I applaud the RI moves to improve education, but given that the firings were at a high school, I doubt it will make a difference. It MAY be that the test scores show that elementary education in that locale is effective, but I think it much more likely that the problem starts earlier in the students lives. By the time the children get to high school their attitude towards their own education and their preparation will be pretty much set in place. It makes for shocking news when you have high school kids that can't read or do simple math... But high school isn't where those skills are learned.
Perhaps not, but if high school kids have the right kind of help, and the right kind of motivation, they can learn those skills on their own. However, high school IS the period in which kids become the most disillusioned with education, and also the point at which they can drop out. Its a good start to fixing a big problem, and a good place to start at.
I can tell all of you for a fact that this event has sent shockwaves through the education community here in MN. EVERYONE is talking about it and the concern is very high for their jobs. It fucking should be.
What cracks me up is that suddenly, when their jobs are on the line, now they start to get serious about their job...as if a child's life isn't serious enough. Don't get me wrong...there are some teachers who pour everything into teaching--as well they should--but there are far too many that get into teaching for the wrong reasons and still more that just skate through. It's difficult for the rest of the public to look at teachers professionally, in the same way as doctors or lawyers, when they simply don't give enough effort, refuse to manage the complexities of intelligence and learning, and are stubbornly narrow minded about effective pedagogy.
Kevin is also quite correct in stating that administrators' asses also need to be on the line. It might take a little while but with this RI deal and high stakes testing (which I hope to see soon in Social Studies) the age of accountability has begun.
"... I think it's quite obvious that you and I would have different defintions of how deadbeat is defined."
That is what I expected. You are as predictable as (ahem) clockwork. Read on, you'll see the pun.
Lessee now ...
I find the following definitions of deadbeat via The Free Dictionary Online.
From The American Heritage Dictonary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
n.
1. One who does not pay one's debts.
2. A lazy person; a loafer.
adj.
Not fulfilling one's obligations or paying one's debts: a deadbeat dad.
adj.
Having an indicator that stops without oscillation.
From Collins English Dictionary
n
1. (Sociology) Informal a lazy or socially undesirable person
2. Chiefly US
a. a person who makes a habit of avoiding or evading his or her responsibilities or debts
b. (as modifier) a deadbeat dad
3. (Miscellaneous Technologies / Horology) a high grade escapement used in pendulum clocks
4. (Miscellaneous Technologies / Horology) (modifier) (of a clock escapement) having a beat without any recoil
5. (Physics / General Physics) (modifier) Physics
a. (of a system) returning to an equilibrium position with little or no oscillation
b. (of an instrument or indicator) indicating a true reading without oscillation
From a Thesaurus, based on WordNet 3.0 Farlex clipart collection
Noun
1. deadbeat - someone who fails to meet a financial obligation
defaulter
deadbeat dad - a father who willfully defaults on his obligation to provide financial support for his offspring
debitor, debtor - a person who owes a creditor; someone who has the obligation of paying a debt
Now, teacher boy, you brought the subject up. You posted the sentence, "Deadbeats beware." So, tell us what YOUR definition of "deadbeat" is that applies to a teacher who does a poor job. Go ahead, pick one.
Did you get the pun? You are a deadbeat, teacher boy. You are as predictable as a clockwork escapement, and nothing affects its working.
Finally, go pick a definition of "cult". You remember, don't you? I asked you to do so in the comments of this post by Kevin:
Of course, as usual, you coughed up your Standard Response #1, he "I can't hear you" response. You behaved as if the request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that you never read it. Still your favorite, isn't it?
And, as usual, you coughed up your Standard Response #10, the "Brave Sir Robin" response. The monsters got too close and you disappeared for a whole week, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
"I would define a deadbeat, in the context of how I used it regarding teachers, as a lazy person or a loafer."
Good answer. Now, which of those many definitions would you apply to, as I asked before, "the whole population", and if it is a different answer, why did you choose it?
"As far as the defintion of a cult..."
Not even a nice try, cult boy. I don't read your scribblings anywhere except here, and I notice you still haven't answered it where I asked it.
As Kevin has requested in the past, if one has a long post, put it somewhere else and link to it. If you don't want to go read it, that is not my fault. As for why I haven't been posting as much lately, that answer is in today's post.
The whole population? Well, as I say in class all the time, our country has been taken over by the three headed monster of laziness, ignorance, and fear. I guess I'd say that I would apply it to much of the population, sadly. And, no, that's not because of the government.
As Kevin has requested in the past, if one has a long post, put it somewhere else and link to it."
So, your definition of a particular word is so long that it requires a "long post" to state it?
In a word, HORSESHIT.
I posted SEVENTEEN (17) definitions of "cult", copied right out of dictionaries verbatim, in a short post and asked you, verbatim, "Now, just which definition of the word "cult" applies here?" Answering that question requires, at most, a very short sentence. If you don't use any of them, then it requires only four words: "None of the above."
That you refuse to answer the question, neither here nor where I asked it, tells me it's highly likely that you have your own definition of "cult", that it doesn't match any of the dictionary definitions because you used the word without knowing its definition, and that, when shown the dictionary definitions of the word, you recognize yourself to be, yet again, a blithering fool. Now, why might I think that? Because you are, yet again, vomiting up your Standard Response #8, the "Humpty Dumpty" response. You simply assert that your words mean what you say they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that you are correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
Go ahead; copy and paste your definition for "cult" here, and where I asked for it, and prove me wrong.
Then, after that, you cough up this:
"The whole population? Well, as I say in class all the time, our country has been taken over by the three headed monster of laziness, ignorance, and fear. I guess I'd say that I would apply it to much of the population, sadly. And, no, that's not because of the government."
Thus, it appears that "laziness" forms at least part of the definition of "deadbeat" that you would use when applying the concept of "deadbeats beware" to the general population.
Ah, but you see the trap you've laid for yourself, don't you? If "deadbeat" teachers ought to "beware", and "deadbeat" teachers are lazy people or loafers, then what would possibly be the reason why lazy people or loafers among the general population need not "beware"? In simpler words, why wouldn't you use the same definition for "deadbeat" when applying the concept of "deadbeats beware" to the general population as you do when applying the concept to teachers? Could it be because (gasp!) we've been saying here for years that "deadbeats", i.e. lazy people or loafers, ought not to get a free ride from the taxpayers? Golly. You couldn't actually be agreeingwith us, could you?
Hah. I crack me up.
"And, no, that's not because of the government."
What or who, besides the gubmint, enables deadbeats to be deadbeats? Such people usually don't remain employed for long except when employed by the gubmint, and such people usually don't get subsidized by anything or anyone except the gubmint. So, what is left? Rich uncles, perhaps? The Salvation Army? Red Cross?
Walked yourself right into it, didn't you, teacher boy?
DJ, I've been curious enough about Marxy's thinking that I have ventured into his lair to read his musings, and occasionally respond.
Rest assured that his definition of "cult" is just as accurate as his definitions of "fascism" and "just like Al Qaeda". (The original source for that idea was Bill Mahrer.)
left-wingers crashing airplanes and shooting guards at the Pentagon?
Where were they when Bush was president, though? Hmmm...I guess I'm wondering why all the "I hate government crowds" are taking more action now as opposed to then..
CPAC and the Tea Parties are completely separate. LMAO!!!!
Laugh away Vizzini. It's your mistake and your idiocy that's on display.
There is some significant overlap, to be sure. But your attempt to lump them in with the same group is proof of your filter failures.
Where were they when Bush was president, though?
The left-wingers? They were rioting in the streets over "ending wars" and "closing Gitmo" and...
You're trying to distract from the very clear political views of both of the latest attacks - they were leftwingers, one was a Democrat and had been for many years. They were far left of center.
Didn't stop you from tarring them with an incorrect brush - and failing to admit or apologize and correct yourself.
Yea, those Tea Party people are withdrawing so deeply that they're going… out…… and……… getting………… more…………… and……………… more………………… involved………………… in……………………… politics…………………………
an Iraq war vet is now a "laughing stock." Does that mean I get to call you a "traitor" for denigrating the troops, Ed BetrayUS!
You can, but it demonstrates more about your failed thought process than anything Ed's done.
Just because they served does not mean they're superheros, supergeniuses, or even, just by dint of having served in Iraq or Afghanistan, a better idea what to do there.
They _might_, and their experiences there are important, and - this is the important part - all else being equal, that experience denotes an increase in their authority. An increase, Aphasic one. NOT ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY.
The person here with a problem is you, since you give absolute - or zero - moral authority to people, and then try and bend their track record and history and performance to your presumption.
(And notice how you've no problem whatsoever ignoring people who have served in Iraq who you disagree with.)
But serving in Iraq is not, by itself, an absolute moral yardstick, and there have been many people who have served in Iraq who are idiots.
... Except now you - by your definition - have set Lyddie England up as an expert on Iraq and Islam and Al Queda.
Ed didn't denigrate the troops. He said that Hackett is a laughingstock for saying something so stupid. Hackett. Not the troops. Not the Marines. Hackett. And he said so based on what he said, and what he did. Not the groups Hackett belongs to, not who he voted for, not what he promised that was impossible, or what he promised and didn't deliver, or promises he made, and immediately broke.
You're the one here in a cult, and it's a cult of personalities.
Yet again, we see his Standard Response #5, the "I'm drowning in stupidity" response. He simply lays on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declares, later, "I answered your question."
Remember, this response is what led to the list of his Standard Responses. It's all in the comment thread at:
It should be noted that the Central Falls School district will be hiring a crop of fresh college graduates to fill these newly (conveniently) vacated teaching slots... At an average starting salary of around $30k per year.
I am curious how public opinion would differ if a corporation... say Caterpillar, laid off employees on a wholesale basis, only to re-hire a fresh new crop several months later at a lower salary and with reduced benefits.
Funny you mention that. CAT in Joliet, IL has been doing this for years. Forcing higher-paid employees out with early retirement or lay offs and then bringing in young, inexperienced, cheap replacements or farming the jobs out to contractors.
The public sentiment here has been less than pleased.
I don't know about CAT in Joliet, I have a family member thats been working for them since the late 70s (not in IL), but I do remember a similar thing happening to my cousin in Washington. Microsoft would lay off all the temps a couple weeks before their permanence date, then rehire them a month later. Kept them from being defined as permanent employees. For about 4 years (he works elsewhere now). It happens in the private sector.
The principled portion of cf4eva's question is answered thus: Right of association. Liberty of contract.
The pragmatic portion of the question is addressed thus: New hires are presumably less productive than experienced workers, even in an assembly-line setting. If Caterpillar's productivity losses were more than offset by the cost savings, they bloody well ought to do it. If not, they'd be fools to do it. It is not in the employer's interest to jettison trained, reliable, productive workers; it is not in the worker's interest to cost the employer more than his productivity justifies.
@cf4eva: If the workers at Caterpillar, which I presume makes and sells farm and mining machinery, were turning out sub-standard products in the same way that the teachers are, I would expect that there would not BE a corporation.The market would long have decided that John Deere or Komatsu were better value.
Caterpillar, like ANY business not dominated by government, values the workers it has in direct relation to their ability to profitably turn out saleable products. Government departments: not so much.
I think you'll find that when it comes to this issue we have much in common. In addition to this, I know for a fact that throwing more money into education won't solve anything. Basic civics needs to be a staple in public school again as well. There's also the issue of the mammoth amount of small minded people that work both as administrators and instructors that are bogging the entire system down. There is a decided lack of width of vision when it comes to instructional strategies and multiple intelligences. This, of course, doesn't even being to scratch the surface of the horrendous state of American History textbooks-the majority of which teach a bizarre and shallow fantasy that resembles nothing of what actually happened.
This, of course, doesn't even being to scratch the surface of the horrendous state of American History textbooks-the majority of which teach a bizarre and shallow fantasy that resembles nothing of what actually happened.
Well, guys, spend a year studying 15 of the major social studies textbooks being taught in our classrooms today and tell me what you think. Save your bullshit remarks until you actually have an informed opinion.
Oh, we agree with your complaint about the schoolbooks.
The irony comes from the fact that the person who originally made that complaint (you) has demonstrated that their own grasp of history is "a bizarre and shallow fantasy that resembles nothing of what actually happened."
geek, do I have a degree in engineering? No. Therefore, any comments I would make on the subject of engineeing would be completely uninformed. On this topic, as well I'm sure many others, you would, in fact, be smarter than myself. So, if you have spent a year studying 15 various high school History textbooks, you can offer an informed opinion on them.As far as I have seen, your comments regarding US History are terribly biased and lack critical thought.
Ed, your grasp of history is dictated by what the Cult tell syou to believe. While I have no doubt that you and I would agree on the fact that Woodrow Wilson was one of our worst presidents (as well as being a despicable human being), we would disagree with the fact that our country (along with BP) overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran. To you, I'm certain, it was something else...
In other words, we will agree on the things you like and the things you don't like are part of a Marxist agenda to brainwash our children.
"Ed, your grasp of history is dictated by what the Cult tell syou to believe."
You mean it hasn't been dictated by what my teachers made me read plus the reading I did on my own? Well, goooolly Sarge! All these years I've been reading "cult" books (like the dictionary) despite never having access to "The List". I wonder how that happened?
Waitaminite? Where did you get this "cult" idea? Was it your own discovery? Or was it something someone else told you which you swallowed hook, line and sinker, and now refuse to be disabused of by facts? Hmmm, what's the definition of a "cult" again? Oh, right. The dictionary is one of those "cult" books that a critical thinker should never look at…
"So, if you have spent a year studying 15 various high school History textbooks, you can offer an informed opinion on them."
So it took you a whole year to recognize the problems? We've looked at the topic numerous times here, complete with specific problems that only took long enough to read the description to identify the books as bad. Plus, it only took me a few minutes to find this review of 12 history books, not one of which earned better than a C+.
Amusing, to be sure, but if you are going to constantly and consistently act like a jackanapes, do try to make a little harder for the rest of to openly mock you. Ah, wait, we've distilled your blathering to a list. You aren't even trying anymore. Carry on, o staunch and resolute defender of predictable behavior!
I have yet to see any critical thought at all put into your "rugged individualist" ideology, DJ. Here's a hint though: we live in a society made up of other people. ;)
I have yet to see any critical thought at all put into your "rugged individualist" ideology, DJ. Here's a hint though: we live in a society made up of other people.
This is incoherent.
I have yet to see
You've yet to demonstrate expertise or noted analysis, so your failure is meaningless.
any critical thought
You've demonstrated no concept of what the theory behind critical thought, in fact you've done the opposite and proven you don't understand it at all. Furthermore, DJ in many cases has shown himself to be able to take hypotheticals and critically analyze them, including several cases where he attempted to demonstrate and explain it to you.
at all put into your "rugged individualist" ideology, DJ.
I've not seen DJ define that. And you've got a bad track record of making up definitions and presuming you know people as you "ask the right questions".
Here's a hint though: we live in a society made up of other people.
And this is what takes the above and turns it into utter incoherence.
"Here's a hint though" does not follow with what you're saying there. At all. At no point have you asked a question to hint at. As usual, you don't know what you're actually saying with the words you're using.
But that doesn't stop you from being arrogant and attempting to lecture - even as you ignore the tattered shreds of your honesty, your education, your experiences, your failed analysis.
You just keep trying to bring in those DC-3s with the coconut headsets....
"I have yet to see any critical thought at all put into your "rugged individualist" ideology, DJ. Here's a hint though: we live in a society made up of other people."
It's the same-old same-old "If you're an anarchist who doesn't practice complete autarky, you're a hypocrite" card, played by someone with even less than the usual level of understanding.
Actually reading what's there might take 15 minutes to an hour depending on how fast you read. But that particular page is one I had been to before when we discussed the topic a while back.
My point is simply that some things are so obvious that it shouldn't take "a year" to notice. For example, if you have a history textbook which is supposed to be a general overview of American history, it should be pretty obvious that there's a problem with one that spends 6 pages on Marilyn Monroe and only 6 sentences on George Washington. (Search for Freedom: America and Its People by William Jay Jacobs, published by The Macmillan Company, and copyrighted in 1973 by Benziger, Inc.) Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but the principle—that the obvious doesn't require a year of study—is still true.
To being with, ED, there are many textbooks used in a variety of classrooms using a variety of instructional strategies whose impact on learning honestly can't be measured in 15 minutes. In other words, what sort of enduring understandings are students left with after using the American Paegent as their main text? Loewen took TWO years in his study for the Smithsonian Institution which result in his book. Our goal was to mimic him albeit for only one year.
So, there are many factors that play into this exercise which result in needing time for careful study.
there are many textbooks used in a variety of classrooms using a variety of instructional strategies whose impact on learning honestly can't be measured in 15 minutes.
"Glittering Generalities".
Yes, you can measure that impact in under 15 minutes. Look at the test scores. Look at the history scores.
But, according to you, we _can't_ make a categorical determination, despite all the evidence, no, let's just "study more".
there are many factors that play into this exercise which result in needing time for careful study.
If you say so. Of course, there's a simple correction that would do quite a number. GO BACK TO WHAT WORKED.
Things have gotten WORSE. So BACK OUT THE CHANGES.
Marxy: "To being with, ED, there are many textbooks used in a variety of classrooms using a variety of instructional strategies whose impact on learning honestly can't be measured in 15 minutes."
Did you get that from the flyer they passed out, or was that on the PowerPoint slide?
Erroneous information remains erroneous, regardless of the time frame, whether it be 15 minutes to 1 year later. It seems that the inability to detect erroneous information leads to teaching positions and tenure.
U-J: They can't. The Emperor's tailors have too much invested in the charade to stop now. And as for the rank and file, it's more important to play their part in the kabuki theater than it is to build a real process.
>>"your comments regarding US History are terribly biased and lack critical thought. "
Critical. Thought.
You keep using those words, but I do not think it means what *you* think it means.
Apparently, somehwere along the line, someone provided you with a tainted and corrupt meaning for the phrase "critical thought". When you embraced this, it mired you in an intellectual tar pit from which you cannot escape.
You have spent *years* telling us two things: that you are a paragon on critical thought, and that we are not, and yet, in all this time, you have evinced very little evidence of *actually* being able to engage in same.
Having dug a very deep hole into which you've buried your credibility, your statements on the subject of "critical thought" carry little weight here.
"Having dug a very deep hole into which you've buried your credibility, your statements on the subject of "critical thought" carry little weight here."
Of all of you here, the only ones that I see capable of any serious critical thought are Kevin B, Kevin S., juris, GOF, and Mastiff. When our esteemed host discusses a topic like education, for example, his critical thinking skills give way to emotion. And any sort of logical reasoning, evidence, and context of judgment goes right out the window. I would also add that critical thinking involves not only logic but fairness in the evaluation of whatever topic we are discussing. When it comes to anything that is to the left of many here, the word "fairness" is immediately stomped down, South Central gang like, into the ground and labeled as treasonous.
Take, for example, the issue of Barack Obama and guns. Many here think that our president is going to curtail gun rights. Thus far, he has actually increased gun rights as you can now carry a loaded weapon into federal parks and on Amtrak trains. In addition, the federal government, of which he is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues. Virginia has approved concel and carry in bars and restaurants where liquor is served. People there can also buy more than one hand gun a month now. All of this where the VT shootings occured.
In Kevin's home state of AZ, lawmakers are considering a bill that will allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit. For the first time, Montana and Tennesee have passed laws that exempt themselves from federal regulation on guns and ammo sold in their state. And what has the response been from the White House to gun control advocates who are upset?
Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman says that violent crime is down so why bitch and the president "supports and respects the Second Amendment." Now, all of you assured me that President Obama was a "gun grabber" and all evidence points to this fact. If you are the critical thinkers that you say you are, you would retract this statement based on the evidence.
The same holds true for your statements on US History. I believe it was stated on here that the reason why Vietnam went so poorly was because of the liberal media. An issue as complex as Vietnam involves much more study than that. Even in current history, many of you utterly fail. For example, you cling to the notiont that Iraq had WMDs and was poised to use them on the US yet President Bush himself admitted that they didn't and the intelligence was wrong. Everyone involved in that fiasco has come forward and said that the intelligence was wrong. Yet you still throw links up regarding yellow cake uranium which, to a true critical thinker, wouldn't be taken for serious analysis given the facts.
So, no geek, you and others here are more interested in pushing those facts that fit with your ideology. As to any other information that doesn't fit this paradigm, it's all lies, deceit, and treachery put forth by those who wish to see our country decimated in a pit of socialists sewage.
Many here think that our president is going to curtail gun rights."
You just cannot muster the simple honesty required to accurately state the opinions you oppose, can you?
The phrase "... is going to ..." is a prediction about the future, not a statement of fact, thus it is only an opinion. This concept is simply beyond your understanding.
The topic of gun control does not appear in his administration so far, except for him signing into law a bill that he wanted which included an attached provision that is pro-gun. As we have stated so many times before, and which you have ignored each time, he wanted the bill to be law enough that he was willing to accept the attached provision.
Obamateur spends no effort on gun control for two reasons: 1) other topics, such as the gubmint takeover of health care are much more important to him; and, 2) a majority of the members of both houses of Congress, including a large number of members of his own party, have sent him a joint letter stating that they will not support efforts to curtail gun rights. Thus, he spends what little political capital he has left elsewhere.
I have not made any prediction that he "is going to" curtail gun rights. I have stated, repeatedly, my opinion that I believe he would curtail gun rights if he could. But he can't do so by himself. My opinion is based on his previous history on the issue, which you simply ignore.
"Thus far, he has actually increased gun rights as you can now carry a loaded weapon into federal parks and on Amtrak trains."
Let's consider the phrase "... you can now carry a loaded weapon into federal parks ..."
The President signed into law a bill that contains a provision which states that federal law no longer prohibits you from carrying a loaded weapon into a federal park. That does not mean that you can do so. It means only that such activity is no longer prohibited by federal law. Thus, you can carry a loaed weapon into a federal park only if the laws of the state in which the federal park exists say you can.
Now, let's continue with the phrase "... and on Amtrak trains."
No, you cannot carry loaded weapons on Amtrak trains. Now that the President has signed this bill into law, you can transport unloaded weapons as checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
You just will not get this stuff right, will you?
"In addition, the federal government, of which he is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues."
And you claim to be a teacher. You aren't qualified to teach what you will not understand.
The Presdent is not "in charge" of the feddle gubmint. Go read the Constitution, you pathetic little fool. The President is the head of one of three co-equal branches of the federal gubmint. He has no authority to prevent states from deciding and enforcing their own laws, thus he does not "let" them do so. Case in point: President Bush very strongly suggested, on national television, that New Orleans be evacuated in advance of hurricane Katrina. Why didn't he order said evacuation? Because he had no authority to do so.
Damn, but your stupidity is bottomless, isn't it
"Of all of you here, the only ones that I see capable of any serious critical thought are ..."
Your stupidity is exceeded only by your hypocrisy.
Yet again, your comment is nothing more than your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like being accused of.
Yet again, your comment is nothing more than your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. You deliberately miss the point, laying on one straw man after another.
Yet again, your comment is nothing more than your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to.
You are as predictable as clockwork, cult boy, and you fool no one.
Doesn't the Left have a tendency towards cannibalism? The overall authoritarian impulse for discipline is so great that any internal dissent is quashed and eviscerated like removing a tumor. They hate their own first before they hate anybody else.
Save your bullshit remarks until you actually have an informed opinion.
Not that you ever do. Verbatim.
But for you to realize that, would require the critical thinking and analysis skills that you don't have.
spend a year studying 15 of the major social studies textbooks being taught in our classrooms today and tell me what you think.
1) it wouldn't take me a year to read the 15 textbooks.
2) You keep throwing these things out insisting you're an expert in the field (despite being proven ignorant on a regular basis), but you have never demonstrated more competency than anyone else here, and continually ignore the fact that we've got a VERY good idea what's in those books. You're misusing a logical fallacy, and have had it pointed it out to you many times.
Yet you continue to do it.
geek, do I have a degree in engineering? No. Therefore, any comments I would make on the subject of engineeing would be completely uninformed.
But you make them all the time. And argue with us.
Even when you're proven to be completely full of bullshit, you presume you know more, as you cut and paste from other people.
You have argued past us with experience in various fields, ignored our personal experiences, (my experience with FEMA and being on 3 Hurricane Response Teams?) and continued to insist, as you misdefine words, misuse words and concepts without any admission to your ignorance or mistakes, and even when you've been totally show to have started off in the wrong direction, taken the wrong path, and arrived at the wrong destination, you insist that in fact, you've been right all along.
So, if you have spent a year studying 15 various high school History textbooks, you can offer an informed opinion on them.
You know, it's amazing what you admit in your comments. So you've got a year experience?
As far as I have seen, your comments regarding US History are terribly biased and lack critical thought.
They just have the benefit of being internally consistent, reproducible, insightful, and historically backed. Trying to smear geek with your "critical thought" misunderstanding is just stupid.
But then, you're the teacher with a year's experience on us.
U-J, he said that was a year of continuing education. I take that as either taking a year off to take more classes, or taking a year of evening classes; not talking about his actual years of teaching experience.
But he tends to drop gems like that, since he doesn't think about what he's writing before he writes. So it's possible.
It's actually a moot point, whether we've taken a year or ten. Or how long he's been in the classroom - other than I've got more than a sneaking suspicion that it's nowhere near as much as he's claiming. Which only matters insofar as much as it's more proof that he'll assume mantles he's unworthy of. It won't matter to him, since he's already proven what his word's worth.
As I mentioned above, it was a study for one year as part of continuing education. This was a night class that was taken over the course of 2007. I'm debating about whether or not to pursue a PhD and this would help if I choose to do so. I'm not certain I can handle working full time as an instructor and the work load for a doctorate. And then there is the conundrum of being "expected" to leave the classroom upon receiving a PhD. I'm past my five year mark of experience and really haven't had any desire to leave it. In fact, quite the opposite. I bemoan days like today-late start--which further aggravate the learning process.
And if I did pursue the PhD, I'd have to give up coaching tennis which I have been doing for more than 7 years...which is what actually got me into teaching in the first place...so basically I'm just meandering now with the further education thing...
Good Lord, why would you want to do an education PhD??
Unless you have a particular narrow topic in education that you desperately want to know more about, and to influence in future, you should rethink. My impression of Education PhDs is that they are generally disconnected from the real world, and in love with theoretical constructs of dubious provenance. It doesn't help that they consistently score at the bottom among graduate fields on their GREs.
I briefly considered an education PhD, and was warned off by my guidance counselor. (I went into PoliSci instead.) Now consider the selection effect at work, if the bright students are directed away from the Education field. You'd be surrounded by not terribly bright people who think they are smarter than they are, and therefore have a voracious need to invent jargon and theoretical constructs to prove how smart they are.
As I said, if you seriously want to reform education in some way, it might be worth it. But think of your sanity!
You're right, Mastiff. And that is why I probably won't do it. They are, in fact, disconnected from the real world and generally have no concept on how to connect with kids. Actually, this is true of many teachers I know. In taking part in continuing education, I just want to keep my options open. I don't see how I will have the time, though.
I spent most of yesterday working on a RTI and am now going to be more involved in helping this student move forward...hopefully. Had a been pursuing my doctorate, I would not have been able to devote this time. Heck, I wanted to respond here yesterday but could only muster a few frustrated comments on my own blog before I had to get back to the RTI.
I dunno. Even though he claims to disagree with Critical Pedagogy, his thinking fits with it so well that I would be surprised if the University of Minnesota or a similar school wouldn't latch on to him as soon as they recognize him as a fellow traveler.
All one needs to do is compare a textbook in any subject from the early 1900's (which I have a collection of) to a text book from today to see not only a significant change in the politicking involved but also the severe degredation of the knowledge expected to be learned by the students.
A good question to ask. How many of those RI teachers were following the curriculum and guidelines established by the state and schoolboard to the letter?
I'm still trying to figure out which point of his I was proving by pointing out that the books he is praising have mostly been written by his fellow lefties. Said books being mostly full of the leftist biased world view that students are being indoctrinated with these days.
Which is kind of sad, because I am old enough to remember the purpose - at least in this country - of schools and teachers(as opposed to instructors) was to teach. And the point of texts was to open the mind up.
I am going to respond here to both Thirdpower and emdfl as I think they have a similar theme.
There is a common misconception that teachers are all leftists who push hate America agendas. While this is true in the mind of Glenn Beck and other cult leaders, nothing could be further from the truth. Instructors are very careful not to reveal any bias simply because of the fact that this is the area from which lawsuits spring. This is, in part, why US History texts are so vanilla. They don't want to assign blame but would rather fop it off as being a sad understanding. Woodrow Wilson is painted as hero when he did more to curtail civil rights for blacks than any other president. Roosevelt is painted as a defender of liberty and freedom and yet he forced Japanese Americans into internment camps. The coup in Iran in the 1950s is never adequately addressed nor is the creation of the Khmer Rouge. They were both just "unforunate incidents" and no one's fault at all.
Students ask me all the time if I think that George W Bush was a good president. I then ask them how they would define "good." One of the common answers is that the president needs to be able to understand other cultures and see their point of view. There are many examples of President Bush clearly not doing this at all. Yet, he was the first US president that stated that the Palestinians should have their own state. Many of my current students had no idea this was true. But he did say it and his administration certainly made efforts to move towards this goal. Of course his actions in other parts of the Middle East hindered these pursuits. My answer to them is usually the same thing..."Study the complexities."
So, I would encourage both of you (and Ed below) to read Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me. This would be an excellent example of critical thinking in terms of our high school history texts. I think you'll find when reading things like what sort of wardrobe was worn by both candidates during the Lincoln-Douglas debates that the only indoctrination that is going on is perhaps into the shallow ranks of a trend consultant.
Of course not, cult boy. I've told you many times before, you have nothing to write that I care to read.
Ah, the scenario:
TEACHER: "Johnny, who wrote the Declaration of Independence?"
JOHNNY: "Teacher, I wrote the answer to that question on my facebook page. If you don't want to go read it, that is not my fault. I want full credit for answering your question."
TEACHER: "You get no credit for answering my question, Johnny, because you didn't answer it."
Obviously you don't. I wonder what happens when you see the "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" part. Do things just go all blurry at that point?
Nope, but I guess if that's what happens to you, that explains why you have no concept of what the President's responsibilities, duties, and limitations are.
Hint: don't listen to Biden about what parts cover what.
It's not that our history books are liberally biased. It's that they are devoid of fact on a number of levels. And filled with meaningless baloney that has traditionally been considered patrioitc.
Said by the man, that just a minute ago, said the "President was IN CHARGE of the Federal Government" and "Let the states" do things (or not) based on his whim.
And you dare to call anything ELSE meaningless baloney?
You're making us build new irony meters, since the log scales we were using won't measure high enough.
In Marxaphasia's mind, the fact that you pointed out that leftists dominate education was enough to "prove" that you're in the "cult" of conservatism. The fact that your statement was factually correct is irrelevant to such a conclusion.
(piece of shit Echo... Total characters: 4111. "Total number of characters should not exceed 5000)
When our esteemed host discusses a topic like education, for example, his critical thinking skills give way to emotion.
Unlike you, of course. And nevermind all those pesky "facts". Not Diverse, right?
And any sort of logical reasoning, evidence, and context of judgment goes right out the window. I would also add that critical thinking involves not only logic but fairness in the evaluation of whatever topic we are discussing.
Please demonstrate that with a link to a definition and explanation of that. Take, for example, the issue of Barack Obama and guns.
Oh, boy, here we go again.
Many here think that our president is going to curtail gun rights.
No. Many here think he *wants* to. Based on his own words, his own speeches, and his own behavior. There's 1 here who doesn't follow that, and doesn't want to discuss Obama's time on the near-sole antigun funding organization's board - and it's activities while he was there, that ceased when he left.
Thus far, he has actually increased gun rights as you can now carry a loaded weapon into federal parks and on Amtrak trains.
No, the parks was under Bush, and he didn't "increase" anything. He may have failed to stop them - because of what they were bundled with, but he did not campaign for, and in fact, sent his lawyers to defeat the federal parks bill in court.
In addition, the federal government, of which he is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues.
NO NO NO NO NO NO
You fail.
That's a F--. He is NOT IN CHARGE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, YOU NINCOMPOOP. He hasn't "let" them do anything of the sort.
And you TEACH HISTORY? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK? You can't even understand the function and purpose of the US GOVERNMENT SYSTEM, you lecture us, and YOU TELL US WE'RE LETTING EMOTION COLOR OUR VIEWS, and you just said that Obama is 'IN CHARGE of the federal government" and "Let the states..."
Case closed, game over, man, you lose. Thank you, though. For this shall be bookmarked, and referred to often. As the time when Mark lectured us on the educational system, and then proceeded to fail civics.
You sir, aren't smarter than a 5th grader.
If you are the critical thinkers that you say you are, you would retract this statement based on the evidence.
If you were a critical thinker, you'd know why that's a logical falsehood.
or example, you cling to the notiont that Iraq had WMDs and was poised to use them on the US
I've never seen that said here, except by you.
yet President Bush himself admitted that they didn't and the intelligence was wrong. Everyone involved in that fiasco has come forward and said that the intelligence was wrong. Yet you still throw links up regarding yellow cake uranium which, to a true critical thinker, wouldn't be taken for serious analysis given the facts.
The intelligence was wrong. That's not the same as "No WMDs". And the yellowcake uranium totally destroys your theory. 100 tons. Unreported to the IAEA. Bam. Case closed. Again. (aside from the missing mustard gas, the binary sarin, the...) What was that that Joe "Plame" went to go check on? Oh, right attempts to get yellowcake.
Gee. Did Iraq get any from somewhere? Apparently so...
But yeah, there was no attempt for nukes or nerve gases from a man who'd used nerve agents thousands of times before. Nope. Nope! We're all fools! Fools!
But goddammit, we know that the President isn't "in charge" of the Federal Government.
I then ask them how they would define "good." One of the common answers is that the president needs to be able to understand other cultures and see their point of view.
You say this in defense of teachers accused of being leftists.
No, Mark, you idiot, just as you don't understand the Constitution at all, that SHOULD NOT BE a "common answer" from a schoolchild as what defines a "Good president".
That's a "leftist answer". "Understand other cultures and see their point of view". No. The President is not sworn to that. Did you correct them and tell them they were in fact, incorrect? Or did you praise them?
....
Yeah, we know the answer there.
There are many examples of President Bush clearly not doing this at all. Yet, he was the first US president that stated that the Palestinians should have their own state.
One was set up in the big post-war-re-line drawing.
Jordan.
Oh, right, that's history. Sorry, you wouldn't know that.
No, just as in "gay rights" - or now clearly demonstrated - anything with the government, be it local, state, or federal, you do not understand, at all, what defines things, or what's important.
For example, you cling to the notiont that Iraq had WMDs and was poised to use them on the US yet President Bush himself admitted that they didn't and the intelligence was wrong. Everyone involved in that fiasco has come forward and said that the intelligence was wrong. Yet you still throw links up regarding yellow cake uranium which, to a true critical thinker, wouldn't be taken for serious analysis given the facts.
Um, no.
We tend to "cling to the notion" that it was possible, even likely. The yellowcake uranium supports that idea, as does the fact that soldiers walked right across the tops of squadrons of combat aircraftfor years and didn't know they were there, as does any rational look at Saddam Hussein's history.
And you refute that by throwing Bush's words at us? 1) Since when do you accept Bush's statements as factual, whether they actually are or not, and 2) since when do sane people accept any statement from any politician at face value?
We likewise tend to "cling to the notion" that while the intelligence was doubtless flawed (all intel is, really), it was most certainly not merely a fraud, a hoax, a lie, or an excuse to go to war. It may or may not have been used as an excuse in addition to its other qualities, but at bottom it was a rational assessment of the intel available at the time.
If you want to look for "clinging to notions" that have no rational basis, 7+ years of hysteria growing from "Bush lied!" is a good place to start.
We likewise tend to "cling to the notion" that while the intelligence was doubtless flawed (all intel is, really), it was most certainly not merely a fraud, a hoax, a lie, or an excuse to go to war. It may or may not have been used as an excuse in addition to its other qualities, but at bottom it was a rational assessment of the intel available at the time.
Furthermore, it wasn't Bush's single reason for military action. He and his administration took great pains to spread that message.
Funny thing, all the press wanted to talk about was WMD... Almost like they couldn't handle more than 1 reason/cause/effect.
Much more importantly, Bush and co said repeatedly and consistently that Iraq was not an immediate threat, but we could not allow them to become a threat. (The one oft-quoted exception was Cheney in an interview, and he said that before and after the misstatement.
We'd been besieging Iraq for 12 years, while France and Russia got rich off our efforts. That was quite enough to level the place.
The yellowcake, binary sarin, lack of mustard gas (that was there in '98, and not in '03, thus meaning it moved somewhere...) all were violations of the cease fire. There were hundreds of violations.
And Mark is defending the educational system? Hell, he doesn't even know how the government works. No wonder he is.
He can't get a job anywhere else being THAT ignorant.
No, the yellow cake uranium does not support the idea.
Mark, I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, and you're an idiot.
BUT YES, THE YELLOWCAKE URANIUM PROVES THE IDEA.
Proves. Period. Case closed. Point proven. Verbatim.
Saddam had - as a part of the cease fire in '91, agreed and promised NOT TO POSSESS it. Or gain more.
Yet he did. That's a violation of the ceasefire, there's only one reason he'd be collecting the yellowcake, and it's for BUILDING A NUCLEAR WEAPON.
I don't _care_ what the paid-for-Obama apologists say. I know those facts - and you're free to look them up as well!
The yellowcake PROVES THAT SADDAM WAS EMBARKED ON A PROGRAM TO BUILD A NUCLEAR BOMB.
.. Thus justifying the attack based solely on "WMD grounds".
And ignoring all the _other_ legal reasons, justifications, and UN requirements.
But yes. Right there, that one thing (or the binary sarin shell, in *unmarked* 155MM artillery) *proves* that there was a viable, working, and ACTIVE nuclear (and chemical) program for weapons of mass destruction.
... It doesn't matter if GOF reads the hyperpartisan link or not.
He knows it. I know it. Almost everybody here knows it. Except for 1.
And he's the one who just failed Freshman Civics. (While screaming that the schools are really good! REALLY GOOD!)
Unix, did you read the link to factcheck? As part of the cease fire agreement in 1991, the UN was allowed to inspect Saddam's various weapons facilities. One of these facilities was the one that housed the yellow cake uranium of which we are speaking. In fact, they guarded it for years (in sealed containers) and had known about it all along. It was not "secretly" discovered in 2003 and the only reason why the transport to Canada wasn't publicized was for security which I hope you will understand.
Thus, no evidence whatsoever of Saddam gaining any yellow cake uranium after 1991. You also might want to look into the composition of yellow cake uranium. It is uranium that has been milled and mined but requires further processing in order to be used as fuel.
Here is another source, in addition to fact check, which shows your statement above to be false.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, Unix. But this opinion fails in just about every rule YOU and others here have detailed regardiing logic, facts, and reasoning. The same holds true for the American Thinker link, Ed. Even Mr. Hoen himself admits "Frankly, I don't know what for sure is true." To me, that means that this statement
Proves. Period. Case closed. Point proven. Verbatim.
is without any sort of foundation and completely devoid of critical thought.
Did you look up the duties and responsibilities of the President yet?
As part of the cease fire agreement in 1991, the UN was allowed to inspect Saddam's various weapons facilities. One of these facilities was the one that housed the yellow cake uranium of which we are speaking.
And that's where the "facts" start to break up.
Rather than confuse you with all the real facts, not the spin ones, let's just stay there, shall we?
The cease fire was in 1991. But it was not that the UN was "allowed to inspect" - they were supposed to inspect, verify and DESTROY or REMOVE all such. That was the terms of the ceasefire.
... So right there, your "factcheck" starts to fail. They've misreported on the terms of the ceasefire, ignoring the pesky parts. We invaded the 2nd time in 2003. That's 12 years after the cease fire.
The fact that the yellowcake was still there was a violation of the ceasefire. As well as other assorted things. Plus the fact that the UN inspectors had been chaperoned (violation of the ceasefire), lied to (violation of the ceasefire), found thing that Iraq hadn't started to document (violation of the ceasefire), and had been totally locked out for 5 years. (Violation of the ceasefire.)
Any ONE of those was point proven, verbatim, that the ceasefire was being violated.
Thus, no evidence whatsoever of Saddam gaining any yellow cake uranium after 1991.
Your article doesn't prove that.
And in fact, there's a fair bit of evidence to prove that Saddam was - in violation of the cease fire - attempting to, and potentially acquiring it.
Just ask Ambassador Joe Wilson. His sworn testimony in front of Congress stated that he was informed of that by the Nigerian government officials he talked to. Iraq had attempted to negotiate with them.
You also might want to look into the composition of yellow cake uranium. It is uranium that has been milled and mined but requires further processing in order to be used as fuel.
So what?
The snopes also fails to note Wilson's official report and testimony to the Senate - which unlike his editorial, which they do reference, he can't be held criminally liable for.
Was it just 2 days ago when you said you wouldn't dare speak on matters of engineering since you've got no background in it? Now you're a uranium processing expert?
No, you're the same sadsack who can't nut up and admit when he's over his head, hypocritical, and ignorant.
But at no point does it prove me wrong, in fact, the very fact that it agrees that yellowcake uranium was IN THE COUNTRY proves that the "intelligence was right" and that there were severe violations of the 91 cease fire ongoing.
Nothing you've pointed to has in any way discredited that. It proves how factual Snopes and Factcheck are - but even with their spin, your entire thesis is undermined BY THOSE LINKS.
Either keep posting here like this, or stop telling us our critiques of the schools are off base.
completely devoid of critical thought.
Hah. You ah fahnny guhy, Sully. So what *are* the important traits of a "good President"?
But this opinion fails in just about every rule YOU and others here have detailed regardiing logic, facts, and reasoning.
Sorry, I just haven't had enough deceased equine pummeling today.
So, Mark.
What were the TERMS of the 1991 Ceasefire? Under those terms, what were the requirements of Iraq in terms of it's current arsenal of WMD and programs, and what was the role of the UN Inspectors?
What was the timeframe for divestment of the precursors? Was possession of precursors allowed?
you cling to the notiont that Iraq had WMDs
How quaint is that notion following the events at Halabja and other Kurdish towns? Or during the Iran-Iraq war?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndXNTjJzPdw
Did Iraq, in fact, have Weapons of Mass Destruction in 1991, 1998, and 2003?
As to this uranium argument, it's clear that I'm going to get nowhere with you.
You're right, but you arrived at the right answer by the wrong methods.
You believe what you believe and you are certainly entitled to do so.
Not at all. I believe what to the best of my knowledge the FACTS are - which you have just realized are on my side.
So I'm quite happy to keep believing that "Saddam had WMD". (The little fact that he used them in both warfare and dealing with troublesome internal enemies might have a glimmer to do with that.)
You're the one who's ridiculed the idea for "Saddam having WMD." So, show me how I should approach this, using "critical thought."
Explain how, 12 years after the ceasefire, after he'd agreed as part of the ceasefire to give up all his WMD and programs for it - there was 550 tons of it, and explain how that proves Bush is a ignorant moron.
(Bonus question! What happened to all that nicely-admitted to mustard gas, tagged by the UN inspectors in the mid-90s, that *wasn't there in 2003?*? The 60 tons or so? )
You believe what you believe and you are certainly entitled to do so.
But you can't back up what you believe - you can only run away, or point to someone else arguing for you.
I'm still waiting to see your explanation of the US system of government.
the federal government, of which he [Obama] is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues.
No, you don't get to make up your own facts, as you tried to tell me earlier. Not on the US form of government, not on Iraq's WMD's. Maybe you should reconsider how "stupid" Bush was.
Or how much you should be lecturing us. Seems like you're the one who needs to be taking notes.
"... it's clear that I'm going to get nowhere with you. You believe what you believe and you are certainly entitled to do so."
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like being accused of.
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response.
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to.
You're still as predictable as clockwork, deadbeat boy.
I think we have discovered the limits of your programming. If there weren't more important things to do, such as inventorying the lint in the dryer vent, I think I could create a flowchart that would accurately describe your response methodology in considerable detail. There would be some randomness to it, involving a function using both a Gaussian and a Normal random number generator, but it could produce a fair simulation of your pathology.
Interesting thought, isn't it? That could be a PhD thesis for a graduate student in behavioral psychology. You would be the perfect subject for such an effort.
Long ago I commented that I thought Marxy was a script. Further contact has only solidified my initial assessment, DJ's flowchart concept further supports my position.
"What happens when someone fails the Turing test?"
Hmmm ...
Consider the Turing Test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
"The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. It proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which tries to appear human. All participants are placed in isolated locations. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. In order to test the machine's intelligence rather than its ability to render words into audio, the conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen."
For the past three years, we have not quite been engaged in such a test, and for two reasons: 1) we have only one subject to interact with; and, 2) the subject does not "demonstrate intelligence". So, if the subject is a computer, i.e. the responses given are per the instructions of a program, then there is a flaw in either or both such that the subject appears to be stuck on stupid.
Pity, isn't it? The computer could be sorting buttons, or something.
"As to this uranium argument, it's clear that I'm going to get nowhere with you. You believe what you believe and you are certainly entitled to do so."
The "What's the point" response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won't be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
You know, I've looked, and looked, and looked, and nowhere do I see ANYTHING about the FedGov doing whatever the heck it wants. Heck, there's nothing in this Statement. Of. Purpose. (otherwise known as a Preamble) that explicitly gives ANY authority to ANY government body.
On the other hand, we do have this statement in the Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
—10th Amendment
Typical of Marxaphasia to stop reading as soon as sees something he can twist to meet his wishes.
So Marxy, what "power" "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" permits the FedGov to take over health care?
"Mataki, however, did relate that in June 1999 Barka ((Tefrinj)), a Nigerian/Algerian businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. Although (illegible) meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the United Nations (UN) sanctions against Iraq and the fact that he opposed doing business with Iraq. Mayaki said that he interpreted the phrase "expanding commercial relations" to mean that Iraq wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales."
"Despite this decay, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. He made clear his view that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them. He was very attentive to the growing Iranian threat—especially its potential nuclear component, and stated that he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat, clearly implying matching Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. Saddam observed that India and Pakistan had slipped across the nuclear weapons boundary quite successfully. Those around Saddam seemed quite convinced that once sanctions were ended, and all other things being equal, Saddam would renew his efforts in this field."
He had the materials. He had a partially completed research program. He had the obvious intention of renewing his efforts as soon as possible. Nothing about him boasting about what he didn't have changes these facts.
Finally, notice that Sadam violated the UN sanctions by developing missile systems:
"Iraq continued to work on missile delivery systems in the wake of the Gulf war. Saddam drew a distinction between long range missiles and WMD—a distinction not drawn in the UN resolutions. Iraq’s missile development infrastructure continued to develop under sanctions, and included work on propulsion, fuels, and even guidance systems. As more funding became available following the implementation of the OFF program, Saddam directed more missile activities. In the later years, more foreign assistance was brought in—including both technology and technical expertise. While it is clear that Saddam wanted a long range missile, there was little work done on warheads. It is apparent that he drew the line at that point…so long as sanctions remained. However, while the development of ballistic missile delivery systems is time consuming, if and when Saddam decided to place a non-conventional warhead on the missile, this could be done very quickly. The CW and BW warheads put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.
A couple of points are of interest from the Iraq missile efforts. One is that they did not bide by the range limits set in UN Security Council Resolution 687. The range capabilities of the ballistic missiles they were developing exceeded the stated limits. Iraq also used components from SA-2 engines that they had expressly been prohibited. Iraq also produced fuel that was not declared. They also tested UAVs in excess of the range limits."
But none of that matters. The idea that he was working develop WMDs was "the best available" intelligence estimate for years under Bill Clinton, but on Jan 21, 2001 Bush took office and it therefore instantly became a deliberate lie, a hoax and an excuse.
Nevermind the fact that citing "lies my teacher told me" doesn't refute the claim that modern textbooks tend to lean in a particular political direction.
I'm finding it interesting that "Saddam Hussein had no WMDs", apparently unless you actually catch him in the act of pushing the button.
This from the same "critical thinker" who thinks student dissertations, articles by completely uncredentialed environmental activists and flat-out propaganda and deliberate lies makes AGW "90% likely" and supports the forcible rearrangement of the entire energy sector of the economy for the entire developed world based on that "evidence".
Apparently there is no amount of evidence so ironclad as to justify stopping a known thug, with a decades-long history of being a thug, from nuking or nerve-gassing his neighbors or his own people. But openly planning to "bankrupt" the coal industry and deliberately causing enrgy prices to "skyrocket" apparently requires no actual evidence, it only requires a "consensus".
As so often happens, Marxy's responses say more about him than they do about the issue he speaks about.
So... Where's the "critical thought" inherent here? At least talk about your Constitutional Claims, where the President "is in charge of" the FedGov, and "allows" the states to do things.
Running away? Brave Sir Mark of Aphasia ran away?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-ripped-obama-sticker-off-of-my-truck.html (124 comments)
I applaud the RI moves to improve education, but given that the firings were at a high school, I doubt it will make a difference. It MAY be that the test scores show that elementary education in that locale is effective, but I think it much more likely that the problem starts earlier in the students lives. By the time the children get to high school their attitude towards their own education and their preparation will be pretty much set in place. It makes for shocking news when you have high school kids that can't read or do simple math... But high school isn't where those skills are learned.
Perhaps not, but if high school kids have the right kind of help, and the right kind of motivation, they can learn those skills on their own. However, high school IS the period in which kids become the most disillusioned with education, and also the point at which they can drop out. Its a good start to fixing a big problem, and a good place to start at.
I can tell all of you for a fact that this event has sent shockwaves through the education community here in MN. EVERYONE is talking about it and the concern is very high for their jobs. It fucking should be.
What cracks me up is that suddenly, when their jobs are on the line, now they start to get serious about their job...as if a child's life isn't serious enough. Don't get me wrong...there are some teachers who pour everything into teaching--as well they should--but there are far too many that get into teaching for the wrong reasons and still more that just skate through. It's difficult for the rest of the public to look at teachers professionally, in the same way as doctors or lawyers, when they simply don't give enough effort, refuse to manage the complexities of intelligence and learning, and are stubbornly narrow minded about effective pedagogy.
Kevin is also quite correct in stating that administrators' asses also need to be on the line. It might take a little while but with this RI deal and high stakes testing (which I hope to see soon in Social Studies) the age of accountability has begun.
Deadbeats beware.
"Deadbeats beware."
But can you, personally, apply that concept toward the whole population?
Sure. But I think it's quite obvious that you and I would have different defintions of how deadbeat is defined.
"... I think it's quite obvious that you and I would have different defintions of how deadbeat is defined."
That is what I expected. You are as predictable as (ahem) clockwork. Read on, you'll see the pun.
Lessee now ...
I find the following definitions of deadbeat via The Free Dictionary Online.
From The American Heritage Dictonary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
n.
1. One who does not pay one's debts.
2. A lazy person; a loafer.
adj.
Not fulfilling one's obligations or paying one's debts: a deadbeat dad.
adj.
Having an indicator that stops without oscillation.
From Collins English Dictionary
n
1. (Sociology) Informal a lazy or socially undesirable person
2. Chiefly US
a. a person who makes a habit of avoiding or evading his or her responsibilities or debts
b. (as modifier) a deadbeat dad
3. (Miscellaneous Technologies / Horology) a high grade escapement used in pendulum clocks
4. (Miscellaneous Technologies / Horology) (modifier) (of a clock escapement) having a beat without any recoil
5. (Physics / General Physics) (modifier) Physics
a. (of a system) returning to an equilibrium position with little or no oscillation
b. (of an instrument or indicator) indicating a true reading without oscillation
From a Thesaurus, based on WordNet 3.0 Farlex clipart collection
Noun
1. deadbeat - someone who fails to meet a financial obligation
defaulter
deadbeat dad - a father who willfully defaults on his obligation to provide financial support for his offspring
debitor, debtor - a person who owes a creditor; someone who has the obligation of paying a debt
Now, teacher boy, you brought the subject up. You posted the sentence, "Deadbeats beware." So, tell us what YOUR definition of "deadbeat" is that applies to a teacher who does a poor job. Go ahead, pick one.
Did you get the pun? You are a deadbeat, teacher boy. You are as predictable as a clockwork escapement, and nothing affects its working.
Finally, go pick a definition of "cult". You remember, don't you? I asked you to do so in the comments of this post by Kevin:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/constructive-criticism.html
Of course, as usual, you coughed up your Standard Response #1, he "I can't hear you" response. You behaved as if the request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that you never read it. Still your favorite, isn't it?
And, as usual, you coughed up your Standard Response #10, the "Brave Sir Robin" response. The monsters got too close and you disappeared for a whole week, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
So, are you gonna do it again, cult boy?
I would define a deadbeat, in the context of how I used it regarding teachers, as a lazy person or a loafer. As far as the defintion of a cult...
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/02/cult.html
"I would define a deadbeat, in the context of how I used it regarding teachers, as a lazy person or a loafer."
Good answer. Now, which of those many definitions would you apply to, as I asked before, "the whole population", and if it is a different answer, why did you choose it?
"As far as the defintion of a cult..."
Not even a nice try, cult boy. I don't read your scribblings anywhere except here, and I notice you still haven't answered it where I asked it.
As Kevin has requested in the past, if one has a long post, put it somewhere else and link to it. If you don't want to go read it, that is not my fault. As for why I haven't been posting as much lately, that answer is in today's post.
The whole population? Well, as I say in class all the time, our country has been taken over by the three headed monster of laziness, ignorance, and fear. I guess I'd say that I would apply it to much of the population, sadly. And, no, that's not because of the government.
As Kevin has requested in the past, if one has a long post, put it somewhere else and link to it."
So, your definition of a particular word is so long that it requires a "long post" to state it?
In a word, HORSESHIT.
I posted SEVENTEEN (17) definitions of "cult", copied right out of dictionaries verbatim, in a short post and asked you, verbatim, "Now, just which definition of the word "cult" applies here?" Answering that question requires, at most, a very short sentence. If you don't use any of them, then it requires only four words: "None of the above."
That you refuse to answer the question, neither here nor where I asked it, tells me it's highly likely that you have your own definition of "cult", that it doesn't match any of the dictionary definitions because you used the word without knowing its definition, and that, when shown the dictionary definitions of the word, you recognize yourself to be, yet again, a blithering fool. Now, why might I think that? Because you are, yet again, vomiting up your Standard Response #8, the "Humpty Dumpty" response. You simply assert that your words mean what you say they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that you are correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
Go ahead; copy and paste your definition for "cult" here, and where I asked for it, and prove me wrong.
Then, after that, you cough up this:
"The whole population? Well, as I say in class all the time, our country has been taken over by the three headed monster of laziness, ignorance, and fear. I guess I'd say that I would apply it to much of the population, sadly. And, no, that's not because of the government."
Thus, it appears that "laziness" forms at least part of the definition of "deadbeat" that you would use when applying the concept of "deadbeats beware" to the general population.
Ah, but you see the trap you've laid for yourself, don't you? If "deadbeat" teachers ought to "beware", and "deadbeat" teachers are lazy people or loafers, then what would possibly be the reason why lazy people or loafers among the general population need not "beware"? In simpler words, why wouldn't you use the same definition for "deadbeat" when applying the concept of "deadbeats beware" to the general population as you do when applying the concept to teachers? Could it be because (gasp!) we've been saying here for years that "deadbeats", i.e. lazy people or loafers, ought not to get a free ride from the taxpayers? Golly. You couldn't actually be agreeing with us, could you?
Hah. I crack me up.
"And, no, that's not because of the government."
What or who, besides the gubmint, enables deadbeats to be deadbeats? Such people usually don't remain employed for long except when employed by the gubmint, and such people usually don't get subsidized by anything or anyone except the gubmint. So, what is left? Rich uncles, perhaps? The Salvation Army? Red Cross?
Walked yourself right into it, didn't you, teacher boy?
DJ, I've been curious enough about Marxy's thinking that I have ventured into his lair to read his musings, and occasionally respond.
Rest assured that his definition of "cult" is just as accurate as his definitions of "fascism" and "just like Al Qaeda". (The original source for that idea was Bill Mahrer.)
Actually my original source for JLAQ was Paul Hackett.
Just because I love you, DJ, I will give you one characteristic of your typical cult member.
1. Quickly withdraw into the group and distrust the outside world.
That pretty much sums up the folks that make up the folks at CPAC and the Tea Party malarky.
You've still failed to answer the question.
That pretty much sums up the folks that make up the folks at CPAC and the Tea Party malarky.
CPAC and the Tea Parties are completely separate. "Malarky"?
What.. wait - I almost asked you what the hell you meant. I know better. You can't define malarky, or why they're in it.
Quickly withdraw into the group and distrust the outside world.
Like all those left-wingers crashing airplanes and shooting guards at the Pentagon?
CPAC and the Tea Parties are completely separate.
LMAO!!!!
left-wingers crashing airplanes and shooting guards at the Pentagon?
Where were they when Bush was president, though? Hmmm...I guess I'm wondering why all the "I hate government crowds" are taking more action now as opposed to then..
CPAC and the Tea Parties are completely separate.
LMAO!!!!
Laugh away Vizzini. It's your mistake and your idiocy that's on display.
There is some significant overlap, to be sure. But your attempt to lump them in with the same group is proof of your filter failures.
Where were they when Bush was president, though?
The left-wingers? They were rioting in the streets over "ending wars" and "closing Gitmo" and...
You're trying to distract from the very clear political views of both of the latest attacks - they were leftwingers, one was a Democrat and had been for many years. They were far left of center.
Didn't stop you from tarring them with an incorrect brush - and failing to admit or apologize and correct yourself.
That is not a definition of the word "cult".
A definition should require fewer words than you just posted. Can't do it, can you?
Here's another one of the "characteristics of a cult" as listed by Marxy:
"6. Accuse people outside of the cult of being brainwashed and/or in a cult."
So who's doing this? Oh the irony.
Yea, those Tea Party people are withdrawing so deeply that they're going… out…… and……… getting………… more…………… and……………… more………………… involved………………… in……………………… politics…………………………
Sorry, I just can't take it any more!
"Actually my original source for JLAQ was Paul Hackett."
I meant the source for your "cult" definition, not JLAQ. Though it's good to know who is the laughingstock for that JLAQ bit.
Hey, cool, an Iraq war vet is now a "laughing stock." Does that mean I get to call you a "traitor" for denigrating the troops, Ed BetrayUS!
Excuse me! I neglected a very important piece of information...Paul Hackett was a marine who VOLUNTEERED for service in Iraq. My bad...
My bad...
No, your "bad" here is ducking and weaving from DJ's direct question, obviously because it undermines you again, so badly it's obvious to you.
You spend more time trying to avoid the question than answering it would be.
You're the intellectual deadbeat here. How about answer DJ's question, and learn something?
an Iraq war vet is now a "laughing stock." Does that mean I get to call you a "traitor" for denigrating the troops, Ed BetrayUS!
You can, but it demonstrates more about your failed thought process than anything Ed's done.
Just because they served does not mean they're superheros, supergeniuses, or even, just by dint of having served in Iraq or Afghanistan, a better idea what to do there.
They _might_, and their experiences there are important, and - this is the important part - all else being equal, that experience denotes an increase in their authority. An increase, Aphasic one. NOT ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY.
The person here with a problem is you, since you give absolute - or zero - moral authority to people, and then try and bend their track record and history and performance to your presumption.
(And notice how you've no problem whatsoever ignoring people who have served in Iraq who you disagree with.)
But serving in Iraq is not, by itself, an absolute moral yardstick, and there have been many people who have served in Iraq who are idiots.
... Except now you - by your definition - have set Lyddie England up as an expert on Iraq and Islam and Al Queda.
Ed didn't denigrate the troops. He said that Hackett is a laughingstock for saying something so stupid. Hackett. Not the troops. Not the Marines. Hackett. And he said so based on what he said, and what he did. Not the groups Hackett belongs to, not who he voted for, not what he promised that was impossible, or what he promised and didn't deliver, or promises he made, and immediately broke.
You're the one here in a cult, and it's a cult of personalities.
There is NOTHING I can add to that. Very well said, U-J.
Yet again, we see his Standard Response #5, the "I'm drowning in stupidity" response. He simply lays on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declares, later, "I answered your question."
Remember, this response is what led to the list of his Standard Responses. It's all in the comment thread at:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/09/rapture-of-marxists.html
It should be noted that the Central Falls School district will be hiring a crop of fresh college graduates to fill these newly (conveniently) vacated teaching slots... At an average starting salary of around $30k per year.
I am curious how public opinion would differ if a corporation... say Caterpillar, laid off employees on a wholesale basis, only to re-hire a fresh new crop several months later at a lower salary and with reduced benefits.
Funny you mention that. CAT in Joliet, IL has been doing this for years. Forcing higher-paid employees out with early retirement or lay offs and then bringing in young, inexperienced, cheap replacements or farming the jobs out to contractors.
The public sentiment here has been less than pleased.
I don't know about CAT in Joliet, I have a family member thats been working for them since the late 70s (not in IL), but I do remember a similar thing happening to my cousin in Washington. Microsoft would lay off all the temps a couple weeks before their permanence date, then rehire them a month later. Kept them from being defined as permanent employees. For about 4 years (he works elsewhere now). It happens in the private sector.
The principled portion of cf4eva's question is answered thus: Right of association. Liberty of contract.
The pragmatic portion of the question is addressed thus: New hires are presumably less productive than experienced workers, even in an assembly-line setting. If Caterpillar's productivity losses were more than offset by the cost savings, they bloody well ought to do it. If not, they'd be fools to do it. It is not in the employer's interest to jettison trained, reliable, productive workers; it is not in the worker's interest to cost the employer more than his productivity justifies.
@cf4eva: If the workers at Caterpillar, which I presume makes and sells farm and mining machinery, were turning out sub-standard products in the same way that the teachers are, I would expect that there would not BE a corporation.The market would long have decided that John Deere or Komatsu were better value.
Caterpillar, like ANY business not dominated by government, values the workers it has in direct relation to their ability to profitably turn out saleable products. Government departments: not so much.
And yet another of the rare instances in which I completely agree with Mark.
We should make note of these things, if only for the sake of mutual good humor.
I think you'll find that when it comes to this issue we have much in common. In addition to this, I know for a fact that throwing more money into education won't solve anything. Basic civics needs to be a staple in public school again as well. There's also the issue of the mammoth amount of small minded people that work both as administrators and instructors that are bogging the entire system down. There is a decided lack of width of vision when it comes to instructional strategies and multiple intelligences. This, of course, doesn't even being to scratch the surface of the horrendous state of American History textbooks-the majority of which teach a bizarre and shallow fantasy that resembles nothing of what actually happened.
I think it's quite obvious that you and I would have different defintions of how deadbeat is defined.
So far, the words that we'd define "differently" far outnumber the ones we wouldn't.
... Of course, the dictionary agrees with our definition.
This, of course, doesn't even being to scratch the surface of the horrendous state of American History textbooks-the majority of which teach a bizarre and shallow fantasy that resembles nothing of what actually happened.
*cough cough cough*
::: slapping U-J's back :::
Don't let the irony choke you, buddy. Just breathe!
Well, guys, spend a year studying 15 of the major social studies textbooks being taught in our classrooms today and tell me what you think. Save your bullshit remarks until you actually have an informed opinion.
Oh, we agree with your complaint about the schoolbooks.
The irony comes from the fact that the person who originally made that complaint (you) has demonstrated that their own grasp of history is "a bizarre and shallow fantasy that resembles nothing of what actually happened."
>>Save your bullshit remarks until you actually have an informed opinion.
FYI: Marxy standard response #11 : #11 The "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response.
geek, do I have a degree in engineering? No. Therefore, any comments I would make on the subject of engineeing would be completely uninformed. On this topic, as well I'm sure many others, you would, in fact, be smarter than myself. So, if you have spent a year studying 15 various high school History textbooks, you can offer an informed opinion on them.As far as I have seen, your comments regarding US History are terribly biased and lack critical thought.
Ed, your grasp of history is dictated by what the Cult tell syou to believe. While I have no doubt that you and I would agree on the fact that Woodrow Wilson was one of our worst presidents (as well as being a despicable human being), we would disagree with the fact that our country (along with BP) overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran. To you, I'm certain, it was something else...
In other words, we will agree on the things you like and the things you don't like are part of a Marxist agenda to brainwash our children.
Double down, with Standard Response #11 yet again.
"Ed, your grasp of history is dictated by what the Cult tell syou to believe."
You mean it hasn't been dictated by what my teachers made me read plus the reading I did on my own? Well, goooolly Sarge! All these years I've been reading "cult" books (like the dictionary) despite never having access to "The List". I wonder how that happened?
Waitaminite? Where did you get this "cult" idea? Was it your own discovery? Or was it something someone else told you which you swallowed hook, line and sinker, and now refuse to be disabused of by facts? Hmmm, what's the definition of a "cult" again? Oh, right. The dictionary is one of those "cult" books that a critical thinker should never look at…
So what if it wasn't my own discovery? I've actually expanded on it. If you disagree with him or myself, disprove it point by point.
That whizzing sound you heard was the point flying by.
"So, if you have spent a year studying 15 various high school History textbooks, you can offer an informed opinion on them."
So it took you a whole year to recognize the problems? We've looked at the topic numerous times here, complete with specific problems that only took long enough to read the description to identify the books as bad. Plus, it only took me a few minutes to find this review of 12 history books, not one of which earned better than a C+.
Why did it take you so long?
Because it was a part of my continuing education which involves (ahem) critical thinking. A few minutes? Good Lord....
Your ignorance is showing again, Marxy.
Amusing, to be sure, but if you are going to constantly and consistently act like a jackanapes, do try to make a little harder for the rest of to openly mock you. Ah, wait, we've distilled your blathering to a list. You aren't even trying anymore. Carry on, o staunch and resolute defender of predictable behavior!
"(ahem) critical thinking"
We've been there before, liar boy, many, many times. You can't even define the term, much less practice the art.
I have yet to see any critical thought at all put into your "rugged individualist" ideology, DJ. Here's a hint though: we live in a society made up of other people. ;)
I have yet to see any critical thought at all put into your "rugged individualist" ideology, DJ. Here's a hint though: we live in a society made up of other people.
This is incoherent.
I have yet to see
You've yet to demonstrate expertise or noted analysis, so your failure is meaningless.
any critical thought
You've demonstrated no concept of what the theory behind critical thought, in fact you've done the opposite and proven you don't understand it at all. Furthermore, DJ in many cases has shown himself to be able to take hypotheticals and critically analyze them, including several cases where he attempted to demonstrate and explain it to you.
at all put into your "rugged individualist" ideology, DJ.
I've not seen DJ define that. And you've got a bad track record of making up definitions and presuming you know people as you "ask the right questions".
Here's a hint though: we live in a society made up of other people.
And this is what takes the above and turns it into utter incoherence.
"Here's a hint though" does not follow with what you're saying there. At all. At no point have you asked a question to hint at. As usual, you don't know what you're actually saying with the words you're using.
But that doesn't stop you from being arrogant and attempting to lecture - even as you ignore the tattered shreds of your honesty, your education, your experiences, your failed analysis.
You just keep trying to bring in those DC-3s with the coconut headsets....
"I have yet to see any critical thought at all put into your "rugged individualist" ideology, DJ. Here's a hint though: we live in a society made up of other people."
Translation: { }
It's the same-old same-old "If you're an anarchist who doesn't practice complete autarky, you're a hypocrite" card, played by someone with even less than the usual level of understanding.
"A few minutes? Good Lord...."
Actually reading what's there might take 15 minutes to an hour depending on how fast you read. But that particular page is one I had been to before when we discussed the topic a while back.
My point is simply that some things are so obvious that it shouldn't take "a year" to notice. For example, if you have a history textbook which is supposed to be a general overview of American history, it should be pretty obvious that there's a problem with one that spends 6 pages on Marilyn Monroe and only 6 sentences on George Washington. (Search for Freedom: America and Its People by William Jay Jacobs, published by The Macmillan Company, and copyrighted in 1973 by Benziger, Inc.) Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but the principle—that the obvious doesn't require a year of study—is still true.
To being with, ED, there are many textbooks used in a variety of classrooms using a variety of instructional strategies whose impact on learning honestly can't be measured in 15 minutes. In other words, what sort of enduring understandings are students left with after using the American Paegent as their main text? Loewen took TWO years in his study for the Smithsonian Institution which result in his book. Our goal was to mimic him albeit for only one year.
So, there are many factors that play into this exercise which result in needing time for careful study.
there are many textbooks used in a variety of classrooms using a variety of instructional strategies whose impact on learning honestly can't be measured in 15 minutes.
"Glittering Generalities".
Yes, you can measure that impact in under 15 minutes. Look at the test scores. Look at the history scores.
But, according to you, we _can't_ make a categorical determination, despite all the evidence, no, let's just "study more".
there are many factors that play into this exercise which result in needing time for careful study.
If you say so. Of course, there's a simple correction that would do quite a number. GO BACK TO WHAT WORKED.
Things have gotten WORSE. So BACK OUT THE CHANGES.
Marxy: "To being with, ED, there are many textbooks used in a variety of classrooms using a variety of instructional strategies whose impact on learning honestly can't be measured in 15 minutes."
Did you get that from the flyer they passed out, or was that on the PowerPoint slide?
Erroneous information remains erroneous, regardless of the time frame, whether it be 15 minutes to 1 year later. It seems that the inability to detect erroneous information leads to teaching positions and tenure.
U-J: They can't. The Emperor's tailors have too much invested in the charade to stop now. And as for the rank and file, it's more important to play their part in the kabuki theater than it is to build a real process.
>>"your comments regarding US History are terribly biased and lack critical thought. "
Critical. Thought.
You keep using those words, but I do not think it means what *you* think it means.
Apparently, somehwere along the line, someone provided you with a tainted and corrupt meaning for the phrase "critical thought". When you embraced this, it mired you in an intellectual tar pit from which you cannot escape.
You have spent *years* telling us two things: that you are a paragon on critical thought, and that we are not, and yet, in all this time, you have evinced very little evidence of *actually* being able to engage in same.
Having dug a very deep hole into which you've buried your credibility, your statements on the subject of "critical thought" carry little weight here.
"Having dug a very deep hole into which you've buried your credibility, your statements on the subject of "critical thought" carry little weight here."
Zero, methinks.
Of all of you here, the only ones that I see capable of any serious critical thought are Kevin B, Kevin S., juris, GOF, and Mastiff. When our esteemed host discusses a topic like education, for example, his critical thinking skills give way to emotion. And any sort of logical reasoning, evidence, and context of judgment goes right out the window. I would also add that critical thinking involves not only logic but fairness in the evaluation of whatever topic we are discussing. When it comes to anything that is to the left of many here, the word "fairness" is immediately stomped down, South Central gang like, into the ground and labeled as treasonous.
Take, for example, the issue of Barack Obama and guns. Many here think that our president is going to curtail gun rights. Thus far, he has actually increased gun rights as you can now carry a loaded weapon into federal parks and on Amtrak trains. In addition, the federal government, of which he is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues. Virginia has approved concel and carry in bars and restaurants where liquor is served. People there can also buy more than one hand gun a month now. All of this where the VT shootings occured.
In Kevin's home state of AZ, lawmakers are considering a bill that will allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit. For the first time, Montana and Tennesee have passed laws that exempt themselves from federal regulation on guns and ammo sold in their state. And what has the response been from the White House to gun control advocates who are upset?
Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman says that violent crime is down so why bitch and the president "supports and respects the Second Amendment." Now, all of you assured me that President Obama was a "gun grabber" and all evidence points to this fact. If you are the critical thinkers that you say you are, you would retract this statement based on the evidence.
The same holds true for your statements on US History. I believe it was stated on here that the reason why Vietnam went so poorly was because of the liberal media. An issue as complex as Vietnam involves much more study than that. Even in current history, many of you utterly fail. For example, you cling to the notiont that Iraq had WMDs and was poised to use them on the US yet President Bush himself admitted that they didn't and the intelligence was wrong. Everyone involved in that fiasco has come forward and said that the intelligence was wrong. Yet you still throw links up regarding yellow cake uranium which, to a true critical thinker, wouldn't be taken for serious analysis given the facts.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_it_recently_revealed_that_the_us.html
So, no geek, you and others here are more interested in pushing those facts that fit with your ideology. As to any other information that doesn't fit this paradigm, it's all lies, deceit, and treachery put forth by those who wish to see our country decimated in a pit of socialists sewage.
Many here think that our president is going to curtail gun rights."
You just cannot muster the simple honesty required to accurately state the opinions you oppose, can you?
The phrase "... is going to ..." is a prediction about the future, not a statement of fact, thus it is only an opinion. This concept is simply beyond your understanding.
The topic of gun control does not appear in his administration so far, except for him signing into law a bill that he wanted which included an attached provision that is pro-gun. As we have stated so many times before, and which you have ignored each time, he wanted the bill to be law enough that he was willing to accept the attached provision.
Obamateur spends no effort on gun control for two reasons: 1) other topics, such as the gubmint takeover of health care are much more important to him; and, 2) a majority of the members of both houses of Congress, including a large number of members of his own party, have sent him a joint letter stating that they will not support efforts to curtail gun rights. Thus, he spends what little political capital he has left elsewhere.
I have not made any prediction that he "is going to" curtail gun rights. I have stated, repeatedly, my opinion that I believe he would curtail gun rights if he could. But he can't do so by himself. My opinion is based on his previous history on the issue, which you simply ignore.
"Thus far, he has actually increased gun rights as you can now carry a loaded weapon into federal parks and on Amtrak trains."
Let's consider the phrase "... you can now carry a loaded weapon into federal parks ..."
The President signed into law a bill that contains a provision which states that federal law no longer prohibits you from carrying a loaded weapon into a federal park. That does not mean that you can do so. It means only that such activity is no longer prohibited by federal law. Thus, you can carry a loaed weapon into a federal park only if the laws of the state in which the federal park exists say you can.
Now, let's continue with the phrase "... and on Amtrak trains."
No, you cannot carry loaded weapons on Amtrak trains. Now that the President has signed this bill into law, you can transport unloaded weapons as checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
You just will not get this stuff right, will you?
"In addition, the federal government, of which he is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues."
And you claim to be a teacher. You aren't qualified to teach what you will not understand.
The Presdent is not "in charge" of the feddle gubmint. Go read the Constitution, you pathetic little fool. The President is the head of one of three co-equal branches of the federal gubmint. He has no authority to prevent states from deciding and enforcing their own laws, thus he does not "let" them do so. Case in point: President Bush very strongly suggested, on national television, that New Orleans be evacuated in advance of hurricane Katrina. Why didn't he order said evacuation? Because he had no authority to do so.
Damn, but your stupidity is bottomless, isn't it
"Of all of you here, the only ones that I see capable of any serious critical thought are ..."
Your stupidity is exceeded only by your hypocrisy.
Yet again, your comment is nothing more than your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like being accused of.
Yet again, your comment is nothing more than your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. You deliberately miss the point, laying on one straw man after another.
Yet again, your comment is nothing more than your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to.
You are as predictable as clockwork, cult boy, and you fool no one.
OH NOES!
Markaphasia excludes me from his list of people he deems worthy and capable of thinking!
Waaaah!
I'm going to go re-evaluate my essence, and reform myself until I meet with his approval.
Sniff.
"we worked hard for this man.... and we're having to dig the knife out of our back"
SUPRISE! SUPRISE! SUPRISE!
Doesn't the Left have a tendency towards cannibalism? The overall authoritarian impulse for discipline is so great that any internal dissent is quashed and eviscerated like removing a tumor. They hate their own first before they hate anybody else.
Aren't those the history texts that YOUR political comrades have been writing for the past 30 years or so, Mark?
Ah, I didn't see this comment before I wrote what I did above...thanks for proving my point, emdfl ;)
Again, Marxy is making assumptions. The idea that some of do actually study the schoolbooks our children use, well, just not on our troll's radar.
What's that phrase, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with B.S.?
I like watching the students riot over education at Berkeley. They say that there's not enough money being spent on them. It's hilarious.
Sorry for the off-topic, but Brave Sir Markaphasia has run away from all the other threads....
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
Leading us in green energy, eh?
Save your bullshit remarks until you actually have an informed opinion.
Not that you ever do. Verbatim.
But for you to realize that, would require the critical thinking and analysis skills that you don't have.
spend a year studying 15 of the major social studies textbooks being taught in our classrooms today and tell me what you think.
1) it wouldn't take me a year to read the 15 textbooks.
2) You keep throwing these things out insisting you're an expert in the field (despite being proven ignorant on a regular basis), but you have never demonstrated more competency than anyone else here, and continually ignore the fact that we've got a VERY good idea what's in those books. You're misusing a logical fallacy, and have had it pointed it out to you many times.
Yet you continue to do it.
geek, do I have a degree in engineering? No. Therefore, any comments I would make on the subject of engineeing would be completely uninformed.
But you make them all the time. And argue with us.
Even when you're proven to be completely full of bullshit, you presume you know more, as you cut and paste from other people.
You have argued past us with experience in various fields, ignored our personal experiences, (my experience with FEMA and being on 3 Hurricane Response Teams?) and continued to insist, as you misdefine words, misuse words and concepts without any admission to your ignorance or mistakes, and even when you've been totally show to have started off in the wrong direction, taken the wrong path, and arrived at the wrong destination, you insist that in fact, you've been right all along.
So, if you have spent a year studying 15 various high school History textbooks, you can offer an informed opinion on them.
You know, it's amazing what you admit in your comments. So you've got a year experience?
As far as I have seen, your comments regarding US History are terribly biased and lack critical thought.
They just have the benefit of being internally consistent, reproducible, insightful, and historically backed. Trying to smear geek with your "critical thought" misunderstanding is just stupid.
But then, you're the teacher with a year's experience on us.
U-J, he said that was a year of continuing education. I take that as either taking a year off to take more classes, or taking a year of evening classes; not talking about his actual years of teaching experience.
Ed:
Possibly.
But he tends to drop gems like that, since he doesn't think about what he's writing before he writes. So it's possible.
It's actually a moot point, whether we've taken a year or ten. Or how long he's been in the classroom - other than I've got more than a sneaking suspicion that it's nowhere near as much as he's claiming. Which only matters insofar as much as it's more proof that he'll assume mantles he's unworthy of. It won't matter to him, since he's already proven what his word's worth.
But it's just something else to note.
Ed, it could be he's out of work, lying to us, and trying to ejikate himself to be employable. His credibility is zero, so who knows?
I hope you're not just giving me false hope, here!
As I mentioned above, it was a study for one year as part of continuing education. This was a night class that was taken over the course of 2007. I'm debating about whether or not to pursue a PhD and this would help if I choose to do so. I'm not certain I can handle working full time as an instructor and the work load for a doctorate. And then there is the conundrum of being "expected" to leave the classroom upon receiving a PhD. I'm past my five year mark of experience and really haven't had any desire to leave it. In fact, quite the opposite. I bemoan days like today-late start--which further aggravate the learning process.
And if I did pursue the PhD, I'd have to give up coaching tennis which I have been doing for more than 7 years...which is what actually got me into teaching in the first place...so basically I'm just meandering now with the further education thing...
Good Lord, why would you want to do an education PhD??
Unless you have a particular narrow topic in education that you desperately want to know more about, and to influence in future, you should rethink. My impression of Education PhDs is that they are generally disconnected from the real world, and in love with theoretical constructs of dubious provenance. It doesn't help that they consistently score at the bottom among graduate fields on their GREs.
I briefly considered an education PhD, and was warned off by my guidance counselor. (I went into PoliSci instead.) Now consider the selection effect at work, if the bright students are directed away from the Education field. You'd be surrounded by not terribly bright people who think they are smarter than they are, and therefore have a voracious need to invent jargon and theoretical constructs to prove how smart they are.
As I said, if you seriously want to reform education in some way, it might be worth it. But think of your sanity!
When I was at Oklahoma State University, we used to call a B.S in Elementary Education a B.S. in Elementary Unemployment. It still fits.
You're right, Mastiff. And that is why I probably won't do it. They are, in fact, disconnected from the real world and generally have no concept on how to connect with kids. Actually, this is true of many teachers I know. In taking part in continuing education, I just want to keep my options open. I don't see how I will have the time, though.
I spent most of yesterday working on a RTI and am now going to be more involved in helping this student move forward...hopefully. Had a been pursuing my doctorate, I would not have been able to devote this time. Heck, I wanted to respond here yesterday but could only muster a few frustrated comments on my own blog before I had to get back to the RTI.
So, you are correct...my sanity would be lost.
I'm debating about whether or not to pursue a PhD
Trust me. Go for it.
Wouldn't that mean he would be teaching the teachers?
Yup. It's his calling. He should go for it.
It would get him out of the front of classrooms.
It would mean cloning himself, and those clones appearing in front of many, many classrooms.
Ed, lots of PhD's don't find jobs in the field of their degree. His expectations could rise well beyond his probabilities.
I dunno. Even though he claims to disagree with Critical Pedagogy, his thinking fits with it so well that I would be surprised if the University of Minnesota or a similar school wouldn't latch on to him as soon as they recognize him as a fellow traveler.
… especially given his "experience with conservatives"…
All one needs to do is compare a textbook in any subject from the early 1900's (which I have a collection of) to a text book from today to see not only a significant change in the politicking involved but also the severe degredation of the knowledge expected to be learned by the students.
A good question to ask. How many of those RI teachers were following the curriculum and guidelines established by the state and schoolboard to the letter?
I'm still trying to figure out which point of his I was proving by pointing out that the books he is praising have mostly been written by his fellow lefties. Said books being mostly full of the leftist biased world view that students are being indoctrinated with these days.
Which is kind of sad, because I am old enough to remember the purpose - at least in this country - of schools and teachers(as opposed to instructors) was to teach. And the point of texts was to open the mind up.
I am going to respond here to both Thirdpower and emdfl as I think they have a similar theme.
There is a common misconception that teachers are all leftists who push hate America agendas. While this is true in the mind of Glenn Beck and other cult leaders, nothing could be further from the truth. Instructors are very careful not to reveal any bias simply because of the fact that this is the area from which lawsuits spring. This is, in part, why US History texts are so vanilla. They don't want to assign blame but would rather fop it off as being a sad understanding. Woodrow Wilson is painted as hero when he did more to curtail civil rights for blacks than any other president. Roosevelt is painted as a defender of liberty and freedom and yet he forced Japanese Americans into internment camps. The coup in Iran in the 1950s is never adequately addressed nor is the creation of the Khmer Rouge. They were both just "unforunate incidents" and no one's fault at all.
Students ask me all the time if I think that George W Bush was a good president. I then ask them how they would define "good." One of the common answers is that the president needs to be able to understand other cultures and see their point of view. There are many examples of President Bush clearly not doing this at all. Yet, he was the first US president that stated that the Palestinians should have their own state. Many of my current students had no idea this was true. But he did say it and his administration certainly made efforts to move towards this goal. Of course his actions in other parts of the Middle East hindered these pursuits. My answer to them is usually the same thing..."Study the complexities."
So, I would encourage both of you (and Ed below) to read Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me. This would be an excellent example of critical thinking in terms of our high school history texts. I think you'll find when reading things like what sort of wardrobe was worn by both candidates during the Lincoln-Douglas debates that the only indoctrination that is going on is perhaps into the shallow ranks of a trend consultant.
Still won't define "cult", will you, liar boy?
Still won't go to my blog, DJ?
Of course not, cult boy. I've told you many times before, you have nothing to write that I care to read.
Ah, the scenario:
TEACHER: "Johnny, who wrote the Declaration of Independence?"
JOHNNY: "Teacher, I wrote the answer to that question on my facebook page. If you don't want to go read it, that is not my fault. I want full credit for answering your question."
TEACHER: "You get no credit for answering my question, Johnny, because you didn't answer it."
JOHNNY: "But, but, ... [starts crying]"
Sigh ...
And you claim to be a teacher. You fool no one.
Still can't read the US Constitution, Mark?
Obviously you don't. I wonder what happens when you see the "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" part. Do things just go all blurry at that point?
Nope, but I guess if that's what happens to you, that explains why you have no concept of what the President's responsibilities, duties, and limitations are.
Hint: don't listen to Biden about what parts cover what.
Markie...
How is that a reply to my post? Oh, wait, I forgot who I'm talking to.
BTW, I've met Loewen, have a signed copy of his book, and discussed it with him over coffee. All bringing that up does is re-enforce MY point.
TP:
Yeah, only Mark could take "Lies my Teacher Told Me" and use it to support his hypothesis.
Many of us have told him we've read it.. It bounces off, much like his ignorance of everything about the "citigroup documents" MMoore told him about.
So did you agree with him or not?
It's not that our history books are liberally biased. It's that they are devoid of fact on a number of levels. And filled with meaningless baloney that has traditionally been considered patrioitc.
And filled with meaningless baloney
Said by the man, that just a minute ago, said the "President was IN CHARGE of the Federal Government" and "Let the states" do things (or not) based on his whim.
And you dare to call anything ELSE meaningless baloney?
You're making us build new irony meters, since the log scales we were using won't measure high enough.
In Marxaphasia's mind, the fact that you pointed out that leftists dominate education was enough to "prove" that you're in the "cult" of conservatism. The fact that your statement was factually correct is irrelevant to such a conclusion.
(piece of shit Echo... Total characters: 4111. "Total number of characters should not exceed 5000)
When our esteemed host discusses a topic like education, for example, his critical thinking skills give way to emotion.
Unlike you, of course. And nevermind all those pesky "facts". Not Diverse, right?
And any sort of logical reasoning, evidence, and context of judgment goes right out the window. I would also add that critical thinking involves not only logic but fairness in the evaluation of whatever topic we are discussing.
Please demonstrate that with a link to a definition and explanation of that.
Take, for example, the issue of Barack Obama and guns.
Oh, boy, here we go again.
Many here think that our president is going to curtail gun rights.
No. Many here think he *wants* to. Based on his own words, his own speeches, and his own behavior. There's 1 here who doesn't follow that, and doesn't want to discuss Obama's time on the near-sole antigun funding organization's board - and it's activities while he was there, that ceased when he left.
Thus far, he has actually increased gun rights as you can now carry a loaded weapon into federal parks and on Amtrak trains.
No, the parks was under Bush, and he didn't "increase" anything. He may have failed to stop them - because of what they were bundled with, but he did not campaign for, and in fact, sent his lawyers to defeat the federal parks bill in court.
In addition, the federal government, of which he is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues.
NO NO NO NO NO NO
You fail.
That's a F--. He is NOT IN CHARGE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, YOU NINCOMPOOP. He hasn't "let" them do anything of the sort.
And you TEACH HISTORY? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK? You can't even understand the function and purpose of the US GOVERNMENT SYSTEM, you lecture us, and YOU TELL US WE'RE LETTING EMOTION COLOR OUR VIEWS, and you just said that Obama is 'IN CHARGE of the federal government" and "Let the states..."
Case closed, game over, man, you lose. Thank you, though. For this shall be bookmarked, and referred to often. As the time when Mark lectured us on the educational system, and then proceeded to fail civics.
You sir, aren't smarter than a 5th grader.
If you are the critical thinkers that you say you are, you would retract this statement based on the evidence.
If you were a critical thinker, you'd know why that's a logical falsehood.
or example, you cling to the notiont that Iraq had WMDs and was poised to use them on the US
I've never seen that said here, except by you.
yet President Bush himself admitted that they didn't and the intelligence was wrong. Everyone involved in that fiasco has come forward and said that the intelligence was wrong. Yet you still throw links up regarding yellow cake uranium which, to a true critical thinker, wouldn't be taken for serious analysis given the facts.
The intelligence was wrong. That's not the same as "No WMDs". And the yellowcake uranium totally destroys your theory. 100 tons. Unreported to the IAEA. Bam. Case closed. Again. (aside from the missing mustard gas, the binary sarin, the...) What was that that Joe "Plame" went to go check on? Oh, right attempts to get yellowcake.
Gee. Did Iraq get any from somewhere? Apparently so...
But yeah, there was no attempt for nukes or nerve gases from a man who'd used nerve agents thousands of times before. Nope. Nope! We're all fools! Fools!
But goddammit, we know that the President isn't "in charge" of the Federal Government.
I then ask them how they would define "good." One of the common answers is that the president needs to be able to understand other cultures and see their point of view.
You say this in defense of teachers accused of being leftists.
No, Mark, you idiot, just as you don't understand the Constitution at all, that SHOULD NOT BE a "common answer" from a schoolchild as what defines a "Good president".
That's a "leftist answer". "Understand other cultures and see their point of view". No. The President is not sworn to that. Did you correct them and tell them they were in fact, incorrect? Or did you praise them?
....
Yeah, we know the answer there.
There are many examples of President Bush clearly not doing this at all. Yet, he was the first US president that stated that the Palestinians should have their own state.
One was set up in the big post-war-re-line drawing.
Jordan.
Oh, right, that's history. Sorry, you wouldn't know that.
No, just as in "gay rights" - or now clearly demonstrated - anything with the government, be it local, state, or federal, you do not understand, at all, what defines things, or what's important.
For example, you cling to the notiont that Iraq had WMDs and was poised to use them on the US yet President Bush himself admitted that they didn't and the intelligence was wrong. Everyone involved in that fiasco has come forward and said that the intelligence was wrong. Yet you still throw links up regarding yellow cake uranium which, to a true critical thinker, wouldn't be taken for serious analysis given the facts.
Um, no.
We tend to "cling to the notion" that it was possible, even likely. The yellowcake uranium supports that idea, as does the fact that soldiers walked right across the tops of squadrons of combat aircraft for years and didn't know they were there, as does any rational look at Saddam Hussein's history.
And you refute that by throwing Bush's words at us? 1) Since when do you accept Bush's statements as factual, whether they actually are or not, and 2) since when do sane people accept any statement from any politician at face value?
We likewise tend to "cling to the notion" that while the intelligence was doubtless flawed (all intel is, really), it was most certainly not merely a fraud, a hoax, a lie, or an excuse to go to war. It may or may not have been used as an excuse in addition to its other qualities, but at bottom it was a rational assessment of the intel available at the time.
If you want to look for "clinging to notions" that have no rational basis, 7+ years of hysteria growing from "Bush lied!" is a good place to start.
No, the yellow cake uranium does not support the idea. Did you go read the link, GOF? And then there is this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/5727868/Saddam-Hussein-lied-about-WMDs-to-protect-Iraq-from-Iran.html
We likewise tend to "cling to the notion" that while the intelligence was doubtless flawed (all intel is, really), it was most certainly not merely a fraud, a hoax, a lie, or an excuse to go to war. It may or may not have been used as an excuse in addition to its other qualities, but at bottom it was a rational assessment of the intel available at the time.
Furthermore, it wasn't Bush's single reason for military action. He and his administration took great pains to spread that message.
Funny thing, all the press wanted to talk about was WMD... Almost like they couldn't handle more than 1 reason/cause/effect.
Much more importantly, Bush and co said repeatedly and consistently that Iraq was not an immediate threat, but we could not allow them to become a threat. (The one oft-quoted exception was Cheney in an interview, and he said that before and after the misstatement.
We'd been besieging Iraq for 12 years, while France and Russia got rich off our efforts. That was quite enough to level the place.
The yellowcake, binary sarin, lack of mustard gas (that was there in '98, and not in '03, thus meaning it moved somewhere...) all were violations of the cease fire. There were hundreds of violations.
And Mark is defending the educational system? Hell, he doesn't even know how the government works. No wonder he is.
He can't get a job anywhere else being THAT ignorant.
OK, this threading thing has got to go away... or at least be optional...
Hear, hear!
or
Write, write!
No, the yellow cake uranium does not support the idea.
Mark, I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, and you're an idiot.
BUT YES, THE YELLOWCAKE URANIUM PROVES THE IDEA.
Proves. Period. Case closed. Point proven. Verbatim.
Saddam had - as a part of the cease fire in '91, agreed and promised NOT TO POSSESS it. Or gain more.
Yet he did. That's a violation of the ceasefire, there's only one reason he'd be collecting the yellowcake, and it's for BUILDING A NUCLEAR WEAPON.
I don't _care_ what the paid-for-Obama apologists say. I know those facts - and you're free to look them up as well!
The yellowcake PROVES THAT SADDAM WAS EMBARKED ON A PROGRAM TO BUILD A NUCLEAR BOMB.
.. Thus justifying the attack based solely on "WMD grounds".
And ignoring all the _other_ legal reasons, justifications, and UN requirements.
But yes. Right there, that one thing (or the binary sarin shell, in *unmarked* 155MM artillery) *proves* that there was a viable, working, and ACTIVE nuclear (and chemical) program for weapons of mass destruction.
... It doesn't matter if GOF reads the hyperpartisan link or not.
He knows it. I know it. Almost everybody here knows it. Except for 1.
And he's the one who just failed Freshman Civics. (While screaming that the schools are really good! REALLY GOOD!)
And is trying to imply that he meant to do it.
Unix, did you read the link to factcheck? As part of the cease fire agreement in 1991, the UN was allowed to inspect Saddam's various weapons facilities. One of these facilities was the one that housed the yellow cake uranium of which we are speaking. In fact, they guarded it for years (in sealed containers) and had known about it all along. It was not "secretly" discovered in 2003 and the only reason why the transport to Canada wasn't publicized was for security which I hope you will understand.
Thus, no evidence whatsoever of Saddam gaining any yellow cake uranium after 1991. You also might want to look into the composition of yellow cake uranium. It is uranium that has been milled and mined but requires further processing in order to be used as fuel.
http://www.cna.ca/curriculum/cna_nuc_tech/uranium_processing-eng.asp?bc=Uranium%20Processing&pid=Uranium%20Processing
Here is another source, in addition to fact check, which shows your statement above to be false.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, Unix. But this opinion fails in just about every rule YOU and others here have detailed regardiing logic, facts, and reasoning. The same holds true for the American Thinker link, Ed. Even Mr. Hoen himself admits "Frankly, I don't know what for sure is true." To me, that means that this statement
Proves. Period. Case closed. Point proven. Verbatim.
is without any sort of foundation and completely devoid of critical thought.
Unix, did you read the link to factcheck?
Yes, I did. It was quite humorous in a sad way.
Did you look up the duties and responsibilities of the President yet?
As part of the cease fire agreement in 1991, the UN was allowed to inspect Saddam's various weapons facilities. One of these facilities was the one that housed the yellow cake uranium of which we are speaking.
And that's where the "facts" start to break up.
Rather than confuse you with all the real facts, not the spin ones, let's just stay there, shall we?
The cease fire was in 1991. But it was not that the UN was "allowed to inspect" - they were supposed to inspect, verify and DESTROY or REMOVE all such. That was the terms of the ceasefire.
... So right there, your "factcheck" starts to fail. They've misreported on the terms of the ceasefire, ignoring the pesky parts. We invaded the 2nd time in 2003. That's 12 years after the cease fire.
The fact that the yellowcake was still there was a violation of the ceasefire. As well as other assorted things. Plus the fact that the UN inspectors had been chaperoned (violation of the ceasefire), lied to (violation of the ceasefire), found thing that Iraq hadn't started to document (violation of the ceasefire), and had been totally locked out for 5 years. (Violation of the ceasefire.)
Any ONE of those was point proven, verbatim, that the ceasefire was being violated.
Thus, no evidence whatsoever of Saddam gaining any yellow cake uranium after 1991.
Your article doesn't prove that.
And in fact, there's a fair bit of evidence to prove that Saddam was - in violation of the cease fire - attempting to, and potentially acquiring it.
Just ask Ambassador Joe Wilson. His sworn testimony in front of Congress stated that he was informed of that by the Nigerian government officials he talked to. Iraq had attempted to negotiate with them.
You also might want to look into the composition of yellow cake uranium. It is uranium that has been milled and mined but requires further processing in order to be used as fuel.
So what?
The snopes also fails to note Wilson's official report and testimony to the Senate - which unlike his editorial, which they do reference, he can't be held criminally liable for.
Was it just 2 days ago when you said you wouldn't dare speak on matters of engineering since you've got no background in it? Now you're a uranium processing expert?
No, you're the same sadsack who can't nut up and admit when he's over his head, hypocritical, and ignorant.
But at no point does it prove me wrong, in fact, the very fact that it agrees that yellowcake uranium was IN THE COUNTRY proves that the "intelligence was right" and that there were severe violations of the 91 cease fire ongoing.
Nothing you've pointed to has in any way discredited that. It proves how factual Snopes and Factcheck are - but even with their spin, your entire thesis is undermined BY THOSE LINKS.
Either keep posting here like this, or stop telling us our critiques of the schools are off base.
completely devoid of critical thought.
Hah. You ah fahnny guhy, Sully. So what *are* the important traits of a "good President"?
But this opinion fails in just about every rule YOU and others here have detailed regardiing logic, facts, and reasoning.
Sorry, I just haven't had enough deceased equine pummeling today.
So, Mark.
What were the TERMS of the 1991 Ceasefire? Under those terms, what were the requirements of Iraq in terms of it's current arsenal of WMD and programs, and what was the role of the UN Inspectors?
What was the timeframe for divestment of the precursors? Was possession of precursors allowed?
you cling to the notiont that Iraq had WMDs
How quaint is that notion following the events at Halabja and other Kurdish towns? Or during the Iran-Iraq war?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndXNTjJzPdw
Did Iraq, in fact, have Weapons of Mass Destruction in 1991, 1998, and 2003?
I think my answer to your traits question might be a good post for my blog. I'm going to mull that one for awhile.
As to this uranium argument, it's clear that I'm going to get nowhere with you. You believe what you believe and you are certainly entitled to do so.
Translation: no fair sticking to the facts!
As to this uranium argument, it's clear that I'm going to get nowhere with you.
You're right, but you arrived at the right answer by the wrong methods.
You believe what you believe and you are certainly entitled to do so.
Not at all. I believe what to the best of my knowledge the FACTS are - which you have just realized are on my side.
So I'm quite happy to keep believing that "Saddam had WMD". (The little fact that he used them in both warfare and dealing with troublesome internal enemies might have a glimmer to do with that.)
You're the one who's ridiculed the idea for "Saddam having WMD." So, show me how I should approach this, using "critical thought."
Explain how, 12 years after the ceasefire, after he'd agreed as part of the ceasefire to give up all his WMD and programs for it - there was 550 tons of it, and explain how that proves Bush is a ignorant moron.
(Bonus question! What happened to all that nicely-admitted to mustard gas, tagged by the UN inspectors in the mid-90s, that *wasn't there in 2003?*? The 60 tons or so? )
You believe what you believe and you are certainly entitled to do so.
But you can't back up what you believe - you can only run away, or point to someone else arguing for you.
I'm still waiting to see your explanation of the US system of government.
the federal government, of which he [Obama] is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues.
No, you don't get to make up your own facts, as you tried to tell me earlier. Not on the US form of government, not on Iraq's WMD's. Maybe you should reconsider how "stupid" Bush was.
Or how much you should be lecturing us. Seems like you're the one who needs to be taking notes.
"... it's clear that I'm going to get nowhere with you. You believe what you believe and you are certainly entitled to do so."
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like being accused of.
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response.
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to.
You're still as predictable as clockwork, deadbeat boy.
I think we have discovered the limits of your programming. If there weren't more important things to do, such as inventorying the lint in the dryer vent, I think I could create a flowchart that would accurately describe your response methodology in considerable detail. There would be some randomness to it, involving a function using both a Gaussian and a Normal random number generator, but it could produce a fair simulation of your pathology.
Interesting thought, isn't it? That could be a PhD thesis for a graduate student in behavioral psychology. You would be the perfect subject for such an effort.
Long ago I commented that I thought Marxy was a script. Further contact has only solidified my initial assessment, DJ's flowchart concept further supports my position.
What happens when someone fails the Turing test?
"What happens when someone fails the Turing test?"
Hmmm ...
Consider the Turing Test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
"The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. It proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which tries to appear human. All participants are placed in isolated locations. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. In order to test the machine's intelligence rather than its ability to render words into audio, the conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen."
For the past three years, we have not quite been engaged in such a test, and for two reasons: 1) we have only one subject to interact with; and, 2) the subject does not "demonstrate intelligence". So, if the subject is a computer, i.e. the responses given are per the instructions of a program, then there is a flaw in either or both such that the subject appears to be stuck on stupid.
Pity, isn't it? The computer could be sorting buttons, or something.
"As to this uranium argument, it's clear that I'm going to get nowhere with you. You believe what you believe and you are certainly entitled to do so."
For the record: that's Standard Response #2
The "What's the point" response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won't be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
You know, I've looked, and looked, and looked, and nowhere do I see ANYTHING about the FedGov doing whatever the heck it wants. Heck, there's nothing in this Statement. Of. Purpose. (otherwise known as a Preamble) that explicitly gives ANY authority to ANY government body.
On the other hand, we do have this statement in the Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
—10th Amendment
Typical of Marxaphasia to stop reading as soon as sees something he can twist to meet his wishes.
So Marxy, what "power" "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" permits the FedGov to take over health care?
On the yellowcake issue, check out this declassified memo from the State Department. On pages 8 to 9 it says:
"Mataki, however, did relate that in June 1999 Barka ((Tefrinj)), a Nigerian/Algerian businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. Although (illegible) meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the United Nations (UN) sanctions against Iraq and the fact that he opposed doing business with Iraq. Mayaki said that he interpreted the phrase "expanding commercial relations" to mean that Iraq wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales."
So despite the FACT that Iraq was already sitting on 550 metric tons of yellowcake, he was trying to buy more. (Here's an interesting analysis of that yellowcake stash.) So yes, it was certainly possible. In fact, the author of the "Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD", Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group, had this to say:
"Despite this decay, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. He made clear his view that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them. He was very attentive to the growing Iranian threat—especially its potential nuclear component, and stated that he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat, clearly implying matching Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. Saddam observed that India and Pakistan had slipped across the nuclear weapons boundary quite successfully. Those around Saddam seemed quite convinced that once sanctions were ended, and all other things being equal, Saddam would renew his efforts in this field."
He had the materials. He had a partially completed research program. He had the obvious intention of renewing his efforts as soon as possible. Nothing about him boasting about what he didn't have changes these facts.
Finally, notice that Sadam violated the UN sanctions by developing missile systems:
"Iraq continued to work on missile delivery systems in the wake of the Gulf war. Saddam drew a distinction between long range missiles and WMD—a distinction not drawn in the UN resolutions. Iraq’s missile development infrastructure continued to develop under sanctions, and included work on propulsion, fuels, and even guidance systems. As more funding became available following the implementation of the OFF program, Saddam directed more missile activities. In the later years, more foreign assistance was brought in—including both technology and technical expertise. While it is clear that Saddam wanted a long range missile, there was little work done on warheads. It is apparent that he drew the line at that point…so long as sanctions remained. However, while the development of ballistic missile delivery systems is time consuming, if and when Saddam decided to place a non-conventional warhead on the missile, this could be done very quickly. The CW and BW warheads put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.
A couple of points are of interest from the Iraq missile efforts. One is that they did not bide by the range limits set in UN Security Council Resolution 687. The range capabilities of the ballistic missiles they were developing exceeded the stated limits. Iraq also used components from SA-2 engines that they had expressly been prohibited. Iraq also produced fuel that was not declared. They also tested UAVs in excess of the range limits."
But none of that matters. The idea that he was working develop WMDs was "the best available" intelligence estimate for years under Bill Clinton, but on Jan 21, 2001 Bush took office and it therefore instantly became a deliberate lie, a hoax and an excuse.
So says "the reality based community".
Nevermind the fact that citing "lies my teacher told me" doesn't refute the claim that modern textbooks tend to lean in a particular political direction.
I'm finding it interesting that "Saddam Hussein had no WMDs", apparently unless you actually catch him in the act of pushing the button.
This from the same "critical thinker" who thinks student dissertations, articles by completely uncredentialed environmental activists and flat-out propaganda and deliberate lies makes AGW "90% likely" and supports the forcible rearrangement of the entire energy sector of the economy for the entire developed world based on that "evidence".
Apparently there is no amount of evidence so ironclad as to justify stopping a known thug, with a decades-long history of being a thug, from nuking or nerve-gassing his neighbors or his own people. But openly planning to "bankrupt" the coal industry and deliberately causing enrgy prices to "skyrocket" apparently requires no actual evidence, it only requires a "consensus".
As so often happens, Marxy's responses say more about him than they do about the issue he speaks about.
Mark:
So... Where's the "critical thought" inherent here? At least talk about your Constitutional Claims, where the President "is in charge of" the FedGov, and "allows" the states to do things.
Running away? Brave Sir Mark of Aphasia ran away?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>