Throw away your dead bolts!
James L Fox
I just saw a TV report of a 7% reduction in crime across the USA.
I missed the beginning so I'm not sure of what was stated
about Pittsburgh. I thought I saw a graphic saying that there
were ONLY 23 murders compared to 25 for the same period last
year. Does anyone know what that period was? BTW, although
robbery was down, rapes were up [in Pittsburgh].
A 7% reduction in crime isn't good reason to throw away your dead bolts
in as much as this also means it is 93% of its previous level. Is a
change from 25 to 23 even statistically significant? The mayor and other
city leaders were asked what they thought accounted for the drop.
Is this funny, or what?
--Jim Fox
Jean Smith
In article <5b9t57$a...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, jlf...@pitt.edu (James L
Fox) wrote:
=>I just saw a TV report of a 7% reduction in crime across the USA.
=>I missed the beginning so I'm not sure of what was stated
=>about Pittsburgh. I thought I saw a graphic saying that there
=>were ONLY 23 murders compared to 25 for the same period last
=>year. Does anyone know what that period was? BTW, although
=>robbery was down, rapes were up [in Pittsburgh].
=>
=>A 7% reduction in crime isn't good reason to throw away your dead bolts
=>in as much as this also means it is 93% of its previous level. Is a
=>change from 25 to 23 even statistically significant? The mayor and other
=>city leaders were asked what they thought accounted for the drop.
=>Is this funny, or what?
=>
No we can pray that it's the start of a trend and invest our effort in our
communities to assure that it continues.
--
Jean Smith http://www.gte.net/jsmith mailto:jsm...@gte.net
I don't presume to speak for: USG, HAHA, and so on.
Huntsville Amateur Hockey Association http://www.hsv.tis.net/hockey
For Lovers of Benchmarks: http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/linpackjava/
Paul S Galvanek
In article <jsmith-ya0230800...@news.gte.net>,
Jean Smith <jsm...@gte.net> wrote:
>No we can pray that it's the start of a trend and invest our effort in our
>communities to assure that it continues.
Actually, it's part of a very negative trend that is hitting this area
particularly hard. The country is getting older and older people are less
likely to be involved in crime, especially violent ones. In Pittsburgh it's
not only the larger trend we're seeing, but the added pressure of many younger
people leaving the area in search of job opportunities.
Soon, Pittsburgh and surrounding areas will largely be a area of elderly and
a small number of people who work to provide the services to them and crime
should continue to drop - as will job opportunities, the labor force, tax
revenue, home ownership etc etc.
Paul S. Galvanek
Herman Schmit
Paul S Galvanek (ps...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: In article <jsmith-ya0230800...@news.gte.net>,
: Jean Smith <jsm...@gte.net> wrote:
: >No we can pray that it's the start of a trend and invest our effort in our
: >communities to assure that it continues.
: Actually, it's part of a very negative trend that is hitting this area
: particularly hard. The country is getting older and older people are less
: likely to be involved in crime, especially violent ones.
Bummer.
Its good to know that we can always count on the people of pgh.opinion
to find the dreadful truth underneath any snippet of good news we might
happen to hear.
Herman
------------------------------------------------
Herman Schmit, Research Engineer
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15213
Tel: (412) 268-6642 email: her...@ece.cmu.edu
James L Fox
No one yet has answered the question I asked in the post which
started this thread. It appears most people really do believe
that 93% of an unacceptable rate of crime is OK and worth
analyzing the possible reasons for the change. I really
would like to know what period the drop from 25 to 23 murders
occured. (Please see original post.)
James L Fox
In article <5bduq7$a...@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>,
Commenting on some statistical conjecture to explain a lower crime rate...
Herman Schmit <her...@galant.ece.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>Its good to know that we can always count on the people of pgh.opinion
>to find the dreadful truth underneath any snippet of good news we might
>happen to hear.
>
Herman, Have you toured Homestead recently? Ask the policemen there
about the lower crime rate. Ask my wife to show you the Auto Body
Shop bill for $200 to repair our car which was damaged when she was
attacked by "teens" with a 30 pound chunk of concrete as she tried
to leave the place. Ask the father of the 2 year old just shot there
about the lower crime rate. BTW, the same report stating a 7%
decrease in overall crime reported an INCREASE in rape in Pittsburgh.
Ask some of these raped women about the decrease in crime!
--Jim Fox
p.s. If you decide to tour Homestead, I recommend daylight hours.
tunaman
In article <jsmith-ya0230800...@news.gte.net>,
Jean Smith <jsm...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>No we can pray that it's the start of a trend and invest our effort in our
>communities to assure that it continues.
>
>Jean Smith http://www.gte.net/jsmith mailto:jsm...@gte.net
>I don't presume to speak for: USG, HAHA, and so on.
>Huntsville Amateur Hockey Association http://www.hsv.tis.net/hockey
>For Lovers of Benchmarks: http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/linpackjava/
Yes, and do pray for our city and it's people. (it makes a difference)
tunaman :)
Herman Schmit
James L Fox (jlf...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: In article <5bduq7$a...@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>,
Jim,
First, a statistical point: Homestead is not in Pittsburgh. There
could very well be a increasing crime rate in Homestead. As far as I
know, the 7% decrease in crime rate that is being discussed here
applies to the city of Pittsburgh only.
Second, have you been to, or lived in, any other American city lately?
In the PG benchmarks, Pittsburgh had the lowest crime of 15 similarly
sized cities. One quarter the crime rate of Miami. This doesn't
decrease the tragedy of any one crime, and statistics can never
console victims. There is no ACCEPTABLE crime rate. But a 7%
improvement on an already low rate is not something to mourn or
write-off as complete insignificant.
I've lived in Philadelphia and Boston, and comparitively, this is a
crime-free paradise. When I was in college in Philadelphia, four out
of the six women who lived in my house were robbed, at knife-point, in
one year. In Boston, my car and my two roomate's cars were broken
into, vandalized, or stolen a total of seven times in two years. The
crime rate experienced by myself and my friends since I've lived in
Pittsburgh has been tremendously lower. But, then maybe I've just had
better luck picking safer, luckier friends, and being safer myself.
Herman
--
James L Fox
In article <5biri6$6...@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>,
Herman Schmit <her...@galant.ece.cmu.edu> wrote:
>James L Fox (jlf...@pitt.edu) wrote:
>: In article <5bduq7$a...@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>,
>
>: Commenting on some statistical conjecture to explain a lower crime rate...
>
>: Herman Schmit <her...@galant.ece.cmu.edu> wrote:
>: >
>
[Yes, Homestead is not technically in the city, but the High Level
Bridge is all that separates Squirrel Hill from the site of the
shooting of the 2 yr. old and most people from Homestead claim
Pittsburgh as their home when travelling. :-) ]
Statistically speaking, you are absolutely right. You didn't mention
Baltimore which my sister left in terror 5 years ago when she experienced
how safe it was in Vienna. She now lives in Stockholm and probably
will never live in the states again, unless we really DO SOMETHING
about the small army of low lifes that are lurking in our cities!
>
>decrease the tragedy of any one crime, and statistics can never
>console victims. There is no ACCEPTABLE crime rate. But a 7%
>
I know Pittsburgh has a lower crime rate than most other comparable
cities in the US but I take a broader view and compare to foreign
cities that I'm familiar with. Don't you think we should try to be
the best?
Knowing that my 16 yr. old son has a better than 90% chance of walking
from south Oakland to the Bee Hive and back on a friday night without
being mugged is no consolation to me when I know what that 10% risk
involves. It is especially unacceptable to me when I know that he is
enjoying 99.999% safety on the ENTIRE public transportation system and
in ALL neighborhoods this school year in Vienna.
The problem with the crime statistics for cities is that they are
averages of very safe areas and all others, including absolutely
DANGEROUS areas. As relatively safe as Pittsburgh is compared to
other US cities, would you want to be a foreign tourist who lost
their way from the turnpike to Oakland and ended up on a dead end
street at 2am in Homewood?!
The fact that there are places in Pittsburgh where not only strangers
but decent residents themselves can not safely walk the streets -
is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE to me.
--Jim Fox
James L Fox
In article <5bm5vi$l...@dropit.pgh.net>,
>: occured. (Please see original post.)
>
>I gotta be bored, or something; I am looking up the original post...
>
>>I just saw a TV report of a 7% reduction in crime across the USA.
>>I missed the beginning so I'm not sure of what was stated
>>about Pittsburgh. I thought I saw a graphic saying that there
...sorry folks - I DID see a graphic...
>>were ONLY 23 murders compared to 25 for the same period last
>>year. Does anyone know what that period was? BTW, although
>>robbery was down, rapes were up [in Pittsburgh].
>
>Which TV report? Your set might reach only one channel and only
>between the hours of 2 and 3 AM on nights when there is a blue
>moon, but we are not privy to this information. We can't verify
>this show, evaluate the credibility of the data, or otherwise
>comment.
>
>You not only don't name the show, you missed important data, you "thought"
>you saw something.
>
I thought my paragraph above was pretty straightforward. "I thought I
saw a graphic" would ring a bell for ANYONE WHO SAW THE SHOW which
obviously does not include you. I don't think it was assuming too much
to think that someone in PITTSBURGH who happened to view a local
PITTSBURGH TV news show just MIGHT be reading PGH.general the next day.
----some more busy-busy-busy critique snipped---------
>
>If you wish further input, why not do some research? Dig up some
>newspaper articles from the library, and post a summary.
>--
>
Would you spend that kind of time to get a trivial piece of information
when its possible someone in PGH.general might have it?
Since you obviously didn't see the news show that I did it would
have been much more efficient to ignore my post and wait to see if
someone else did. I'm surprised that an advocate of privatization
such as you would be so inefficient and (almost) bureaucratic.
--Jim Fox
Terry McIntyre
: started this thread. It appears most people really do believe
: that 93% of an unacceptable rate of crime is OK and worth
: analyzing the possible reasons for the change. I really
: would like to know what period the drop from 25 to 23 murders
I gotta be bored, or something; I am looking up the original post...
>I just saw a TV report of a 7% reduction in crime across the USA.
>I missed the beginning so I'm not sure of what was stated
>>about Pittsburgh. I thought I saw a graphic saying that there
>were ONLY 23 murders compared to 25 for the same period last
>year. Does anyone know what that period was? BTW, although
>robbery was down, rapes were up [in Pittsburgh].
Which TV report? Your set might reach only one channel and only
between the hours of 2 and 3 AM on nights when there is a blue
moon, but we are not privy to this information. We can't verify
this show, evaluate the credibility of the data, or otherwise
comment.
You not only don't name the show, you missed important data, you "thought"
you saw something.
James, I give you great credit for reporting so honestly;
no embelishments, no inventions. But the honest truth is, what is
left is entirely too vague to comment upon. If you thought you heard
23 murders, perhaps they said 13 or 33 - you as much as told us
that this is low-grade, imprecise information.
If you wish further input, why not do some research? Dig up some
newspaper articles from the library, and post a summary.
--
Terry McIntyre http://www.greenepa.net/~tmcintyr tmci...@greenepa.net
Libertarians Do It By Consent; Other Parties Do It By Force!
http://www.lp.org/ 800-682-1776
Christian J Lebiere
A few miscellaneous comments regarding Jim Fox's last post:
Western Europe (and most other industrialized countries) generally has a
much lower incidence of crime than the US, in particular murder. Most
European cities do have dangerous areas, but they are usually confined
to the outskirts of the cities where housing projects have been built to
house immigrants and other undesirable poors. It is pretty fruitless to
try and compare crime in US vs Europe, because they are fundamentally
different societies: Europeans care about their central cities, are
willing to accept stringent gun control laws, have much more uniform,
stable societies, etc. Of course the price to pay is a certain amount
of stagnation, economically and culturally, and the dynamism of American
society is widely envied, even though it also has its price.
That doesn't mean that we can't do anything about crime here. New York
City has cut its murder rate by more than half over the last five years.
Although some of it is part of a general (and unpredictable) trend,
some can be attributed to innovative and agressive policing schemes.
But as long as the US remains a heavily urbanized country with extremely
poor areas, plentiful guns, and an out-of-control drug war, a high level
of crime (compared to other industrialized countries) is to be expected.
I find the general obsession with crime absolutely fascinating. For
most people outside very specific categories (chiefly young black urban
males), the physical risk of injury or death from a criminal act is
comparatively quite small. Fox example, twice as many people die in car
accidents every year as are murdered. But many people make fundamental
decisions, such as where to live, to minimize their exposure to crime
wile disregarding other potentially more important factors, such as the
increased driving risk from commuting to work. Many other factors, such
as fatty diet, smoking, and lack of exercise, have at least an order of
magnitude larger health impact than crime, but they don't play as well
on the eleven o'clock news.
James L Fox
In article <Mmrdnae00iVC0=71...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Christian J Lebiere <c...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>A few miscellaneous comments regarding Jim Fox's last post:
>
>Western Europe (and most other industrialized countries) generally has a
>much lower incidence of crime than the US, in particular murder. Most
>European cities do have dangerous areas, but they are usually confined
>to the outskirts of the cities where housing projects have been built to
...etcetera.. (See parent post)
Christian,
Well put. I accept. Now, if we can get NY to share their methods
with other US cities, esp. LA, DC, St. Louis, and Detroit, perhaps
we can move towards better days.
--Jim Fox
Tim Scoff
In article <5ckgvg$d...@kick.lm.com>, tu...@telerama.lm.com (tuna inc.) wrote:
-Jim,
- And all. Yes, I'm back! First of all, yes, there are some
-neighborhoods in town that are terrible. But nobody seems to be
-addressing the issues. Oh, sure, some are trying, but I agree, at
-this hour, I wouldn't visit the Hill District, nor would I even
-think of driving to St Clair Village. I don't need to go into the
-details, but my car was stolen recently. I was unhappy. But, it
-came back, and it will turn into anothr car, so it's not like I
-should go have a fit. Rape is different--but it is a crime that can
-be stopped with just a little communication, and most importantly,
-trust.
I hate to say this, especially here on the internet because it is a
sure fire way to get flamed, but it is the truth. If we raise our children
with a religious background they will usually have some morals when they
get out on their own. Far too many people don't teach their children the
difference between right and wrong, and if you go to church and Sunday
School with your children every week it is much easier because they will
help teach the proper morals there.
We have forgotten the most important rule of life. Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you. Ask yourself the next time you cut
someone off when you are driving who is waiting to merge with traffic how
you would feel in his shoes. Ask yourself the same question before you
steal anything, or force your attentions (rape) on someone, or do anything.
If you do that everyone else will have a little better life, and hopefully
they will do the same. We are losing our sense of community here, and it
shows in how we treat each other. I'ld be willing to bet that the young
animal who shot that infant in a car a couple of weeks ago was not raised
in a religious family. He hadn't been taught to respect others or he would
not have pulled the trigger.
- Now that we have the internet to communicate on, if we
-discuss these issues, and then take the political action that is
-needed, then we will be able to solve the rape problem. The drug
-problem, ask NORMAL or ask a Libertarian--there is an easy solution
-that would end the violence in a matter of months.
- But nobody wants such a radical solution, do we? No, it's
-ok to lie to our kids in the name of.....what?????? My kids are
-going home schooled at the end of this semester, and I won't miss
-the Pittsburgh Public Schools one bit. And, while I'm there--Obe
-sucks too. It's brainwashing, and if you don't believe me, then
-either you don't have any kids, or you believe in obe.
Our public school system is a failure. I went to Hickory High School
in Hermitage, Pa. and I was NOT taught how to think, study, and learn. I
was taught to get by and do the absolute minimum. I went out to the real
world and what I was taught in school immediately showed. I got a 1420 on
the SAT and flunked out of school immediately. I have an IQ of 140. I
should not have done that, but I did not know how to study. I knew how to
sleep through class and listen to the teacher on the day before the test.
I was actually threatened by the ACADEMIC students in math class for hiding
my test paper when I took a test! Now I am finally over that and am
recovering, but I did not receive the education that the taxpayers paid
for. I was shuffled off into a corner and ignored because I got A's on all
of the tests. I never did homework, but I didn't have to in order to
regurgitate the information the teachers wanted to hear. And today my
sister who is much smarter than I am is in the same school, but the best
two teachers in the whole school have retired, and they are putting
everyone together in the same classes randomly instead of putting the
smarter kids in faster paced classes and the slower kids in classes where
the teacher can work with them and teach them at a pace they can handle.
Our education system is a failure, and I am a prime example. The taxpayers
paid a large sum of money to educate me, and the school wasted the money.
Please someone, anyone tell me that there is a positive change coming up,
because I can't see one. The only way we have a chance of regaining the
lead in technology is if we educate the next generation properly, but we
aren't! We are teaching our children WHAT to think instead of HOW to
think!! We are failing our next generation and doing to them the same
thing that was done to me.
The only thing that may help will be if we institute a school voucher
program. If we do I predict that within 2 years the number of students at
public schools will be cut in half because private schools will pop up like
wildfire all over the place and most of the parents will vote with their
feet and take their students somewhere where they will be taught.
Somewhere with standards for it's teachers. Somewhere where excellence is
the goal, not something to be avoided! And our public school system and
the NEA will collapse, leaving behind a private school system that does
what the parents want it to do, not what the beauracrats in Washington want
it to do. The proper people will be in control of our children's
education, US!!
- Peace can be attained if we can come to agreements. Henry
-Kissenger based his life on his abilities as a peacemaker. Try to
-be one in your life--make peace between individuals, and the
-peacemaker is blessed by God Himself. And whether or not you
-believe in God is irrelavant, because I know of what I speak.
- Pittsburgh has many problems, but some of us are working our
-asses off to solve them. Go to church. Join a neighborhood watch.
-Become involved. They may have stolen one car from me--but I know
-that the next one will be much harder to take.
I agree completely. I don't attend church currently, but when I get
married I am going to attend whatever church my wife does, or we will pick
one out. Because my children will be raised with morals, a sense of
responsibility, and respect for other people and the with the support of a
church it will be much easier for me to teach them these most important
lessons.
- Peace,
-
- tunaman :)
-
---
-this is a new domain for information, write me and I'll explain more.
-I'm also about to unveil a new ISP here in Pittsburgh. If you are
-an investor, and you are interested, please reply to this account.
-Thank you very much. tunaman:) Feb 1 Don't Miss it--the last show.
Tim Scoff
cas...@nb.net
Please remove the words STOP.SPAM from any e-mail you send me
Windows 95: Five years ago corporate software giant Microsoft spent
millions of dollars and put a team of hundreds of highly specialized
programmers on an extensive and highly ambitious project to find another
name for the Apple Menu.
tuna inc.
Jim,
And all. Yes, I'm back! First of all, yes, there are some
tunaman :)
--
this is a new domain for information, write me and I'll explain more.
I'm also about to unveil a new ISP here in Pittsburgh. If you are
an investor, and you are interested, please reply to this account.
Aga
tuna inc. <tu...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
: Jim,
: And all. Yes, I'm back! First of all, yes, there are some
: neighborhoods in town that are terrible. But nobody seems to be
: addressing the issues.
Dr. Grubor addreses all of the issues, and you can elect him for the
new County CEO in the future.
Now keep the fucking Christians out of Allegheny County; this
ia a SECULAR HUMANIST Pittsburgh, and we do not want any more
crazy-christians here.
Oh, sure, some are trying, but I agree, at
: this hour, I wouldn't visit the Hill District, nor would I even
: think of driving to St Clair Village. I don't need to go into the
: details, but my car was stolen recently. I was unhappy. But, it
: came back, and it will turn into anothr car, so it's not like I
: should go have a fit. Rape is different--but it is a crime that can
: be stopped with just a little communication, and most importantly,
: trust.
: Now that we have the internet to communicate on, if we
: discuss these issues, and then take the political action that is
: needed, then we will be able to solve the rape problem. The drug
: problem, ask NORMAL or ask a Libertarian--there is an easy solution
: that would end the violence in a matter of months.
Right, just turn all of the "Churches" in to neeighboorhood schools
from 8-5 during the week, and the parents can then run the education
system like they should do.
: But nobody wants such a radical solution, do we? No, it's
: ok to lie to our kids in the name of.....what?????? My kids are
: going home schooled at the end of this semester, and I won't miss
: the Pittsburgh Public Schools one bit. And, while I'm there--Obe
: sucks too. It's brainwashing, and if you don't believe me, then
: either you don't have any kids, or you believe in obe.
: Peace can be attained if we can come to agreements. Henry
: Kissenger based his life on his abilities as a peacemaker. Try to
: be one in your life--make peace between individuals, and the
: peacemaker is blessed by God Himself.
See, that is the fucking problem; your wacky idea of a "god" which is a
superior being. If you believe in any supernatural power, you are bound
to fail.
And whether or not you
: believe in God is irrelavant, because I know of what I speak.
: Pittsburgh has many problems, but some of us are working our
: asses off to solve them. Go to church.
And TAKE the churches and make them schools. No more bussing.
Hundreds of neighboorhood schools, run by the Parents.
Fire all of the Teachers and get rid of the Teachers unions.
The only teachers should be ones with kids in the class.
Join a neighborhood watch.
: Become involved. They may have stolen one car from me--but I know
: that the next one will be much harder to take.
:
: Peace,
: tunaman :)
Pease is what Humanists seek. Christians always want to make war.
The best and only way to ever find peace is to KILL GOD !
Just get RID of that concept, and we all will be much better off.
-aga
Bill E Madden Jr.
Tim Scoff (cas...@nb.STOP.SPAM.net) wrote:
: I hate to say this, especially here on the internet because it is a
: sure fire way to get flamed, but it is the truth. If we raise our children
: with a religious background they will usually have some morals when they
: get out on their own. Far too many people don't teach their children the
: difference between right and wrong, and if you go to church and Sunday
: School with your children every week it is much easier because they will
: help teach the proper morals there.
I'm not going to flame you and I'm not gonna neccessdarily disagree with
you, but I don't 100% agree with you either. I was a sporadic church
attendee as a child (hard to go to a church that has 10 AM services when
you in your first heat in the water at 9 AM...) and I'm a borderline
athiest (swing between non-practicing presbyterian and an atheist,) but
the one thing my FAMILY did teach me was that there are
right things to do and wrong things to do. Most of these morals would
be inline with Christian teaching. These lessons weren't just
lip serviced, they were enforced by actions and deeds of my parents.
: We have forgotten the most important rule of life. Do unto others as
: you would have them do unto you.
Say what you want about Jesus Christ, but he DID have some terrific
ideas... This was one of 'em...
: We are losing our sense of community here, and it
: shows in how we treat each other.
I think it goes deeper than that, we're losing our sense of FAMILY.
Community is vitally important (which is something our libertarian friends
seem to miss) but a nuclear family, with a mother and a father as the
norm, not the exception, is what teaches our children what's right and
what is wrong. I know that I learned a lot from my dad (funny how he
gets smarter the older I get...) that I wouldn't have learned without
him in my life 24 hours a day for 19 (hell, 22 years.) And it was nice
to know when I got laid off a few years ago that I could pick up the
phone and talk to someone who had been there, who's opinion I trusted.
: I'ld be willing to bet that the young
: animal who shot that infant in a car a couple of weeks ago was not raised
: in a religious family. He hadn't been taught to respect others or he would
: not have pulled the trigger.
Teaching Religion is not neccessary teaching respect. One of the most
"religious" people I went to school with is currently serving time for
armed robbery, possession with the intent to distribute and murder. And
a "Pastor" is one of the people most responsible for driving me away
from the church.
: Our public school system is a failure. I went to Hickory High School
: in Hermitage, Pa. and I was NOT taught how to think, study, and learn. I
: was taught to get by and do the absolute minimum. I went out to the real
: world and what I was taught in school immediately showed. I got a 1420 on
: the SAT and flunked out of school immediately. I have an IQ of 140.
I'll refute this: I went to Mt. Lebanon High School where I was taught
how to think and learn, if not the greatest study techiques in the
world. Like you, I have an IQ of 140, and scored 1300 on my SATs... I
almost flunked out of college for 1 reason - I was too busy drinking and
smoking dope. *MY* lack of self control was my enemy, not the education
I had recieved in the public system before I went to college. I woke up
one day and realized that I was pissing my life away, and was about to
give my parents the greatest disappointment of their lives... I made a
few changes and actually attended a few classes... I'm now a
senior design engineer for a consulting firm and doing very well, thank
you very much... Go figure... The teaching ability of the professors
didn't change - my receptiveness to what they were doing did.
: I
: should not have done that, but I did not know how to study. I knew how to
: sleep through class and listen to the teacher on the day before the test.
: I was actually threatened by the ACADEMIC students in math class for hiding
: my test paper when I took a test!
I guess I was lucky - I'm about 6'1 and ran about 215 then (I'm about
235 now and not anywhere near in that type of shape. :-) No
one threatened me when I told them to piss off when they wanted to
copy. Funny how a big frame a a nasty reputation can obscure the fact
that you're a total wimp....
: Now I am finally over that and am
: recovering, but I did not receive the education that the taxpayers paid
: for.
<Shrugs> I did.
: I was shuffled off into a corner and ignored because I got A's on all
: of the tests. I never did homework, but I didn't have to in order to
: regurgitate the information the teachers wanted to hear. And today my
: sister who is much smarter than I am is in the same school, but the best
: two teachers in the whole school have retired, and they are putting
: everyone together in the same classes randomly instead of putting the
: smarter kids in faster paced classes and the slower kids in classes where
: the teacher can work with them and teach them at a pace they can handle.
This is a bad situation. One of the things Mt. Lebo USED to do (and not
being a parent myself I don't know if they still do) was to track the
students in so that the bright ones could shine while the kids who
needed that little extra could get it. I had a years worth of college
credits when I walked out of high school, and I had very little problems
my first year in school when I actually APPLIED myself to a class.
: Our education system is a failure, and I am a prime example. The taxpayers
: paid a large sum of money to educate me, and the school wasted the money.
But are you willing to admit your part in wasting some of that money?
You alreay admitted that you didn't challenge yourself, which is part of
any learning process. Did you do outside projects? Participate in
sports? Look for opportunities to learn from people who were in a field
of interest? Did you learn all
you could about physics and math and computers? Or did you simply
coast? I guess I'm a little different than a lot of people - I've always
been extremely competitive... I've never been THE best.. But I've always
done my best to get to that point...
: Please someone, anyone tell me that there is a positive change coming up,
: because I can't see one. The only way we have a chance of regaining the
: lead in technology is if we educate the next generation properly, but we
: aren't! We are teaching our children WHAT to think instead of HOW to
: think!! We are failing our next generation and doing to them the same
: thing that was done to me.
"Ohhhh WOE is me..." I'm sorry, Tim... but I hear this from a lot of
people who just aren't willing to try, INCLUDING many of my
ex-girlfriends and friends... "The system let me down, they didn't TEACH
me how to do it, they didn't cater to my special needs...."
Most of the people I hear bitching about his are
the ones who never tried... Case in point... I have two friends,
neither of whom has a college education... One dropped out of nursing
school 1 semester from graduation (with a 3.4 QPA) because, "It was too
much stress in my life and the profs just didn't care." The other
learned everything he could about computers on his own and in classes,
and is about to sign a VERY lucrative contract to become a network
administrator with a local company... Then we could look at my
ex-girlfriend who dropped out of school because her prof gave her a
paper to do, on the first day of class, that was due the same day she
had a final... 14 weeks later... Her excuse? "He wasn't doing his job
because he wouldn't give me an extension!" Who was the one who was let down
by the system?
: The only thing that may help will be if we institute a school voucher
: program.
And this helps how if parents don't get involved? And what happens if
Student A wants to go to school B which is halfway across town and is so
crowded that they aren't accepting any more students? Do we
bus him/her there? Do we force that district to accept the student? Do we
then give a "Travel Voucher?" Or do we replace the incompetints at the local
school with competent educators? And what about the student who has parents
who just don't care and want to expend the minimum effort and doesn't
search out the best education for the child? Or the student who just
doesn't care to learn? (I remember an 11th grade history class where
the teacher and I had a nice interesting debate on teh causes of WWII
when most of the rest of the clas just wanted to go to lunch... )
How does a voucher solve any of these problems? In and of itself, it doesn't.
: If we do I predict that within 2 years the number of students at
: public schools will be cut in half because private schools will pop up like
: wildfire all over the place and most of the parents will vote with their
: feet and take their students somewhere where they will be taught.
I'd be shocked if this happened. Students fail not only because their
teachers don't demand excellence, but also because their PARENTS don't demand
excellence. In my home, a C was a failing grade and a B was a
disappointment... it didn't matter if the teacher was unreasonable or
sucked rocks. Was it rough? Hell yes. Did it drive me to succeed?
You bet your ass because, like any kid, I wanted my parent's admiration,
and today, I salute them for it.
: Somewhere with standards for it's teachers. Somewhere where excellence is
: the goal, not something to be avoided! And our public school system and
: the NEA will collapse, leaving behind a private school system that does
: what the parents want it to do, not what the beauracrats in Washington want
: it to do. The proper people will be in control of our children's
: education, US!!
You just took my position...
: I agree completely. I don't attend church currently, but when I get
: married I am going to attend whatever church my wife does, or we will pick
: one out.
If you believe so strongly, why not attend NOW? Why have your wife make
the decision? For God's sake man, MAKE A STAND FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE
IN!
: Because my children will be raised with morals, a sense of
: responsibility, and respect for other people and the with the support of a
: church it will be much easier for me to teach them these most important
: lessons.
If you think the Church is responsible for teaching those lessons,
you're looking in the wrong place. Look inside yourself first, FOR God
if you believe in him. And if you don't,then take HIS message and make
it your own. Ultimately, no one else can teach your children what YOU
can.
: Tim Scoff
: cas...@nb.net
: Please remove the words STOP.SPAM from any e-mail you send me
Bill
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Madden Jr. | bat...@mb5000.anes.upmc.edu
Software Engineering Consultant | bat...@pitt.edu
ESA Inc./Medrad Inc. |
Pittsburgh, PA |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just anoher mindless jerk who'll be first against the wall when the
revolution comes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry McIntyre
Christian J Lebiere (c...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: I find the general obsession with crime absolutely fascinating. For
: most people outside very specific categories (chiefly young black urban
: males), the physical risk of injury or death from a criminal act is
: comparatively quite small. Fox example, twice as many people die in car
: accidents every year as are murdered. But many people make fundamental
: decisions, such as where to live, to minimize their exposure to crime
: wile disregarding other potentially more important factors, such as the
: increased driving risk from commuting to work. Many other factors, such
: as fatty diet, smoking, and lack of exercise, have at least an order of
: magnitude larger health impact than crime, but they don't play as well
: on the eleven o'clock news.
Absolutely right!
For most residents in or around Pittsburgh, it is probably more important
to arrange to drive opposite the flow of rush hour traffic, than to
worry about the odds of getting shot while driving.
Fox, if your son has only a 90% chance of getting home safely from
the Beehive, Oakland has become a great deal more dangerous than it was the
last time I visited it - on Friday the 24th.
Try not to frighten yourself with ludicrous statistics. We do have
some problems; the streets could be safer; but even in a war zone,
fewer than 10% are shot.
I encourage readers who think of gun control as an answer to ponder
the Lott&Mustard study:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Publications/Working/41.html
Here's the executive summary:
"If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had
adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000
aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly."
We should also keep in mind the wisdom of Mark Twain:
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures
that there is no distinctly native American criminal
class except Congress."
Worth looking at is the connection between effort spent in the War on
Some Drugs, and the crime rate - which is, ahem, an inverse relation.
"a 1-percent increase in drug enforcement activities raises
the property crime offense rate by an estimated 0.164 percent"
This makes perfect sense to an economist. Police departments
are subject (somewhat) to the laws of scarcity; an officer on a "vice
squad" is not available for tracking down murder, theft, and rape.
Want safer cities? I recommend two things: insist that the police
focus on safety issues, such as rape, murder, and theft, and
get the government out of the way of legitimate private self-defense
activities.
Terry McIntyre
: saw a graphic" would ring a bell for ANYONE WHO SAW THE SHOW which
: to think that someone in PITTSBURGH who happened to view a local
: PITTSBURGH TV news show just MIGHT be reading PGH.general the next day.
: >If you wish further input, why not do some research? Dig up some
: >newspaper articles from the library, and post a summary.
: >
: Would you spend that kind of time to get a trivial piece of information
: when its possible someone in PGH.general might have it?
Yes. I would do such research.
Unlike you, I would not assume that other readers on pgh.general are
just sitting around waiting to do research for me. With some noticeable
exceptions, it is safe to assume that the readers and posters
have busy lives.
: Since you obviously didn't see the news show that I did it would
: have been much more efficient to ignore my post and wait to see if
: someone else did.
Most posters ( including myself ) did exactly that - ignored
your post. This dearth of replies so suprised you that you posted
another article, asking why no one had taken time out of their
empty and meaningless lives to do your research.
I attempted to supply your obvious need for a clue, but it appears that
you are still operating at a serious deficit.
: I'm surprised that an advocate of privatization
: such as you would be so inefficient and (almost) bureaucratic.
Earth to Fox: engage brain ( including memory ), then type.
James L Fox
In article <5cnrp4$e...@dropit.pgh.net>,
Terry McIntyre <tmci...@news.pgh.net> wrote:
2529 bytes of bandwidth (deleted).
And made my point, again.
--Jim Fox
Tom Pendergast
tuna inc. wrote:
> ... My kids are
> going home schooled at the end of this semester, and I won't miss
> the Pittsburgh Public Schools one bit. And, while I'm there--Obe
> sucks too. It's brainwashing, and if you don't believe me, then
> either you don't have any kids, or you believe in obe.
...
John -
I -don't- have kids, and even -I- know that OBE stinks.
OBE is a glidepath for the Federal Gum'mint to get their hooks into
your kids. It's a chance to gather information on your kids and your
family, and then use that information to somehow declare the kids to
be "at risk" which essentially means that -your- rights as parents
go right out the door. Hillary Clinton and Marion (The Children's
Defense Fund) Wright Edelman will -tell- you how to run your life
from that point on. No, thanks!
--
Tom Pendergast
e-address supressed to fight sp*m
Unsolicited e-mail will result in complaints to postmasters, billing
for my time to read it, invoices, and legal action if necessary.
I know how to read headers and use whois, traceroute, lawyers
and credit bureaus. Consider yourself warned.
Terry McIntyre
Tom Pendergast ("t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[puta.here]com) wrote:
: tuna inc. wrote:
: > ... My kids are
: > going home schooled at the end of this semester, and I won't miss
: > the Pittsburgh Public Schools one bit. And, while I'm there--Obe
: > sucks too. It's brainwashing, and if you don't believe me, then
: > either you don't have any kids, or you believe in obe.
: I -don't- have kids, and even -I- know that OBE stinks.
: OBE is a glidepath for the Federal Gum'mint to get their hooks into
: your kids. It's a chance to gather information on your kids and your
: family, and then use that information to somehow declare the kids to
: be "at risk" which essentially means that -your- rights as parents
: go right out the door. Hillary Clinton and Marion (The Children's
: Defense Fund) Wright Edelman will -tell- you how to run your life
: from that point on. No, thanks!
Mark your calendars: Tom P and Terry M. agree on something, perhaps
for the second time since '97 rolled around.
In the interest of full disclosure, let me add a point which Tom P.
left out; OBE is a bi-partisan effort, spurred along by both Democrats
and such GOP worthies as George Bush, Bob Dole, and Tom Ridge.
Conservative proponents like to call it "National Standards", or
some such, but manure by any other name still stinks. You, as parents,
have responsibility for your children; you set the standards.
Sure, you can look to nationally-normed tests, such as the SAT,
for some clues as to how well your children are doing. But you
need to make those decisions, instead of letting the folks in DC
do the deciding for you.
David M Pickering
Excerpts from netnews.pgh.opinion: 4-Feb-97 Re: OBE (was "Restoring
Pea.. by Terry McIn...@news.pgh.
> : tuna inc. wrote:
>
> : > ... My kids are
> : > going home schooled at the end of this semester, and I won't miss
> : > the Pittsburgh Public Schools one bit. And, while I'm there--Obe
> : > sucks too. It's brainwashing, and if you don't believe me, then
> : > either you don't have any kids, or you believe in obe.
>
> : I -don't- have kids, and even -I- know that OBE stinks.
>
> : OBE is a glidepath for the Federal Gum'mint to get their hooks into
> : your kids. It's a chance to gather information on your kids and your
> : family, and then use that information to somehow declare the kids to
> : be "at risk" which essentially means that -your- rights as parents
> : go right out the door. Hillary Clinton and Marion (The Children's
> : Defense Fund) Wright Edelman will -tell- you how to run your life
> : from that point on. No, thanks!
>
> Mark your calendars: Tom P and Terry M. agree on something, perhaps
> for the second time since '97 rolled around.
What did you agree on? That you're misinformed?
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, let me add a point which Tom P.
> left out; OBE is a bi-partisan effort, spurred along by both Democrats
> and such GOP worthies as George Bush, Bob Dole, and Tom Ridge.
OBE stands for Objective Based Education. The idea is simple and,
surprisingly enough, it's based on concepts that private industry--that
holiest of holies to you libertarians--has been using for years: the
idea of setting an objective and then making plans to achieve that
objective.
>
> Conservative proponents like to call it "National Standards", or
> some such, but manure by any other name still stinks. You, as parents,
> have responsibility for your children; you set the standards.
The big stink Know-Nothings like Peg Luksik and others have been raising
has to do with a very small number of objectives, mostly in areas such
as the social sciences and biology (these dealing with the two great
bogeymen of the religious right: human sexuality and the teaching of
evolution).
>
> Sure, you can look to nationally-normed tests, such as the SAT,
> for some clues as to how well your children are doing. But you
> need to make those decisions, instead of letting the folks in DC
> do the deciding for you.
What, pray tell, is so insidious about setting objectives such as: "The
student will be able to add two fractions having different denominators"
or "The student will be able to identify parts of a cell"--these are
examples of the type of objectives this "grand conspiracy" of yours is
establishing.
Dave
dp...@andrew.cmu.edu
http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~dp3u/dave.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists
elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
--Calvin & Hobbes
Tom Pendergast
Terry McIntyre wrote:
>
> Tom Pendergast ("t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[puta.here]com) wrote:
> : tuna inc. wrote:
>
> : > ... My kids are
> : > going home schooled at the end of this semester, and I won't miss
> : > the Pittsburgh Public Schools one bit. And, while I'm there--Obe
> : > sucks too. It's brainwashing, and if you don't believe me, then
> : > either you don't have any kids, or you believe in obe.
>
> : I -don't- have kids, and even -I- know that OBE stinks.
>
> : OBE is a glidepath for the Federal Gum'mint to get their hooks into
> : your kids. It's a chance to gather information on your kids and your
> : family, and then use that information to somehow declare the kids to
> : be "at risk" which essentially means that -your- rights as parents
> : go right out the door. Hillary Clinton and Marion (The Children's
> : Defense Fund) Wright Edelman will -tell- you how to run your life
> : from that point on. No, thanks!
>
> Mark your calendars: Tom P and Terry M. agree on something, perhaps
> for the second time since '97 rolled around.
>
> left out; OBE is a bi-partisan effort, spurred along by both Democrats
> and such GOP worthies as George Bush, Bob Dole, and Tom Ridge.
>
> some such, but manure by any other name still stinks. You, as parents,
> have responsibility for your children; you set the standards.
conversation with you, if it weren't for this one terribly annoying
and consistent habit that you have ...
-Any-thing, and everything that I say in criticism of Democrats /
Clinton / liberals, you come trotting along with some -lame- -ass-
version of "well, the Republicans do it too!" which is usually 100%
pure horse manure. It's the only way you can cling to your bizarre
little Libertarian agenda, and we all know how I feel about that, so
I'll conserve some bandwidth.
The majority - by far, Terry - of people you hear calling for the
end of OBE are conservative republicans. Quinn's and Limbaugh's
folks, NOT Lib'l Lynn Cullin's and Chris Moore's. Instead of telling
folks about Tom Ridge (like who didn't know that he's a wishy-washy-
middle-of-the-road-Republican?), tell them how OBE also tends to
remove most emphasis on GPA's and other competitive aspects of the
education system, and how that particular idea is an overwhelmingly
-liberal- point of view.
I sincerely appreciate the fact that we see somewhat eye-to-eye on
this, but my eye can see right through your agenda.
--
Dan-O
tmci...@news.pgh.net (Terry McIntyre) wrote:
>In the interest of full disclosure, let me add a point which Tom P.
>left out; OBE is a bi-partisan effort, spurred along by both Democrats
>and such GOP worthies as George Bush, Bob Dole, and Tom Ridge.
Unfortunately, Terry "Mac" is correct in the above paragraph. This was
startling news to me when an anti-OBE speaker relayed these facts to
us at a local Republican meeting. If you are a Republican and you are
against OBE, make sure your elected couterparts hear your voice.
=======================================
to email remove SPAMBUSTER from address
=======================================
Dan-O
Tom Pendergast <"t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[put a . here]com> wrote:
>Ya know, Terry, it would be very easy to carry on a sociable on-line
>conversation with you, if it weren't for this one terribly annoying
>and consistent habit that you have ...
>-Any-thing, and everything that I say in criticism of Democrats /
>Clinton / liberals, you come trotting along with some -lame- -ass-
>version of "well, the Republicans do it too!" which is usually 100%
>pure horse manure. It's the only way you can cling to your bizarre
>little Libertarian agenda, and we all know how I feel about that, so
>I'll conserve some bandwidth.
I think Terry is just being consistent with the rest of the
Libertarians in this regard, if you'll recall during the elections
they spent more time bashing Bob Dole than they did promoting that guy
who was their own candidate.
Perhaps it is some ill considered ploy to sweep Democrats into their
fold...
P J Volk
cas...@nb.STOP.SPAM.net (Tim Scoff) wrote:
>In article <5ckgvg$d...@kick.lm.com>, tu...@telerama.lm.com (tuna inc.) wrote:
>-Jim,
>- And all. Yes, I'm back! First of all, yes, there are some
>-neighborhoods in town that are terrible. But nobody seems to be
>-addressing the issues. Oh, sure, some are trying, but I agree, at
>-this hour, I wouldn't visit the Hill District, nor would I even
>-think of driving to St Clair Village. I don't need to go into the
>-details, but my car was stolen recently. I was unhappy. But, it
>-came back, and it will turn into anothr car, so it's not like I
>-should go have a fit. Rape is different--but it is a crime that can
>-be stopped with just a little communication, and most importantly,
>-trust.
> I hate to say this, especially here on the internet because it is a
>sure fire way to get flamed, but it is the truth. If we raise our children
>with a religious background they will usually have some morals when they
>get out on their own. Far too many people don't teach their children the
>difference between right and wrong, and if you go to church and Sunday
>School with your children every week it is much easier because they will
>help teach the proper morals there.
The start from morals need to start from the family, not
necessarily the church. One thing religions don't inherently teach is
tolerance for other religions. To pick a religion is to make a
decision that this is the proper religion. Because you picked a
religion makes quite a few others not-as-desirable.
As a kid, who went to Parochial School, I didn't get a whole lot
from church. I do remember the nuns saying how protestants could not
go to heaven, and how the sacraments are the key to getting into
heaven. Religion tends to be a lot of ritual which is tough for young
minds to grasp.
> We have forgotten the most important rule of life. Do unto others as
>you would have them do unto you. Ask yourself the next time you cut
>someone off when you are driving who is waiting to merge with traffic how
>you would feel in his shoes. Ask yourself the same question before you
>steal anything, or force your attentions (rape) on someone, or do anything.
>If you do that everyone else will have a little better life, and hopefully
>they will do the same. We are losing our sense of community here, and it
>shows in how we treat each other. I'ld be willing to bet that the young
>animal who shot that infant in a car a couple of weeks ago was not raised
>in a religious family. He hadn't been taught to respect others or he would
>not have pulled the trigger.
How about in a supportive family? If you are a parent, IMO, it
falls on your shoulders to teach your children the difference between
right and wrong. That is the job of no institution, be it church or
state.
For religion to work, you must embrace it. How can you expect a
child to be respectful of God's rules, when he doesn't respect the
parent's rules. Religion molds morals, while the parents puts them
there in the first place.
>- Now that we have the internet to communicate on, if we
>-discuss these issues, and then take the political action that is
>-needed, then we will be able to solve the rape problem. The drug
>-problem, ask NORMAL or ask a Libertarian--there is an easy solution
>-that would end the violence in a matter of months.
>- But nobody wants such a radical solution, do we? No, it's
>-ok to lie to our kids in the name of.....what?????? My kids are
>-going home schooled at the end of this semester, and I won't miss
>-the Pittsburgh Public Schools one bit. And, while I'm there--Obe
>-sucks too. It's brainwashing, and if you don't believe me, then
>-either you don't have any kids, or you believe in obe.
> Our public school system is a failure. I went to Hickory High School
>in Hermitage, Pa. and I was NOT taught how to think, study, and learn. I
>was taught to get by and do the absolute minimum. I went out to the real
>world and what I was taught in school immediately showed. I got a 1420 on
>the SAT and flunked out of school immediately. I have an IQ of 140. I
..braggart..
>should not have done that, but I did not know how to study. I knew how to
>sleep through class and listen to the teacher on the day before the test.
I went through a similar situation, except I went to 8 years of
Catholic school. Our enrollment was so low, that they grouped 6th,
7th, and 8th grades (in my 6th grade year, no less). I didn't do as
well in high school, where homework was required.
I didn't do my homework in grade school either, and had the
detention slips to prove it. Took me 11 years to graduate college, and
working in a restaurant taught me more about discipline and drive than
school or college did.
But the question is, is that the school's fault? A schools' job is
to teach you the basics, and nowadays, a vocational trade if you want
it. If you take achievement tests, and place in the 98th percentile,
should they teach at your level and let the 97 people get lost and
despondant, and one person to be even more bored (it was you scoring
higher on those tests, was it? :)
Thinking and learning are things to be started in the home. Consider
yourself lucky that your parents taught you that. My family is who I
attribute that made me what I am intellectually.
And NO classes interested you? C'mon! I loved Bio II (had a great
teacher for that), chemistry, and graphic arts (things I couldn't do
at home). You were good at math, and pretty handy at english... so
what...
.
>I was actually threatened by the ACADEMIC students in math class for hiding
>my test paper when I took a test! Now I am finally over that and am
>recovering, but I did not receive the education that the taxpayers paid
>for. I was shuffled off into a corner and ignored because I got A's on all
>of the tests. I never did homework, but I didn't have to in order to
>regurgitate the information the teachers wanted to hear. And today my
>sister who is much smarter than I am is in the same school, but the best
>two teachers in the whole school have retired, and they are putting
>everyone together in the same classes randomly instead of putting the
>smarter kids in faster paced classes and the slower kids in classes where
>the teacher can work with them and teach them at a pace they can handle.
>Our education system is a failure, and I am a prime example. The taxpayers
>paid a large sum of money to educate me, and the school wasted the money.
>Please someone, anyone tell me that there is a positive change coming up,
>because I can't see one. The only way we have a chance of regaining the
>lead in technology is if we educate the next generation properly, but we
>aren't! We are teaching our children WHAT to think instead of HOW to
>think!! We are failing our next generation and doing to them the same
>thing that was done to me.
Gee, and you had nothing to do with it? What we need to do to regain
the edge in technology is to have smart people like you stop blaming
the system, and trying harder. I had a 2.2 when I graduated college
(a 2.1 in high school, 1.8 if you count 9th grade), and I work for the
Navy now (computer scientist).
One thing that needs to be taught, starting at home is the fact that
nothing really outside the family is guaranteed, except death and
taxes. High school, and even college cannot even hope to give you all
the skills you might encounter in the real world.
And IQ tests, and the SATs are very irrelevant when it comes to the
real world. Intellegence != wisdom.
> The only thing that may help will be if we institute a school voucher
>program. If we do I predict that within 2 years the number of students at
>public schools will be cut in half because private schools will pop up like
>wildfire all over the place and most of the parents will vote with their
>feet and take their students somewhere where they will be taught.
As a product of private schooling, I ain't so sure this is a good
thing. You get more teachers, and less resources. If if they rely
entirely on the school system to teach their kids, nothing will
change. People with bad study habits will still have them, and those
like yourself will continue to get A's.
>Somewhere with standards for it's teachers. Somewhere where excellence is
>the goal, not something to be avoided! And our public school system and
>the NEA will collapse, leaving behind a private school system that does
>what the parents want it to do, not what the beauracrats in Washington want
>it to do. The proper people will be in control of our children's
>education, US!!
Have you ever heard of the school board? Do you know that you vote for
these people?
>- Peace can be attained if we can come to agreements. Henry
>-Kissenger based his life on his abilities as a peacemaker. Try to
>-be one in your life--make peace between individuals, and the
>-peacemaker is blessed by God Himself. And whether or not you
>-believe in God is irrelavant, because I know of what I speak.
>- Pittsburgh has many problems, but some of us are working our
>-asses off to solve them. Go to church. Join a neighborhood watch.
>-Become involved. They may have stolen one car from me--but I know
>-that the next one will be much harder to take.
> I agree completely. I don't attend church currently, but when I get
>married I am going to attend whatever church my wife does, or we will pick
>one out. Because my children will be raised with morals, a sense of
>responsibility, and respect for other people and the with the support of a
>church it will be much easier for me to teach them these most important
>lessons.
I am skeptical of the teachings of church, so I know why I do not
attend church. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to say you support the
church for your kids, but not you? The church has nothing to teach
you, I suppose. Maybe the church can teach you it will be your job to
enforce what they teach, like it is the job of parents to enforce what
the schools teach.
Bear in mind, you're talking to someone who is a disillusioned
Catholic. Just because I am not convinced of all the teachings of the
church, doesn't mean I know and follow the tenets of the faith. I try
and do no evil, and I have a conscience.
Family
Community
Church
The important things, in that order.
Pat v
>- Peace,
>-
>- tunaman :)
>-
>---
>-this is a new domain for information, write me and I'll explain more.
>-I'm also about to unveil a new ISP here in Pittsburgh. If you are
>-an investor, and you are interested, please reply to this account.
>-Thank you very much. tunaman:) Feb 1 Don't Miss it--the last show.
>Tim Scoff
>cas...@nb.net
>Please remove the words STOP.SPAM from any e-mail you send me
Sic Semper Tyrannis
I reserve the right to respond to e-mail. I also reserve the right of response in my manner,
commercial unsolicited e-mail vendors, please take note. Using this message in any fashion constitutes
acceptance of these terms.
Paul S Galvanek
In article <gmxuHFW00...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
David M Pickering <dp...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>What, pray tell, is so insidious about setting objectives such as: "The
>student will be able to add two fractions having different denominators"
>or "The student will be able to identify parts of a cell"--these are
>examples of the type of objectives this "grand conspiracy" of yours is
>establishing.
Nothing would be wrong with that David, but people who have followed
OBE know that the program does no such thing. The name implies it
does and those who do no more than take the propaganda from the teacher's
unions and Department of Education at face value could reasonably assume
that is what OBE does, but like most of the crap that comes from the left
the difference between what the program claims as objectives and the
what the program really does is huge.
And objective assesment of whether a student is able to add two fractions
or identify parts of a cell is as simple as providing a test to the
student and grading whether he/she can produce the correct responses - just
the way schools did it 40 years ago.
OBE replaces objective evaluations of student performance, such as standardized
testing and pass or fail grading with achievement portfolios which are
based largely on the assesments of instructors. Such assesments are extremely
subjective as well as being prone to abuses by instructors, and programs,
with their own personal agendas. Just how does one objectively measure if
a student has demonstrated mastery of tolerance and community values? Just
how do public school teachers who, when being evaluated for competency,
routinely fail to demonstrate a mastery of the subjects they're assigned
to teachg, "objectively" assess a student's achievement?
Even in those cases were standards are set and measured, the standards are
set so low that no effort is required to meet them.
Despite what the name implies OBE has nothing to do with objective standards
and everything to do with further eliminating parental involvement in education
and turning public schools into indoctrination centers of the left rather
than education centers.
Paul S. Galvanek
Anonymous
In article <5d8f68$1...@dropit.pgh.net>, t~spamblock~p@3rivers[put, a, .,
here]com wrote:
> The majority - by far, Terry - of people you hear calling for the
> end of OBE are conservative republicans. Quinn's and Limbaugh's
> folks, NOT Lib'l Lynn Cullin's and Chris Moore's. Instead of telling
> folks about Tom Ridge (like who didn't know that he's a wishy-washy-
> middle-of-the-road-Republican?), tell them how OBE also tends to
> remove most emphasis on GPA's and other competitive aspects of the
> education system, and how that particular idea is an overwhelmingly
> -liberal- point of view.
Grade Point Averages are not what you think they are. They are more a
measure of how well your child is being taught than a true indication of
what he can do.
GPA's show little about what a student has accomplished. They should be
eliminated.
Anonymous
In article <5da5b0$p...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, psg...@pitt.edu (Paul S
Galvanek) wrote:
> In article <gmxuHFW00...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
> David M Pickering <dp...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >What, pray tell, is so insidious about setting objectives such as: "The
> >student will be able to add two fractions having different denominators"
> >or "The student will be able to identify parts of a cell"--these are
> >examples of the type of objectives this "grand conspiracy" of yours is
> >establishing.
>
> Nothing would be wrong with that David, but people who have followed
> OBE know that the program does no such thing. The name implies it
> does and those who do no more than take the propaganda from the teacher's
> unions and Department of Education at face value could reasonably assume
> that is what OBE does, but like most of the crap that comes from the left
> the difference between what the program claims as objectives and the
> what the program really does is huge.
Then why don't you make sure that it is handled correctly rather than
trashing it. Will you throw out every new idea that someone else has
handled wrongly or made a mess of?
> And objective assesment of whether a student is able to add two fractions
> or identify parts of a cell is as simple as providing a test to the
> student and grading whether he/she can produce the correct responses - just
> the way schools did it 40 years ago.
> OBE replaces objective evaluations of student performance, such as
standardized
> testing and pass or fail grading with achievement portfolios which are
> based largely on the assesments of instructors. Such assesments are extremely
> subjective as well as being prone to abuses by instructors, and programs,
> with their own personal agendas. Just how does one objectively measure if
> a student has demonstrated mastery of tolerance and community values? Just
> how do public school teachers who, when being evaluated for competency,
> routinely fail to demonstrate a mastery of the subjects they're assigned
> to teachg, "objectively" assess a student's achievement?
Where are your facts for this? I have never seen any studies that come to
this conclusion.
> Even in those cases were standards are set and measured, the standards are
> set so low that no effort is required to meet them.
That is why we have you isn't it? The "fly in the ointment" so to speak.
> Despite what the name implies OBE has nothing to do with objective standards
> and everything to do with further eliminating parental involvement in
>education
> and turning public schools into indoctrination centers of the left rather
> than education centers.
This is bull puckey! Any educator will tell you that the primary goal of
ANY system is to increase parental involvement. Not eliminate it. Once
again Mr. Galvanek you speak, you inflame, but you have no facts! Just
rumor and inuendo.
Terry McIntyre
Tom Pendergast ("t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[puta.here]com) wrote:
: > In the interest of full disclosure, let me add a point which Tom P.
: > left out; OBE is a bi-partisan effort, spurred along by both Democrats
: > and such GOP worthies as George Bush, Bob Dole, and Tom Ridge.
: >
: > Conservative proponents like to call it "National Standards", or
: > some such, but manure by any other name still stinks. You, as parents,
: > have responsibility for your children; you set the standards.
:
: Ya know, Terry, it would be very easy to carry on a sociable on-line
: conversation with you, if it weren't for this one terribly annoying
: and consistent habit that you have ...
: -Any-thing, and everything that I say in criticism of Democrats /
: Clinton / liberals, you come trotting along with some -lame- -ass-
: version of "well, the Republicans do it too!" which is usually 100%
: pure horse manure.
Are you saying, Tom, that you are much more knowledgeable on this
subject than Anita Hoge and Peg Luksik, neither of whom is a Libertarian?
Both are expert on the topic of OBE, school-to-work, and the whole
nine yards - and I've heard both slap Dole and Ridge and Bush for their part
in this mess.
Is it possible, Tom, that you are too ignorant to be relied upon,
too partisan a suppoerter of the GOP?
: I sincerely appreciate the fact that we see somewhat eye-to-eye on
: this, but my eye can see right through your agenda.
And I can see right through your partisan blinders. Ask Anita Hoge
and Peg Luksik if they worship Dole and Bush.
Now, Tom, let's pretend that you are capable of a logical discussion.
Lay those blinders aside. What message about individual responsibility
is sent when 95% of Americans rely upon government agencies to
do something so important as educating their children?
Government control of education was one of the planks of the Socialist
Party Platform. Karl Marx encouraged it in his writings. Bet they didn't
teach that little bit of history in your government school, did they?
Bet they didn't teach you that Ben Franklin had two years of formal
schooling, paid for by his none-too-wealthy father, did they? Did
Bob Dole mention this in his campaign speeches? No, he offered to
have the federal government "help" you pay for your own children's
education.
Of course, we have absolutely no experience with federal use of
dollars to control programs, do we? No conservative has ever
complained about such excesses? No conservative ever noticed the
creeping federalisation of our lives?
Terry McIntyre
Dan-O (hacksaw.S...@sgi.net) wrote:
: tmci...@news.pgh.net (Terry McIntyre) wrote:
: >In the interest of full disclosure, let me add a point which Tom P.
: >left out; OBE is a bi-partisan effort, spurred along by both Democrats
: >and such GOP worthies as George Bush, Bob Dole, and Tom Ridge.
: Terry "Mac" is correct in the above paragraph. This was
: startling news to me when an anti-OBE speaker relayed these facts to
: us at a local Republican meeting. If you are a Republican and you are
: against OBE, make sure your elected couterparts hear your voice.
Thanks, Dan! You are absolutely right.
OBE appeals to the desire in all - "conservative" and "liberal" alike -
to "do something" about the mess that is American education.
Unfortunately, it gives us more of the same problems; it does not
address the root problem, which is that a centrally-controlled
"command economy" is weaker than a free market; less able to
deliver what the clients want.
The underlying structure of the public education system is
essentially a superceding of free market processes with
greatly inferior political processes. It was only a matter
of time before the result became so poor that great political
turmoil resulted.
Things have changed a lot in the last two hundred years. Ben
Franklin would be astonished at the ability to type words into
a computer and have them relayed around the world. He would be
fascinated by the computational abilities of a desktop machine.
Driving from Pittsburgh to DC in hours would impress him mightily,
the television and telephone would astonish him. A trip on the
Concorde to Paris would compare most favorably to the long
voyages by sea to which he was accustomed.
Finding that graduates of our expensive "free" twelve-year schools can
hardly read and write, where Ben's poor father got better results
by paying for just two years of formal schooling, would be a depressing
exception to the general rule.
"Excuse me," Ben would ask. "Why is it that you are so wealthy - so well fed,
so well clothed, you live in such grand houses, you travel at such
great speeds, you talk to people in Paris as if they are just
across the fence - why is it that, when everything else is
so much easier and cheaper for you, that one area alone - schooling -
is so dear, so expensive that hardly any of you can afford it? Why is
it, in spite of such great expense, of such poor quality?"
"I do not mean to boast, but at the age of ten, thanks to the bit
of education my poor father was able to afford me, I knew how to
read and write not only English, but Latin. I did poorly in arithmetic,
but later with the aid of a friend learned enough to do a tolerable
job on my accounts - and a good thing, since we had no 'calculators'
at that time. These 'free' schools, it would seem to me, are dear
indeed if they keep your children from learning such simple things."
dav...@city-net.com
Tom Pendergast <"t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[put a . here]com> wrote:
>Terry McIntyre wrote:
>> Mark your calendars: Tom P and Terry M. agree on something, perhaps
>> for the second time since '97 rolled around.
>>
>> In the interest of full disclosure, let me add a point which Tom P.
>> left out; OBE is a bi-partisan effort, spurred along by both Democrats
>> and such GOP worthies as George Bush, Bob Dole, and Tom Ridge.
>>
>> Conservative proponents like to call it "National Standards", or
>> some such, but manure by any other name still stinks. You, as parents,
>> have responsibility for your children; you set the standards.
>
>Ya know, Terry, it would be very easy to carry on a sociable on-line
>conversation with you, if it weren't for this one terribly annoying
>and consistent habit that you have ...
>-Any-thing, and everything that I say in criticism of Democrats /
>Clinton / liberals, you come trotting along with some -lame- -ass-
>version of "well, the Republicans do it too!" which is usually 100%
>pure horse manure. It's the only way you can cling to your bizarre
>little Libertarian agenda, and we all know how I feel about that, so
>I'll conserve some bandwidth.
>The majority - by far, Terry - of people you hear calling for the
>end of OBE are conservative republicans. Quinn's and Limbaugh's
>folks, NOT Lib'l Lynn Cullin's and Chris Moore's. Instead of telling
>folks about Tom Ridge (like who didn't know that he's a wishy-washy-
>middle-of-the-road-Republican?), tell them how OBE also tends to
>remove most emphasis on GPA's and other competitive aspects of the
>education system, and how that particular idea is an overwhelmingly
>-liberal- point of view.
>I sincerely appreciate the fact that we see somewhat eye-to-eye on
>this, but my eye can see right through your agenda.
Tom,
There may be a few good republicans out their talking about doing away
with OBE, but the majority of your boys are going right along with
Gov. Ridge, Gov. Engle and all of the other powerful pro OBE
republicans. The minority, not the majority, of republicans take a
SERIOUS anti OBE stance - and it's a tiny minority at that.
I'm sure you can name a few thousand wishy-washy republican idiots,
such as Bob Dole, who advocate seizing of our earnings and sending it
back to our school districts with a few less strings attached than the
democrats would like. I say "whipy shit" if that's the best that the
republican revolution can come up with!
Even though I support a complete separation of school and state, I
would enthusiastically embrace any republican who advocates returning
to complete local control of schools - tell the feds AND the state to
take their funds (bribes) and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.
So, which one of your republicans has the balls to openly advocate
that?
-Dave
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/
dav...@city-net.com
hacksaw.S...@sgi.net (Dan-O) wrote:
>Tom Pendergast <"t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[put a . here]com> wrote:
>
>>Ya know, Terry, it would be very easy to carry on a sociable on-line
>>conversation with you, if it weren't for this one terribly annoying
>>and consistent habit that you have ...
>>-Any-thing, and everything that I say in criticism of Democrats /
>>Clinton / liberals, you come trotting along with some -lame- -ass-
>>version of "well, the Republicans do it too!" which is usually 100%
>>pure horse manure. It's the only way you can cling to your bizarre
>>little Libertarian agenda, and we all know how I feel about that, so
>>I'll conserve some bandwidth.
>I think Terry is just being consistent with the rest of the
>Libertarians in this regard, if you'll recall during the elections
>they spent more time bashing Bob Dole than they did promoting that guy
>who was their own candidate.
>Perhaps it is some ill considered ploy to sweep Democrats into their
>fold...
It was a ploy to try to get republicans to realize that Dole is a
wishy-washy horse's ass who sticks his wet finger up in the air before
making decisions almost as much as our president. Can you say "repeal
the assult weapon ban"? Remember when Dole talked about dusting off
the Tenth Amendment? That was a hoot - wasn't it?
David M Pickering
Excerpts from netnews.pgh.opinion: 5-Feb-97 Re: OBE (was "Restoring
Pea.. by Paul S Galv...@pitt.edu
> David M Pickering <dp...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >What, pray tell, is so insidious about setting objectives such as: "The
> >student will be able to add two fractions having different denominators"
> >or "The student will be able to identify parts of a cell"--these are
> >examples of the type of objectives this "grand conspiracy" of yours is
> >establishing.
>
> Nothing would be wrong with that David, but people who have followed
> OBE know that the program does no such thing. The name implies it
> does and those who do no more than take the propaganda from the teacher's
> unions and Department of Education at face value could reasonably assume
> that is what OBE does, but like most of the crap that comes from the left
> the difference between what the program claims as objectives and the
> what the program really does is huge.
To simply blame the DOE and the teachers' unions for the problems in
education today is the height of demogoguery. There is more than enough
blame to go around on both sides of the political spectrum. Nor does
either side of the political spectrum have a monopoly on "crap" (as you
put it).
>
> And objective assesment of whether a student is able to add two fractions
> or identify parts of a cell is as simple as providing a test to the
> student and grading whether he/she can produce the correct responses - just
> the way schools did it 40 years ago.
Standardized testing is not the panacea you seem to think it is. Far
too often, the teachers are pressured into teaching to the test rather
than to the objective.
>
> OBE replaces objective evaluations of student performance, such as
standardized
> testing and pass or fail grading with achievement portfolios which are
> based largely on the assesments of instructors. Such assesments are
extremely
> subjective as well as being prone to abuses by instructors, and programs,
> with their own personal agendas.
That is certainly possible, however don't you think a teacher who works
with a student every day would normally be better at assessing that
student's abilities than some standardized test cooked up by a bunch of
wealthy former academics in Princeton, NJ?
> Just how does one objectively measure if
> a student has demonstrated mastery of tolerance and community values?
How much "tolerance" one has is obviously an entirely subjective
measure. However it's not impossible or even extremely difficult to
develop measures to show that students have an understanding of other
cultures and community values.
Just
> how do public school teachers who, when being evaluated for competency,
> routinely fail to demonstrate a mastery of the subjects they're assigned
> to teachg, "objectively" assess a student's achievement?
It's no big secret that poorer school districts--generally the ones
which most need top quality teachers--have a hard time attracting top
quality teachers. For all the criticism you and others do of teachers
unions and the supposedly "lush" life teachers have, why do you suppose
it's getting harder and harder to attract the "best and the brightest"
to teaching?
Despite what a lot of the critics on the right seem to think, teaching
is a very difficult profession. The problems are compounded because the
best graduates coming out of the universities in the areas most
desperately needed in teaching, such as mathematics and the sciences,
are taking high-paying jobs in big engineering firms. Even worse, as
smaller colleges and universities face budget cutbacks, many are cutting
programs--including majors in the sciences.
And the answer does not lie in privatization--that other great love of
the libertarians and the right. Private school teachers make
substantially less than public school teachers. As a trade-off, the
teachers generally have smaller class sizes, fewer discipline problems
than normally occur in public schools, and parents who are more actively
involved in their children's educations.
Nor is home-schooling an answer for many parents. Home schooling is a
real option only in those families where a parent is well-educated
enough to adequately teach the children all the things they need to know
and the family income is such that said parent can afford to not work
and stay home to teach the children.
>
> Even in those cases were standards are set and measured, the standards are
> set so low that no effort is required to meet them.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to provide some proof that the
standards are uniformly set low. While I'll accept that a few standards
may be set too low, you need to provide some strong evidence to support
your broad assertion here.
>
> Despite what the name implies OBE has nothing to do with objective standards
> and everything to do with further eliminating parental involvement in
education
> and turning public schools into indoctrination centers of the left rather
> than education centers.
This is pure propaganda on your part. It's patently absurd to assert
that public schools are "indoctrination centers of the left". Again
you're going to have to offer some strong evidence.
Dan-O
dav...@city-net.com wrote:
>hacksaw.S...@sgi.net (Dan-O) wrote:
I don't think the grass roots level had much of a say in Bob Dole
being nominated. The Republican movers and shakers were panicked when
Forbes and Buchanan were tearing through states, and decided Dole must
be the nominee (my opinion). I think they also abandoned the
conservative base in a misguided attempt to show that we're really
nice guys after all. Myself, I would have preferred Gramm, Forbes, or
Keyes. Perhaps the higher ups will learn from their mistakes. I also
think we (Repubs) really need to work on some PR - and simply forget
about going through the mainstream media to get our message across.
As far as comparing Dole's integrity to the Slickster, it's like
comparing a parking ticket to a bank robbery.
Dole was certainly not my ideal candidate, but take a look at who we
have now. Was this a better choice?
BTW, it's good to see you back. You missed a lot of excitement here
(unless you were lurking, of course).
-Dan
Dan-O
tmci...@news.pgh.net (Terry McIntyre) wrote:
>Tom Pendergast ("t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[puta.here]com) wrote:
>: Terry McIntyre wrote:
>: > In the interest of full disclosure, let me add a point which Tom P.
>: > left out; OBE is a bi-partisan effort, spurred along by both Democrats
>: > and such GOP worthies as George Bush, Bob Dole, and Tom Ridge.
>: >
>: > Conservative proponents like to call it "National Standards", or
>: > some such, but manure by any other name still stinks. You, as parents,
>: > have responsibility for your children; you set the standards.
>:
>: Ya know, Terry, it would be very easy to carry on a sociable on-line
>: conversation with you, if it weren't for this one terribly annoying
>: and consistent habit that you have ...
>: -Any-thing, and everything that I say in criticism of Democrats /
>: Clinton / liberals, you come trotting along with some -lame- -ass-
>: version of "well, the Republicans do it too!" which is usually 100%
>: pure horse manure.
>Are you saying, Tom, that you are much more knowledgeable on this
>subject than Anita Hoge and Peg Luksik, neither of whom is a Libertarian?
>Both are expert on the topic of OBE, school-to-work, and the whole
>nine yards - and I've heard both slap Dole and Ridge and Bush for their part
>in this mess.
Peg was the woman I heard speak (I believe she is a former
schoolteacher, correct me if I'm wrong)? I would recommend to anyone
to hear her out. It was quite a riveting speech, and she is armed to
the teeth with facts. I haven't heard Anita yet, but I plan to
eventually.
P J Volk
My apologies if this post seems out of context... I wrote it about a
week or two ago, and for some reason FA just sent it...
Pat V.
Dan-O
dav...@city-net.com wrote:
[..]
>There may be a few good republicans out their talking about doing away
>with OBE, but the majority of your boys are going right along with
>Gov. Ridge, Gov. Engle and all of the other powerful pro OBE
>republicans. The minority, not the majority, of republicans take a
>SERIOUS anti OBE stance - and it's a tiny minority at that.
I think you are stretching things a bit here.
>I'm sure you can name a few thousand wishy-washy republican idiots,
>such as Bob Dole, who advocate seizing of our earnings and sending it
>back to our school districts with a few less strings attached than the
>democrats would like. I say "whipy shit" if that's the best that the
>republican revolution can come up with!
Haven't we been through this before?
>Even though I support a complete separation of school and state, I
>would enthusiastically embrace any republican who advocates returning
>to complete local control of schools - tell the feds AND the state to
>take their funds (bribes) and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.
>So, which one of your republicans has the balls to openly advocate
>that?
Dave, I don't know why you guys are so embittered against Republicans.
They are the only party with a snowballs' chance in hell of driving
any serious reform in government - do you think the Slickster would
even consider talking about tax breaks if Republican driven idealism
hasn't begun to take hold (granted he probably doesn't mean it)? The
Libertarians have a unique brand of political snobbery - with the
attitude of "we are the only ones who know how to do things right -
the rest up you are infedels".
As far as Republicans having balls, I have two. They're hanging a
little to the left right now. :-)
dav...@city-net.com
hacksaw.S...@sgi.net (Dan-O) wrote:
>Dole was certainly not my ideal candidate, but take a look at who we
>have now. Was this a better choice?
Well, if you choose between the lesser of two evils, you are
guaranteed to get evil - but that's a whole other subject.
>BTW, it's good to see you back. You missed a lot of excitement here
>(unless you were lurking, of course).
I've been lurking a little bit. I got tired of all the senseless name
calling. I'm glad to see that things have settled down a bit.
Anonymous
In article <5daki1$f...@dropit.pgh.net>, tmci...@news.pgh.net (Terry
McIntyre) wrote:
> OBE appeals to the desire in all - "conservative" and "liberal" alike -
> to "do something" about the mess that is American education.
You suggest treating the symptoms not the disease. The disease is American
Society, but I guess we don't want to have to admit that.
> Things have changed a lot in the last two hundred years. Ben
> Franklin would be astonished at the ability to type words into
> a computer and have them relayed around the world. He would be
> fascinated by the computational abilities of a desktop machine.
> Driving from Pittsburgh to DC in hours would impress him mightily,
> the television and telephone would astonish him. A trip on the
> Concorde to Paris would compare most favorably to the long
> voyages by sea to which he was accustomed.
All of the above were made possible by a free, government run, educational
system.
> Finding that graduates of our expensive "free" twelve-year schools can
> hardly read and write, where Ben's poor father got better results
> by paying for just two years of formal schooling, would be a depressing
> exception to the general rule.
Which graduates can hardly read or write? Do you really believe that blather?
Dave Glasser
hacksaw.S...@sgi.net (Dan-O) wrote on Wed, 05 Feb 1997 23:59:18
GMT in pgh.opinion:
:Peg was the woman I heard speak (I believe she is a former
:schoolteacher, correct me if I'm wrong)?
Her husband Jim is a former teacher, who taught me in the late 70's.
At that time, she wasn't a teacher, (I know because they also lived in
my neighborhood) but she may have been one prior to that.
-----
Have you been wondering if the mass-email solicitations you've been
sending have been reaching anyone? Try our new mass-email
verification service. Send a copy of your solicitation to this
account, and I'll let you know the date and time it arrived! The fee
is only $50 for each verification! (We'll bill you.)
Dave Glasser
dgla...@pobox.com (Dave Glasser) wrote on Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:13:18
GMT in pgh.opinion:
:hacksaw.S...@sgi.net (Dan-O) wrote on Wed, 05 Feb 1997 23:59:18
:GMT in pgh.opinion:
:
:
::Peg was the woman I heard speak (I believe she is a former
::schoolteacher, correct me if I'm wrong)?
:
:Her husband Jim is a former teacher, who taught me in the late 70's.
:At that time, she wasn't a teacher, (I know because they also lived in
:my neighborhood) but she may have been one prior to that.
Correction: She may have been one, but not in my school district. I do
remember she was pregnant with their first child, her husband was laid
off, he got another job around Harrisburg, and they moved.
Anonymous
In article <5db6q3$j11$2...@taurus.bv.sgi.net>, hacksaw.S...@sgi.net
(Dan-O) wrote:
> Peg was the woman I heard speak (I believe she is a former
> schoolteacher, correct me if I'm wrong)? I would recommend to anyone
> to hear her out. It was quite a riveting speech, and she is armed to
> the teeth with facts. I haven't heard Anita yet, but I plan to
> eventually.
Hey, she may be one of those undedicated, bad teachers you guys are always
talking about. Why isn't she still teaching? Does she support reciting the
Lord's Prayer to open the day in public school? That will tell you
something.
Rich Loether
In article <5dbi5j$m79$1...@taurus.bv.sgi.net>, hacksaw.S...@sgi.net says...
>
>.., I don't know why you guys are so embittered against Republicans.
>They are the only party with a snowballs' chance in hell of driving
>any serious reform in government -
Simply because while the Repubs give speeches about smaller, less
intrusive government they've ignored the chances they've had to
deliver. The Republicans LIKE big government. They just lie about
their intentions.
> ...do you think the Slickster would
>even consider talking about tax breaks if Republican driven idealism
>hasn't begun to take hold (granted he probably doesn't mean it)?
Two answers.
The politicians love the tax system in large part because it enables
them to give tax breaks to groups they feel are deserving. Naturally
the word "deserving" takes on a variety of meanings depending on who
speaks it and who is in the audience. The Slick would of course be
dangling tax breaks in front of this group or that. It's how the
game is played.
The Repugnican Party has no idealism except for "not being Democrat".
We call 'em "Democrat Lite". They offer the same programs as the
"real" Dems but in somewhat smaller doses.
Many individuals who call themselves Republican do have idealism but
the party doesn't. Just look at who it runs for office and what
they do when they get there.
>The
>Libertarians have a unique brand of political snobbery - with the
>attitude of "we are the only ones who know how to do things right -
You could write exactly the same sentence about each and every
political group since the beginning of time. For that matter,
add religious groups and sales departments.
In this case we're perfectly willing to compare ideas with anyone
who can maintain basic civility. It's hard to get D's and R's to
sit still and offer answers to some of our questions though.
>the rest up you are infidels".
Don't you mean the rest of "them"? "You" are assumed to be an honest
citizen looking for a little less interference from "Uncle".
In Liberty,,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rj...@pitt.edu Computing & Info Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Terry McIntyre
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
: > Things have changed a lot in the last two hundred years. Ben
: > Franklin would be astonished at the ability to type words into
: > a computer and have them relayed around the world. He would be
: > fascinated by the computational abilities of a desktop machine.
: > Driving from Pittsburgh to DC in hours would impress him mightily,
: > the television and telephone would astonish him. A trip on the
: > Concorde to Paris would compare most favorably to the long
: > voyages by sea to which he was accustomed.
: All of the above were made possible by a free, government run, educational
: system.
If you should do some
research into the names and education of those who actually invented
electricity, the computer,
the automobile, the airplane, and the telephone,
and you'd find an astonishing number who did so without the "benefit"
of a "free" governmental education - and many others who would say
that they accomplished so much in _spite_ of their "free" governmental
"education."
For example, Thomas Alva Edison had about two months of formal
"education", and gave it up for a waste of time. Heard of him?
Did your "free education" happen to mention his supposed educational
deficiencies?
I could give you a long list of people who were not given the "advantage"
of a "free, government-run education", and to whom we owe a great deal
of original thought.
Prior to about 1900, you can simply assume that most people lacked such
an "advantage", since public schooling was nowhere near as predominant
as it is today; nor did it last so long, for those who had it.
For example, I can name a successful engineer, entrepreneur, and
venture capitalist, now in his eighties, who never had any formal
education beyond the third grade. It might, possibly, have been
"free" and "government-run", but I dare say that it must have been
some improvement over what is available to third-graders today.
Dan-O
rj...@pitt.edu (Rich Loether) wrote:
>In article <5dbi5j$m79$1...@taurus.bv.sgi.net>, hacksaw.S...@sgi.net says...
>>
>>.., I don't know why you guys are so embittered against Republicans.
>>They are the only party with a snowballs' chance in hell of driving
>>any serious reform in government -
>Simply because while the Repubs give speeches about smaller, less
>intrusive government they've ignored the chances they've had to
>deliver. The Republicans LIKE big government. They just lie about
>their intentions.
Rich, I have read your bad mouthing of Republicans and *demand* a
public apology. You must also join the Allegheny Young Republicans
before having a basis to provide further comment. :-) Sounds silly,
huh?
Joe Beiter
In article <5dfi4n$i...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Rich Loether <rj...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>In article <5dbi5j$m79$1...@taurus.bv.sgi.net>, hacksaw.S...@sgi.net says...
>>
>>.., I don't know why you guys are so embittered against Republicans.
>>They are the only party with a snowballs' chance in hell of driving
>>any serious reform in government -
>
>Simply because while the Repubs give speeches about smaller, less
>intrusive government they've ignored the chances they've had to
>deliver. The Republicans LIKE big government. They just lie about
>their intentions.
I agree. I think we're down to one party and they've just sectioned the
idiot majority down the middle and assigned the democrats to jerk around one
half and the republicans to jerk around the other half. I see no evidence
whatsoever that the American government is serving the country and not
themselves.
I'm rather impressed with the Amish. They pay no taxes or social security
because they petitioned to congress that they don't need the government and
its against their religion to depend on the government. They take care of
their own elderly and poor.
OBE isn't about better education. Its about more control with the "statement
of intention of better education" because they know we're stupid and will
sit here and nod "doh yeuah better education good thing". And thats exactly
what we will do.
--
:---==@==---==@==---==@==---:
Joseph Beiter Hacking's just another word for nothing
j...@cosmic.org left to kludge.
Paul S Galvanek
In article <5da818$3...@basement.replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>
>This is bull puckey! Any educator will tell you that the primary goal of
>ANY system is to increase parental involvement. Not eliminate it. Once
>again Mr. Galvanek you speak, you inflame, but you have no facts! Just
>rumor and inuendo.
Again, the difference between what is claimed to be sought and what is
truly desired by public school officials and teachers is far to great to
be cover here in any detail.
We've covered this here before and the response has always been very lopsided,
in that parents (like myself) have had singularly negative experiences with
public schools when it comes to getting involved.
When public school officials and teachers speak of increasing parental
involvement they simply mean they want the parents to show up, get their
orders from the teachers and then go home and do as their told and take up
Increase parentmore of the repsonsibility of doing the job the teacher is
supposd to be getting paid to do. To the teachers and their union parental
parental involvement has nothing to do giving parents access to have
significant influence in educating their children - it has nothing to with the
parents having input on anything beyond the choice of whether it'll be candy
bars or gift wrap the kids are sent out to sell for the school.
Indeed. if these teachers schools had any regard what so ever for parental
input we wouldn't be having this discussion. Opposition to OBE has been
nearly universal across the state and nation and it's getting crammed down
our throats anyway - and the truth is that's because the politicians, schools
and teachers don't give a hoot what parents think.
Paul S. Galvanek
Paul S Galvanek
In article <5da7se$3...@basement.replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>
>Grade Point Averages are not what you think they are. They are more a
>measure of how well your child is being taught than a true indication of
>what he can do.
>
>GPA's show little about what a student has accomplished. They should be
>eliminated.
Funny, I just got done reading an article which points out that better
universities are beginning to reject a larger number of students from
schools that use this idiotic portfolios and subjective assesments and
relying again on good old fashions letter grades and SAT scores, precisely
because they are the only way to determine what student has accomplished.
You either know the material or you don't and a standardized test with a
letter grade is still the best way to assess which is the case - not some
ethically bankrupt left wing teacher's opinion as to whether the student
has all the "correct views."
OBE has barely gotten off the ground and colleges are rejecting the results,
which of course it's supports will surely argue simply bmeans more money needs
to be applied.
Paul S. Galvanek
Paul S Galvanek
In article <omyCY=C00iWW...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
David M Pickering <dp...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>To simply blame the DOE and the teachers' unions for the problems in
>education today is the height of demogoguery. There is more than enough
>blame to go around on both sides of the political spectrum. Nor does
>either side of the political spectrum have a monopoly on "crap" (as you
>put it).
Please David, you can plot two graphs - one that shows the steady increase
in funding to the DOE since the day it was created in 1978 (as one of Jimmy
Carter's many politcal pay offs to the NEA) and another one showing the \
steady decline in SAT scores of American public school students and they're
virtually exactly the same. And you wouldn't be the first to do it.
It's getting to be a tire old song and dance from the left, that whenever
the have some great new idea to solve problem X and they end up with
exaclty the opposite result, to blame it on a coincidence or someone one
else.
Sorry, but the quality of public education has been on the decline since the
day the federal government stuck its nose in and more government isn't the
solution.
>Standardized testing is not the panacea you seem to think it is. Far
>too often, the teachers are pressured into teaching to the test rather
>than to the objective.
No one said it is a panacea, only that nothing else (especially OBE) has
been shown to be better.
>That is certainly possible, however don't you think a teacher who works
>with a student every day would normally be better at assessing that
>student's abilities than some standardized test cooked up by a bunch of
>wealthy former academics in Princeton, NJ?
In a perfect world made up of perfect people, perhaps, but we have to
deal with reality. And the reality is that public school teachers bring
their own biases and agendas to school everyday and some of them aren't
competent to be teaching let alone evaluating...
Sorry, but I've seen to much of this first hand with my own kids in the
Pittsburgh Public Schools and I'd much rather risk the possibility a
standardized test might over or under asses their abilities than risk
having one of his teachers hold them back becasue they don't share their
views on eating meat, global warming, religion or whether or not Malcom X
was a great man...
>
>How much "tolerance" one has is obviously an entirely subjective
>measure. However it's not impossible or even extremely difficult to
>develop measures to show that students have an understanding of other
>cultures and community values.
Who's understanding and values David? I assure you I know for a fact that
the majority of my children's teachers and I don't share the same "community
values." If the public school is to be a battle ground over whether teachers
or parents will do the teaching of values the proponents of OBE have already
lost my support.
The question isn't whether accomplishments in these areas can be assessed
properly, but rather whether a society that is becoming increasingly reliant
on technology has any reason to be squandering a single penny or a single
minute teaching or assessing such things when kids are falling further
behind in math, reading and hard sciences.
>It's no big secret that poorer school districts--generally the ones
>which most need top quality teachers--have a hard time attracting top
>quality teachers. For all the criticism you and others do of teachers
>unions and the supposedly "lush" life teachers have, why do you suppose
>it's getting harder and harder to attract the "best and the brightest"
>to teaching?
I assure you it's probably not for the reasons you think. Hey David, I'm
a 34 year old father of 2, working full time, who's back in school
himself. I love children and I'd love to be able consider education as
a major, but I can't and won't for the very reasons I hear from many others
in similair circumstances...
Because we are unwilling to sell our souls to become members of a utterly
corrupt union, play all the political games, violate all the laws and tell
all the lies to all the petty wanna be dictator administrators, to take a job
that increasingly is concerned less with teaching and more with being a
mouthpiece for the Democrat Party.
>Despite what a lot of the critics on the right seem to think, teaching
>is a very difficult profession. The problems are compounded because the
>best graduates coming out of the universities in the areas most
>desperately needed in teaching, such as mathematics and the sciences,
>are taking high-paying jobs in big engineering firms. Even worse, as
>smaller colleges and universities face budget cutbacks, many are cutting
>programs--including majors in the sciences.
Nonsense David, that's just another of the teacher union's rationalizations
as to why people who aren't doing the job now should get more money. There
are a lot of people, such as myself, who are coming out of colleges and
universities with execellent grades in top programs who don't place as high
a value on earning the highest possible salary as you suggest. Many of those
people end up teaching in private schools earning a lot less that they could
in public (let alone private industry) simply because they want to teach.
Public schools aren't failing because they can't pay the salaries to attract
people away from private industry. They can't attract good teachers away
from the private schools that are paying LESS and private industry becasue
of what public education has become.
If you truly believe it's a simple matter of salaries that can't compete
with private industry, ask yourself this; Assume that public schools had
the money to match or even exceed the big salaries of private industry...
How many of those whose primary goal is a big salary are going to trade
their air conditioned office in the suburban indistrial park for the same
money to do a job that starts the day with a walk through a metal detector,
into an environment where you run as high a risk of being assaulted as any
urban cop does, to be spat upon, sworn at and treated like the enemy by
groups of kids who's priorities are drugs, weapons, gangs, sex and who has
the latest fashions from Tommy Hilfiger and Nike?
The truth the teacher's union doesn't want to face or can't face, federal
education policy crafted and implemented with the support of the teachers
union the past 20 years has created an environment within public education
that no amount of money in salary and benefits is going to attract people
to. Maybe if you have a real concern for being able to reach the few that
really have an interest in learning, in which case money isn't the bottom
line, then you're going to put up with some of it OR you'll teach in a
private school.
You can spend all the money you want on salaries and you still won't pry
people away from private industry because you and the people who support the
current public system not only lack the resolve and character to address
the other problems that have made teaching in public school an undesirable
job at any salary, you're views and politics are largely responsible for
creating the problems.
Paul S. Galvanek
Tom Pendergast
dav...@city-net.com wrote:
>
> hacksaw.S...@sgi.net (Dan-O) wrote:
>
> >Tom Pendergast <"t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[put a . here]com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>conversation with you, if it weren't for this one terribly annoying
> >>and consistent habit that you have ...
>
> >>-Any-thing, and everything that I say in criticism of Democrats /
> >>Clinton / liberals, you come trotting along with some -lame- -ass-
> >>version of "well, the Republicans do it too!" which is usually 100%
> >>little Libertarian agenda, and we all know how I feel about that, so
> >>I'll conserve some bandwidth.
>
> >I think Terry is just being consistent with the rest of the
> >Libertarians in this regard, if you'll recall during the elections
> >they spent more time bashing Bob Dole than they did promoting that guy
> >who was their own candidate.
>
> >Perhaps it is some ill considered ploy to sweep Democrats into their
> >fold...
>
> It was a ploy to try to get republicans to realize that Dole is a
> wishy-washy horse's ass who sticks his wet finger up in the air before
> making decisions almost as much as our president. Can you say "repeal
> the assult weapon ban"? Remember when Dole talked about dusting off
> the Tenth Amendment? That was a hoot - wasn't it?
I feel like I need to do some er, "back and fill" work on my original
rant here ...
Yes, a whole lot of Republicans would have rather had just about
anybody except BobDole running. I believe I've gone on the record
as a Gramm man, myself.
A whole lot of folks (well, me at least!) are getting our ever lovin'
hearts torn out and stomped into the dirt by our own beloved Newt.
As much of a Gingrich fan as I am/was/am, he's -not- helping our cause
of holding Slick's feet to the fire, and just what is the deal with
this Jesse Jackson nonsense?! The Rev -IS- the MOST LIBERAL MAN in
America, after all, and I just don't know what in the hell Newt is
thinking.
Tom Ridge has -always- had liberal tendencies, and anybody in either
party that's waiting for -him- to dump OBE is in for a -long- wait.
He's preserving his political life by dumping the decision down to the
local level, and thus avoiding the political suicidal move of enraging
the teachers unions and the liberal edu-touchy-feely types who have
been known to declare a Jihad when their causes are endangered (see
the '96 US House efforts)
So, while I readily admit that the Republican efforts against OBE are
far from perfect, I -still- hold true that if you lift the ID tag
of anti-OBE folks and take a peek, 99% of them will say "Republican,
Conservative". So, nothing's changed. I -still- offer it as a
perfect example of the Libertarian Shuffle as practiced so well by
McIntyre. Muddy the waters and confuse the casually interested
masses, or "if you can't dazzle 'em with facts, baffle 'em with
b.s."
--
Tom Pendergast
Unsolicited e-mail will result in complaints to postmasters, billing
for my time to read it, invoices, and legal action if necessary.
I know how to read headers and use whois, traceroute, lawyers
and credit bureaus. Consider yourself warned.
Rich Loether
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <5dguof$p7$1...@taurus.bv.sgi.net>, hacksaw.S...@sgi.net says...
>
>rj...@pitt.edu (Rich Loether) wrote:
>>In article <5dbi5j$m79$1...@taurus.bv.sgi.net>, hacksaw.S...@sgi.net says...
>>>.., I don't know why you guys are so embittered against Republicans.
>>>They are the only party with a snowballs' chance in hell of driving
>>>any serious reform in government -
>>Simply because while the Repubs give speeches about smaller, less
>>intrusive government they've ignored the chances they've had to
>>deliver. The Republicans LIKE big government. They just lie about
>>their intentions.
>Rich, I have read your bad mouthing of Republicans and *demand* a
>public apology.
For what? Telling the truth?
>You must also join the Allegheny Young Republicans
Sorry, I'm already a member of the Allegheny Former Republicans.
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMv7vb8pq3DwfNsFtAQFpZwP/RDIcn/gBwNPbpNPT1Ylr9g4jxAVfHQqe
/9dLirZn7eG9Oqzv6POz2d1VsWtyyjyE+BOa0gaLcXZD7gy/pjAeC3F5o0yqUygz
zpAbgu5HHl/e7VC1y5ftf7VA6w76Y6BQAl1vfLGj58xrRrhPfNFQ7XhOG/3H+bcY
oPQEdDCUqNw=
=9BzD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Terry McIntyre
Tom Pendergast ("t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[puta.here]com) wrote:
[ snip 70 lines of blather ]
Tom,
You _admitted_ that Bob Dole wasn't even close to representing your
views. But I'll bet you voted for him, didn't you?
Stop and think about what kind of message that sent to Washington.
If it were a song, it would be something like "Kick me, abuse me,
beat me, love me some more ..."
Ask and Pol Sci 101 student to explain the Hotelling Theorem, Tom.
The two major parties will _always_ chase the "median" voter - the
person who is looking for the party with the most favors to offer.
The political process has an inherent bias toward people like Dole
and Clinton.
You, who often have views which are far from either Dole or Clinton,
said "abuse me anyway you want, I'll still come back for more" - which
is simply a license to the GOP to nominate more Doles and Bushes and
Nixons.
The GOP knows that it can completely and utterly ignore you, Tom, and
you won't go anywhere else. If that is so, why should they care
what you think?
RKBA is a typical example. GOA has clearly documented that Bob Dole
brought you the Brady Bill. On national TV, many of us heard Bob
"liberate those guns" Dole say that he would implement a national
instant background check.
You can ask any preofessional software engineer, and they'll tell
you that an IBC is indistinguishable, from the enduser point of
view, from a registry of gun purchasers. You can ask the JPFO, the GOA,
and many others what they think of gun registries.
So anyone who cares about RKBA opposes Bob Dole on this issue. Think
he cared? Not at all. The RKBA crowd wasn't about to jump to Clinton,
were they?
Schooling, similar issue. Dole supported federal vouchers or tax credits. We
already have all sorts of programs like that for post-secondary education,
and we've already seen the inflationary effects, as well as the move
to political correctness which resulted - a move which you, Tom P,
have decried often enough. Grove City and Hillsdale, the only two
colleges I know which do not accept federal money, will be happy
to explain to you why federal funding of education is a bad idea.
Think Bob Dole cares about your objections or concerns about federal
funding, about the possibility of handing a powerful tool to the
entrenched bureaucracy? Nope. If you don't like his idea, are you
going to vote for Clinton?
As long as you wear your two-party blinders, the GOP and Democrats
will completely ignore everyone but a thin slice of voters at
the margin - the few who can't make up their minds which is the
lesser of two evils.
That's an entirely rational course for them to pursue; it has been
established in the pol sci field; and it has one weakness.
Everything - everything - depends upon the vast majority of voters
behaving just like Tom P, plodding along with those two-party
blinders. As long as you keep voting for the lesser of two evils,
you'll keep getting evil.
As soon as voters start picking the best of all candidates, the
game will change.
Look at the polls - far more than 50% of the public thinks that
government is too big, that it usually does the wrong thing, that
it can't be trusted. Clearly, the public is not getting what it
wants.
If year after year you don't get what you want, your reality check
is bouncing. Time to examine your premises and change something.
I suggest that the two-party premise is a likely culprit - after
all, the same two parties have been managing things for decades.
Tom, since local politics in W. PA tend to be Democratic, it is easy
to assume that the Democrats are at fault. But not that far from
here is Chester County, a Republican stronghold, and they aren't
happy with their government either. Nor is GOP stronghold Orange
County - you remember, the one which went speculating on the
derivatives market, and lost their taxpayers a large bundle of
cash?
Sure, I'm a Libertarian, and I think they've got the best game
plan. But in this post, I am arguing simply that you need to
pick the best alternatives, instead of letting the incumbent
parties define the game. Lots of anti-OBE folks vote Constitutionalist -
more power to them.
Unlike Tom P, I've actually talked to hundreds of voters about many
issues. And I find that the majority of those unhappy with the
government, in Western PA, tend to think of themselves as
Democrats.
Any fool who can look at the voter registrations would expect this:
most voters in this town are registered Democrat. It would be foolish
to tell them that their only choice is the likes of Bob Dole and
Pat Buchanon. They know better.
Dan-O
dav...@city-net.com
Tom Pendergast <"t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[put a . here]com> wrote:
>So, while I readily admit that the Republican efforts against OBE are
>far from perfect, I -still- hold true that if you lift the ID tag
>of anti-OBE folks and take a peek, 99% of them will say "Republican,
>Conservative".
And if you could lift the ID tag of all of the ellected Republicans,
1% of them would say "Anti-OBE". I do believe that Libertarians are
probably 99% anti-OBE. Our problem is that we only make up 2% of the
vote. But we're working on that. I hope you are working on the
pro-OBE Republicans.
As I said previously, although I believe in the complete separation of
school and state, I could, and would, enthusiastically embrace any
republican who openly supports 100% local control of schools - no
interference in the way of mandates, regulations or bribes from the
county, state or federal governments.
Name one Repulican who openly supports such an idea. Would you
support this idea?
-Dave
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/
Tony Carlyon
nothing is worse than someone who feels they are strong enough to have
views, but is to scared to give their name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom Pendergast
Joe Beiter wrote:
> I agree. I think we're down to one party and they've just sectioned
> the idiot majority down the middle and assigned the democrats to jerk
> around one half and the republicans to jerk around the other half.
...
> I'm rather impressed with the Amish. They pay no taxes or social security
> because they petitioned to congress that they don't need the government and
> its against their religion to depend on the government. They take care of
> their own elderly and poor.
America -- ALL of America -- used to take care of its own elderly and
poor, way back before the Socialist / Great Society / Welfare state was
created by -The- -Democrats-.
Look around today and see who is trying to END the National Welfare
Teat, and who IS "Pimping Poverty". It will be the Republicans and
the liberal Democrats, IN THAT ORDER.
Republicans are leading the move to -try- -something- -different-,
because what we've done for the last 30 years just ISN'T WORKING.
Democrats, OTOH, are convinced (in that sick liberal tradition) that
we just haven't done -enough-. Throw some MORE MONEY at the problem.
So, please spare me this total pile of manure about "we're down to
one party and they've just sectioned the idiot majority down the
middle ..."
If you buy into that, you're swallowing this line of fabricated lies
generated by Perotistas and Ararchist/Libertarians that "Republicans
are just as bad!" If you're that gullible, I honestly feel sorry for
you. Get thee to a reality checkpoint.
--
TP
dav...@city-net.com
Tom Pendergast <"t~spamblock~p"@3rivers[put a . here]com> wrote:
>Joe Beiter wrote:
>> I'm rather impressed with the Amish. They pay no taxes or social security
>> because they petitioned to congress that they don't need the government and
>> its against their religion to depend on the government. They take care of
>> their own elderly and poor.
>America -- ALL of America -- used to take care of its own elderly and
>poor, way back before the Socialist / Great Society / Welfare state was
>created by -The- -Democrats-.
>Look around today and see who is trying to END the National Welfare
>Teat, and who IS "Pimping Poverty". It will be the Republicans and
>the liberal Democrats, IN THAT ORDER.
<snip>
>If you buy into that, you're swallowing this line of fabricated lies
>generated by Perotistas and Ararchist/Libertarians that "Republicans
>are just as bad!" If you're that gullible, I honestly feel sorry for
>you. Get thee to a reality checkpoint.
Reality checkpoint #1==>
What percentage of Republicans openly advocate eliminating income or
social security taxes? The answer: ZERO
Reality checkpoint #2 ==>
What percentage of the Republicans openly advocate the asinine idea of
taking our money from us and redisributing it back to the states as
"block grants"? 60 or 70%?
How many of the Republican imbeciles think that the Socialist / Great
Society / Welfare state programs are proper functions of the federal
government, but just in need of reform? 30 or 40%?
-Dave
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/
Anonymous
In article <330102...@virgin.net>, Tony Carlyon
<tony.c...@virgin.net> wrote:
> nothing is worse than someone who feels they are strong enough to have
> views, but is to scared to give their name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, I can think of a lot worse......death of a child, death of an ideal, etc....
I guess that is the difference between us......I see this as a harmless
thing and you see it as some evil. What is the difference between someone
that posts with a "handle" and someone that admits they don't want to give
their name????