Author Topic: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever  (Read 59868 times)

thirsty moore

  • Member
  • Posts: 6131
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #210 on: October 07, 2004, 04:22:00 pm »
I missed the hippie craze by a few decades.  What about jaded 20 somethings?  What's the career of choice for them?
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?˘:
  So you're looking for a career change?

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #211 on: October 07, 2004, 04:24:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by econo:
  I missed the hippie craze by a few decades.  What about jaded 20 somethings?  What's the career of choice for them?
 
Web design

Jaguär

  • Guest
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #212 on: October 07, 2004, 10:42:00 pm »
Cubby Bear is one of those people whom I would so love to make teach for at least one year in a typical school with all the crap that teachers have to deal with. I can guarantee that he'd be a changed man! This is the kind of stuff that is so hard to explain to outsiders partly because there are so many variables involved that are compounded on top of each other making it such a toxic work environment. It also is not in the best interest of any student who is not entirely self-motivated, which most aren't when it comes to education. That's normal. They are only kids who are very immediate thinking in their life scope as of yet and just want to have fun. (If you don't believe me, read some developemental psychology books. And don't try to point out the exception. There are always a small few.)
 
 One thing that most people don't understand and usually prefer to play the denial game over is that so many things in this country have been de-institutionalized which has had a very negative effect on the public schools. There are a vast number of students in the regular classrooms now who, at one time, would have been in some other learning envirnonment from special education classes, pull out for special resource classes, reform schools, psychiatric institutions, hospital type learning envirnonments to any number of other types of schooling. While it's claimed to be in order to mainstream the students into the 'real world', we all know that it really has everything to do with not wanting to spend the money on them even though tons of money is still sent to the larger school districts itself yet doesn't reach the classrooms for a multitude of reasons. A lot of it in Baltimore Shitty has been mismanaged and even embezzled by administration...but that's another story yet a reality that effects the classrooms. (This is why I'm against increasing funding in education in many cases until the people at the top get their shit together. I got tired of my taxes being increased, the entire systems budgets increased, yet every school and classroom, expecially my very own, had budget cuts!!!)
 
 Once these kids are placed in a regular classroom, they are then labled and considered 'regular' students though they still have all of the problems that would have otherwise previously placed them for some sort of special services. It is now quite common for a dangerous schizophrenic to be sitting next to that student that Hitman mentioned while little GGW sits on the other side. Odds are, there are lots of other extreme differences and problems in that room that the teacher now has to work around that often makes it so fucking hard to reach every student everyday at their maximum potential.
 
 Did I address extreme behaviorial disruptions yet that are now ignored my administrators and some parents? No. What about all the insane amounts of excessive paper work that has been recently thrown on teachers that wasn't required years ago? Work that really doesn't help the teacher or the class in the least bit but administrators now seem to put more stock in that than what is really going on in the classroom. And what about all the extra concepts and subjects within one freaking subject area and class period? "Oh, you are an art teacher but you didn't teach language concepts in this class today." If you did than they pick on you for not including math, science, geography, or whatever they choose to pick on you about...and they will. In the meantime, you end up sneaking a little art in there around all of the other crap. This is how it is in all subject areas, not just art. Oh, and I forgot about all of the feel good brainwashing crap that they now demand. Most of you have no clue what is going on in these classrooms at everybody elses but the teachers' insistance but it's only the teachers who get any of the blame when things don't work out no matter how hard they've bashed their heads against all the brick walls that are built around them.
 
 Have I even begun to scratch the surface? HELL NO!!!!
 
 Think about this for a moment. Almost all school districts now are having a very serious problem with retaining teachers at all levels of the career ladder. Though the pay is bad, it's much better than it had been meaning that there's a whole lot more to why they are quitting. If a field can't retain it's employees, something must be horrid about that field. In fact, they could now offer me $200,000/year to come back and there is no way I would ever consider it. You wouldn't believe the insane chaos that has been going on in the district I worked for. Just in the past couple days there have been a number of shootings and arsons. Yesterday, the last school that I taught in, the kids had some kind of protest and the principal ended up being put on suspension. (Have no clue what the story was but knowing that place, they always blame the teachers and/or principals when the students go completely crazy. Almost never, ever the students! But they do have a lot of insane principals too.) Today, the kids tried to burn the school down. This is the kind of stuff that has become par for the course lately in Baltimore Shitty. And this is only the crap that has made it to the news media. One thing that I've learned over the years is that little offences in many other districts across the country will be publicized yet tons of very serious offenses, such as things involving guns, assaults on teachers, etc, in Baltimore will be swept under the carpet as though they are trying to hide how bad and corrupt they are.
 
 NCLB is yet another one of those government programs that sounds wonderful in bullshit political speeches and quick fix scams to those who have not an inkling of the inner workings but has absolutely no real working substance in practice.
 
 Hitman, you know I fully understand. Rhett does too.

hitman

  • Member
  • Posts: 632
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #213 on: October 08, 2004, 01:49:00 am »
Ahhhhh....kindred spirits.
 
 I'm not the typical hippie art teacher.  I'm only 29 and not burnt out from reefer (never touched it) and never owned a pair of Birkenstocks.  Most of the time, people meet me and are amazed that I'm an art teacher because I just don't fit in the typical mold.  BS in Art Ed. from Towson, MA in Art Ed. from MICA (but would never fucking do it again).  Nor am I an artist who got tired of doing bullshit jobs.  I barely have any time or drive when I do have free time, to do any of my own work.  I would much rather go to shows.  As a kid I was just good, and figured to keep up on it, and was very inspired by some great art teachers I had to go into the profession, figuring I could do some good by bringing some culture to the masses before it all got burned down by Guiliani (i.e. Brooklyn show) or card carrying NRA members who think Elvis on velvet is art.  
 
 I guess it is time to step on my rose colored glasses.

thirsty moore

  • Member
  • Posts: 6131
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #214 on: October 08, 2004, 09:13:00 am »
Can I be part of the club as well?
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by Jaguär:
 Hitman, you know I fully understand. Rhett does too.

hitman

  • Member
  • Posts: 632
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #215 on: October 08, 2004, 09:27:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by econo:
  Can I be part of the club as well?
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by Jaguär:
 Hitman, you know I fully understand. Rhett does too.
[/b]
To ggw's dismay, there is no discrimination here. Sure come on in.

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #216 on: October 08, 2004, 10:14:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
  Elvis on velvet is art.  
 
i wholeheartedly agree. . .that and the drug trade is what keeps ciudad juarez in business. . .oh, and i suppose prostitution too, but i wouldn't know anything about that.
OU812

Barcelona

  • Member
  • Posts: 1342
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #217 on: October 08, 2004, 06:03:00 pm »
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html?oref=login
 
 Ignorance Isn't Strength
 By PAUL KRUGMAN
 
 Published: October 8, 2004
 
 I first used the word "Orwellian" to describe the Bush team in October 2000. Even then it was obvious that George W. Bush surrounds himself with people who insist that up is down, and ignorance is strength. But the full costs of his denial of reality are only now becoming clear.
 
 President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have an unparalleled ability to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts. They lead a party that controls all three branches of government, and face news media that in some cases are partisan supporters, and in other cases are reluctant to state plainly that officials aren't telling the truth. They also still enjoy the residue of the faith placed in them after 9/11.
 
 This has allowed them to engage in what Orwell called "reality control." In the world according to the Bush administration, our leaders are infallible, and their policies always succeed. If the facts don't fit that assumption, they just deny the facts.
 
 As a political strategy, reality control has worked very well. But as a strategy for governing, it has led to predictable disaster. When leaders live in an invented reality, they do a bad job of dealing with real reality.
 
 In the last few days we've seen some impressive demonstrations of reality control at work. During the debate on Tuesday, Mr. Cheney insisted that "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." After the release of the Duelfer report, which shows that Saddam's weapons capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, at the time of the invasion, Mr. Cheney declared that the report proved that "delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."
 
 From a political point of view, such exercises in denial have been very successful. For example, the Bush administration has managed to convince many people that its tax cuts, which go primarily to the wealthiest few percent of the population, are populist measures benefiting middle-class families and small businesses. (Under the administration's definition, anyone with "business income" - a group that includes Dick Cheney and George Bush - is a struggling small-business owner.)
 
 The administration has also managed to convince at least some people that its economic record, which includes the worst employment performance in 70 years, is a great success, and that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." (The data to be released today, which are expected to improve the numbers a bit, won't change the basic picture of a dismal four years.)
 
 Officials have even managed to convince many people that they are moving forward on environmental policy. They boast of their "Clear Skies" plan even as the inspector general of the E.P.A. declares that the enforcement of existing air-quality rules has collapsed.
 
 But the political ability of the Bush administration to deny reality - to live in an invented world in which everything is the way officials want it to be - has led to an ongoing disaster in Iraq and looming disaster elsewhere.
 
 How did the occupation of Iraq go so wrong? (The security situation has deteriorated to the point where there are no safe places: a bomb was discovered on Tuesday in front of a popular restaurant inside the Green Zone.)
 
 The insulation of officials from reality is central to the story. They wanted to believe Ahmad Chalabi's promises that we'd be welcomed with flowers; nobody could tell them different. They wanted to believe - months after everyone outside the administration realized that we were facing a large, dangerous insurgency and needed more troops - that the attackers were a handful of foreign terrorists and Baathist dead-enders; nobody could tell them different.
 
 Why did the economy perform so badly? Long after it was obvious to everyone outside the administration that the tax-cut strategy wasn't an effective way of creating jobs, administration officials kept promising huge job gains, any day now. Nobody could tell them different.
 
 Why has the pursuit of terrorists been so unsuccessful? It has been obvious for years that John Ashcroft isn't just scary; he's also scarily incompetent. But inside the administration, he's considered the man for the job - and nobody can say different.
 
 The point is that in the real world, as opposed to the political world, ignorance isn't strength. A leader who has the political power to pretend that he's infallible, and uses that power to avoid ever admitting mistakes, eventually makes mistakes so large that they can't be covered up. And that's what's happening to Mr. Bush.

hitman

  • Member
  • Posts: 632
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #218 on: October 09, 2004, 03:18:00 am »
I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt.  For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt.  And the gem, "If you're against the war, you're against the troops."

eros

  • Member
  • Posts: 1111
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #219 on: October 09, 2004, 08:30:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
  I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt.  For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt.  And the gem, "If you're against the war, you're against the troops."
Exactly.  Best line by Kerry (paraphrased) - "The military won the war, the president lost the peace"
 
 Now, back to the internets...
 
   <img src="http://img5.exs.cx/img5/2088/gwbushtxt.jpg" alt=" - " />
ʎɐʍou

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #220 on: October 09, 2004, 05:54:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
  I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt.  For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt.
Gimme a fvcking break....
 
 Have you not picked up a newspaper in the last four years?
 
 Krugman, most notably, has written an anti-Bush column every single Tuesday and Friday since 2000.  
 
 The rest of the NY Times Columnist posse (with the exception of Safire) have been writing plenty of anti-Bush columns over the same period.  This doesn't include the formal editorials which have also been critical of much of the Bush agenda since before inauguration day. Even Frank Rich has managed to angle his weekly Arts & Leisure column into a Bush sucks crusade.

Barcelona

  • Member
  • Posts: 1342
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #221 on: October 09, 2004, 08:17:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by ggw™:
   
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
  I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt.  For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt.
Gimme a fvcking break....
 
 Have you not picked up a newspaper in the last four years?
 
 Krugman, most notably, has written an anti-Bush column every single Tuesday and Friday since 2000.  
 
 The rest of the NY Times Columnist posse (with the exception of Safire) have been writing plenty of anti-Bush columns over the same period.  This doesn't include the formal editorials which have also been critical of much of the Bush agenda since before inauguration day. Even Frank Rich has managed to angle his weekly Arts & Leisure column into a Bush sucks crusade. [/b]
To me, The New York Times is one of the best newspapers in the world. You see it as anti-bush, I see it as an objective newspaper. The thing I hated after September 11 was how patriotic most papers in the US became, for a few months it was impossible to see any criticism of Bush, you are with us or against us, I hated that, all the freedom Bush talks about for the middle east didn´t even exist in the US.

Barcelona

  • Member
  • Posts: 1342
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #222 on: October 09, 2004, 09:39:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by ggw™:
   
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
  I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt.  For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt.
Gimme a fvcking break....
 
 Have you not picked up a newspaper in the last four years?
 
 Krugman, most notably, has written an anti-Bush column every single Tuesday and Friday since 2000.  
 
 The rest of the NY Times Columnist posse (with the exception of Safire) have been writing plenty of anti-Bush columns over the same period.  This doesn't include the formal editorials which have also been critical of much of the Bush agenda since before inauguration day. Even Frank Rich has managed to angle his weekly Arts & Leisure column into a Bush sucks crusade. [/b]
I haven´t read articles by Friedman and Brooks lately, but Friedman supported the war in Irak and I recall Brooks being pretty conservative, but this was a long time ago and he might have changed or I might have got a wrong impression. Unless I am wrong for not having followed too much on these two writers, I would say that things are pretty balanced in the New York Times. You have Krugman, Dowd, Kristoff or Herbert, but you also have Friedman, Safire and Brooks. But I might be wrong since I only read Krugman, Dowd, and Kristoff (pretty biased choice you may say).

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #223 on: October 09, 2004, 10:36:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Barcelona:
 To me, The New York Times is one of the best newspapers in the world. You see it as anti-bush, I see it as an objective newspaper.
My point in saying "anti-Bush" is not to imply that the NY Times is not a fine paper.  I read it most days and have for years.  They are one of the few that still do a half-decent job of covering things outside the U.S.    
 
 The Op-ed pages are for just that -- Opinions and Editorials -- and if those opinions go against the Bush Administration, then they are "anti-Bush."  I'm not using the term in a derogatory sense, only a descriptive one.
 
 Friedman was in favor of action against Iraq, but he has also complained about Bush's actions and policies plenty of times (and supported Bush many times as well).
 
 As you noted in your other post, there are no less than three regular opinion columnists (and this doesn't even include the contributor articles and the formal editorials) who have been consistently and steadily critical of Bush since the day he took office.
 
 The opinion that the media overdid the patriotism in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 may very well be valid.  But to claim that there were no contrary opinions is ridiculous.

thirsty moore

  • Member
  • Posts: 6131
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #224 on: October 09, 2004, 11:11:00 pm »
Just because you're supporting the war in Iraq doesn't mean you're pro Bush.  
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by Barcelona:
 I haven´t read articles by Friedman and Brooks lately, but Friedman supported the war in Irak ...