bmags

Because there are lots of ways to improve education, this was one of them, if this teaching method improves it, we should move forward with it. I don't know how to affect the kids parenting, but we can affect their schooling.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 8, 2011 -> 03:59 PM) I think I mentioned "my generation included" in my initial post. Honestly, read what I typed and think about it for a second instead of immediately just lashing out about how ignorant it is. Our kids are in school for quite a bit of time? Public high school kids get out at like noon a lot of the time now, because they have fulfilled their credits or whatever. What is that about? Many inner city children rarely even attend school these days. This seems to be symptomatic of the way children are raised and allowed to behave at home, and then much of this culture has been brought into the public schools and the structure has actually been changed because of it. What needs to happen is children need to be in school more. Longer days. More days a year. More content. Harder content. More focus. They are in school for quite a bit of time, compared to everything else. So we should make sure that time is spent with the best teaching methods and culture we have. Longer school time would be great, and many charter schools are trying that, but that also costs money and money needs to be raise thru taxes and taxes and gov't are taking away our guns and so that won't ever happen. This study seems to be a step in the right direction, though I guess we should have stopped them before they did, handed them a Malcolm Gladwell book and said the best way to fix this is to send the kids to the farms to learn a work ethic. It worked for Mao.

This gap really isn't anything new. Your generation sucked too, let's just remember that. Kids are stupid and will drink chocolate milk all day if left alone. They are in school for quite a bit of time, however. So perhaps we should focus the discussion on how we run those schools and less on how terrible it is that kids are soft these days b/c of video games.

you know, I know what you are saying probably feels great, but it isn't really constructive at all, nor proven. And while it's probably annoying seeing kids play with video games, their familiarity with technology will be a big asset to them. Our problems are structural. Anyway feel free to suggest repealing 50 years of standard of living so kids can be educated better and achieve a great standard of living.

God I hate Oney Guillen.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 8, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that the last few generations of American children (mine included), have had a soft, easy lifestyle for the most part due to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world and has failed to develop a work ethic. Probably has nothing to do with that or else the nordic countries would be way behind indian and african children that are still grinders. Also, interesting enough, Harvard pumps out top talent every year despite their campus being remarkably wealthy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 8, 2011 -> 12:37 PM) Apparently, sneaking a fastball by Paul Konerko is like trying to sneak a sunrise past a rooster. Hahahahaha Last night was a turrible hawk night. Also hearing his draft philosophies.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 7, 2011 -> 08:37 PM) Thought this was interesting... CEO of GM says he'd rather see a $1/gallon increase in federal gas taxes, than the increases in fuel efficiency the government is pushing on US automakers. Says he feels it would be better for automakers, as well as do a better job pushing Americans to buy more efficient cars. Link to short story. Thoughts? Anyone agree or disagree? he's just saying that because he knows the carbon tax has no chance.

this study seems to have done a pretty good job at taking into account differences in jobs that genders take.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 7, 2011 -> 08:28 PM) The article says the report takes into account the graduates' majors, but does it actually compare the same jobs? Another portion of the report says - to explain why the female grads unemployment rate is lower than males (8.1% vs 10.3%) - says that women take more temporary and part-time positions. Wouldn't that lead to them having lower incomes? http://www.naceweb.org/gender/ i'd have to go into it further, but i'd have to first-off ask whether women take more or are offered more.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/daly-wage...ed-1522741.html

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 7, 2011 -> 06:18 PM) Lol, god I couldn't even come up with a better way to show how completely inefficient and wasteful government really is. What a f***ing joke. How much does Dick think that'll cost, to set up a federal office to collect the taxes and then distribute them out to the states? America everybody. Ugh. how much do you think it costs to not be able to collect sales tax that states rely on.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 7, 2011 -> 05:43 PM) Dude can scoot. He will, however, bust, as he is a White Sox prospect now. It's more that us drafting him proves he sucks. I'm jking.

Exactly why it's important to get 2 board governors more focused on employment than inflation.

yeah, no, no one can listen to that idiocy and believe that it coincides with the fact that revere was captured and told the british that a militia was waiting for them. And she WAS just trying to make some bulls*** allegory about how the british tried to take our guns but the FOUNDING fathers (aka HER) were there to say NO you can't! you can't take our umm guns you know russia and hockey moms etc.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 10:19 PM) The people getting elected would on average stay in Congress for less time and would leave more rapidly for lobbying/industry positions after establishing the connections/selling out to some company enough to guarantee a high paying job after departure.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 08:33 PM) But Republicans won't go crazy and nominate Palin, even in Democrat fantasyland. She might win a primary or two, but at the end of the day I think she gets destroyed by others, especially since other candidates like Bachmann will split the extreme vote. Trust me, I don't want Palin to win the nomination. There is a very big chance that a Republican wins in 2012. For all the ideological differences, they at least seem to take the role of governing more seriously. But prior to 2008 there was a very big "momentum" aspect to primaries. Where if a candidate won the first few primaries, they were considered the frontrunner and people began to get behind them. With the GOPs winner take all states, Palin's hardcore base will definitely vote and if the rest of the field shows no real promise, those votes will get split.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 08:30 PM) I'm entirely serious. 2004 and 2008 were entirely base turnout elections. The Democratic Base turned out overwhelmingly in 2008, and Bush won in 2004 despite losing so-called independents. But you also had a huge growth in electorate identifying as 'democrats' that are probably best considered independents.

No, I'm not. If unemployment is terrible in november 2012, the independents will swing away from the incumbent.

I disagree.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 07:25 PM) I think you've bought into the Dem message that Palin will win unless Dems get out and vote. It won't happen. She's too polarizing, even for the majority of the GOP. No, I've bought into the message that has existed for United States history that says s***ty economies aren't good for the incumbent. Alan Keyes could grab 45% of the vote in this economy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 07:22 PM) So in otherwords, while being a great talking point, it wouldn't have made a difference. Selective Outrage indeed. No. You are implying that we are saying that these open seats would magically fix the economy. But, we have a fed board that clearly has the inflation hawks well represented. It's only fair those more aligned to fulfilling the employment mandates of the federal reserve also have a seat at the table. The fed matters, especially during these times, and there's no reason to have empty seats for probably obama's whole presidency.

It's not that in itself, it's that there have been vacant seets on the fed board that could have been filled with candidates more worried about employment issues and less concerned about keeping inflation at sub 2% at all costs.

If unemployment is still hovering around 9-10% this time next year, the independents and moderates will vote anything but obama.

Palin's following is considerably larger than ron paul's and has her own propoganda network. I don't think Iowa will like her. But unless Romney gets Mccain like support from independents, then Palin continues to be a real threat, especially terrifying considering anyone the republicans throw for 2012 has a good chance to win the election.