Bored suburbia kids being bored. Wowzers.

1. I have no problem with teachers being held more accountable in a fair manner, and that they could be let go for poor performance more easily than they are now. The fundamental problem with getting rid of subpar teachers is we don't have enough teachers as is. You can be selective when there actually is a surplus of people wanting to teach. You can't pay teachers a crappy salary, then fire them more readily for poor performance when you have class sizes of 30-40 students. That's my entire point. Right now, the problem is not that you can't get rid of bad teachers. The problem is you can't attract enough good ones, and when you do get them, they leave because the job sucks, and they're not paid enough.

2. We are born with predispositions for certain kinds of intelligence. The ability to teach well is an exceptional skillset. You have to have the right blend of intelligence to learn the subject matter you want to teach, plus the emotional and social intelligence to relate that information to other people, most of whom do not think like you do. The natural ability alone isn't enough, you are correct. But there are people who just will never be good at teaching no matter how hard they work at it. If you haven't the social and emotional intelligence to relate well to others, you won't be a good teacher.

3. The devil is in the details. If a teacher has a class of 37 8th grade students, most with special needs with learning disabilities, and the teacher gets no special education help, should the teacher's performance evaluation be negative if the kids' performances are subpar? (I faced that my last year of teaching, went to guidance dept, raised a stink about it, and their response was that's the best they could do. Thankfully, I left the first week of the school year when I got my first permanent IT job, but I raised a stink anyway because that wasn't fair to the person who would replace me. Our pay wasn't influenced by student performance, thankfully, because that's fundamentally unfair. What about the fact that the #1 factor in a student's achievement is the socio-economic class of the parent(s)? Does that mean teachers in inner-city schools should get more negative performance evaluations than teachers in suburbia? It's easier said than done. And this is the problem with comparing how the business sector works with public education. In the business sector, if these factors caused the business to not perform well, the business would get shut down, and there would be far less negative societal problems because of it. Sure, a few people would lose their jobs, but it's not as likely to cause very long lasting repercussions. If public schools' mission is to provide everyone with a basic education, you can't shut the inner-city school down. Even if you don't shut them down, if teachers realize they'll get paid less because their performance hinges on factors that are not under their control, such as the socio-economic class of the student, they'll flee inner-city schools to teach in suburbia, which means the inner-city schools who desperately need the best teachers will get worse ones.

It's really simple to say there should be merit based pay for teachers. On principle, I agree. But I haven't yet seen a merit based pay system for teachers that addresses all of these kinds of problems, which are significant fundamental problems you can't simply ignore just because such a system works in the private sector.

5.

a) There is incentive to take the risk if it also meant if teachers perform better, overall pay would on average could go up for teachers. But that's not on the table, let's be honest. The real reason teachers aren't getting paid more on average is there's not enough public support for the higher taxes that would have to be paid. And once again, it's a crappy job as is, so why would someone be in favor of making a crappy job even less secure? You don't have enough teachers, period, and even if you did, you're not attracting enough talented individuals to become and remain teachers. How does it make sense to make the job less secure then until you correct that problem.

b) I disagree with you about teacher unions. First off, I lump in any organization that collectively advocates for employees as a "union" when I hear people say "teacher's unions". Here in Virginia, there is the Virginia Education Association, which is an affiliate of the National Education Association. However, it is not a union; it can't initiate strikes. It's a professional association, just like the NEA at the national level. Some states do in fact have teacher unions, some don't. Would you call the following technically unions:

American Medical Association
American Bar Association
American Dental Association

So to lump teachers all together and say they are all unionized is not true.

The VEA and the NEA would not be worried in the slightest about a reduction of members because they still advocate for things other than pay, and teachers are fools if they don't join because, as an example, the VEA/NEA is the absolute cheapest way to acquire liability insurance (if you get sued for anything you do at your job, and there's a lot you can get sued for that makes no sense).

I'm not particularly gung ho about unions in general, nor for teacher unions and associations, but their existence is needed, and they're not nearly as rigid as you're suggesting.

The arts thing, once again, the arts can be a driver to motivation to higher achievement in other things. I won't say they are per se correct in what they advocate, but that would be towards the bottom of the list of things that should elicit that kind of reaction by society in general. There is far more pressing issues in education where you have people who fundamentally don't understand the issue and advocate horrifying policies.

Btw, thank you for actually being open to a discussion about this. I hope you're at least learning something out of it, and are open to changing your mind at least some.

LOL... oh, we're gonna play that game now.

So what do you call the stock market crashes post 9/11, 2007, 1987, all under your heroes - George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan? Guess your boys were... what did you call them... or, right... "clueless fking idiots".

Dude, seriously, check your facts before you post idiotic stuff like this.

Just to clarify, I'm not blaming Reagan or W. singlehandedly or even predominantly for those crashes. The drop today in fact has as much to do with European markets as it does the American markets. How exactly Obama could be blamed for that makes absolutely no sense.

About Bush's spending - completely laughable. The right was 100% on board with tax cuts (which contributed massively to the deficit, regardless if you want to count it as spending or not), and both the Afghan and Iraqi wars. About the only thing they were against was the senior citizens prescription drug benefit, and even then, I sure didn't hear a whole lot of opposition by them at the time. Compare that to Obama wanting to raise taxes on millionaires by a few percentage points and the right, including you, come out saying he's a communist or socialist, which is utterly ridiculous.

Name socialist programs that worked?

I define programs socialist in nature that cause the gov't to determine what is produced (related, how it is produced), who produces it, and/or who consumes it. With that said, here are the gov't programs that overall unquestionably the US is better for it.

Universal primary/secondary education
Federal grants and scholarships
Environmental regulation
Food and Drug Administration (before it, it wasn't safe to assume the food you bought from the grocery store wouldn't kill you)
Social Security (say what you want, but even critics have to agree Social Security has run very well, and benefitted the economy for most of its existence)
Medicare (seniors are happier with their health care than any other age group, and the vast majority are on medicare, medicare has been in existence for over 45 years)
Medicaid
VA hospitals

BTW, you can't say something has been a failure just because it's having problems today. If the program has existed for decades and was fine up to this point, it clearly can be run properly. Instead of questioning its existence, it's perfectly rational to look at how to reform it to allow it to work again.

And yes, public schools are underfunded. That's clear as day. And your rationale to not spend more is preposterous. Carried to its absurd conclusion, we should eliminate all funding for education in any manner whatsoever. Kids will learn just as much outside without shelter, books, or even teachers! Funding does matter. It doesn't determine everything about achievement. The #1 factor of student achievement is actually the socio-economic class of the students' parents. However, if the school is drastically underfunded, that child's performance will be inhibited.

See, I taught public schools, so I actually know wtf I'm talking about. You explain to me how routine classes of 37 8th grade students, 24 of them with learning disabilities, in a single class with no special education help (because there weren't enough special edu teachers to go around because it's impossible to find enough special edu teachers, because, oh wonder of wonders, nobody wants to go to spend the money to go to college to become a special edu teacher because their salaries are crap, just like every other teacher, and the job is even harder than other teaching jobs) doesn't qualify as ridiculous underfunding. This wasn't an inner city school, either. It was suburbia in a comparatively well off county in Virginia. Our textbooks were 15 years old and above reading grade level and falling apart. The county didn't have enough schools, so most of the schools had outside trailer classrooms. And no, there wasn't embezzling, or major issues with misallocation of funds. The area was heavily conservative; voters would rather have low taxes than well functioning schools, and it showed. Then you have idiots who claim the schools suck, and say it's because they're public schools, and the government can't do anything right. The government failed because it did what the people wanted - lowest taxes regardless of the consequences.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Dow dropped 500 points today (04 Aug). Are you awake yet? People are voting with their $$$ and they have zero confidence in the Kenyanesque Hawaiian (a true label, as Papa was Kenyan and Barry is from Hawaii) who has proved to be a clueless fking idiot.
(If you don't want to believe Obama is clueless, a more terrifying conclusion awaits you: everything about his lifelong ideology, thinking America is the #1 threat in the world which must be stopped [or slowed down] is 100% true).
I know you want to believe this debt crap is a 'victory' for the right. It's nothing of the kind. We are in serious trouble and both sides ain't worth sh1t, but only one side is even trying to steer away from the cliff and rocks below.
The "spending cuts" are smoke and mirrors. Allow me to explain. Say you wanted to buy a car for 100K but instead buy one or 20K. The government would call that an 80K "spending cut". The government has NEVER cut spending.
As for your assessment of me, I don't remember enough about you to make a similar assessment, you seem to always be in attack dog mode but rarely do I see you drawing on facts for arguments. The left judges programs on what they're supposed to do, not how well they work (or not). That kind of insanity can only be measured in good intentions and resources wasted. You're standing on the edge of a cliff wearing Styrofoam wings, believing you can fly because that's the intent of the wings. Gravity says otherwise.

I've said it before and will again: I wish you lefties could prove me wrong with results: e.g. actual created jobs and prosperity, real evidence the (Bush created) scamulus worked, proof social programs work efficiently without counting good intentions, and stable financial markets attractive to investors the world over. There is no consumer confidence and zero trust now.

The left's incessant demonization of "the rich" is to win class warfare votes. It can do nothing else. Obama has already apent 3 trillion dollars in 3 years. Do you think "the rich" have more than 3 trillion hidden away? Democrat spending never stops and Republican spending barely slows down.
You can be pissed at me all day long, but I'm even more pissed at the disastrous results of this piss-poor excuse of an administration.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

Did you not notice the economic bill he just fucking signed. Spending Cuts EVERY FUCKING WHERE...and Obama saying that it's wonderful...he didn't add any fucking taxes either. You've WON EVERYTHING by supporting the richest in the nation...and you're still bitching about something that's been proven COMPLETELY wrong.
This is my problem with you QM...you're just wrong, even using your own logic and facts, you're just always fucking wrong. I've met conservatives that were smart and made good arguments and I can have a conversation with...you could be one of those people but you're just fucking not. You're given a lot of shit on here but you're also given a lot of leash I would've banned your ass a long time ago just for being stupid.

With the silent, peopleless suburbia lined with identical homes in the background, this would make an excellent viral ad for an alternative-history-dystopian-present-like film. Chilling.

This is what you get when two stupid teenagers watch to much MMA and listen to to much Gansta Rap. But of course, what else do you expect considering it looks like Florida or Southern California, particularly white well-off suburbia lol.

So her plants aren't "common?" (Never mind that "suitable" does not equal "common"...)

Then basically, her crime is being different. Conform, or be punished. You see that a lot in suburbia these days.

Suburbia OM NOM NOM

Rednecks of suburbia.

All that creative effort and diligence being used to trigger a speed camera... LOL Oh Suburbia....

Myth:

1.

• a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
  
  
  • b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

2.

• A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

3.

• A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4.

• A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

Made by marketers in suburbia.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
I love this attitude that people have sometimes. "I'm a pedestrian, so I have the legal right-of-way. Which means NO ONE can hit me EVER, because that would be illegal." This is why you'll see me riding my bike illegally on the sidewalk most of the time.

Doesn't that just make things worse for the pedestrians? Now there's literally nowhere they can walk without the risk of being run over by something.


Yeah, I don't live in a big city anymore so it's easy to get around in suburbia and not hit anyone. When foot traffic increases or I can't see around tight corners then I ride in the street.

Besides,I pose a lot less danger to pedestrians on when on my bike. I'm not one of those guys that wears the sweet little aerodynamic shorts and always has to be going down the street as fast as possible. And those guys piss me off even more, but not for any other reason then their own safety.

I respect bicyclists and I like that we're trying to integrate them into traffic more and more but (and this sounds dramatic) my 7th grade shop teacher was killed on his bike just a year ago commuting home from school. He was wearing a helmet, he was obeying traffic laws and he had about 20 years of experience riding around in traffic. But all of that means dick when some stoned sixteen year old decides, for whatever reason, to jerk the steering wheel to the right for just a fraction of a second... WHAM!, you're a pancake.

So anyway, whenever I'm driving down a rural highway with cars shooting by at 50 or 60 MPH and I see a cyclist hanging out into the lane (and that's his right dammit!), I still can't help but think the guy is kind of a prick for expecting everyone to obey traffic laws at his own expense. Of course, it's his life. If a cop were to pull me over on my bike for riding on the sidewalk, I would have no problem explaining exactly why I was doing it. Or explaining that I'm more than happy to pay a small fine for protecting my own life.

'Flavour' (with a 'U') in that while I keep the grass cut and the hedges trimmed, I occasionally host large, loud BBQ's that go way past midnight, I listen to loud music when I'm home alone and cleaning up, and I drive a big obnxious car with loud obnoxious music blasting from the stereo when I come home every day.>> ^rougy:

^ Flavor in the hybrid "sense" of the word?
Flavor in the ethnic edible goodies sense of the word?
Flavor in the doe-eyed love ya honey sense of the word?
I'm on pins and needles here!
EDIT:
1) I'd do her.
2) The tragedy of suburbia is that they can only envy finer neighborhoods while stealing (musically here) from lesser 'hoods.
3) The safer the neighborhood, the more boring the neighborhood.
4) The grass is always greener somewhere in my ass.

^ Flavor in the hybrid "sense" of the word?

Flavor in the ethnic edible goodies sense of the word?

Flavor in the doe-eyed love ya honey sense of the word?

I'm on pins and needles here!

EDIT:

1) I'd do her.
2) The tragedy of suburbia is that they can only envy finer neighborhoods while stealing (musically here) from lesser 'hoods.
3) The safer the neighborhood, the more boring the neighborhood.
4) The grass is always greener somewhere in my ass.

Movie was great, I need to check out the book. It's a crime that it took 2 months more to come out in Australia than it did in the US, I caved and ended up grabbing a copy of the screener.

Probably the best dystopia film since Children of Men. Not quite as good as that though because it was much more limited in scope, but still very involving and bleakly evocative and great for what it tries to be.

Oh and also the soundtrack is excellent, it's memorable enough than you can pretty much pinpoint every song to the scene.

I tend to subscribe more to the Hobbesian mindset. I mean it goes without saying that countries with a functioning government, civil institutions and municipalities are far more peaceful and stable that those that are lacking. If a disaster were to come along that wiped out all plant life, and presumably a good chunk of the population, then that would throw this a spanner in the works and all into disarray. Without a unifying element, with crippled communications, we would likely divulge back into small tribes for survival.

Without plant life, the majority of livestock would only last so long, especially in suburbia. I think it's only inevitable that some would turn to cannibalism and would begin to dominate others. After all, social norms have changed drastically over human civilization. I think it's only inevitable that if people were to become desperate enough for food their carnal desires would regress their norms and human nature.