POOR HEALTH!-Body Mind Spirit....all conjoined at the organic heart of all misfortune and discomfort-Which is a major cause of why health care programs start with reeducation in the US- of states.....problems dissolve with the energy and sharpness of mind to overcome and adapt...relearn how to eat first-stop poisoning your bodies with food.

I think the difference between a teacher and a good teacher is that a good teacher gives a shit about their students' futures. I had the misfortune of having teachers (not all, but most) who treated it like a job instead of an honour or responsibility. I make a point of meeting with teachers (my brother's, my nephews/nieces, and my kids teachers) as much as I can. I usually won't go off on them if I disagree, but it does help me understand what role they will assume with their students, and if it will be necessary for me to supplement the kids education.

A young persons outlook on life is more often than not cemented into permanence by the time they graduate from high school. Some will change and blossom into more open-minded folks later in life, but not too many.

If there is one thing that bothers me even more than complacent teachers, it's complacent parents. I really don't like it when parents don't push their kids, but where I come from it happens far too often.

One thing I want to teach my kids (that I learned from my parents) is that as young people they will have the opportunity to push their peers if they think it's merited. I was able to help some peers who had hardscrabble upbringings in their childhood, and it can make a difference.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Enoch - bravo!


We need more teachers like Enoch. The robots might as well go work in a factory somewhere.


thanks man!
i am not the smartest man nor the most educated,in fact i was a horrible student.i fell into teaching late in life and found a genuine passion for it.
i taught comparative religions for two years but as i have told others,this was an elective class for adults.
when the alternative school for teens lost funding i went into the public school system at the behest of dr carlos.
i loved it the first day.
to teach adults is one thing but to have so many young minds ready to be jump started is a whole new arena and i was excited!
i lasted 6 maybe 7 weeks in that school.
not due to the kids..they were GREAT.
it was the other teachers and the administrators who had a problem with me.
not with my kids test scores,nor their assignments.
it was due to the fact that i was not following the precise dictates of NCLB and how i was expected to deliver that curriculum.
my argument was that if my students were doing well on the mandatory quizzes,which is a crucial to federal funding,who CARES how i taught them?
the school board took issue with,what they called "my attitude".
i was told i needed to grade my kids notebooks...i refused,because it has no bearing on what they have learned and is irrelevant.
i was told i could not grade them on participation...i argued that is crucially more vital than a notebook.
i was written up three times for supposed "prejudicial teaching practices",which was only my strategy in getting a lazy thinker to stop being lazy.
what i was doing is the first 20 minutes of the period i would have the class discuss how a historical event could be related to a current event.(my way of interjecting civics).
if a student regurgitated a textbook answer i knew he/she was trying to slip by with only rudimentary understanding of what we were covering.
so i would hammer that student the entire period and make an example of that student.
embarrassing? maybe
uncomfortable?most likely
will they come to my class ill prepared again?
never in a million years.
i also got into trouble for adding three bonus questions on every quiz that were worth 10%.
they were essay questions that i wanted in the students own words.
this was more for the kids that maybe didnt take tests well and i gave an opportunity to reveal that they did have a nominal understanding of the material and hence could bolster their grade a tad.
i also graded on participation.
if you did well on tests but didnt interact with the class i counted that against you.
that got me into some hot water also.
the school system was not looking for a teacher but a warm body to take attendance.
not for that kind of money or any amount of money.
now i tutor my friends kids when they need it.
of course i dont get paid but thats not what is important.
what IS important is to get these kids excited and curious.to become passionate about learning.
that, in itself, is a pretty big bonus in my book.
till next time.
namaste.

oh well, the community does not seem to be that receptive to the creativity and passion of her users of the site-Pity-I dug the vibe-

It seems that some folks would rather watch people fall on their ass and giggle about it(http://www.videosift.com/video/Funnier-with-each-return-viewing)...grew out of laughing at the misfortune of others wayyyy back when, m'self.

>> ^dannym3141:
Dune is the most godawful, low quality, banal storied, craptastic piece of pseudo-epic shite that i have ever had the misfortune to sit through 1/4 of. That's all i could stomach, and i watch some real pieces of shit i can tell you. It should have been the death of everyone's career that got involved in this film, and their undying shame.
David Lynch should have been treated in a way which his name suggests.
The money put into the film (which by the look of the sets and effects could have only been about £30 and a sponsorship of sand from a DIY store) should have been put into more productive endeavours which more greatly enriched and benefitted human kind, such as fuelling a car whose sole purpose was to burn fuel, standing still and empty, polluting the atmosphere LESS than dune has polluted the earth with it's bad film making sneaking under the guise of cult success.
What an absolute embarassment of the highest order this film was. When we meet aliens, i want the whole history and any proof of the existence of this film to be obliterated lest we be laughed out of the universal council and sent home riding a giant fake looking worm, being forced to shout rediculous sounds pretending that we're duelling each other. Each of us trying to pull a more dramatic face than the last. And they'll give us all surgery to make us have kyle machlachlachlachlachlan's annoying facial features.
Meeting a person who enjoys that film is like stumbling into the inner order of the Nerd World Order. The people that get together to discuss the ethical implications of the latest doctor who episode. It's like meeting someone who enjoys "The Happening" and takes it for a modern great. You can't quite believe the words they're speaking, and you're almost certain they're playing a joke on you. A lot of them quote each other word for word "If you'd read the book before you saw the film..." - And i can only assume that the book was hypnotherapy which conditioned me to enjoy abominable films.
Alright, i feel better now.


You got me pegged.

Dune is the most godawful, low quality, banal storied, craptastic piece of pseudo-epic shite that i have ever had the misfortune to sit through 1/4 of. That's all i could stomach, and i watch some real pieces of shit i can tell you. It should have been the death of everyone's career that got involved in this film, and their undying shame.

David Lynch should have been treated in a way which his name suggests.

The money put into the film (which by the look of the sets and effects could have only been about £30 and a sponsorship of sand from a DIY store) should have been put into more productive endeavours which more greatly enriched and benefitted human kind, such as fuelling a car whose sole purpose was to burn fuel, standing still and empty, polluting the atmosphere LESS than dune has polluted the earth with it's bad film making sneaking under the guise of cult success.

What an absolute embarassment of the highest order this film was. When we meet aliens, i want the whole history and any proof of the existence of this film to be obliterated lest we be laughed out of the universal council and sent home riding a giant fake looking worm, being forced to shout rediculous sounds pretending that we're duelling each other. Each of us trying to pull a more dramatic face than the last. And they'll give us all surgery to make us have kyle machlachlachlachlachlan's annoying facial features.

Meeting a person who enjoys that film is like stumbling into the inner order of the Nerd World Order. The people that get together to discuss the ethical implications of the latest doctor who episode. It's like meeting someone who enjoys "The Happening" and takes it for a modern great. You can't quite believe the words they're speaking, and you're almost certain they're playing a joke on you. A lot of them quote each other word for word "If you'd read the book before you saw the film..." - And i can only assume that the book was hypnotherapy which conditioned me to enjoy abominable films.

Alright, i feel better now.

good for you winston.
what you looking for? a cookie?
your thinking reveals a myopic view,longde is correct.
it is not a slant,at least not to me anyways.it is who you are and i would not have you any other way.
you think in two dimensions and there can be great strength in that but the downside to that paradigm is abstract thinking,grey areas,fuzzy logic.

the discussion was pertaining to the morality of this young woman.recognizing she was stepping on her neighbors face to collect a paycheck,so she broke the rules and got fired for it.she didnt appear too bitter to me and i applaud her for her courage.i have made similar choices.does this make me better than others? of course not,but i have to wake up in the morning and look myself in the mirror.a clear conscience is a thing of beauty.

"the man who flipped the switch at aushwitz may have been a great guy and wonderful family man but he still participated in the elimination of thousands"-noam chomsky.

THIS is the integral point i am trying to make and since you are the "smartest man in the room" i would have thought i would not have to write an essay to get you to understand this very salient and important point on the matter of this young lady.

i give historical context you call it "opinion".
i attempt to convey my mistrust of bankers and show historically why and you cherry pick lines from my comment and ignore the over -all context.
we,as a group praise this young lady and you call her a whiner (which is your right) and spout rhetoric on the awesomeness that is you.
what i have gathered from your comments here is that:
a.bankers are a good and noble breed and those who may have had the misfortune of life turning wrong are just stupid and deserve neither comfort nor release but contemptful scorn.
this is the very same logic of "well,she wouldnt have been raped if she hadnt worn that miniskirt" and you get IRKED when longde calls you out on your myopia?...please son....please...
b.it is the full responsibility and fault of the politicians who ALLOW themselves to be bought and paid for.banks and other institutions hold no such responsibility.
yeah...ok..so the manipulation of markets by institutions to swindle entire governments and it's people of it's wealth is noble?the engineering of wars by those who would profit most is a good and honorable thing for society?

listen my friend,governments are thing not to be trusted,BIG government is a thing to avoid at all costs and when that government starts to work with financial institutions the death knell has begun to ring for the common citizen.
this is not new,it did not began yesterday and while you noted 30 years ago (correct 1972,gold standard=gone) but it goes even further.1966,1942,1933,1929,1917,1923,1880,1781 in america alone.since you are the smartest man in the room i guess you already knew that though./snark

maybe the difference is between you and us lib/leftie/whiner/cry-babies is that we wont FUCK YOU over for a dollar.WE dont agree with the fact that the very same people who created this financial mess cried like little fucking bitches and had to have average joe taxpayer working two jobs bailing those elitist pricks out.at NO risk to them but all the risk on us while they engage in practices that are at best, bottom feeding tendencies.
so YEAH winston,we LIKE when we see a person stand up for what they believe even if that may mean hardship for themselves.not like those PUSSIES on wall street.


so feel free to cherry pick whichever lines you wish to conflate into your myopic paradigm.
hey..you are the smartest man in the room.guess what my response will be.

If I ever have the misfortune of having a child, I hope it turns out like this one.

I had the misfortune to swim a Class III rapid a couple of years ago. My heart really goes out to this guy.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.
For example, Mr. Franken is probably not including Canada in his list of 'zero bankruptcies'...
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/pro
duct_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf
He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".
If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?


[Krupo shakes head]

This is pretty dismal.

It's not cherry-picking to pick a well-defined topic and discuss it.

It's an absolute disgrace to take a topic of discussion and turn it into something completely different. Redefining the scope without informing others of your intent is akin to bringin a laser gatling gun to a fencing match.

Have you even for a moment considered that perhaps Canada has bankruptcy laws which may be easier for people to gain access to than the US, making it easier for them to wipe their slate clean after misfortune?

The topic at hand is regarding people who have to pay their hospital and doctor for treatment, can't, and go bankrupt.

If you go bankrupt in your personal life that is not a medical bankruptcy, that's just an ordinary bankruptcy.

So please stop twisting terms around, and encouraging other people's "junk science" - go Wiki "Fraser Institute" to note how it is, if anything, a clearinghouse for "junk science."

They're deliberately working on misleading people with your so-called study, and your twisting of the facts.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Wheel of Misfortune: or Why VCR Games Failed.. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Gangs suck, no ifs, ands or buts. They have crusades against each other - those are never good. One gang likes red, one likes blue. One likes sky cake and the other is adamant that it's sky pie! Rational people don't want to be in gangs. The thrive on the misfortune of others, sustaining themselves on weak people who can't see any other way. Using the gang as protection, comfort, security, these people don't want to be against the gang alone, but rather be on friendly terms with them and against other gangs. This is a bad thing.

Generalization usually have something wrong with them.

I don't know if I would apply the lack of empathy problem on any one political party or even a singular idea. And that's the way I see it, as a lack of empathy issue. It is very easy to dismiss something or someone if your can't see it happening to yourself or people you know closely. When you have people walking right past people that are seriously hurt in supermarkets or on the street, then you have to start questioning what our society stands for. (I've read several stories about this... sorry, I don't have the links readily available.)


GeeSussFreeK,
I agree with you; however, it is my personal experience that the vast majority of people that fall into this category of "blaming others for their misfortunes" have been a type of conservative and/or republican.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:
>> ^enoch:
i was having a great discussion with IamtheBlurr about this very subject.
i am a man of faith,but i keep my faith personal.
i have no interest in making people believe my faith is valid or justified.
i do not need peoples acceptance of my faith to validate either myself, or my faith.
and arguing about faith is just silly in my opinion,so i dont engage in debates about faith.it is an exercise in futility.
Hehe, Hows it going yo?
I watched this video just earlier and thought of you actually.
I remember when you initially wrote to me the concept of not having an interest in making people believe what you believe and I came to this thought; just something to chew on...
If proving what you believe to other people is not a priority to you, do you also not make a priority of proving it to yourself? If you do make a priority of proving your beliefs to yourself, what is the difference between yourself and others?
Just a thought.


Cats made of airport is a rather funny image.

Enoch and IAmTheBlurr, you raise some very good questions.

I actually did not find much that was disagreeable with this video. His analysis on the practice of faith in general had some validity. The whole nature of faith is that we put our trust in an object when not knowing for certain all we can know about that object. Empirically it is not perfect. But what is? When I walk down my rickety apartment stairs to take the trash out I am expressing a whole lot of faith that the old floor boards will support me and prevent me from falling two stories and breaking my leg. So far the stairs have proven (fairly) trustworthy so I continue to use them.

The video seems to be directed more so against people who make annoying claims about their religion based upon faith, and since faith is not exact their arguments are invalid and they have no right to force their religion upon others.

Fair enough.

Enoch suggests that faith can be personal, and that it does not need to be validated by others to remain significant in one's own life (Enoch, correct me if I have misinterpreted).

IamTheBlur raises a very excellent question: (I want to paraphrase, and please correct me if I phrase it poorly)If one's faith is not expressed outwardly for validation, what good is it?

I'm not going to answer for Enoch, but I will speak for myself that I believe that faith must be coupled with works. If I proclaimed to have faith in my rickety apartment stairs, yet do not walk on them, what sort of faith would that be? No substantial faith. What's worse is that if I were to proclaim faith in my rickety apartment stairs yet did not walk on them but forced my neighbor to go down them then I would be a hypocrite.

The object of faith is what ultimately is at the heart of issue. When discussing faith and religion an honest and unfortunate reality is many people put their faith in religion itself rather than any deity, meaning that many people expect salvation and justification to come from involvement in and obedience to the accepted cultus and rituals of a specific religion and not a god (ex. If I attend church every Sunday, if I abstain from premarital sex, if I tithe 10% I'll earn salvation). This is ultimately faulty because all one is doing is placing their hope in a system and certainly not any divine being.

When considering Christianity (which seemed to be highlighted in the video) an honest analysis of the teachings of Jesus Christ reveals that he too revolted against this slavish obedience to religion. The people he most disputed against, and ultimately the people who put him to death were the religious elite. Yes, today Christianity is rightly defined as a religion in a classical sense (as it includes a set of beliefs and rituals), but what makes it unique is what is known as the Gospel message, being that Jesus brought hope that far exceeds our best attempts at righteousness. In fact, I believe that it is perfect hope, and yes, this requires faith.

Faith in Jesus is to be outwardly expressed through loving others. "Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world" James 1:27. So if my faith leads me to do something along the lines of what is just stated I would guess that most people would validate my actions (unless they hated orphans and found widows to be a waste of space).

Is this faith in action done perfectly by anybody proclaiming to be a Christian (me included)? No. But what strikes me as most unfortunate is that Christianity is identified with people who "attack, condemn, or blackmail people who don't believe" (quoted from the video) more than what Jesus Christ taught.

And I still think that "cats made of airports" is pretty funny.

^or laughing at somebody for being a complete pussy 'cause they can't laugh at other people's misfortune?

Very seldom do I feel schadenfreude, which is a good thing. It should be the exception to the rule, an indulgence in specific cases. Glorifiying and/or promoting it just doesn't seem right, because taking pleasure in all misfortune of others is abnormal, bordering on showing psychopathic tendencies.
For instance, enjoying a waitress falling over, or is watching people out in the rain.