Given that the two groups are largely the same, your argument fails, and is also an example of some epic level projection.
And yes, opposition to social programs that predominately benefit minorities, because low income/poor people are predominately minorities, is in fact the most frequent example of modern racism.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “***, ***, ***.” By 1968 you can’t say “***”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “***, ***.” -- Lee Atwater, 1981
To be absolutely clear, I want benefits for all persons living here. But when earning enough to be part of the top 1% of African Americans still means being only in the top 40% of White Americans, there is a systemic problem. And its not our side that is using racism to single out a group or protect a group.
-Public infrastructure benefits everyone. -Europe doesn't seem to have any problems with competition, innovation, or profitability, even though it has gotten there through regulation, infrastructure investment, and the creation public options including for internet service. -the US government already invested over 300billion (with a B, though its probably more now cause inflation) in public internet infrastructure advancement by granting tax breaks to the telcos for that purpose...money they instead pocketed and have yet to use for that purpose. -If you were around when roads were being built there'd be no public roads.
so yeah. you an F right off with your free market fantasies. internet service isn't a free market and hasn't been for some time. and when the market fails and monopolies develop, its up to government to step in and correct it because government serves the people, not the corporations (how it should be anyway). and im sure in the end the ATT and Comcast will find some forced competition, even if it comes from a public option, to be much more preferable than the other option, which is dismantling them.
Though maybe not...we already did that to ATT, and they came back stronger than ever.
no, there is a duty to do their job. not everything is spelled out, because some things are so basic they shouldn't need to be.
a government where people shirk that basic responsibly of performing their basic duties, results in a government that does nothing. a government that perpetually shirks its job quickly runs a nation into the ground, in direct violation of their oaths of service.
and the purpose of the constitution is quite clearly the preservation of the nation, not its decline through complete inaction.
and no, the "American people" did not intentionally install a divided government. you forget that the American people don't all vote for every congressman; they are apportioned out. the only position they all vote for is the Presidency.
elected judges are one of the biggest threats to freedom we face.
It results in fools like the idiot Chief Justice of Alabama, who somehow forgot al his law schooling and how the hierarchy of the court system works.
Or it results in the handful of trial judges spread across Texas, Florida, and a few other southern states who a responsible for over half of all death penalty sentences, and brag about (in their campaign ads) how many times they've sentenced someone to death, even over the jury's objections because its legal in some jurisdictions for the judge to do so.
We did. In 2008 and 2012 we elected twice. You may have forgotten, but the President is elected for 4 years, not 3. And he is expected to fulfill his duties for the entire duration, not just until his opponents declare him a lame duck.
there were also more acres of woodland, period. and you may have forgotten this...but the 1920-30s were also another period of unusually warm, dry, drought years, which exacerbates and increases wildfires.
so merely having more acres burned doesn't prove anything. you need to relate it to the number of acres available to burn.
but even that is insufficient, because these are also local phenomena. a woodland in Washington state is less likely to burn than one in southern California.
basically you've, once again, proved a statement that while possibly true on the surface, doesn't necessarily mean what you want to mean, and quite possibly is a total misdirection when the total picture is considered.
at various points people also said you had the power and were free to stop using: cars, refrigerators, gasoline, microwaves, and other such items through history that we consider pretty much mandatory for modern life.
cell phones are pretty much in that category now too, and soon smartphones as well. even if there are still a few holdouts such as myself who lack a pressing need for either. (I have one, but pretty much only so wife can get ahold of me; it's a 10$ prepaid dumbphone that I swapped my sim into rather than pay $190 or sign a 2year contract for a replacement).
though that didn't stop them (ALEC) from taking over most of the legislatures anyway with their cronies (many of whom are ON the ALEC board). and stupid Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the party leadership let them do it.
and technology is helping drive it too; before it was difficult for even for people like the Koch's to go beyond influencing a few state elections. but now they can not only target every state, but individual cities and townships within states. They've been, through their groups like AFP, even targeting mayoral races in towns of 500 people.
And all of it goes ignored by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, because she's too busy keeping her main contributors (payday lenders) happy by protecting them from any sort of consumer protection laws, allowing them to continue preying on her constituents (low income and minority Floridians).
Remember kids: friends don't let friends do libertarianism. Not even once. Or this rambling work of incoherence devoid of rational thought and historical accuracy could be you.
if there was an axe to grind, if their was malice in the adjustments, don't you think we'd adjust the numbers higher to show more warming? you know, instead of what they actually did, which was the opposite, reducing the amount of warming shown?
oh wait, this is conspiracy nut territory.
in that case, I guess we toned it down because we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we had crazy global scientific conspiracy.
Here we see the typical AC in his natural habitat, bleating about how hard statistical and probabilistic trends based are to comprehend. he thus vents his frustration as he rejects the entire subject and moves on to more fertile topics where he can socialize with more of his kind.
another AC that doesn't know the difference between a Learning Objective (or goal, or standard) and the word "curriculum".
the point 2nd and 3rd math problem btw, is to learn how to break a problem into its parts, and illustrate the same process you use in your head (or most people do, being a stupid AC, that may be too much credit) when you simplify or chunk up a more difficult problem to solve it.
borrowing and carrying 1's works great on paper, and a quick simple process for solving math. on paper. for many students its learning by rote, without understanding. its a magic black box little different from a calculator. how does it work? they don't know. they just 'know' (they trust or believe really) that it works.
but its not so good in your head, and not so good at developing an intrinsic almost instinctual understanding of math. which is what the goal of that particular lesson is. and which that process is good for.
this lesson isn't merely about teaching you had to add and subtract, but about building an intuitive foundation of numbers that other lessons down the road can build upon. merely learning the rote algorithm of carrying and borrowing 1's doesn't accomplish that. if you go farther in the study of math you need that foundation, and if you don't have it cause you never moved past that rote algorithm, you wont go far. check out http://www.patheos.com/blogs/f... it explains even better than I.
On the surface, it seems ridiculous. The top makes sense; the bottom is silly; screw you, Common Core!
Except that the top doesn’t make sense, the bottom does, and the connection to Common Core is completely misunderstood. (Says this math teacher.)
Here’s what’s going on: The top is how most of us learned subtraction. I’m sure your teachers taught you what was going on mathematically, but do you really remember what they said? Probably not. For us, it’s just an algorithm. You can do it without thinking. You hope there’s no “borrowing” of numbers involved, but if you had to do it by hand, you could probably pull it off.
The problem with that method is that if I ask students to explain why it works, they’d have a really hard time explaining it to me. They might be able to do the computation, but they don’t get the math behind it. For some people, that’s fine. For math teachers, that’s a problem because it means a lot of students won’t be able to grasp other math concepts in the future because they never really developed “number sense.”
That’s where the bottom solution comes into play. I admit it’s totally confusing but here’s what it’s saying:
If you want to subtract 12 from 32, there’s a better way to think about it. Forget the algorithm. Instead, count up from 12 to an “easier” number like 15. (You’ve gone up 3.) Then, go up to 20. (You’ve gone up another 5.) Then jump to 30. (Another 10). Then, finally, to 32. (Another 2.)
I know. That’s still ridiculous. Well, consider this: Suppose you buy coffee and it costs $4.30 but all you have is a $20 bill. How much change should the barista give you back? (Assume for a second the register is broken.)
You sure as hell aren’t going to get out a sheet of paper and do this:
Instead, you’d just figure it out this way: It’d take 70 cents to get to $5 and another $15 to get to $20 so you should get back $15.70.
That’s it. That’s the sort of math most of us do on a regular basis and it’s exactly the sort of thinking the “new” way in the picture is attempting to explain. Granted that was an *awful* example to use, but that’s the idea. If students can get a handle on thinking this way instead of just plugging
I fully support public programs and public monies for families in this situation. I'm not in this situation but I know people who are, and I see how hard it can be. so i say raise my taxes, i dont care. im fine with it if it means helping out families like yours. it's a very small burden to bear (particularly when spread out so that everyone is helping) for the tremendous good it does.
Come on. Lets not forget the other time we spend that also belong to our bosses, and we dont get paid for. ie, the time spent getting ready and in traffic, and the unpaid lunchtime (which is usually still spent working). An "8 hour workday" typically consumes between 10 to 12 hours of a day; ie, half of it. Minus 8 for sleep, that leaves 4-6 hours to yourself and family.
For me it's nearly 3 hours a day. Sure, I "only" work 8 hours a day.
But I wake up at 5am, leave the house at 6am, and am not really back on "my" time until I pick up my kids from daycare at 4pm on the way home. (I leave before they wake up; wife drops them off on her way to work. And they go bed at 630 and 8, so I only see them for a couple hours a day.)
no. no test requirements no actual curriculum either.
CC is merely a set of standard goals that students should be able to achieve. actually getting to achieve that is something entirely different, and up to the individual states/schools and the publishers they should to purchase.
if only there was some way to track sales of certain items of property the government is interested in for tax or other legal purposes. we could call it a....receipt...or....deed....or....title.
i can too: cities and states that lack gun control, or are barred from enacting local gun control by state law. cities like New Orleans, St Louis, Detroit, Birmingham.
meanwhile cities with gun control dont appear on those lists. cities like chicago (not the murder capital), new york (safest in the country).
Slashdot Mirror
I really despair at the deficiency of our education system.
yes, and you're one of the prime examples why.
Given that the two groups are largely the same, your argument fails, and is also an example of some epic level projection.
And yes, opposition to social programs that predominately benefit minorities, because low income/poor people are predominately minorities, is in fact the most frequent example of modern racism.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “***, ***, ***.” By 1968 you can’t say “***”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “***, ***.” -- Lee Atwater, 1981
http://www.thenation.com/artic...
To be absolutely clear, I want benefits for all persons living here.
But when earning enough to be part of the top 1% of African Americans still means being only in the top 40% of White Americans, there is a systemic problem. And its not our side that is using racism to single out a group or protect a group.
Oh?
You don't get to vote where you live?
Gee.
Then it sounds like you either dont live in the US, or you failed to oppose voter disenfranchisement.
Oh. Hi there shill.
Forgot you were still around.
-Public infrastructure benefits everyone.
-Europe doesn't seem to have any problems with competition, innovation, or profitability, even though it has gotten there through regulation, infrastructure investment, and the creation public options including for internet service.
-the US government already invested over 300billion (with a B , though its probably more now cause inflation) in public internet infrastructure advancement by granting tax breaks to the telcos for that purpose...money they instead pocketed and have yet to use for that purpose.
-If you were around when roads were being built there'd be no public roads.
so yeah.
you an F right off with your free market fantasies.
internet service isn't a free market and hasn't been for some time. and when the market fails and monopolies develop, its up to government to step in and correct it because government serves the people, not the corporations (how it should be anyway). and im sure in the end the ATT and Comcast will find some forced competition, even if it comes from a public option, to be much more preferable than the other option, which is dismantling them.
Though maybe not...we already did that to ATT, and they came back stronger than ever.
the most amusing thing is the RWNJs from Cato, and Heartland, and others, are already trying to paint him as a super liberal.
no one is asking for a rubber stamp.
by all means, withhold consent.
but you still need to vote to do that.
gridlock was never the intention.
less than 30% of the population in districted races that already favored the GOP hardly represents a national mandate.
no, there is a duty to do their job.
not everything is spelled out, because some things are so basic they shouldn't need to be.
a government where people shirk that basic responsibly of performing their basic duties, results in a government that does nothing. a government that perpetually shirks its job quickly runs a nation into the ground, in direct violation of their oaths of service.
and the purpose of the constitution is quite clearly the preservation of the nation, not its decline through complete inaction.
and no, the "American people" did not intentionally install a divided government.
you forget that the American people don't all vote for every congressman; they are apportioned out.
the only position they all vote for is the Presidency.
elected judges are one of the biggest threats to freedom we face.
It results in fools like the idiot Chief Justice of Alabama, who somehow forgot al his law schooling and how the hierarchy of the court system works.
Or it results in the handful of trial judges spread across Texas, Florida, and a few other southern states who a responsible for over half of all death penalty sentences, and brag about (in their campaign ads) how many times they've sentenced someone to death, even over the jury's objections because its legal in some jurisdictions for the judge to do so.
We did.
In 2008 and 2012 we elected twice.
You may have forgotten, but the President is elected for 4 years, not 3.
And he is expected to fulfill his duties for the entire duration, not just until his opponents declare him a lame duck.
there were also more acres of woodland, period.
and you may have forgotten this...but the 1920-30s were also another period of unusually warm, dry, drought years, which exacerbates and increases wildfires.
so merely having more acres burned doesn't prove anything.
you need to relate it to the number of acres available to burn.
but even that is insufficient, because these are also local phenomena.
a woodland in Washington state is less likely to burn than one in southern California.
basically you've, once again, proved a statement that while possibly true on the surface, doesn't necessarily mean what you want to mean, and quite possibly is a total misdirection when the total picture is considered.
there reaches a point where that's not an option.
at various points people also said you had the power and were free to stop using:
cars, refrigerators, gasoline, microwaves, and other such items through history that we consider pretty much mandatory for modern life.
cell phones are pretty much in that category now too, and soon smartphones as well.
even if there are still a few holdouts such as myself who lack a pressing need for either.
(I have one, but pretty much only so wife can get ahold of me; it's a 10$ prepaid dumbphone that I swapped my sim into rather than pay $190 or sign a 2year contract for a replacement).
though that didn't stop them (ALEC) from taking over most of the legislatures anyway with their cronies (many of whom are ON the ALEC board).
and stupid Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the party leadership let them do it.
and technology is helping drive it too; before it was difficult for even for people like the Koch's to go beyond influencing a few state elections.
but now they can not only target every state, but individual cities and townships within states. They've been, through their groups like AFP, even targeting mayoral races in towns of 500 people.
And all of it goes ignored by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, because she's too busy keeping her main contributors (payday lenders) happy by protecting them from any sort of consumer protection laws, allowing them to continue preying on her constituents (low income and minority Floridians).
Remember kids: friends don't let friends do libertarianism.
Not even once.
Or this rambling work of incoherence devoid of rational thought and historical accuracy could be you.
if there was an axe to grind, if their was malice in the adjustments, don't you think we'd adjust the numbers higher to show more warming?
you know, instead of what they actually did, which was the opposite, reducing the amount of warming shown?
oh wait, this is conspiracy nut territory.
in that case, I guess we toned it down because we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we knew that you would know that we had crazy global scientific conspiracy.
well then I've got news for you, cause today's your lucky day!
Here we see the typical AC in his natural habitat, bleating about how hard statistical and probabilistic trends based are to comprehend.
he thus vents his frustration as he rejects the entire subject and moves on to more fertile topics where he can socialize with more of his kind.
youre ability to misinterpret and misapply scientific papers and then claim they prove your right is even more so.
another AC that doesn't know the difference between a Learning Objective (or goal, or standard) and the word "curriculum".
the point 2nd and 3rd math problem btw, is to learn how to break a problem into its parts, and illustrate the same process you use in your head (or most people do, being a stupid AC, that may be too much credit) when you simplify or chunk up a more difficult problem to solve it.
borrowing and carrying 1's works great on paper, and a quick simple process for solving math. on paper.
for many students its learning by rote, without understanding. its a magic black box little different from a calculator.
how does it work? they don't know. they just 'know' (they trust or believe really) that it works.
but its not so good in your head, and not so good at developing an intrinsic almost instinctual understanding of math.
which is what the goal of that particular lesson is. and which that process is good for.
this lesson isn't merely about teaching you had to add and subtract, but about building an intuitive foundation of numbers that other lessons down the road can build upon. merely learning the rote algorithm of carrying and borrowing 1's doesn't accomplish that. if you go farther in the study of math you need that foundation, and if you don't have it cause you never moved past that rote algorithm, you wont go far.
check out http://www.patheos.com/blogs/f...
it explains even better than I.
On the surface, it seems ridiculous. The top makes sense; the bottom is silly; screw you, Common Core!
Except that the top doesn’t make sense, the bottom does, and the connection to Common Core is completely misunderstood. (Says this math teacher.)
Here’s what’s going on: The top is how most of us learned subtraction. I’m sure your teachers taught you what was going on mathematically, but do you really remember what they said? Probably not. For us, it’s just an algorithm. You can do it without thinking. You hope there’s no “borrowing” of numbers involved, but if you had to do it by hand, you could probably pull it off.
The problem with that method is that if I ask students to explain why it works, they’d have a really hard time explaining it to me. They might be able to do the computation, but they don’t get the math behind it. For some people, that’s fine. For math teachers, that’s a problem because it means a lot of students won’t be able to grasp other math concepts in the future because they never really developed “number sense.”
That’s where the bottom solution comes into play. I admit it’s totally confusing but here’s what it’s saying:
If you want to subtract 12 from 32, there’s a better way to think about it. Forget the algorithm. Instead, count up from 12 to an “easier” number like 15. (You’ve gone up 3.) Then, go up to 20. (You’ve gone up another 5.) Then jump to 30. (Another 10). Then, finally, to 32. (Another 2.)
I know. That’s still ridiculous. Well, consider this: Suppose you buy coffee and it costs $4.30 but all you have is a $20 bill. How much change should the barista give you back? (Assume for a second the register is broken.)
You sure as hell aren’t going to get out a sheet of paper and do this:
Instead, you’d just figure it out this way: It’d take 70 cents to get to $5 and another $15 to get to $20 so you should get back $15.70.
That’s it. That’s the sort of math most of us do on a regular basis and it’s exactly the sort of thinking the “new” way in the picture is attempting to explain. Granted that was an *awful* example to use, but that’s the idea. If students can get a handle on thinking this way instead of just plugging
*cry*
(seriously, i got f'ing tears here)
I fully support public programs and public monies for families in this situation.
I'm not in this situation but I know people who are, and I see how hard it can be.
so i say raise my taxes, i dont care. im fine with it if it means helping out families like yours.
it's a very small burden to bear (particularly when spread out so that everyone is helping) for the tremendous good it does.
Once again: fallacy does not mean 'wrong'.
Come on. Lets not forget the other time we spend that also belong to our bosses, and we dont get paid for. ie, the time spent getting ready and in traffic, and the unpaid lunchtime (which is usually still spent working). An "8 hour workday" typically consumes between 10 to 12 hours of a day; ie, half of it. Minus 8 for sleep, that leaves 4-6 hours to yourself and family.
For me it's nearly 3 hours a day.
Sure, I "only" work 8 hours a day.
But I wake up at 5am, leave the house at 6am, and am not really back on "my" time until I pick up my kids from daycare at 4pm on the way home. (I leave before they wake up; wife drops them off on her way to work. And they go bed at 630 and 8, so I only see them for a couple hours a day.)
no.
no test requirements
no actual curriculum either.
CC is merely a set of standard goals that students should be able to achieve.
actually getting to achieve that is something entirely different, and up to the individual states/schools and the publishers they should to purchase.
if only there was some way to track sales of certain items of property the government is interested in for tax or other legal purposes. ....receipt...or....deed....or....title.
we could call it a
i can too:
cities and states that lack gun control, or are barred from enacting local gun control by state law.
cities like New Orleans, St Louis, Detroit, Birmingham.
meanwhile cities with gun control dont appear on those lists. cities like chicago (not the murder capital), new york (safest in the country).