They found him

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

I must admit that it is very tempting to home school both of them. But I'd
need to find a non religious group and those are scarce locally; most of
them are Born Again and heavy into religious sources (sorry, but you can not
use the Bible to teach math - and I am not kidding). I really hate the
shape the public schools are in and the teachers unions scare me.

Cheryl

On 12/16/03 4:40 PM, in article
, "Anne Tuchscherer"
wrote:

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