Election '06: Prognostication.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Why just the Dems? How have the Republicans answered that reality?

They haven't. They've told people "You're on your own. This is a global market reality. Find a way to survive." A lot of Americans don't want to hear that. So the Democrats offer these people futile salves like min wage increases, or vague allusions to protectionist measures.

It's a trick question. There is no solution. We're going through a massive long term socioeconomic correction. At least the GOP has the pragmatic sense to let the economic forces do their thing and not try to prevent the inveitable. All the Dems offer is short term fixes.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Yes, and what exactly happened to that bill? My quick Google search reveals that it failed by a vote of 402 to 2, with even Rangel voting against.

Do you really expect that Rangel will seriously try -- not just talk about, but try -- to cut off funding for troops in battle? Or that, if he does try, it'll get anywhere?

So he voted for it, until he voted against it.

I guess John Kerry doesn't have a monopoly on that front

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So he voted for it, until he voted against it.

I guess John Kerry doesn't have a monopoly on that front

When I consider a "dry drunk" like W and grandstanding opportunist like Rangel (both of whom have oddly similar shit-eating grins*), I have to wonder whether politicians are like lawyers - they fight it out and then laugh with one another after the decision, comfortable in the knowledge that the winner gets a great gig... And the loser gets an even more lucrative lobbying gig.

Its hard for me not to think these whores fight in front of us and yuk yuk it up when they're done. Is it naive of me to think Chuck and W probably get along smashingly, both fattened nicely on at the govt money trough?

* What a dumb term. I wouldn't be grinning in that situation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Its hard for me not to think these whores fight in front of us and yuk yuk it up when they're done. Is it naive of me to think Chuck and W probably get along smashingly, both fattened nicely on at the govt money trough?

Keep that stuff QT, but of course you're right. go to
www.bridgeoflove.com and look for further instructions. your kid blond hair blue eyes? wigs/contacts before the 3rd b-day.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Speaking for myself, here's some I'd like to see:



(iv) Comprehensive education reform to encourage more creativity and problem solving, including more equitable funding and less teaching to the test;

(

How about just teaching them to read and write. And to do math. Teaching for the test is a nice mantra put forward by the Teachers Union, but at this point we are just talking about tests for adding and subtracting. In Asia they test up the yin yang, because that is the only way to determine whether or not they are being taught.

The more a country tests, the better their students perform. You test and if you don't pass the test you don't move on. Yes it is stressful for students but its a tough world out there.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How the Democrats would answer if I asked them to list 5 policies which would counter this meathook reality:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...439766,00.html

ETA: For purposes of the exercise, protectionist measures cannot be utilized. (since they're patently absurd responses).

We have been running a trade deficit since the 1970s. People keep saying that it will destroy America but our economy still keeps outperforming the rest of the developed world. Its getting tough because everyone else is figuring out how to play the game.

The only thing we can do is improve our education system and make sure our internal market is business friendly.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
How about just teaching them to read and write. And to do math. Teaching for the test is a nice mantra put forward by the Teachers Union, but at this point we are just talking about tests for adding and subtracting. In Asia they test up the yin yang, because that is the only way to determine whether or not they are being taught.

The more a country tests, the better their students perform. You test and if you don't pass the test you don't move on. Yes it is stressful for students but its a tough world out there.

It is simply a poor way to teach, and doesn't play to our strength, which has been inventiveness and creativity. Do you have kids and watch what the teaching to the test does to the school system.

I note, no defense here of the Rs having done squat with their term, other than Sebby's "We gave up and we should have" response. Pshaw.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It is simply a poor way to teach, and doesn't play to our strength, which has been inventiveness and creativity. Do you have kids and watch what the teaching to the test does to the school system.

I note, no defense here of the Rs having done squat with their term, other than Sebby's "We gave up and we should have" response. Pshaw.

how many kids with just a hs diploma will your bio-tech plan employ?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how many kids with just a hs diploma will your bio-tech plan employ?

Exactly the point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Exactly the point.

so your "plan" is to give the entire middle class a technical dgree. hmmm. will that be free like your health plan?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It is simply a poor way to teach, and doesn't play to our strength, which has been inventiveness and creativity.

"Inventiveness and creativity" are wonderful things to have on top of good basic skills. Lacking those good basic skills, I & C are of dubious benefit. A significant number of kids (no, not all, not even most, but a good-sized group, unfortunately characterized mostly by poor urban setting) were NOT getting those good basic skills. That was the target of NCLB, and the test emphasis. It wasn't to increase the number of hours available to rich white suburban kids in music lab. NCLB did end up being a drag on the already-successful schools systems, which arguably didn't need the mandated emphasis on basics, but, if you look at the numbers, it's had the desired effects on its true targets.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Inventiveness and creativity" are wonderful things to have on top of good basic skills. Lacking those good basic skills, I & C are of dubious benefit. A significant number of kids (no, not all, not even most, but a good-sized group, unfortunately characterized mostly by poor urban setting) were NOT getting those good basic skills. That was the target of NCLB, and the test emphasis. It wasn't to increase the number of hours available to rich white suburban kids in music lab. NCLB did end up being a drag on the already-successful schools systems, which arguably didn't need the mandated emphasis on basics, but, if you look at the numbers, it's had the desired effects on its true targets.

I suspect I'd disagree with you on a wide range of educational issues, but I will say this: I would prefer a well implemented and consistent approach I disagreed with to my own ideal approach implemented in a half-assed fashion.

So, you've got NCLB as a signature bill for the administration -- how do you view their implementation? Has it been well implemented? Prioritized appropriately?

As you know, the President is proposing budgets with about 60% of the funding he had built into the NCLB act -- what incredible changes in circumstances or successes have led him to be able to deliver at 60% of the cost? Did you guys find something that was Free (I know Hank's always looking).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Inventiveness and creativity" are wonderful things to have on top of good basic skills. Lacking those good basic skills, I & C are of dubious benefit. A significant number of kids (no, not all, not even most, but a good-sized group, unfortunately characterized mostly by poor urban setting) were NOT getting those good basic skills. That was the target of NCLB, and the test emphasis. It wasn't to increase the number of hours available to rich white suburban kids in music lab. NCLB did end up being a drag on the already-successful schools systems, which arguably didn't need the mandated emphasis on basics, but, if you look at the numbers, it's had the desired effects on its true targets.

2. (not to the program because I have no idea) the people I grew up with are the ones who are screwed by the loss of the $28/hour factory jobs. trust me, they are not generally inventive or creative. Thomas Edison wouldn't need a government program today- all the lower middle class dull normal kids at my old high school are the problem.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, you've got NCLB as a signature bill for the administration -- how do you view their implementation? Has it been well implemented? Prioritized appropriately?

Bush's signature bill? I'm remembering back to when it was urged and passed, and there was this other guy who was co-sponsoring the bill with Bush - he thought it was a great idea - iin fact, it truly was a more liberal-oriented bill, one that imposed systemic requirements that were primarily designed to help pull the bottom up - Kennedy somebody, right?

Point is, NCLB mostly imposes testing requirements as a means to stop the auto-pass function that inner city schools were normalizing, and to ensure that those inner-city kids who were getting short educational shrift got as good a deal as did the rest of the country.

Teachers hate it. It provides for SCORES! It makes it easy to compare results! Anathema! So, yeah, the NEA has bitched about it mightily, and loves to complain that it takes away from teaching. But, I have several kidlets, and I can see how much they test compared to how much I used to test, and it ain't that big of a change, and, wonder of wonders, it appears that the results are showing that the poorest-performing schools at the beginning of NCLB are becoming much better.

The costs that people like to complain about? It's the record-keeping involved. If we accept that we need some objective criteria with which to judge the efficacy of our schools, why does this need to be federally-funded? Especially when, pre-testing, the educaion system was arguably NOT doing its job for a significant part of society?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bush's signature bill? I'm remembering back to when it was urged and passed, and there was this other guy who was co-sponsoring the bill with Bush - he thought it was a great idea - iin fact, it truly was a more liberal-oriented bill, one that imposed systemic requirements that were primarily designed to help pull the bottom up - Kennedy somebody, right?

Point is, NCLB mostly imposes testing requirements as a means to stop the auto-pass function that inner city schools were normalizing, and to ensure that those inner-city kids who were getting short educational shrift got as good a deal as did the rest of the country.

Teachers hate it. It provides for SCORES! It makes it easy to compare results! Anathema! So, yeah, the NEA has bitched about it mightily, and loves to complain that it takes away from teaching. But, I have several kidlets, and I can see how much they test compared to how much I used to test, and it ain't that big of a change, and, wonder of wonders, it appears that the results are showing that the poorest-performing schools at the beginning of NCLB are becoming much better.

The costs that people like to complain about? It's the record-keeping involved. If we accept that we need some objective criteria with which to judge the efficacy of our schools, why does this need to be federally-funded? Especially when, pre-testing, the educaion system was arguably NOT doing its job for a significant part of society?

So you don't think it's a problem that the bill, once passed, has not seen anywhere near the funding planned, the funding that the bill was sold on? That Bush hasn't even requested much of it in his budget bills, given his other budgetary priorities?

If it is so successful, why aren't the Rs running on it?