John Kerry's Acceptence Speech for the U.S. Presidency

the No Child Left behind act (I love the names Carl Rove thinks up for things like the Patriot act, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. You can't refer to these things without them sounding warm and fuzzy) forces students to learn the material mandated by the states by using standardized testing. If a student doesn't learn the material and pass the test they don't graduate. this insures that every high school is teaching thier students the right curriculum and forces every student to learn it. I don't understand how this makes "every kid retarded".

 

Weren't there teachers giving students the answers to the standardized tests so that the schools could somehow get more money to improve facilities? I'm sure this wasn't an isolated incident either.

If we really want to fix the schools in this country we just need to put some money into renovating the schools and paying the teachers better. Kind of obvious.

 

Dick and Bush

A few points here:

1. Democrats controlled congress when Clinton tried to pass health care reform. As usual, Pope is talking, er, writing, out of his ass. The effort failed because lobbyists in the insurance and medical industry put pressure on politicians so they would not dismantle the U.S. health care gravy train. We spend more money than any other industrialized nation on health care, but we have basically the least healthy population of any industrialized country. Why? For-profit health care.

2. Maybe Bush did good things for those two black people that you mentioned. Trouble is, there are over 25 million black people in the U.S. and over ninety percent of them won't be voting for Bush.

The black people that Bush places in high profile posts are not even intended to impress black Americans. They know Bush doesn't give a shit about them since they don't contribute large sums of money to his campaign. Rice and Powell are window dressing for white suburbanites. See, it is unfashionable to racist nowadays. Since the GOP is a racist party, some white suburbanites feel a little guilty about supporting the GOP. That's where friendly Condi and Colin come in- a pitifully transparent attempt to whitewash, if you will, the GOP's terrible record on race.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Doing so would create more buerocracy, and therefore higher taxes on top of what people pay now for health insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can enlighten me on a few things.

1. What's the percentage of the american population that actually has health insurance?
2. How much, on average, do they pay?

Do you know? Or do you just make random, broad sweeping statements about what it would cost to de-privatize the US health care system?

<font color="yellow">.cheers.</font>

 

Papal Wisdom

Medical millionaires good, "buerocracy" bad.

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

the No Child Left behind act (I love the names Carl Rove thinks up for things like the Patriot act, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. You can't refer to these things without them sounding warm and fuzzy) forces students to learn the material mandated by the states by using standardized testing. If a student doesn't learn the material and pass the test they don't graduate. this insures that every high school is teaching thier students the right curriculum and forces every student to learn it. I don't understand how this makes "every kid retarded".

[/ QUOTE ]

COngratulations sir, you have just created a solution to the effect of a problem. Now, perhaps if you would examine it, you could see that solving the effect doesn't help. By introducing mandated standardized tests, all you do is provide an artificial score for people to reach. They won't get smart, they'll only know the answers to the test. But that's fine, because you're teaching for a final result: You get everyone to pass.

This sure turns up some concrete results. But what it doesn't tell is if the kids actually LEARNED anything. Once you teach for a specific result, you might as well throw everything else out of the window. You lose all focus on the process of teaching and learning, and drive to only meet the quota.

And last time I checked, I didn't need to know the capital of North Dakota, nor what date the civil war ended. I didn't need to know what the chemical composition of aluminum metal was, nor when James Joyce wrote Ulysses. But these are just pieces of knowledge I needed to pass the standard tests. Did I learn anything from all of these?

Ask a teacher what they think of No Child Left Behind. It's easy to support it when you're not one that has to implement it. For teachers, it means a forced curriculum, a dry curriculum. It's really hard to teach anything when you don't really follow the reason or order, with any kind of enthusiasm. What you get are robots for teachers, spouting off fact after fact and making cookie-cutter tests in preparation for the BIG test.

The other side-effect is stress. Since we're teaching to this test, which measures so narrow a field, all of the people responsible for meeting this have to worry about not actually meeting it. Tell me that stress doesn't matter. Fuck, I don't know why anyone would want to be a teacher since all they do is spout off a pre-determined list of facts.

One of the best professors I've had didn't give a flying shit about whether you passed his class. Actually, it was so easy, you could only show up 3 days the entire semester and still pass. Bad teacher, right? Well, he managed to squeeze all of the 'important' stuff that was on the course objectives down into about 2 weeks discussion, and then spent the rest of the semester actually TEACHING stuff. There was open discussion. There were trade tricks that were shared, in-depth information on the things that we only briefly needed to know for the course objectives. In short, when a teacher isn't forced into such stiff rails on what they can teach, then the class is actually interesting and provides a much more satisfying learning experience for the students.

But maybe someday when you actually get to college, you'll understand.

[EDIT: Since you apparently only have a basic grasp of english, I'll enlighten you on the definition of 'Retard': to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment

As taken from webster.com. You know, this word has had this definition for at least the last 2 decades, which I can witness to.]

 

I think what you're saying is somewhat true. Teaching material that is 'useful' and teaching to a test are two very different things, and the value of the former is of course very high. However, there are certain aspects of general education that fit very well with standardized testing. Math, for example, falls into that category. Having a standard for a desired level of mathematical ability is not a bad thing. Math requires a strict adherance to a set of defined axioms. Learning how to implement the 'standard' way of solving mathematical problems is not something which simply 'knowing the answers'. It requires some level of skill, patience, and definitely can be taught under a standardized curriculum. To a certain extent, english grammar and spelling can be taught and tested in similar fashion. With very successful results, mind you. The idea is not to program you to write or do math like a robot, it's there to provide students with the appropriate platform to express their ideas in writing or explore the application of mathematics to a defined problem.

Canada has standardized testing in certain provinces. Although it's had its share of turmoil amongst the public (in Ontario), provinces like Quebec have had a very strong educational standard in math (finite algebra and calculus), physics, chemistry, as well as english (oral and written) and french (oral and written). Canada is often touted as having the highest standard of education in the world - and part of that is due to strict standardized testing in certain subjects.

I think that's the key here - some subjects are better suited to standardized testing.

[ QUOTE ]
And last time I checked, I didn't need to know the capital of North Dakota, nor what date the civil war ended. I didn't need to know what the chemical composition of aluminum metal was, nor when James Joyce wrote Ulysses. But these are just pieces of knowledge I needed to pass the standard tests. Did I learn anything from all of these?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy arguments like these. It's common for students to bitch and moan about how they'll never use derivatives, or as you say, the chemical composition of aluminum (which, btw, is just aluminum...it's an element). But that's not the point. Teachers are not forcing useless information into your head. There's a process to be learned, a trend, etc. This is the more important aspect of the information and the way it's taught. Learning verses from poetry can help teach discipline and memory. Chemical compositions of alloys and compounds helps to demonstrate that materials are made up various parts - applications of this are seen everyday, not just in the physical world, but the metaphysical as well. At times, it can become frustrating to students who think they're just jumping through hoops, when in reality there's often a bigger picture. I understand what you're trying to say, but the 'useless information that I'l *never* use' is not the best way of arguing your point.

Just my 2 cents. Having been through both standardized and non-standardized curricula, my opinions are somewhat based on experience from within the system - in addition to having 2 parents as teachers in both the private and public school system in Ontario and Quebec.

<font color="yellow">.cheers.</font>

 

The U.S.'s educational system sucks. Our literacy rate is dropping. Why? Don't blame the teachers. Blame the parents. It is NOT the teacher's responsibility to make sure the child gets an education. It is the teacher's JOB to educate the child, but the responsibility for the child lies with the parent. A teacher sees a child for much less time than a parent does. If a parent even suspects that their child is not getting a good education, the parent should do something about it, be it working with the child on that subject, sending them to another school, setting them up in a study group, or hiring a tutor.

But many of today's parents don't want to believe that it is ultimately their fault that their child cannot read - they'd rather point at the school system, or the other kids in school, than point the finger where it ultimately belongs - at themself. They did not make the child learn - they just let it slip by, even though as a parent they should be able to see where the child is having problems. A child who gets straight A's in English and then graduates illiterate would be a case where the parent would have a legitimate complaint, but I've never heard of one of those yet.

Just because right now you don't see a use for the information you're being asked to learn doesn't mean that you'll never use it. Imagine losing $100,000 on a game show because you can't remember the chemical symbol for gold. Or not getting hired for a job as a lab tech because you can't do standard deviation, mean, and average for data points collected over the month.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Shaolin_Hopper said:Just because right now you don't see a use for the information you're being asked to learn doesn't mean that you'll never use it. Imagine losing $100,000 on a game show because you can't remember the chemical symbol for gold. Or not getting hired for a job as a lab tech because you can't do standard deviation, mean, and average for data points collected over the month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, gameshow notwithstanding...I would hope that if you're applying for a lab technician you would have some grasp of mathematics. Technicians need to know alot of math.

As for me...I've retained alot of what I learned in highschool, as more of a curious habit than any need for the information. The reason I left math off of that 'bitch list' was because I'm using it heavily, right now, so I couldn't fairly complain about it /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif/

 

Education

There needs to be a balance between memorization and the teaching of creative and analytical skills. The big problems with Bush's NCLB are that 1) it mandates quantifiable progress without providing the money to states that he promised and 2) it will cut Title I funds to poorly performing poor school districts- the last thing that they need.

There are many ways to improve education in America. Here are few easy to understand ideas:

1. Better pay for teachers. Too many idiots go into education. I know. My girlfriend taught college English and the education majors were ironically some of the dumbest motherfuckers around. Pay more to teachers and the field will attract smarter people.

2. More government funding for head start and similar programs. Yes, parents should teach their kids to read before they start school, but that does not always happen. Increasing pre-school and after-school programs for poor, at risk kids would help a lot.

3. Change the ridiculous way that states dole out education dollars. It is bullshit that local property taxes pay for the local schools. The only reason that this happens is because people in poorer communities have no political sway and rarely vote. Collect all state property taxes and then give schools dollars on a per student basis.

 

Re: Dick and Bush

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:

Rice and Powell are window dressing for white suburbanites. See, it is unfashionable to racist nowadays. Since the GOP is a racist party, some white suburbanites feel a little guilty about supporting the GOP. That's where friendly Condi and Colin come in- a pitifully transparent attempt to whitewash, if you will, the GOP's terrible record on race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you are dumb. wasn't it the Republicans who passed the Emancipation Proclimation, or did you did you not ever hear about the civil war, the Dixiecrats, or Strom Thurmon.

 

Re: Dick and Bush

Wasn't Strom Thurmond one of the most racist motherf##@ers to ever sit in congress? The man had a child by a black woman, true, but you know why we didn't hear about it till he died? Because the damage it would have done to his reputation, as being one of the biggest bigots in the country.

Besides, it doesn't matter which party 'passed' the emancipation proclamation...That was a decision by the North states, not any specific political party therein.

 

Friendly GOP

Once again, our Texan friend does not know what he is talking about. Allow me to set the record straight.

Strom Thurmund was originally a Democrat. Democrats ruled the south for generations after the civil war. This was because the Southerners were still pissed about the fact that them damn Yankees came down and told em that they couldn't keep African people as pets anymore.

In 1948, I believe, Strom Thurmond broke ranks with the Democrats because they weren't sufficiently racist for him. His "Dixiecrat" candidacy was the South's last politically viable attempt at using the White House to maintain segregation, Jim Crow, laws etc.

The Dixiecrats lost, of course. Not too many people outside of the deep south were keen on the idea of electing a wacko (even for that time) racist as President. Years later, Thurmond looked at the political situation and decided that the GOP was the party that most suited his fucked up, backward, cracker worldview. Conservative southerners defected to the GOP. Hence Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and countless other southern racist demagogues.

Fast forward to a couple years ago. Trent Lott, Republican Senate Majority leader from Tennessee says that the U.S. would have been better off had Thurmond's run at the White House been successful. Oops! Apparently Lott had had a few to many drinks and forgot that the Republican leadership wants its members to express their racist feelings only when reporters are not around. Lott had to resign in disgrace as Senate Majority Leader.

I write all of this not to say that no Democrat could ever have been racist. I merely wish to point out that the modern Republican Party has lost all vestiges of its progressive history and is now the party of bigots, corporate welfarists, jingos, and religious fanatics. This is why moderate Republicans are voting for Kerry in droves this year.

 

Re: Friendly GOP

Sgt Ramrod, your sig = sweet sexiness.

 

Re: Friendly GOP

Once again Sgt. Ram-Ass has displayed his idiocy for all to see.

 

Terrorists want Kerry

I seems today even the terrorists are endorsing George Bush's opponent.

<font color="red"> "The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the US economy and to undermine the US election," an intelligence official said, referring to the November 2 presidential election pitting Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry. "The view of Al-Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush,'" said the official</font>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&e=2&u=/afp/us_attacks_qaeda

But just as the terrorists endorse Bush's opponent (They're endorsing John Kerry, they just hold the "anyone but Bush" mentality), it seems Isrealis would like to see George Bush re-elected.

<font color="red"> JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israeli Jews overwhelmingly want President George W. Bush to beat his Democrat challenger John Kerry in the US presidential election on November 2, according to an opinion poll. </font>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/mideast_israel_us_vote

Decide who the terrorist fear most and and is best able to protect America and vote for him (a.k.a. George Bush)

 

Re: Terrorists want Kerry

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

I seems today even the terrorists are endorsing George Bush's opponent.

<font color="red"> "The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the US economy and to undermine the US election," an intelligence official said, referring to the November 2 presidential election pitting Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry. "The view of Al-Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush,'" said the official</font>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&e=2&u=/afp/us_attacks_qaeda

But just as the terrorists endorse Bush's opponent (They're endorsing John Kerry, they just hold the "anyone but Bush" mentality), it seems Isrealis would like to see George Bush re-elected.

<font color="red"> JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israeli Jews overwhelmingly want President George W. Bush to beat his Democrat challenger John Kerry in the US presidential election on November 2, according to an opinion poll. </font>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/mideast_israel_us_vote

Decide who the terrorist fear most and and is best able to protect America and vote for him (a.k.a. George Bush)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yo shithead, read this: http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=510898

The statement tells Americans that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election of President George W. Bush.

"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections," it said.

Addressing Bush, it said: "We know that a heavyweight operation would destroy your government, and this is what we don't want. We are not going to find a bigger idiot than you." The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world. Comparing Bush with his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, the statement tells the president, "Actually, there is no difference between you and Kerry, but Kerry will kill our community, while it is unaware, because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish infidelity and present it to the Arab and Islamic community as civilization."

 

Oh Dear

Pope, If you are going to post links to news stories, please use reputable journalistic outlets. Yahoo doesn't count and especially not when it is a story where yahoo references something written in a worthless shit-rag like the Washington Times. That newpaper is owned by that idot cult leader Sun Myung Moon. The Washington Times is not worth the paper its printed on. If you are wanting to make another of your thoughtful, well reasoned arguments, you'd be better off not citing, directly or indirectly, journalistic laughing stocks.

One cannot prove directly or indirectly, how all the terrorists feel about US electoral politics. That said, Bush has been a huge boon to Islamic Jihad. He should have made it a huge priority to track down al Queda after 9/11. Instead he's fucked Afghanistan up and let bin Laden get away. He used 9/11 to go on the Great American Oil Grab. The Iraq invasion and subsequent torture scandal have enraged the muslim world. Now Islamic jihad is diffuse, decentralized confederacy of groups whose numbers are swelling. Catching bin Laden at this point won't even make much difference.

Like the article Fishie posted indicates, Islamic Jihad owes Bush a debt of gratitude.

Here's a parting shot (in math equation form no less):

MAXIMUM - Worldly Pretensions= IamthePope

 

Re: Terrorists want Kerry

I've never heard of that Abu character you cited Fishie, but he sounds pretty looney. I was just telling you what the Yahoo tells me and Yahoo just compiles news stories from various sources. And since when is the Washington Times not a credible newspaper?

 

Re: Terrorists want Kerry

Never been one and my link is from the International Herald Tribune