing, and looks to them to make a decision. It is at that point in time that the leader either earns the respect of his/her people or doesn't. I guarantee you no one(the leader or the team) is thinking about how much money they each make at that point in time. Dude - check the quotes in the article - every one is about leadership/management decisions. I don't see one where a teacher is saying: "Well, if the Superintendent made more money....."
Doesn't the fact that he lost the respect of the people he was supposedly leading lead you to believe that he doesn't have a talent for leadership? That is the first thing that I think.The guy should be fired, period. Not because he lacks talent, but because he just lost the respect of the people he is supposedly "leading".The following statements in quotes are your questions to me, followed by my answers.
"I can see where you wouldn't get the reference."
I didn't understand what the 'beasts of burden' meant and where that came from.
"How about answering some simple questions"
OK.
"What qualifies you to sit in judgment of this situation such that you can make a definitive statement that simply adding money to this equation will solve all problems?"
The same thing that qualifies you to blindly dismiss adding money to the situation in your previous posts. In short, it is an opinion, same as yours. Also, I NEVER said that "adding money to this equation will solve all problems" -- please don't put words in my mouth. I said very clearly this: "In any event, I believe that someone could make a good case for more $$ for schools based on this example" Notice that I didn't say that it was my idea, or that this would solve all problems, or that this is the only possible solution... just that someone could make a case that should be listened to, not just blindly dismissed.
"And, how do you "know" that will work?"
I don't. How do you 'know' it wouldn't? You are the one dismissing opinions around here, not me. You seem to be advocating market-based solutions to the school problem. Hey, MY suggestion was market based, too, how about that?
"Why is this the only thing you have offered as a solution?"
Because I was responding to a post of yours in which you were denigrating the idea that adding money to the situation would be fruitless and dumb. Specifically, I was responding to post #9 in this thread (8 too, but mostly 9).
"Why are you suggesting that "talent" has a direct relationship to money?"
Really? You DON'T think so?
-
Dennis Kucinich - ... ... ...Talk about failing upwards.
Next.
You said:
To which I responded:1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice!
I could have added that someone calling for intelligent debate while in the same post making a statement like the above would be highly entertaining if it weren't so typical of the actual level of 'debate' in our country.And it really helps further the debate to paint everyone on one side of a political spectrum with a convenient brush so as to dismiss them. As a counter-point to your example, Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as someone who could be labeled as 'far-left' who responds to arguments in a lucid manner. Now, whether or not you agree with those arguments is another story...You obviously missed my point. I... ... ... "I'll pay you more because you have been doing a fine job" you would be gratified.I didn't miss your point, you missed mine. Let me try again. It isn't about how much money this particular super makes. If we decided, tomorrow, to pay superintendants, say, $500k a year, and give the school board wide discretion to fire their super, you would see a marked improvement in super performance, after a period of time. Just watch how many very talented managers from other walks of life decide to get into education because of the great pay, and, consequently, increase the talent pool in education. The super in question is doing his job as well as he can, presumably. He very clearly doesn't have much of a talent for it. This was an obviously bad decision.
I honestly don't know what this means.Therefore: Is it OK for you to speak of others as beasts of burden, in this case this superintendent, and in this fashion because somehow human nature applies to you differently than the superintendent?
-
1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, they must be inferior - there's no other choice!
And it really helps further the debate to paint everyone on one side of a political spectrum with a convenient brush so as to dismiss them. As a counter-point to your example, Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as someone who could be labeled as 'far-left' who responds to arguments in a lucid manner. Now, whether or not you agree with those arguments is another story...
In any event, I believe that someone could make a good case for more $$ for schools based on this example:
It is not that the Super doesn't have enough money to make a good choice, it's that the kind of Super that you will get for the money you pay will be more likely to make bad choices than someone who becomes a Super in an environment where a school Super makes, as an example, 5 times what they make now. If you want to get better Super's, pay them alot of money, give the school board latitude to fire them, and watch competitive forces draw the talented people into the school system. It could be argued that this Super is incompetent, and the reason for the incompetence is the lack of talented alternatives to this 'bad' super.
-
To answer your questions, individual schools themselves would decide which students to accept, and how many. In the case of a rural area only big enough for one school, the students would have exactly as much choice under a voucher plan as they have right now.
The size of voucher payments wouldn't necessarily be contingent on your level of property taxes.
How would you determine the size of the voucher payments then? In your earlier example, you cited the sum total of education spending in one school district being transferred to another school district of your choice. In practice, most of the money for school funding comes from property taxes (in most states), so how would the voucher payments not be contingent on your level of property taxes?
Beyond that, how is this helping the education system? The 'good' schools can take only so many students. What about the rest of the students? They will still be stuck in poor schools, just like today. It is not a demand problem, it is a supply problem. With this type of product, however, you can't just ramp up production in a factory somewhere in Toledo and crank out new schools...
-
If you look at what I said carefully, you'll see that I said, very clearly, that a higher funded school isn't always the best school. However, if you look at the worst schools, you'll notice that those are the ones that are funded at the lowest levels. I agree, it isn't all about the money. The best schools don't ALWAYS have the most money, but the worst schools, in general, have the least.
-
I'm no fan of the NEA, but they hate the idea of vouchers because it would take the most money away from the districts that need it the most. While it is true that you don't necessarily have great schools when you have high funding; show me the worst schools, and I'll show you the schools with the least funding.It's not a coincidence that the NEA HATES the idea of vouchers. -
Except its not that easy. You can't ramp up production to meet the demand, fellas. For example, everybody wants to go to the best school, but everybody can't go to the best school. It has a certain capacity. How do you determine who gets to go to that school? How do you determine who gets to go to the next best school? And the next? And the next? What about rural school districts? What if there is only one school within a reasonable distance to your house? How does that work? What about how the tax dollars are assessed? Most people are paying taxes to already be in those good school districts. If I live in a cheaper property tax area, how can I ever hope to get into one of the 'better' schools?Public education will continue to suck until education dollars are taken away from the school systems and given to the student, who can then decide where to spend them. That will force the school systems to improve so they compete for those dollars. Some socialist countries in Europe even do this, like the Netherlands IIRC.School choice doesn't solve the problem. It might make it better, but I'm not sure.
-
No teacher has any right to B word about their pay.
As is the same with anything in a capitalist society, you get what you pay for.
-
In other words, Arabs and Kurds are incapable of liberal western thought?
It's amazing to me that this is what you got out of that article.
I think it is an interesting thing to think about. I think that the premise of the editorial is true - that the people in favor of this war mostly expected the Iraqi people to embrace democracy based on the Iraqi people being Iraqis. It turns out that maybe this WAS a little naive. It seems (again, seems) that, at this point, the people there consider themselves Shia or Sunni or from a particular region or city or group well before they consider themselves Iraqi. It is interesting to think about...
However, doesn't it seem kind of strange that there was such a large turnout for a national election when people don't identify themselves 'nationally'? What is different between them and Great Britain? Do most people in Scotland consider themselves British or Scot?
-
I'm not surprised you're not understanding this.
If you implement a "carbon tax" or some other contrived governmental scheme to limit CO2 emissions, you WILL damage the economy. It's not a question of will you, but HOW MUCH. I believe it will further erode an almost-dead American manufacturing sector.
If Chinese firms have no such caps, it means they have capital to spend on growing their business and, by extension, the Chinese economy.
So tell me again how it would IMPROVE our competitive advantage to "limit CO2 emissions"?
Should the US do anything about Global Warming?
-
What about three elections in a place that hasn't had an election in years... Isn't that success? Enormous success? You could debate it, but most likely it is... Have they ever had an election prior to this? I mean, of course, an 'election' in which 100% of the people in Iraq don't vote for Saddam Hussein...
-
Yes
OK. What are they? I'm trying to get an understanding of your position before I agree or disagree with you.
-
Are there any limits to this statement in your position?If people get sick, old or hurt they should be taken care of whether than can afford it or not. -
I lived in Belgium for two years, and brought my dog to all sorts of places that you can't in the States. It was great. We didn't have any problems, and I can't even think of a single time where there was a problem with a dog "doing their business" in the bars or restaurants.
-
No kidding. And, I think, if you read the article, it clearly says: "It's all about the tutelage they get from the time they're in college on. I saw that with Dameyune Craig. He was told, 'If your first read isn't there, take off and run.' Do you think that anyone ever told Peyton Manning or Tom Brady to do that? Again, it's about the tutelage they get."
And, why don't Peyton or Brady take off running? Because they can't run. Vick (and in this article, Dameyune Craig can, too) can. What Gandy is saying is that they are being taught things that, over the long haul are counter-productive. They are taught that because of their ATHLETIC ABILITY. Not their skin color.
-
How's that working out for the Falcons, and, by extension, Michael Vick's career?
If you can't see why that is "wrong", I don't know what to tell you... Michael Vick is the poster child for this "wrong-ness".
-
I've said this all year in regards to Vince Young. The Titans' coaching staff isn't doing him any favors by letting him play "his game". Make the guy stay in the pocket and learn to pass in the NFL. It will hurt the team in the short term but in the long term they will be much better off. Once he becomes a more efficient passer then release the reigns and let him run too. A QB who is better at running than throwing has never won consistantly in the NFL. In order to be successful a QB must be an efficient passer.
The best thing the Bills coaching staff has done this year is by limiting JP’s running. They sacrificed short term success for long term gains. It’s already starting to pay off.
I think this is spot-on. It makes things easier in the short-term (like TEN can get lucky a few games and win 5 in a row) but, long-term, this is probably hurting VY. If he can't consistently get the ball out on-time, with accuracy, to the correct receiver, he'll be nothing more than the tease that Vick has been. Sure, he'll win some games with his legs, but his team will (most likely) not be anything special.
-
-
Are you guys insane?
Did you actually read the article? It didn't say that Vick wasn't getting a fair shake because he's black... it didn't even suggest that!
Here is what the article says:
"...When fans and coaches see a black quarterback, it's automatic that they expect to see a guy who is more athletic," Gandy said. "So what happens when you get around the goal line or you get in those situations where most quarterbacks are taught to throw it away or get rid of the ball for a short gain if the play breaks down? The black quarterback is told, 'Do something, make a big play.'He goes on to say:
"It's all about the tutelage they get from the time they're in college on. I saw that with Dameyune Craig. He was told, 'If your first read isn't there, take off and run.' Do you think that anyone ever told Peyton Manning or Tom Brady to do that? Again, it's about the tutelage they get.If you guys would actually take the time to READ the article, you might learn something. This is not some guy claiming that NFL fans are easier on white QB's than black. This is an interesting take from an NFL player who has experience in this. He's telling us that certain QB's are taught different things because of their different abilities, and that this sort of teaching is wrong.
-
I don't think I've ever seen AD 'advocate' the $1,200 (or whatever $$ amount it is) payment to Alaskans. I'm sure he takes the money. As he should. Anytime someone gets any sort of rebate from the government, they should take it... It is OUR money, afterall.
Similarly, I think that there is a reasonable debate to be had whether or not Social Security actually does 'benefit' everyone. A very strong case can be made that we would all be better off if the government let us keep our money so that we could invest it on our own. Any diversified investment over our working lives turns out to be better than Social Security. So... who really has our (the collective our) best interest at heart in this conversation? You or AD? I'm not really sure I know the answer to that. However, I do know that AD's feeling that many government programs designed to help people actually do the opposite; this isn't hypocrisy, it's an opinion.
"Mortgage Meltdown"
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
It's NOT an either/or!!! If you can't afford to buy something, you shouldn't buy it. End of story.