quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Ted Rall's take on Bristol
It's probably right about her odds of being happy in her teenage marriage, but there are options other than abortion and being a married teenage mom.
She could have had the baby, and given it up for adoption.
My guess is that having her daughter hand off her baby to the state to find more suitable parents was not going to send the pro-family message that was desired. Certainly, anyone desiring to curry the favor of those who want to drown the government in a bathtub probably shouldn't put their flesh and blood in the hands of those professionals whose careers they claim to want to send down the drain.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely do not understand the resistance to adoption.
Growing up, it was always understood that I got pregnant while still in high school, it meant I would be giving birth to a baby that actually belonged to a loving couple that couldn't have any of their own.
I'm astounded at the number of people who'd rather the baby die than be raised by people they choose who have longed for a kid of their own.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
EDIT: In response to Blayne's pithy response:
Marxism, at its root is a socio-economic prediction, not a theory. And every attempt to hasten towards its conclusion has been a failure (to put it mildly).
posted
What Bristol Palin does with her pregnancy should be none of our business.
"Work" is an interesting term for economic methods and strategies. I suppose we would have to determine goals to see what "worked". Are we talking about how best to predict what will happen or how best to achieve a certain outcome. And then we would have to determine what the most desirable outcome would be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Jhai: a number of intermediate macro courses are starting to teach based on microfoundations. This means they (well, the courses that do it well) don't cover as much theory, but they give a much better (and more grad-similar) foundation for macroeconomic thought.
Really? That's interesting. Personally, I think it's okay to teach undergraduates the "just-so" theories you often see in macroeconomics classes, since it gives them a good grasp of the big picture, and is fairly accurate in a broad strokes/big picture kind of way. I'm quite curious to know how professors transfer the graduate-type foundations to the undergraduate level, given the demanding mathematics (at least, that's what I was subject to in my macro classes). How does it avoid dynamic programming, for instance? Anyways, do you happen to have any links to syllabi or textbooks that follow this structure, fugu?
Tom, I don't think any macroeconomic theory is all that good in every instance. In order to make the mathematics reasonable you have to abstract away a lot of detail, which means you end up capturing only some of what's going on. So you apply a particular theory as the situation dictates. For instance, Solow's growth model (a dumbed-down version of which is often presented to undergraduates) is very good at capturing the broad strokes of what is important to an economy's long term growth. It's useless for telling you what the Federal Reserve ought to be doing at any point in time. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, has some amazing models for figuring out what's happening in the economy at any point in time (which the Fed then uses to decide its actions), but they aren't at all useful for developing economies, where the data is all crap anyways.
Personally, I think a lot of macroeconomic theories are fairly useless, as we're constrained by how good the data is. A fancy model which shows a tiny bit more of what's happening in the economy isn't that useful if there are errors in the data. But the macroeconomists need something to keep themselves busy...
Irami, I didn't mean any disrespect to undergraduates. Typically they just don't have the background in mathematics to understand the theories of modern macroeconomics. Just like they don't have the mathematics to understand most a lot of modern theoretical physics. I mean, if an undergraduate has a firm grasp on multivariate calculus, linear programming, and is willing to put in some hard time to learn dynamic programming, I'm all for them learning graduate-level macroeconomics. Without that background, however, they'll be completely lost in the class.
I've tutored a heck of a lot of economics undergraduates, and many of them were struggling with the basic calculus required of them for the economics courses. There's no way more than a handful of my classmates in undergrad were capable (at the time I was in classes with them) of doing the mathematics required for graduate classes. What's the point of mincing words about it?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What Bristol Palin does with her pregnancy should be none of our business.
I agree. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's positions seem to indicate that she does not agree. Or, at least, she wants it to be the government's business.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
I know almost nothing about economics besides, ironically, what I learned in an introductory undergraduate course, but what makes you assume that what he said is inaccurate? I could make a similar statement about graduate level molecular biology, and it would be absolutely true.
The fact of the matter is that graduate level subjects are at a higher level than undergraduate or high school levels. Heck, it's why they aren't taught at pre-graduate levels. Would you claim similar douchebaggery of someone who said that "high school algebra is too challenging for your typical 1st grader"?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai: I'll try to dig out my intermediate macro book, though we didn't use the book a huge amount.
The way things were taught was a combination of conceptually with a little math. That is, the models were solved only for the simplest models, and more complex ones were treated with as conceptual frameworks where we could explore (often graphically) what the solution needed to look like, without actually solving.
In other words, much more simplistic models, but of a similar character to those found in grad macro.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
What have they done right since Eisenhower explicitly told Republicans to NOT do what they are doing now?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's positions seem to indicate that she does not agree. Or, at least, she wants it to be the government's business. "
So attack that policy position, it's perfectly fair game. But don't mention Bristol.
I do.
But I also think it is appropriate to address the fact that another of her policy positions, namely supporting abstinence only education, seems to be partially refuted by her personal life, and yet she has made no justification for it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's positions seem to indicate that she does not agree. Or, at least, she wants it to be the government's business. "
In Palin's defense, there may be a baby's life at stake and protecting lives is a matter of good governance.
Jhai, did you ever think that if YOU can't explain concepts to interested undergraduates, it may show a lack in your powers of communication rather than their ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: In Palin's defense, there may be a baby's life at stake and protecting lives is a matter of good governance.
Jhai, did it ever enter your mind that if you can't explain concepts to interested undergraduates, it may show a lack in your powers of communication rather than their ignorance.
Interested != Capable of at the time.
IP: Logged |
quote:But I also think it is appropriate to address the fact that another of her policy positions, namely supporting abstinence only education, seems to be partially refuted by her personal life, and yet she has made no justification for it.
That's just making a "anecdote is the singular of data" argument that I know you hate. It's tempting to use her daughter as an example here, but I don't think it's appropriate.
That said, I don't think it's inappropriate to address Bristol's pregnancy or her marriage in any context which may be relevant to Sarah Palin's policies or public speeches. If she wants to publicly commend her daughter's choice, I think that's a fair jumping off point to discuss what her others choices could have been or the value of having that choice in the first place. If it turns out that the baby was kept or that the marriage is happening strictly for political expediency, I think that's a valid conversation to have as well as it directly relates to Sarah Palin.
I don't think criticism of Bristol is appropriate, but I don't see any problem with mentioning her in a larger context.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
What have they done right since Eisenhower explicitly told Republicans to NOT do what they are doing now?
Blayne that question is noticeably flawed, when one does only a cursory reflection. By definition our country still existing and being a reasonably functional society indicates that Republicans have not done, everything wrong and therefore must have done, at least one thing right.
I admit though, I am of the opinion that not only has the Republican party gone against their platform in almost every conceivable way, these compromises to that platform are not a different, yet viable way of administration, but represent a complete decent into abject foolishness.
There are plenty of things to admire concerning Republican and conservative thought, but I have not seen any of those things exemplified. I like many of John McCain's virtues, but I'm not convinced Palin is good for this country, nor am I impressed with Mr. McCain's platform and the manner in which he has run his campaign.
If I see a departure from politics as usual, and an earnest focus on policy issues, coupled with a bit of refinement on Palin's end, McCain could yet get my one vote, but he'll have to work to earn it back.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jhai, did it ever enter your mind that if you can't explain concepts to interested undergraduates, it may show a lack in your powers of communication rather than their ignorance.
She's not saying it's not possible, but that it requires substantial foundational understanding which is not present.
Try to explain how to change a tire to someone who doesn't speak English.
Try to explain, in simple terms, how to debug a bad convergence IC for the green gun on a CRT to someone who's only electronics experience is with elementary circuity composed of discrete components.
Complex topics exist. They can't all be explained in a reasonable amount of time to someone who's not already knowledgeable in the applicable domain(s).
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, I'm quite capable of explaining the concepts of macroeconomics to undergraduates - indeed, this is what most macroeconomic courses for undergraduates attempt to do. However, there's a difference between understanding a concept of a thing, and actually knowing a thing. For instance, I understand the concept of evolution, and the principles behind it. I do not understand the details of evolution, and I do not understand the detailed theories of evolution that evolutionary biologists discuss and debate - I don't have the background in biology to do so. Just like how I can understand A Brief History of Time but I can't say that I know or can do graduate-level theoretical physics.
To give you an idea of what macroeconomics is like, try checking out the first few pages of this pdf: A Simple Introduction to Dynamic Programming in Macroeconomic Models. Note that this is a guide to understand a textbook - the text itself (we used it) is considerably denser. In particular, look at page 3 of the pdf to see a general formulation of a the simplest type of problem.
I really have no idea how I could teach an undergraduate how do this problem without them having some basic knowledge of multivariate calculus and linear algebra, and preferably at least some linear programming or other optimization practice. Your typical undergraduate simply does not have this knowledge. Thus, they would be unable to understand the first problem that is presented in the first class of graduate-level macroeconomics (at least how I was taught in my program, which is quite mainstream).
If they can't understand the mathematics which underpin the entire theory and explain how the system changes over time, then how can they truly understand or study the theory?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
What have they done right since Eisenhower explicitly told Republicans to NOT do what they are doing now?
Blayne that question is noticeably flawed, when one does only a cursory reflection. By definition our country still existing and being a reasonably functional society indicates that Republicans have not done, everything wrong and therefore must have done, at least one thing right.
I admit though, I am of the opinion that not only has the Republican party gone against their platform in almost every conceivable way, these compromises to that platform are not a different, yet viable way of administration, but represent a complete decent into abject foolishness.
There are plenty of things to admire concerning Republican and conservative thought, but I have not seen any of those things exemplified. I like many of John McCain's virtues, but I'm not convinced Palin is good for this country, nor am I impressed with Mr. McCain's platform and the manner in which he has run his campaign.
If I see a departure from politics as usual, and an earnest focus on policy issues, coupled with a bit of refinement on Palin's end, McCain could yet get my one vote, but he'll have to work to earn it back.
Obviously its a tad flawed and I agree with you, I like the idea of the platform of a minimalist government, fiscal responsibility, free trade, and a reduction and/or prevention of the expansion of the military-industrial complex and responsible defence.
Now unless I'm wrong these are what the Republicans nominally stand for or at least used to at some point.
IP: Logged |
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
What have they done right since Eisenhower explicitly told Republicans to NOT do what they are doing now?
Blayne that question is noticeably flawed, when one does only a cursory reflection. By definition our country still existing and being a reasonably functional society indicates that Republicans have not done, everything wrong and therefore must have done, at least one thing right.
I admit though, I am of the opinion that not only has the Republican party gone against their platform in almost every conceivable way, these compromises to that platform are not a different, yet viable way of administration, but represent a complete decent into abject foolishness.
There are plenty of things to admire concerning Republican and conservative thought, but I have not seen any of those things exemplified. I like many of John McCain's virtues, but I'm not convinced Palin is good for this country, nor am I impressed with Mr. McCain's platform and the manner in which he has run his campaign.
If I see a departure from politics as usual, and an earnest focus on policy issues, coupled with a bit of refinement on Palin's end, McCain could yet get my one vote, but he'll have to work to earn it back.
Obviously its a tad flawed and I agree with you, I like the idea of the platform of a minimalist government, fiscal responsibility, free trade, and a reduction and/or prevention of the expansion of the military-industrial complex and responsible defence.
Now unless I'm wrong these are what the Republicans nominally stand for or at least used to at some point.
Add to that the safeguarding of certain traditional judeo-christian values, and that's a pretty comprehensive list.
Remember that Eisenhower was the main opponent of the military industrial complex. Down the road, people thought Reagan was betraying that ideal. IMHO letting the military stagnate and trying to dramatically replace and bring everything up to code again is ultimately a more costly strategy than a solid investment in continued military development. But certainly we should guard against machines that cost billions to design and build, and offer very limited benefits.
Government contracts that private firms bid for are also good for the economy and stimulate creative thinking. I think it's perfectly consistent to believe in fiscal responsibility and reduced government spending, while supporting a state of the art military.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, when you talk about economics for undergraduates, do you mean advanced classes for undergraduate economics majors or introductory economics for a general population? Undergraduate engineers generally take multivariate calculus and linear algebra. I don't see why economics majors can't do the same if that's what needed to work in the field.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Jhai, when you talk about economics for undergraduates, do you mean advanced classes for undergraduate economics majors or introductory economics for a general population? Undergraduate engineers generally take multivariate calculus and linear algebra. I don't see why economics majors can't do the same if that's what needed to work in the field.
I'm talking about the typical courses an undergraduate major in economics will take to complete the major. The difference between engineering and economics as majors is that most people who major in engineering plan on becoming engineers, while most people who major in economics do not plan to become professional economists/study economics at a graduate level (it's essentially the same thing). And I think that's just fine - economics is an excellent subject to study to get a good idea of many facets of the world, and prepares you very well to work in many analytical fields or industries.
If you want to go on to be a professional economist (which is somewhat different from being, say, an analyst, which many undergraduate economics majors go on to do), you need math. Lots and lots and lots of math. In fact, you can be accepted to a top-tier Ph.D program in economics having never studied economics at all - in my first-year class we had two Ph.D physics dropouts, and one student with a masters in math, none of whom had more than one course in economics.
So if you're planning on doing graduate studies in economics, you take a lot of math. If you aren't, and are in the economics major for other (probably excellent) reasons, then there's absolutely no need to take that much math, and setting it as a prerequisite would keep a lot of talented students out.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But I also think it is appropriate to address the fact that another of her policy positions, namely supporting abstinence only education, seems to be partially refuted by her personal life, and yet she has made no justification for it."
I don't. Mainly because it would be a huge mistake and backfire, as it has already.
Is it an appropriate question? Yes. Would it help Obama or Biden to ask it? Not in the slightest.
Remember when Kerry brought up Cheney's gay daughter during a debate? An absolutely appropriate question that simply should not have been asked, because where Kerry supporters saw it as Kerry pointing out hypocrisy, Bush supporters saw it as a personal attack. And it was.
I think Kerry would have been far more effective with something like: "I believe that people are what God made them. I think all of us here know that gay people can be just as intelligent, just as caring, just as worthy of love. Would they say it was a choice? Could you look your gay friends and relatives in the eye and tell them they can't marry the people they love?"
Something similar could work here, although it would still be spun as an attack. But do not question Bristol's pregnancy or Palin's parenting skills directly in any way, shape, or form, or not only will you drive away Palin supporters but you will also risk alienating undecideds who have been in that position - pro-life with a pregnant daughter - and damage your own chances.
And honestly, what would you think Palin would say anyway? "Oh, you're right! I have been hoist by my own failed policy! Thank you, questioner!" All you'd do is make yourself look petty and predatory.
Instead, ask about the overwhelming number of reports, including one from the previous Surgeon General, that indicate comprehensive sex ed curriculums are more effective than abstinence-only ones. That can be backed up with data and the McCain/Palin campaign seems to have problems with data. As soon as you make the question personal you've lost.
[ September 15, 2008, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Biden was on fire this morning. I went to his rally in St Clair Shores to see him speak, and he gave a good speech. It started off so slow I could barely understand him, but when he got going he really nailed McCain left and right. He's very engaging.
I got to briefly meet with him afterwards at a little post rally reception. A friend of mine was one of the event organizers so he got me a VIP ticket so I could stand up front like five feet away from him. If anyone was watching CNN to see his speech, my head was probably being blocked by the CNN ticker. Anyway, I got to shake his hand and say hello afterwards, which was cool.
It was nice to see CNN actually make a point out of the fact that Palin even today was saying that Obama wanted to raise everyone's taxes when in reality he wants to lower them for 95% of the people, and on her bridge to nowhere line. It's about time the media starts to actually CORRECT campaign lies instead of just reporting them in the same vein as any campaign claim.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll take defunct theories for Four Hundred, Alex.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Hey Chris you ever watched that episode of Penn & Teller where they talked about abstinence vs comprehensive education? They interviewed Doctor General (or whatever the position is called) and there was alot of information.
IP: Logged |
quote:Remember when Kerry brought up Cheney's gay daughter during a debate? An absolutely appropriate question that simply should not have been asked, because where Kerry supporters saw it as Kerry pointing out hypocrisy, Bush supporters saw it as a personal attack. And it was.
It was actually John Edwards, during his debate with Cheney, if I recall correctly.
It was kind of a dick move.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remember when Kerry brought up Cheney's gay daughter during a debate? An absolutely appropriate question that simply should not have been asked, because where Kerry supporters saw it as Kerry pointing out hypocrisy, Bush supporters saw it as a personal attack. And it was.
It was actually John Edwards, during his debate with Cheney, if I recall correctly.
It was kind of a dick move.
I'm certain Kerry did it once -- was there another instance?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What Bristol Palin does with her pregnancy should be none of our business.
However, the fact of her situation itself is important in its relationship with Palin's policies. I agree, this case in its minute particulars is private, as is Bristol herself. But I would not expect the situation in general to be ignored, considering how very apropos it is to Palin's positions on abstinence only education and birth control.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remember when Kerry brought up Cheney's gay daughter during a debate? An absolutely appropriate question that simply should not have been asked, because where Kerry supporters saw it as Kerry pointing out hypocrisy, Bush supporters saw it as a personal attack. And it was.
It was actually John Edwards, during his debate with Cheney, if I recall correctly.
It was kind of a dick move.
I'm certain Kerry did it once -- was there another instance?
--j_k
If I remember correctly, it was the VP debate.
Here's a transcript. A little over half-way down the page.
quote: Edwards:
[...]
Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.
[...]
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
posted
I was actually thinking we might be able to learn from that debate. Specifically that if Biden were to give a statement like that in the VP debate and make it clear there is no question of the support or love that the Palin family gives Bristol, it paves the way for him to say that he does wish to talk about the issue at large without focusing or politicizing the Palin family's personal lives.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(1) Sean Hannity is far more objective and reliable than most journalists, because he openly states he is conservative--and cohosts his show with Alan Colmes, who is a liberal--and he makes an effort to be fair and balanced. He made his remarks in the presence of two Obama apologists, who were allowed to respond. Hannity is certainly more reliable that someone like Chris Matthews, which even NBC has been forced to remove as political commentator because of his blatant bias, such as when he said on-air that when Obama comes into the room, he feels a "tingling feeling down" his "leg."
(2) It is indeed a key question what "age appropriate" means. I read the whole 14-page bill linked to by Sterling, and I see no guidelines that spell this out. It seems to leave it up to the individual teacher what is age-appropriate. THIS SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE PARENTS, ESPECIALLY FOR KINDERGARTNERS. The schools and the teachers and society do not own the children. Whatever responsibility schools and society may have, the responsibility of parents is greater, especially for five-year old kindergarten students, whom society does not give much freedom of choice.
(3) I excerpt this from the bill that Sterling linked to:
"Section 27-9.1 "(a) "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS."
Notice where it says (in line 14) "grades K 6 through 12 shall"
The character does not reproduce here, but the "6" was cross out, and "K" apparently was added in. Obviously it was originally intended that this sex education would apply to students from grades 6-12, but someone decided to include all ages back to Kindergarten.
(4) Many lines of this document were crossed out. What was the final form of the bill? I am not sure this is it.
(5) I did not find any mention of "masturbation." But positive instruction was given that: "Factual information includes without limitation medical, psychiatric, psychological, empirical, and statistical statements.... "Factual information presented in course material and instruction shall be medically accurate and objective. All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate. Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV."
Again, no where is it spelled out what constitutes "age and developmentally appropriate." How can all the above things be taught so they are age and developmentally appropriate to a five-year-old?
(6) I would also like to point out that all the following lines WERE CROSSED OUT:
"Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
"Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage.
"Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of unwanted adolescent pregnancy."
WHY WERE THESE LINES CROSSED OUT? They were not replaced with something worded better; they were completely deleted. Would parents want these lines deleted? Someone with extreme liberal bias is trying to overrule what 90% of parents (and the original framers of this bill) would prefer be taught.
(7) To reiterate what I pointed out earlier: Just allowing parents to opt out for their children is not adequate. First, parents may not be fully apprised what will be taught. Second, even children who opt out will hear about what was said by their classmates who did not opt out, which may not be accurately related. Third, it is expensive to send children to private schools, and may be difficult and impractical for many parents to attempt to homeshool their children.
(8) Remember, in all this, we are talking about kindergartners, because they are included in this bill, and many children start kindergarten at the age of five.
[ September 16, 2008, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I have to ask: do you not understand what people are telling you, or are you making an effort to convince yourself that it's not relevant?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (1) Sean Hannity is far more objective and reliable than most journalists, because he openly states he is conservative--and cohosts his show with Alan Colmes, who is a liberal--and he makes an effort to be fair and balanced.
posted
Tom, I find your question false in its implications and gratuitously insulting. But this is what I have come to expect from you.
Threads, it is more reliable and objective to frankly acknowlege his bias and allow opposite views to be expressed. The liberal news media never does this. People can tell the difference. This is why Fox News has higher ratings than all other cable news channels put together--including CNN and MSNBC.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN says the McCain-Palin campaign issued a statement saying she's not going to cooperate in the investigation over Monegan's firing. I'm impressed with their audacity to claim that she shouldn't fully cooperate with the investigation, as she had stated previously.
quote:The campaign says Monegan made multiple trips to Washington, D.C., to try to get earmarks from Congress even through the governor (Sarah Palin) didn't want them.
Seems like choosing a convenient scapegoat to some of those earmarks Alaska has received in the last two years.
I tried to find her original statement on why Monegan was fired, because this is the first I've heard earmarks being a part of it. Her public reasoning behind the firing is was a little vague in July and August. Here on July 22nd is the most informative article I could find. In it,
quote:Harris also questioned Palin's explanation that she fired Monegan because she wants the public safety department to go in a "new direction." Palin has talked about being honest, open and transparent, Harris said, and her plans for the future of the department don't sound different from what Monegan was doing. . . Palin told reporters on Monday there is a need for action in the department of public safety and "a different, more energetic approach."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, I find your question false in its implications and gratuitously insulting. But this is what I have come to expect from you.
Threads, it is more reliable and objective to frankly acknowlege his bias and allow opposite views to be expressed. The liberal news media never does this. People can tell the difference. This is why Fox News has higher ratings than all other cable news channels put together--including CNN and MSNBC.
I believe that what Threads was pointing out was that objective would mean that you report things without bias. The word you're looking for is that Hannity discloses that he is conservative. The large majority of the press does not admit its liberal bias as easily.
That said, I do agree with Tom that you seem to be missing the point that people are going for. I don't wish to spend too much more time on this issue, but I suppose a quick counter-point to your arguments has been earned being as you put forth the effort to make your case.
(1) I recognize there is bias in the media, I also admit my liberal bias. But just because you admit bias on opinion doesn't excuse fact. Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and even liberal commentators such as Olbermann will often distort the facts or even lie to make their point. We are simply saying that you shouldn't cite someone with such a profound bias as proof of your claim.
(2) I grant it is not specific as to what Age-Approrpiate entails. But as was pointed out previously in this thread, that's what school-districts, teachers, the PTA, and other local institutions are for. This is a State-level law and it will be up to the others to decide. And afterwards, the parents would theoretically be given all information that would be taught to help them decide whether to have their child learn through the school. I of course say theoretically because while I can't guarantee that they won't get all the information, you can't guarantee that they wouldn't.
(3) Yes, they did, and I think it's a good idea to teach the dangers of HIV/AIDs even at a young age. The disease doesn't discriminate if you're only five years old.
(4) Can't guarantee this is the final form, I admit. But I'm pretty sure that it is. The lines crossed out were removed through debate or committee, but it's best to show what was being proposed from the beginning.
(5) Don't know. My guess would be that some of the information would be deemed either not age-appropriate for a kindergartner, but I would re-iterate that I think HIV/AIDs education is best given while young. They don't have to teach it all at Kindergarten.
(6) My only guess would be that the parts crossed out were deemed discriminatory to homosexuals. Marriage is not an option for homosexual couples in Illinois (to my knowledge). As for the pregnancy question, I can't be sure, but again I would argue some form of discrimination.
(7) I re-iterate what I said earlier about how kids will spread any information they get anyways, even if it's from their parents. I also still don't see the correlation of private schools and homeschooling. And it's a pretty strong hypothetical that parents won't get all the information. But at the same time, I admit I can't guarantee they will. I just think it's in bad taste to automatically assume they wouldn't.
(8) I do remember.
EDIT TO ADD: I offer you a compromise, Ron. I think that ultimately we're going to just have to agree to disagree on whether or not the bill was a good thing. I grant that there are no guarantees on what 'age-appropriate' meant. But I think we've ultimately veered off of the point of this debate in regards to the election. So here's what I offer.
I grant that there are some ambiguities to the bill that give you grounds to object to the law, in return, you grant that the advertisement McCain made does paint Obama unfairly in a negative light because 1. He lied about this being Obama's only accomplishment, and 2. Because Obama does not support teaching explicit sex to children.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's positions seem to indicate that she does not agree. Or, at least, she wants it to be the government's business. "
So attack that policy position, it's perfectly fair game. But don't mention Bristol.
I do.
But I also think it is appropriate to address the fact that another of her policy positions, namely supporting abstinence only education, seems to be partially refuted by her personal life, and yet she has made no justification for it.
That statement shows a complete lack of intellectual discipline.
Furthermore, who cares bout bristol and her baby, don't people ave their own kids and presidential election to worry about. I swear, the news media is about that (/ /) far from being the weekly world news.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would also point out, if you look at the original code the bill is amending: (link) that no part of the code mandates that classes in comprehensive sex education be taught, to kindergardeners or otherwise; the amendment largely says that, whencomprehensive sexual education classes are taught (at any grade level) that they include medically accurate information, information on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, and so forth.
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: CNN says the McCain-Palin campaign issued a statement saying she's not going to cooperate in the investigation over Monegan's firing.
Huh. I guess she does understand the Bush Doctrine. Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: In 2006, state investigators found Wooten guilty of "a significant pattern of judgment failures," including using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson and drinking beer while operating a state trooper vehicle. Wooten was suspended for 10 days as "a last chance to take corrective action."
Speaking Thursday to CNN's Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston, Wooten gave his account of the Taser incident but denied ever drinking while driving.
He said that he was a new Taser instructor, and his stepson was asking him about the equipment. "I didn't shoot him with live, you know, actual live cartridge," Wooten said.
Instead, he said, he hooked his stepson up to a training aid "with little clips. And, you know, the Taser was activated for less than a second, which would be less than what you would get if you touched an electric fence. ... It was as safe as I could possibly make it."
He said his stepson was on the living room floor surrounded by pillows, that he "was bragging about it," and that the family laughed about it.
Asked whether it was a dumb decision, Wooten told CNN, "absolutely."
quote:Threads, it is more reliable and objective to frankly acknowlege his bias and allow opposite views to be expressed. The liberal news media never does this. People can tell the difference. This is why Fox News has higher ratings than all other cable news channels put together--including CNN and MSNBC.
FUN FACT: If you put together the ratings of CNN and MSNBC alone, they total higher ratings than Fox.
ANOTHER FUN FACT: Ron is approaching an eerily consistent total inability to post in a thread about politics without at least one blatant falsehood.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I'm just wondering, do they have school boards where you are from? I have to imagine the answer to that is yes as you've said you're from Michigan, where I grew up, and I know we have school boards. I've been to school board meetings before both as a student and after being graduating, so I have a good idea as to what can go on in meetings. School boards and PTAs are there for parents and communities to get involved in local education. So when you see a lack of clearly defined ages and definitions of of a specific curriculum for each grade, it's because the state legislature is leaving those types of decisions not up to individual teachers, but to local school boards to set a curriculum for their district that teachers and schools will follow.
As for the stuff crossed out in the bill, it doesn't really bother me. The role of schools in sex education should be to present facts rather than ideology. "If you do this, then this is likely to happen, and these are the likely consequences of such actions, but you can prevent those consequences through the following actions," and such. Arguments about whether or not sex is morally right, and when to have it, and who should be having it with whom should be made outside of schools. That's where parents are supposed to step in to fill in whatever gaps they personally see in the education system. For all the complaints I hear about what teachers are or are not teaching kids, the only solution I seem to see (and this isn't just for one side) is that parents should fight for a better curriculum rather than just compromising and then filling in the blanks where they personally see fit.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
So I'm wondering if they totally missed the point of the skit, or if they caught it and are deciding to fly in the face of it.
For anyone who missed it, the skit had Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin and Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton. The skit made light of Palin's claims of sexism in contrast to Clinton's. I think it was less about portraying Palin as having no substance than it was making fun of the fact that A. Republicans didn't much care about sexism when Clinton was running and now it's apparently a huge deal. B. Calling Palin "hot" or any other such physical compliment isn't sexist, but using the type of descriptors that Clinton is often referred to as, is. The skit wasn't considerably more fair to Clinton, who was portrayed as opportunistic and selfish.
Edit to add some polling stuff:
McCain's floodwaters of support have receded in some ways in the last few days. While he's still doing very well in the enthusiasm and money sector, the polls show a little slide, making the national race a dead heat. Palin's favorable ratings have taken a sharp nosedive as well, as the public really gets to know her better. Research 2000 has her favorable/unfavorable at 46/45, for a +1. That's down from a +17 six days ago. Another poll has her at +12 down from +24 in the same time period. Since McCain and Palin have split up, McCain is seeing smaller and smaller crowds at his rallies, while Palin's are staying pretty good.
My own personal analysis would be pretty much a confirmation of what I've said before. Palin is energizing a lethargic party base who had no reason to come out and support McCain before, but who absolutely love his superconservative choice for VP. Their donations are up, volunteers are up, and crowds for Palin (and not McCain) are still large by the GOP standards for the year. I think as the polls come back down the the ground and we assess the reality of the landscape after the Conventions, Palin is going to be more of a problem than a gain. McCain picked her out of a last gasp sort of play. People generally say, I think correctly, that moderates decide elections. The hardcore right and hardcore left are generally always going to vote for the right and left candidates, which means you play to the middle if you want to win. Obama didn't have nearly the problem with his base that McCain had going into the conventions. His coffers were brimming with donations from millions of rabid supporters who've created a national network of campaign connections from scratch in less than a year. Yes there are disaffected Clinton supporters, but I think the majority of them who were already self described left wing Democrats are going to bite the bullet and support Obama in the end. Interestingly, if you look at the polling data for Hillary's supporters during the primaries, I don't remember the exact percentages, but only like 75% of her supporters who voted for her in the primaries said they would actually vote for her in the General. I think there's a huge disconnect in assuming everyone who voted for her should automatically vote for Obama, just like I wouldn't expect all Obama supporters to vote for her, or all Romney supporters to vote for McCain and so on. Different candidates create different coalitions of supporters.
Anyway, McCain would have lost if for no other reason than Obama's base came out in droves plus he won part of the middle, whereas McCain winning part of the middle wouldn't matter if his base wasn't there. So instead of picking a VP to play to the center, which he, unlike Obama I think, was in a position to do, he chose someone to shore up his base and made the fight for independents and moderates a dead heat fight. I think his ads would be far more socially issue oriented on issues like abortion if he had picked a more moderate centrist VP. He figures he doesn't have to cover that ground with Palin, so that's why he's attacking Obama on made up positions on issues like taxes and energy.
At the state level things are still up in the air. Obama has a narrow lead in Virginia, and McCain in Ohio. I think Florida is going to stay with McCain and Michigan with Obama, and the west might move one way or the other, though it looks like Obama has a good chance at New Mexico and Colorado, but I think it'll come down to Obama either stealing Virginia or Ohio from McCain. Both races are narrow fights that could probably go either way.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
