If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
You know, you can be adept and adroit at some things and still be generally "stupid". My mother is exceptionally bright and talented, but she is "stupid" in that she lacks a vast array of knowledge that would allow her to talk "intelligently" about any number of concepts and subjects. One of the things I really liked about AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) is the game separates the traits of wisdom and intelligence. Many other fantasy/adventure games based on this system have followed suit. I think that is part of what you are getting at in your example. I have a book that has a great example of this, but I doubt I could put my hands on it right now. I just remember they use the character of Edith Bunker as an example of someone who is wise. She wasn't book smart or even inclined to be so, but she could reason and understood many situations and people almost instinctively. She knew how to learn from experience and develop "common sense". I've known a lot of MBA's in my life that had poor grammer skills both in writing and speech, and were generally rather "narrow" in training. You can graduate with a "D" after all, and skate through on C's and an occasional "B". If you have enough money and clout. A liberal education the likes of Jefferson and his cronies has been lacking for quite some time in the U.S. Pah! An MBA is not a real graduate level degree. It is a dressed-up bachelor's degree with no focused program of study. The biggest products I've seen from MBA programs are inflated egos and deflated wallets. The only reason I would even consider wasting my time on that degree is if the morons in the human resources departments (collectively since I am not currently employed) all decide it is mandatory for any job I want. I would rather have a true MA or MS in Accounting. I expect a President representing the US to be able to address the public intelligently. But maybe, thinking this over again, you are right: He is addressing the 73% of the country that is stupid, and he's clever enough to know it's 73% of the country. (Now, if that doesn't get a few here in a dander, I don't know what will). I'm still not convinced Bush is the clever one. I think he's a puppet. JMHO. I will say we are all being played for fools. -- Brenda Lewis WIP: "Pink Baby" photo frame, Candamar |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I think you wrote extremely coherently and I concur with your views.
Although I am in the minority ( I think) on this group I heartily second your final statement. Gillian Florida and breaking my word to myself about never mentioning anything political again on this group. Have had some very burned undies in the past!!LOL "Carolyn Wagner" wrote in message ... ICan someone explain why a kindergarten class room has to be wired for the Internet???? Just one of the things my tax dollars goes for in my school system, and no, I didn't sign the consent for my children to use the Internet as kindergartners or 1st or 2nd graders, for that matter. I understand the potential for students to use computers with research, etc., but let's teach our kids to think and figure things out on their own first. ~ As far as Bush not being able to speak "off the cuff" intelligently, I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person, but I sound much more coherent and intelligent if I have a few minutes to think about what I am trying to say. Otherwise the foot will end up in the mouth in record time! :-) Maybe that's his problem or maybe he's trying too hard to talk in "plain and simple language." Is it a good thing for the leader of our country? No, it isn't a great trait, but I can think of worse things. All in all, I'd rather have Bush in office than Clinton or Gore any day. Carolyn (as she runs and hides....... ;-) ) "Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message ... While I appreciate your post - and understand all too well and agree *mostly* with its content, the word "hypertension" is not common everyday language. Someone who is ill is confused, frightened - maybe quite sick. Grasping everything at once can be darned hard. I know . . . I just went through this the past 15 months. And, after I heard all the "words", I still had to do a lot of researching. And I have a husband in the medical field to help sort out the "babble". He's comfortable with the words. I'm lost. (Yes, I know what hypertension is grin). Anyway, that's not Bush's problem in speaking. He literally can't find words, can't convey a "message". He relies on short phrases that sound stupid. It's like he can't think. Next time, I'll write it down. It hasn't just been the last 10 or 15 years . . . . it's been an ongoing downhill slide since the late 1960's when programs came into being that taught children across the country to read by using words such as "hows (for house)" and "kat". Then there was the "new" math. Then there was the "open classrooms", then there was the "self-esteem, feel good education", until all that's left is cursory in far too many school systems. Great article in yesterday's paper about the silliness of parents buying all these "tech" toys and videos for infants to get them stimulated and become geniuses, when all a kid needs is a cardboard box, a few rhythm instruments (wooden spoon and metal pan are good), a doll, some blocks, some pudding for finger paints, etc., so that a child can develop creativity and problem solving skills!!!! Dianne Carolyn Wagner wrote: Unfortunately, most public information has to be "dumbed down" to an elementary school level. I work in the medical field, and surgical consents, risks/benefits/alternatives of treatment and other information must be written and verbally discussed on a 2nd or 3rd grade level to satisfy the court system that everything has been explained in "plain and simple language" to the patient. I am sure it is the same in pretty much every field of public conversation. There is too much illiteracy and un-educating in the school system for intelligent discussion in the overall mainstream population. Add in all the high school drop-outs, the immigrants and illegals who cannot understand English (not being judgmental, just stating plain fact) and those who just don't care to use and understand decent language, and you have a lot of the reasons why Bush or any politician or physician or professional must use basic, 2nd grade language. I'm not making excuses for the idea content or delivery of the speech, but this is the way things have progressed over the last 10-15 years. I don't like it either, but having been flabbergasted at how many patients cannot understand simple medical words (i.e., hypertension being high blood pressure), I very reluctantly concede its necessity in the public mainstream. Carolyn "Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message ... (snip) Thanks for asking. Yes, the population is THAT uninformed. Less than 50% vote. I read USAToday's editorial page this morning, and some of those "letters to the editor" make me cringe in disbelief. I also heard a bit of Bush's speech (we tuned in, but it was delayed and I had other stuff to do, so missed it) - I CANNOT BELIEVE how poorly that man addresses our country. It is dumbed down to about a 3rd grade level. I am incensed at his lack of a grasp of the least of concepts. I realize *he* may have some type of speech anxiety, but SURELY he's got people around him who can WRITE for him!!!! It was the one of the most supid speeches I have heard from leadership of any kind. I didn't like Reagan either, but at least the man could speak with some intelligence. Dianne Lucille wrote: Dianne, I really hope you're wrong about there being 73 to 78% of the U.S. population so misinformed. Where did you get these figures? Lucille "Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message ... The really sad part is that 73% to 78% of the U.S. population believes Saddam was behind the attack. He wasn't. But nothing is harder to destroy than a belief. And the Bush "team" is great at spreading these "beliefs". Saddam was the mouse that roared. We knew it. We destroyed his greatness with the Gulf War, and he used up the rest of his "supplies" on his people, especially the Kurds. It's not that I object to containing him. It's not that my heart isn't pained by what he did (past and current) to his own. But there were other ways to do this. We HAD support. We blew it. And the waters get murkier with time. Dianne Lucille wrote: Boy Oh Boy--If you only knew how much I would like to disagree with you, but alas--When You're Right, You're Right. Sadly, Lucille "animaux" wrote in message om... On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:58:40 GMT, "Carol In WI" opined: They found Saddam, wonder what will happen now. Carol In WI Bush will come out, puff out his chest, tell some lies, and life will go on without one single word about Osama Bin Laden, who blew up the World Trade Center. Oh well. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I went to school - kindergarten - in the fall of 1949. We had the now
much-maligned "Dick and Jane". We were trained with "phonics", and it is my understanding "phonics" is not learning "hows" is "house". THAT was a whole different way of teaching having nothing whatsoever to do with "phonics". This was a "movement", and it failed miserably. To my knowledge, phonics is the ability to learn how sounds are pronounced. We drilled. I remember the drills. grin But we never looked at books that said, "The kat is in the hows". That concept of teaching reading was dropped from the curriculum the year before my daughter went to kindergarten in 1972. My poor neighbor kids had a TERRIBLE time learning to read, or rather making the transition from kat to cat. A LOT of kids suffered, particularly boys. Dianne Darla wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:33:52 -0600, Dianne Lewandowski wrote: it's been an ongoing downhill slide since the late 1960's when programs came into being that taught children across the country to read by using words such as "hows (for house)" and "kat". Phonics isn't new. Neither is the "see and say" methodology. If you went to grade school in the late '50s and early '60s, you had (at least in California) *both* phonics and "see and say." What do you think Dick and Jane were? Darla Sacred cows make great hamburgers. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On 12/16/03 1:21 PM, in article ,
"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote: stitcher wrote: Perhaps it is the 73 % that he is addressing and dumbing it down for them. He may be a lot of things but Bush is not stupid. Or if he is he has fantastic handlers. Someone sure knows how to spin. You know, you can be adept and adroit at some things and still be generally "stupid". My mother is exceptionally bright and talented, but she is "stupid" in that she lacks a vast array of knowledge that would allow her to talk "intelligently" about any number of concepts and subjects. I've known a lot of MBA's in my life that had poor grammer skills both in writing and speech, and were generally rather "narrow" in training. You can graduate with a "D" after all, and skate through on C's and an occasional "B". If you have enough money and clout. A liberal education the likes of Jefferson and his cronies has been lacking for quite some time in the U.S. I expect a President representing the US to be able to address the public intelligently. But maybe, thinking this over again, you are right: He is addressing the 73% of the country that is stupid, and he's clever enough to know it's 73% of the country. (Now, if that doesn't get a few here in a dander, I don't know what will). Not me, I'm tired of grammar errors coming home from the teachers! Cheryl |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Lots of snipping!
Pah! An MBA is not a real graduate level degree. It is a dressed-up bachelor's degree with no focused program of study. The biggest products I've seen from MBA programs are inflated egos and deflated wallets. The only reason I would even consider wasting my time on that degree is if the morons in the human resources departments (collectively since I am not currently employed) all decide it is mandatory for any job I want. I would rather have a true MA or MS in Accounting. You have that half wrong, their wallets are inflated and your wallet is deflated. The Harvard School of Business has a lot to answer for - they invented the "degree". I once turned down what sounded like the "prefect" job - everyone I talked to in the lab (division) was chasing an MBA and I felt weird about it - were was the science? I later talked to some one and heard that lab had been closed down because of lack of progress on the project. Cheryl |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The reasons mentioned here and in other messages are some of the main
reasons that there is a growing number of families that are resorting to home schooling. I meet more and more people that have opted for the home schooling experience. The home schooled children are generally better behaved than what is becoming acceptable public behavior from children. There is, in Maryland at least, a very active home-schooling coalition. Anne (in Ellicott City, MD) Cheryl Isaak wrote: On 12/16/03 1:21 PM, in article , "Dianne Lewandowski" wrote: stitcher wrote: Perhaps it is the 73 % that he is addressing and dumbing it down for them. He may be a lot of things but Bush is not stupid. Or if he is he has fantastic handlers. Someone sure knows how to spin. You know, you can be adept and adroit at some things and still be generally "stupid". My mother is exceptionally bright and talented, but she is "stupid" in that she lacks a vast array of knowledge that would allow her to talk "intelligently" about any number of concepts and subjects. I've known a lot of MBA's in my life that had poor grammer skills both in writing and speech, and were generally rather "narrow" in training. You can graduate with a "D" after all, and skate through on C's and an occasional "B". If you have enough money and clout. A liberal education the likes of Jefferson and his cronies has been lacking for quite some time in the U.S. I expect a President representing the US to be able to address the public intelligently. But maybe, thinking this over again, you are right: He is addressing the 73% of the country that is stupid, and he's clever enough to know it's 73% of the country. (Now, if that doesn't get a few here in a dander, I don't know what will). Not me, I'm tired of grammar errors coming home from the teachers! Cheryl |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Carolyn Wagner wrote:
All in all, I'd rather have Bush in office than Clinton or Gore any day. Carolyn (as she runs and hides....... ;-) ) Oh, please don't run and hide. :-) You are welcome to feel as you do. However, as someone on the radio pointed out today: How can we say Bush cut taxes when all he did was borrow money, at high interest rates, that will have to be paid? I mean, we OWE the money. So, we have to pay it. So nobody got a benefit from this. It just slid over into the other column on the ledger: liabilities vs equity The bottom line is: I either pay it today, or I pay it tomorrow. Without a job, my grandchildren will suffer under this debt. How can you feel safer with Bush when he hasn't made us safer? Saddam wasn't going to blow us up, furthermore, the Pentagon KNEW it. They told him so. The airports aren't any safer, and numerous individuals have proven it. Our key security issues (dams, nuclear power plants, other power plants, bridges, waste sites) aren't being protected. Millions have been sent to those who don't need equipment, those who need it aren't getting it. How can you feel better about the economy when Bush is trying to take away our rights to overtime pay? How long do you think YOUR hospital will pay overtime if it isn't law? Have you looked up the Federal Law on labor recently? It has been steadily and quietly gutted since Reagan took office. Up until the mid 1980's, you couldn't separate employees like they do today. If you worked more than 24 hours a week, you were considered full time and entitled to benefits. Now employers can slice benefits by hours: 24, 32, 39, 40. So, they can work you 39 hours a week and you have fewer benefits. Ask me how I know this? grin How can you feel better about the economy when - although I heard today 50,000 new jobs have been created - they're all of pittance wages??? How can you feel better about our country when the new Medicare Drug Bill barely helps, and costs too much? It is possible that the only ones who benefit from this is the CEO's of HMO's? Neither Bush nor Clinton had anything to do with the failing economy. That started back with Reagan, and it has to do with undermining regulations put into place in the 1930's. Further, (because you probably will bring it up), Reagan didn't cut taxes. He did a slight of hand. Your tax rate was lowered. But he took away: deductions for health care dollars, uniforms, interest on debt, and a host of other "perks" that made an individual more like a corporation in their ability to use deductions. Those were stripped. What has Bush done - besides further divide the country? Why aren't we more united? Holding up the "God" card hasn't united us. Nor has angering the scientific community with stem cell research. Nor has the Patriot Act, which many towns and counties are rejecting via special "Charters", nor the silly "spy on your neighbor" games Ashcroft is trying to use. What does this say about us as a nation: Allowing thousands to be rounded up in Guantanamo - indefinitely - without benefit of council or the Geneva conventions. And rounding up hundreds in the U.S. for months - some almost 2 years. Some still being held. This makes you *feel* safe? I didn't think Clinton was much of a President, and a lot of erosion took place in Congress under his watch. But setting aside the "zip it back up" fiasco, I'm curious to know why you think Bush has been a better President? He's willing to lower the limits for mercury in the water - and drill in Alaska - and a few more issues I can't remember. :-) Dianne "Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message ... While I appreciate your post - and understand all too well and agree *mostly* with its content, the word "hypertension" is not common everyday language. Someone who is ill is confused, frightened - maybe quite sick. Grasping everything at once can be darned hard. I know . . . I just went through this the past 15 months. And, after I heard all the "words", I still had to do a lot of researching. And I have a husband in the medical field to help sort out the "babble". He's comfortable with the words. I'm lost. (Yes, I know what hypertension is grin). Anyway, that's not Bush's problem in speaking. He literally can't find words, can't convey a "message". He relies on short phrases that sound stupid. It's like he can't think. Next time, I'll write it down. It hasn't just been the last 10 or 15 years . . . . it's been an ongoing downhill slide since the late 1960's when programs came into being that taught children across the country to read by using words such as "hows (for house)" and "kat". Then there was the "new" math. Then there was the "open classrooms", then there was the "self-esteem, feel good education", until all that's left is cursory in far too many school systems. Great article in yesterday's paper about the silliness of parents buying all these "tech" toys and videos for infants to get them stimulated and become geniuses, when all a kid needs is a cardboard box, a few rhythm instruments (wooden spoon and metal pan are good), a doll, some blocks, some pudding for finger paints, etc., so that a child can develop creativity and problem solving skills!!!! Dianne Carolyn Wagner wrote: Unfortunately, most public information has to be "dumbed down" to an elementary school level. I work in the medical field, and surgical consents, risks/benefits/alternatives of treatment and other information must be written and verbally discussed on a 2nd or 3rd grade level to satisfy the court system that everything has been explained in "plain and simple language" to the patient. I am sure it is the same in pretty much every field of public conversation. There is too much illiteracy and un-educating in the school system for intelligent discussion in the overall mainstream population. Add in all the high school drop-outs, the immigrants and illegals who cannot understand English (not being judgmental, just stating plain fact) and those who just don't care to use and understand decent language, and you have a lot of the reasons why Bush or any politician or physician or professional must use basic, 2nd grade language. I'm not making excuses for the idea content or delivery of the speech, but this is the way things have progressed over the last 10-15 years. I don't like it either, but having been flabbergasted at how many patients cannot understand simple medical words (i.e., hypertension being high blood pressure), I very reluctantly concede its necessity in the public mainstream. Carolyn "Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message ... (snip) Thanks for asking. Yes, the population is THAT uninformed. Less than 50% vote. I read USAToday's editorial page this morning, and some of those "letters to the editor" make me cringe in disbelief. I also heard a bit of Bush's speech (we tuned in, but it was delayed and I had other stuff to do, so missed it) - I CANNOT BELIEVE how poorly that man addresses our country. It is dumbed down to about a 3rd grade level. I am incensed at his lack of a grasp of the least of concepts. I realize *he* may have some type of speech anxiety, but SURELY he's got people around him who can WRITE for him!!!! It was the one of the most supid speeches I have heard from leadership of any kind. I didn't like Reagan either, but at least the man could speak with some intelligence. Dianne Lucille wrote: Dianne, I really hope you're wrong about there being 73 to 78% of the U.S. population so misinformed. Where did you get these figures? Lucille "Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message ... The really sad part is that 73% to 78% of the U.S. population believes Saddam was behind the attack. He wasn't. But nothing is harder to destroy than a belief. And the Bush "team" is great at spreading these "beliefs". Saddam was the mouse that roared. We knew it. We destroyed his greatness with the Gulf War, and he used up the rest of his "supplies" on his people, especially the Kurds. It's not that I object to containing him. It's not that my heart isn't pained by what he did (past and current) to his own. But there were other ways to do this. We HAD support. We blew it. And the waters get murkier with time. Dianne Lucille wrote: Boy Oh Boy--If you only knew how much I would like to disagree with you, but alas--When You're Right, You're Right. Sadly, Lucille "animaux" wrote in message news:gbqptvctde5s606apa3uoosgtj93g747hm@4ax .com... On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:58:40 GMT, "Carol In WI" opined: They found Saddam, wonder what will happen now. Carol In WI Bush will come out, puff out his chest, tell some lies, and life will go on without one single word about Osama Bin Laden, who blew up the World Trade Center. Oh well. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Brenda Lewis wrote:
I just remember they use the character of Edith Bunker as an example of someone who is wise. She wasn't book smart or even inclined to be so, but she could reason and understood many situations and people almost instinctively. She knew how to learn from experience and develop "common sense". That's it. What she didn't learn in "formal" education, she grasped in life. Thanks for the help in defining what I was trying to say. :-) I'm still not convinced Bush is the clever one. I think he's a puppet. JMHO. I will say we are all being played for fools. I can't disagree. The people he has surrounded himself with are all those with the same idea that were rejected by all the previous Presidents, including Reagan and Bush Sr. Once they got their meathooks on GW, it was their ballgame. Dianne |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Boys are suffering under the way most subjects are now taught - the alphabet
through college - details are more important than concepts (the date of revolution X versus what led to that revolution). As the mother of one of each, I'm going nuts as the education system ignores his needs. Cheryl On 12/16/03 4:13 PM, in article , "Dianne Lewandowski" wrote: I went to school - kindergarten - in the fall of 1949. We had the now much-maligned "Dick and Jane". We were trained with "phonics", and it is my understanding "phonics" is not learning "hows" is "house". THAT was a whole different way of teaching having nothing whatsoever to do with "phonics". This was a "movement", and it failed miserably. To my knowledge, phonics is the ability to learn how sounds are pronounced. We drilled. I remember the drills. grin But we never looked at books that said, "The kat is in the hows". That concept of teaching reading was dropped from the curriculum the year before my daughter went to kindergarten in 1972. My poor neighbor kids had a TERRIBLE time learning to read, or rather making the transition from kat to cat. A LOT of kids suffered, particularly boys. Dianne Darla wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:33:52 -0600, Dianne Lewandowski wrote: it's been an ongoing downhill slide since the late 1960's when programs came into being that taught children across the country to read by using words such as "hows (for house)" and "kat". Phonics isn't new. Neither is the "see and say" methodology. If you went to grade school in the late '50s and early '60s, you had (at least in California) *both* phonics and "see and say." What do you think Dick and Jane were? Darla Sacred cows make great hamburgers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Book Review: Beaded Jewelry with Found Objects | Harry | Beads | 4 | April 13th 04 05:04 AM |
OT Long Lost friends found and a cyber-reunion | Queen City Cross Stitcher | Needlework | 6 | November 23rd 03 12:06 AM |
Found object jewelry (as requested) | Dr. Sooz | Beads | 4 | October 7th 03 06:37 AM |
I found an extra hand | Kandice Seeber | Beads | 17 | September 17th 03 01:21 PM |
Found AMAZING plastic grocery bag holder!!! SIMPLEHUMAN | Rose | Marketplace | 0 | July 24th 03 09:25 PM |