Texsox

I predict that less than one in five Americans will choose the nominees. McCain v. Obama

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 12:13 PM) Ham soda anyone? Hey Admin, ever check out all the threads

I just had one of those stopped dead in my tracks musical moments. Where a song all of a sudden just slaps you across the face and says listen, this is important. Funny, I've probably heard the song a thousand times before, but this arrangement maybe a dozen or less. Anyway, had my headphones on, doing some homework, feeling the blues slightly. Plowing away on a tedious assignment. Then I heard Long and Winding Road (from Let it Be Naked) for the first time as a Christian song. (Jim, don't cry) Wow.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 10:38 AM) I don't think Romney can win the election. The bible belt of the south, which has been a Republican stronghold, won't for a LDS candidate. Without the south, he can't win. Yep. One of my favorite kids, an Eagle Scout from my Troop and a summer camp staffer just left on his two year LDS Mission. He's going to be in the New York / Connecticut area. I just realized all those kids knocking on doors are almost like campaign workers. My only thought to the contrary is we elected a Catholic 45 years ago, so maybe a member of the LDS Church really isn't an insurmountable hurdle. But I'm guessing YASNY is spot on.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) Referencing your elephant in the room. I still think that people who pay the freight, ie the taxpayers, should have some say on what is actually loaded on to the truck. Well said.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) I essentially side with Rex here, but more than anything it is that public input needs to go through the proper channels which is whet you're saying as well. The thing is, the notion that the public school teachers - even in AP classes – are lone wolf rebels assigning the most extreme material they can is a fallacy, and a lot of the perceived controversy stems from there. Counties and school boards have approved text and book lists, and teachers have to jump through major hoops to stray from those lists. As mush as you want to support the public right to input, you also have to have some faith in the system that is already in place. And you do, of course. Within a few degrees we all agree that lone parents with no broad support should not hold much sway no matter how bent out of shape they are about course programming. Likewise, you have to have some faith that the system has hired competent AP instructors who are better equipped to select level-appropriate, context-appropriate, and content-appropriate reading for their classes than the average parent. I'll finish by introducing everybody to the elephant in the room. Embarking on a crusade to protect your public school child from a couple of pages of dark, unglamorized human brutality within a literary work is screaming into the wind when you consider the reality of what is discussed on the bus, in the halls, lunchroom, and scholyard at every public high school in the country every day. If a parent has made the decision to toss their kids into a system that would rate an NC-17 for the everyday language and themes discussed, I think efforts to ban a book because a few pages of it descend to that level are misguided and unproductive. I agree with 99% of what you write. I still object to saying "banning". If someone decided to teach this same class by using Jugghead and Archie comic books, we may question if it is the most suitable work to use. If the class is in classic literature and a teacher decides to use the latest Clive Custer novel, again the public should have a process to question. It is not banning the book, it is questioning which is an appropriate work to study. It could be said that by picking "Prince of Tides" the teacher "banned" tens of thousands of books. My greatest concern about using this work is the easy availability of the movie. Anyone can drop down to Blockbuster, watch the movie, and probably pass any test the teacher may assign. In this case, the book did remain fairly true to the novel. Screaming into the wind? I think parents have an obligation to talk with there kids and explain that just because some kids may do something, does not mean it is the smart thing, the safe thing, etc. By telling your kids, go ahead, have sex at 14, there is nothing we can do, besides everyone does it, here are your condoms, sends one message. Telling your kids that yes some kids do this, but here are some reasons why you should wait, and these are the values in our house, sends another. They may have to live in that world, but they do not have to descend to the lowest common denominator. As a parent if you are with your kids and see a homeless person passed out in a doorway you have a few options. You can pretend not to see him. Which sadly is what most parents do. You can tell your kids how much you pray that they don't end up that way, discuss why school, staying away from drugs, respecting themselves, etc. will help avoid that. You might also discuss ways your family can help the homeless. Discuss the causes of homelessness. Or you can say cool, let's look at the bum. See, he wet his pants, I'll bet he crapped his pants as well. Maybe we can get him to appear in bum fights. Hey, ask him to tell us how you got sodomized. Sometimes I think we rush to the third choice in our schools. Am I advocating banning discussions about homelessness because I don't want to discuss how he was sodomized? Perhaps there are other more fruitful areas to discuss first. Would you consider making that portion of the material alternate reading only, without any potential testing? I would prefer not to redact it, but I could really see a solution to make certain chapters required, the same as they do in many survey course in college.

They will sell a 4-pack to me.

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 02:01 AM) I had to do that. We had a giant oak paneled TV with huge channel dials you changed by hand. We sat so close as kids (to change the channel) that my folks worried about our eyesight. We also only had 5 TV stations, from 1976 to 1983, til we got a cable box. Then, we had reach on top of the TV to find cable stations to click. Needless to say, I grew up on PBS.

Happy Birthday!!

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 05:11 PM) Never fear, Balta. HillaryCare will take care of us all. I get what you're saying... and it's not pretty, but I will NEVER get the "entitlement" arguement, which is of course veiled in your comment. It is all a matter of degrees. Should humans allow poor, uninsured people to bleed to death at the steps of an ER? I doubt anyone here would say yes. In the US we have the resources to bring that person into the ER and patch them up. Now start taking that step by step. Do we have the resources to offer immunization? Perhaps can we remove an appendix? Can we fix a broken leg? You call it entitlement, I call it being human. Animals will turn and walk away, unable to help. I assume you have insurance at your company. Your rate is determined by everyone in your pool, not just you. Anyone in your company is "entitled" to join. Your company has probably joined with other companies in a larger pool. Again, your employees feel "entitled" to this coverage. As the pools get bigger and bigger, you have more and more "entitled" members. Now take that concept to a pool that includes around 301,139,947 members and you have the entitlement that you will never understand. I believe health care for all Americans is a worthy goal. It will work if we maintain all the important stuff we have now, like choice, and perhaps get rid of some of the unwanted stuff like, runaway costs.

Like the USSR we will fail not from the sword, but from the mountain of debt we demand our country takes on.

I believe the information would be unreliable and potentially hurt, rather than help, saving my loved one. So yes, I would understand. If we are going to later prosecute them under our laws, then we have to accept all the laws. Anything else makes a mockery of our way of life. To say this only works in some cases, is kind of hypocritical. If you believe in America and our legal system, then I don't see any other way. I draw the line at harming children. No. And I do not see where they are mutually exclusive. Our laws do not allow for the assassination of individuals.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 05:39 PM) Isn't Dorian Gray all about being gay in the 1800's? Not exactly, but there are homosexual overtones in a couple of scenes. The author, Oscar Wilde, was convicted and spent time in jail for what he presumably did in the privacy of his own home. There were any number of authors that were screwed over for being gay during that time. Ezra Pound comes to mind. The book is easily in my top ten list, perhaps top three of all time. And that is kind of my point. Take that to one or the other extreme and I think the teacher should be reigned in.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 05:33 PM) I absolutely don't support the public to offer input in a teacher's curriculum for an elective class. If a parent doesn't want to expose their children to the coursework for an elective class, they shouldn't be able to reap the benefits that this class can offer. Sorry your opinion is not valid. You are not a High School English teacher, so you do not have the necessary skills to offer even an opinion. So please, do not respond anymore*. Not even the administration? The Department head? What does the public lack that a High School English teacher has to review this decision? I think a poor teacher was hired if they can only teach using one book. AP History is basically the tract that most major Universities want their applicants to take so the choice may become take the class or forget about a major University. And all honors classes are electives, there are very few mandatories so you are basically telling the best and brightest to just sit back and accept whatever the school decides is best and that their parents are idiots and cannot be trusted with an opinion on what you are taught? Can the public decide how the money they are paying in taxes is spent? Remember that no taxation without representation thing? Public schools should have public oversight, which is why we elect a school board. Don't like their decision, vote them out. *just making a point, you know I respect your opinion which is why I argue that you should have a voice in what is taught in your schools.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) Tex, it's tough for me to tell what it is you're trying to get at here. If a parent wants to take their concerns to the School Board, that is fine. I would hope the School Board had the good sense to allow the teacher to teach. Are you advocating that a School Board should accede to the wishes of anyone with an axe to grind? If a history or lit teacher wanted to present Uncle Tom's Cabin and someone objected to that, should it not be used? Should Of Mice and Men be thrown out? Where do you propose we draw the line? Should every teacher in a school system submit their lesson plans to the electorate every year to be voted on yea or nay? Or to the School Board? I think there are two separate and distinct issues and they were too closely linked. Not that it matters, but I really liked Prince of Tides. I am working towards a double major, Psychology and English, so this fits right in with two of my favorite subjects. I happen to prefer The Picture of Dorian Gray as the best example of a Psychological novel, but that is off topic. I recommended PoT to my 18 year old son and will recommend it to my daughter as soon as she finishes her Intro to Psy course this semester. But just because I like the book, believe it is suitable for my children, doesn't mean it is appropriate for any High School classroom, or that it is the best book to be used. One of the reasons I would like to see something else has nothing to do with the content, but I prefer a reading list that cannot be circumvented by heading to Blockbuster. And as movies of this vein go, I preferred Ordinary People. From my time as President of the PTO and PTAs, and being a very active parent, I have watched as school administrators wanted parental involvement if it meant making photocopies, baking cookies, and working on fund raising. As soon as a parent stood up and said, I think we need to look at what is being taught here, the reaction was exactly like LCR's. Scoffing, mocking, etc. I think that is very wrong. I do not want every lesson plan checked, that is way to burdensome, I think when a parent sees something in the homework (which is almost never at the high school level) and questions the inclusion, there should be a method of review that is respectful of everyone. And I certainly believe there is at least enough there to warrant a review. It clearly is a controversial subject and the school should be called to task to answer why this and not, for example, Dorian Gray.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 08:37 AM) From your own personal experience, as you have posted here, your better educational experiences seem to often involve non-traditional teachers and non-traditional class structure. It's an odd contrast that you're advocating a cookie-cutter, teach-what-the-public-wants position here. These are literary works, not pornography or gratuitous snuff, and I don't see why parental consent to let their kids read the material in an elective class doesn't satisfy all parties. We both agree that one citizen without broad support shouldn't be able to effect broad change, and that at least is good common ground. As a tangent, haven't you in previous threads supported the idea of elective, non-denominational high school classes on the Bible as literature? (I support that as well, btw.) Well, certainly there's a whole lot more discussion of sodomy. . . as well as rape, incest, adultery, murder, beastiality, etc., in that work than in anything Pat Conroy ever penned. On the principle of preserving the innocent minds of students, you've apparently rethought the appropriateness of bteaching that literary work as well, yes? Perhaps I was not clear. I support the publics' efforts to be part of the education process. I object to making a High School English teacher omnipotent in the subject material covered. I see good reasons to review this material and the appropriate venue. Of all the thousands of High School English teachers out there, will we agree that there is the potential that maybe one or two aren't the best at choosing representative works? I think it is entirely appropriate that there be some mechanism for review. Any required reading list should involve conscious selections and that process should be open. Just like I would support the public questioning a book that I happened to think was appropriate. My support of the Bible being taught centers on placing it in historical context with other major religious works. Wars have been fought over religion, history has been altered based on individual's religious beliefs. If there is a new round of crusades over The Prince of Tides, I would probably alter my opinion as to the historical nature of that book. Again, I cannot make the leap from saying if you dissect a pig or read Genesis, we therefor must allow anything and everything. I also believe there are works that are appropriate for College students, High School students, and Middle School. While AP English is an elective, it allows High School Seniors an opportunity to test out of college work. Factoring in the loss of that opportunity when a teacher chooses a controversial works should also be factored in. In the end, the public may or may not support using a certain book in the program. I am more comfortable with checks and balances when controversy erupts, not making a High School teacher the only public employee in America above scrutiny. As far as the cookie cutter approach, based on the outcry here where this book is so important to teach and children should not be kept in the dark, it would seem you would advocate for it being required reading nationwide. Wouldn't that be cookie cutter? By recognizing support for local review wouldn't that assure a wider variety? We support a teacher's right to not teach the book on whatever criterion they choose, but why not allow the public that same input?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 08:09 PM) Tex, some other famous banned books. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings To Kill a Mockingbird Grapes of Wrath Great Gatsby 1984 Ulysses Of Mice and Men Catch 22 Invisible Man (Ralph Ellison) The ALA has a ton of books for Banned Book Week. Plus:2. High school subjects are generally graphic in nature. I dissected a fetal pig for weeks in high school. I also learned about Samurai gutting themselves, Caligula pretty well personifying debauchery, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, massive genocides around the world and the lynchings during the civil rights movement. A depiction of violence in a work in literature seems fairly tame compared to that. There are tens of thousands of books that could be chosen. Is there a difference between a High School teacher that looks at the above, or similar works, and elects to use a different work and the public that asks that the same action be taken? We can look at this list and obviously agree that they are classics and great readings for adults. I would state they are clearly not appropriate to use in fifth grade, but maybe that too would be a point of disagreement. Perhaps they are appropriate for High School. Bottom line, teachers should not be omnipotent, nor should one parent. I cannot take the leap from learning A&P by dissecting a pig and teaching students about anal sex in English. I can see some value in seeing internal structures of the body. I could see covering anal sex in a health class, but it seems unnecessary in English. Bottom line I support parental involvement in their children's education, beyond selling candy for the senior trip. I know that is so threatening to teachers in their ivory towers.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 09:49 PM) If you want a challenging class, you must have challenging material. I took a class in High School that featured Giles Goat-Boy by John Barth. I wonder how these parents would have dealt with that? I'm actually fairly certain that not many High School teachers would even try to teach that book. So what is the difference between a High School teacher that doesn't teach a book, and the public who does want to teach that book? No matter what books are selected, hundreds of thousands more are omitted. These are public schools, and there needs to be public involvement. There should be mechanisms and procedures to make certain what is being taught is what the masses want, not one teacher. Likewise, one citizen, without broad support should not make the decision.

The public should have some input in what is taught in public high schools. Who should teach your kids about sodomy? The English teacher of course! How could kids ever learn English Lit without being exposed to sodomy? And those sure are terrible parents for not wanting the high school English teacher to teach their children about anal sex and child abuse. And let's have the Math teacher teach them about racism. I can't believe the only way to teach English is via anal sex and child abuse. No wonder parents want to take back the schools.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) It was a voluntary elective. If the parents don't like the books, withdraw the kids from the class. If the parents want to ban the books from the class, and therefore deprive the other students the opportunity to read those books, that's not their prerogative. Then why elect a school board of you are just going to allow teachers to do whatever they want? In Texas, and I suspect every where else in the United States, kids are free to read whatever they want. They can go to the library, they can go buy the books. No one is telling them they cannot read the book or deprive them. What is in question is who should expose them to "controversial topics". Perhaps every High School English teacher is better equiped than you, but I doubt it. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) Literature is not about teaching concepts. Literature is about the literature. What book are you going to substitute for Catcher in the Rye to teach Catcher in the Rye? What book are you going to substitute for Huckleberry Finn to teach Huckleberry Finn? ^^^ Not about concepts? Romanticism, Realism, Modernism, poetic forms, autobiography, historical, biogra[hies, etc. None of these are taught in High School anymore? Is this class called Prince of Tides? or AP English? LCR mentioned the controversial topics. Who would say "I want my kids exposed to these topics, and a High School English teacher is the best person to do it"? This is also about age appropriate readings. A teacher made a conscious decision about what book to teach and to what level. There should be some oversight. This is public education, and should be available to all and should be as inclusive as possible. There certainly should be room for compromise and an alternate book selected. You may not be concerned about what people teach your children, but I am. And the sooner parents start caring what is fed to their children the better we all will be.

Is WLUP still rock? That was my fov station before I moved. Brandmeier, Mathews, Dahl, Stroud had a noon time gig.

Society demands that parents be responsible for their children and raising them. Schools beg for more parental involvement. They wring their hands and wonder what can be done to get the parents interested in what their children are learning. Yet as soon as parents go beyond the fundraisers, and buying tickets to games and plays, teachers feel threatened. Willfully ignorant is a loaded phrase. Different topics are presented better in different venues. Perhaps I would rather be teaching my children about sex, drugs, love, and war, not having you do it. For that, I am mocked and accused of wanting my kids willfully ignorant? The hubris to think you are the best to do that is willfully ignorant. Parents that do not know what is being taught to their own children are the ones embracing willful ignorance not the ones that are standing up. But they are your best customer. They keep their mouths shut and keep sending their kids to school. Tell me this, what literary concepts cannot be taught using less offensive works. It seems the goal here is to expose them to controversial topics? Why? How does exposing them to these controversial topics fit the mission statement of the school? Why is it the school's business? Amazing that you have time. Perhaps there should be a course Controversial Topics 101 and allow parents and students to make that choice? The idea of parents and educators selecting books that teach the concepts is right. Parents just blindly turning their children over to strangers is what is wrong. When the kids act out in ways that society does not approve, is it the teachers standing next to their students in court? No. They are back in their ivory towers, wringing their hands, trying to figure out why parents are not involved selling more M&M for the Senior trip.

Is there any books that you would deem unsuitable for that age level? At what age should parents stop being parents and just turn their kids over to teachers to raise?

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 03:22 PM) Re-signing Uribe is the most secure move for the short term. Now they have the freedom to avoid mediocre shortstops in free agency and shore up their bullpen, while getting a better CF. This also helps in trades. They can focus on Crede or Fields in trade offers and shop Garland. Uribe re-signing doesn't mean he's annointed 2008 starter, it just means that he was the youngest, easiest option that KW had at the time. For all we know, they may trade for a SS and send Uribe packing in another trade later on. Uribe can also be plan C at third base. Fields might be better in leftfield or traded for a centerfielder, Crede can be sent to New York/Anaheim/San Francisco for younger players. It's all speculation at this point, but hey, it's November. ^^^ Thanks for saving me the typing.

McCain on the GOP side.